GREENMAN, SHEA, SANDOMIRE & ZIMET

20 PINE STREET
NEW YORK 5, N. Y.

FREDERICK F. GREENMAN
FRANCIS M. SHEA
PHILIP ZIMET
WARNER W. GARDNER
DANIEL M. SANDOMIRE
HENRY V. POOR
ROBERT H. HAINES
LAWRENCE J. LATTO

WASHINGTON PARTNER
ROBERT K. McCONNAUGHEY

WASHINGTON OFFICE
734 15TH STREET, N. W.

November 18, 1955

Mr. Henry A. Kissinger
Council on Foreign Relations
58 East 68th Street
New York 21, N.Y.

Dear Henry:

Many thanks for your note of October 27 and the copy you enclosed of your article entitled *The Conserative Dilemma*.

I am glad to have had the opportunity to read the article. I think all points are well taken but I might suggest that it would help in writing others to imagine that you are addressing an audience which knows much less about the subject than you. The necessity of simplifying your expression will I think, be very helpful to make a more readable and easily understandable article.

After Thanksgiving I would very much like to have lunch with you and will give you a ring very shortly.

With very best wishes,

WORLD POLITICS

*A Quarterly Journal of International Relations*

WOODROW WILSON HALL
PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY

December 13, 1955

Mr. Henry A. Kissinger
Council on Foreign Relations
58 East 68th Street
New York 21, New York

Dear Mr. Kissinger:

Thank you for the prompt return
of your proof. Your corrections are clear and the
only one that we would question is in the phrase,
"...and to treat the Eight merely as a ratifying
instrument or (as one) for settling peripheral
issues." On the theory that the construction should
be "merely as this or as that," we would like to
leave the "as one" in.

The issue in which your article
appears will be out around the 15th of January and
your 100 free reprints and your honorarium of $50
will reach you shortly thereafter. We are unfor-
tunately able to give each contributor one free copy
of the journal, but we will instruct the printers to
send you a second copy and bill you for it. I hope
this will be satisfactory.

CENTER OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES • PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

WORLD POLITICS

December 6, 1955

Professor Henry A. Kissinger
Council on Foreign Relations, Inc.
58 East 68th Street
New York 21, New York

Dear Mr. Kissinger:

Here is the proof of your article, which I hope you will find in good shape. When you return it, will you please send me a few lines of biographical information--academic affiliation (with rank), works published (with date), and/or work in progress--for the notes on the contributor which appear at the front of the journal?

The material from *International Political Science Abstracts* is sent to all our contributors as a favor to the *Abstracts*.

In order to meet the printers' deadline, I must ask you to return the corrected proof and the biographical information to me by December 13. Thank you for your help.

World Politics provides each contributor with 100 free reprints,
but is unable to take orders for a greater number. If more are desired,
permission will of course be granted to an author to make reproductions
of his article for his own use. Princeton University Press is prepared
to fill special orders for 500 reprints or over. Such orders must be
sent to Princeton University Press at the time galley proof is returned;
otherwise the type will be destroyed.

October 28, 1955

Miss Jean MacLachlan, Asst. Managing Editor
World Politics
Woodrow Wilson Hall
Princeton, New Jersey

Dear Miss MacLachlan:

Thank you for your note. I am enclosing the revised pages which are numbered the same way as the original manuscript. You will have to substitute these enclosed pages for those of the original manuscript.

Please send the galleys to the Council on Foreign Relations.

Thank you for your help.

Sincerely yours,

Henry A. Kissinger

Enc.

WORLD POLITICS

October 25, 1955

Mr. Henry A. Kissinger
Council on Foreign Relations, Inc.
58 East 68th Street
New York 21, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Kissinger:

Mr. Kaufmann has shown me your note of October 24 regarding the changes you wish to make in your manuscript. We will be glad to have your revisions by the end of next week, so that we can avoid making changes in proof.

Proof will be ready during the last week of November or the first week in December. I will send them to the Council on Foreign Relations, unless you instruct me differently.

You raised the question of reprints in an earlier letter to Mr. Kaufmann. We furnish 100 free reprints to each of our contributors. From what you say, I gather that this will take care of your needs.

THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW

OFFICE OF THE BOOK REVIEW EDITOR

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS

AUSTIN 12, TEXAS

EMMETTE S. REDFORD, Book Review Editor

HAROLD D. LASSWELL, President
Yale University

E. E. SCHATTSCHNEIDER, President Elect
Wesleyan University

JOSEPH P. HARRIS, Vice President
University of California (Berkeley)

HAROLD S. QUIGLEY, Vice President
University of Minnesota

EMMETTE S. REDFORD, Vice President
University of Texas

HARVEY C. MANSFIELD, Secretary
The Ohio State University

EVRON M. KIRKPATRICK, Executive Director
1726 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W.
Washington 6, D. C.

HUGH L. ELSBREE, Managing Editor
Library of Congress

March 14, 1956

EDITORIAL BOARD AND ASSOCIATES

V. O. KEY, JR., Associate Editor
Harvard University

JAMES L. MCCAMY, Associate Editor
University of Wisconsin

TAYLOR COLE, Duke University

HENRY W. EHRMANN, University of Colorado

HARVEY C. MANSFIELD, Ohio State University

C. HERMAN PRITCHETT, University of Chicago

FRANCIS O. WILCOX, Washington, D. C.

RALPH A. STRAETZ, News and Notes Editor
Miami University, Oxford, Ohio

Professor Henry A. Kissinger
Department of Political Science
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Professor Kissinger:

Would you be interested in reviewing Philip C. Jessup, Adolf Lande, and Oliver J. Lissitzyn: *International Regulation of Economic and Social Questions* and Joseph P. Chamberlain: *International Organization* for us. I think the review should be about 400 to 500 words in length. A review received by June 5 could probably be included in the September issue, and one received by September 5 in the December issue.

If you are interested in doing this review, I shall be happy to send the book to you promptly. The review should be sent to Professor John D. Lewis of Oberlin College, who will become book review editor on April 1.

ESR:ec

February 10, 1956

TAYLOR COLE, Duke University

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
10 Weld Hall
Harvard University
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

This is merely a reminder that reviews for the June issue should be in my hands by March 5. Perhaps your review of Pearson: *Democracy in World Politics* will be ready by that time.

ESR:ec

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS

AUSTIN 12, TEXAS

CHARLES MCKINLEY, President
Reed College

HAROLD D. LASSWELL, President Elect
Yale University

HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Vice President
United States Senate

LINDSAY ROGERS, Vice President
Columbia University

CHARLES S. HYNEMAN, Vice President
Northwestern University

EDWARD H. LITCHFIELD, Treasurer
Cornell University

EVRON M. KIRKPATRICK, Executive Director
1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W.
Washington 6, D. C.

November 7, 1955

TAYLOR COLE, Duke University

ALBERT LEE STURM, News and Notes Editor
West Virginia University

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

Would you be interested in reviewing Lester B. Pearson's
Democracy in World Politics? I think a review of approximately
250 words would be appropriate. A review received by March 5
could be included in the June issue, one received by June 5
in the September issue.

If you are interested in doing this review for us, I shall be
happy to send the book to you promptly.

ESR:ec

March 21, 1956

Professor Gerhart Niemeyer
University of Notre Dame
Department of Political Science
Notre Dame, Indiana

Dear Gerhart:

Thank you for sending me a reprint of your brilliant review of Rossiter's book. There is nothing in it with which I disagree and I think it is a very useful thing to have said. I have been appalled by the pedestrian nature of conservative thought in this country of which the debate between Russell Kirk and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in the New York Times magazine is a classic example. I could not for the world of me see what they were arguing about.

May I register a protest, however, about your article in the *U.S. News and World Report*. You constantly take a quote from an article of mine out of context and use it to prove that I consider the Soviets amenable to "rational" argument. It seems to me, one has to distinguish two problems here: an attempt to deal with the Soviets through Western canons of logic, and an attempt to deal with the Soviets at all. I have never maintained that the Soviets are amenable to rational argument, if we understand it in the Western sense. What I do maintain is that we should attempt to understand Soviet rationality and use it for our own ends. I cannot accept the defeatist conclusion that nothing we do could affect Soviet behavior. Our mistake has been to attempt to sway them by the process of negotiation. I would argue for the creation of a proper calculus of risks for them. Distinguished as the company is in which you have placed me, I would like to point out that the isolated quote completely misrepresents my position.

Best regards.

May 17, 1956

Mr. Edward A. Weeks
The Atlantic Monthly
49 East 33 Street
New York, New York

Dear Mr. Weeks:

At the suggestion of Caryl Haskins, I am sending you
the enclosed manuscript for possible publication in the Atlantic
Monthly. It was written two months ago for a slightly different
purpose and if you should decide to publish it, I should like
to revise the first page to make it a little more contemporary
and also pages 17-22 dealing with our alliance system. But I
think that you will get a good idea of it in its present form
since my revisions will not involve major changes.

It might be useful if I identified myself. I am on
leave from the Department of Government at Harvard. At present
I am director of a study group at the Council on Foreign Relations
which deals with the impact of nuclear weapons on foreign policy.
I have had articles published in Foreign Affairs, the Yale Review,
New Republic and other periodicals.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Enc.

The following outline as well as that taken from Pōssony's work is
merely suggestive. Develop your subject as you see fit.

Soviet Total Cold Warfare

I. Total cold warfare.

A. United front movements.

B. In countries where the united front movement is not practical,
infiltration, Communist fronts; intellectual sabotage of national
security and defense programs, of education, of communications (press,
radio, etc.); subversion, espionage, defeatism, destruction of morale.

C. Political warfare--conferences (Geneva, Bandung); neutralist
propaganda.

D. Counter offensive techniques: What to do against Communism;
to overcome apathy; alternatives to total war other than co-existence.

II. Specific areas in which total cold warfare is being applied,
e.g., Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Greece, United States, Latin
America, Africa, India, Southeast Asia, China, Korea.

Note: In developing an area study, any or all subdivisions of Section I
may be pertinent.

Stefan T. Possony, A Century of Conflict
Pages 410 - 412

The operations of communist parties may be divided into four broad categories: Intelligence, non-military, paramilitary, and military activities.

(a) Intelligence operations:

collection of information

transmission to local collection points

transmission to the political and military command posts of
international communism

dissemination of misinformation and disinformation

deception and double-deception

(b) Non-military operations:

agitation and propaganda

character assassination and building up of individuals

antimilitarism and defeatism

economic warfare, inclusive slowdowns, strikes

political warfare, inclusive elections and diplomacy

policy sabotage

subversion

disintegration of hostile organizations

provocation

(c) Paramilitary operations:

retail sabotage

mass sabotage

individual terror

mass terror

demonstrations

coups de main

riots

guerilla undertakings

(d) Military operations:

auxiliary military missions, for example, scouts, couriers, signalmen

disobedience

desertion

rebellion

mutiny

breakoff of military units and their incorporation into revolutionary forces

attacks by revolutionary forces

partisan and irregular warfare
(local ) independently, or in

uprisings (nationwide) support of Red army

In addition to their main functions, communist parties devote great attention to the control of their members and their operations.

In fine, then, just as the navy is the force waging naval warfare, the communist party is the force waging social fission warfare. To phrase it differently: The armed forces wage front warfare, the communist party, rear warfare. Together with the conventional military force, the communist parties are integral parts of the soviet conflict machine, components of a machine responsive to the nature and needs of modern total war, which consists of front and rear warfare. Not only with atomic weapons is this war fought but with military forces and social fission organizations. Modern war is a conflict between political structures and organized societies. The communist party is a machine designed for use in a war in which "the front is everywhere."

October 4, 1956

The Honorable Francis E. Walter, Chairman
Committee on Un-American Activities
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.

Dear Mr. Congressman:

I have just received the first few copies of "Soviet Total War" put out by the Committee on Un-American Activities. I think it is an excellent production and I am flattered to be included in it.

I would like to point out, however, that in my *curriculum vitae* there is a mistake which should be corrected before any further copies are sent out. In the *curriculum vitae* it states that I was Director of the Psychological Strategy Board and Special Assistant to the President for Cold War Strategy. This is of course not the case. The Director of the Psychological Strategy Board at the time was Dr. Raymond Allen and the Special Assistant to the President for Cold War Strategy was Mr. Nelson Rockefeller. I was *consultant* to both these individuals and my activities on their behalf never exceeded more than a few days each month.

It is a matter of great embarrassment to me and I cannot let it stand. I must, therefore, insist that no other copies bearing this identification be mailed out and that a correction be sent to all individuals who have already received some copies.

I would appreciate it if you would let me know at your earliest convenience how you propose to handle this matter.

EIGHTY-FOURTH CONGRESS

FRANCIS E. WALTER, PA., CHAIRMAN

MORGAN M. MOULDER, Mo.
CLYDE DOYLE, CALIF.
JAMES B. FRAZIER, JR., TENN.
EDWIN E. WILLIS, LA.

HAROLD H. VELDE, ILL.
BERNARD W. KEARNEY, N. Y.
DONALD L. JACKSON, CALIF.
GORDON H. SCHERER, OHIO

RICHARD ARENS, DIRECTOR

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES
WASHINGTON

September 24, 1956

Dear Contributor:

Because of the small allotment of copies
of "Soviet Total War", which congressional regu-
lations grant us at the present time, we regret
that we cannot send you more than 5 copies of
Volumes I and II until Congress reconvenes and a
supplementary resolution is passed. Volume I
is enclosed in this package. Volume II will
follow in about a week. We will keep you in mind
and see that you receive additional copies after
we have obtained them.

In the meantime, we will send to you
ten 5-volume sets of "The Communist Conspiracy".
More are available on request, as also are
copies of "The Great Pretense", which we have
already mailed to you.

Thanking you very much for your contri-
bution to the work of this Committee, I remain

EIGHTY-FOURTH CONGRESS

MORGAN M. MOULDER, Mo.

HAROLD H. VELDE, ILL.

CLYDE DOYLE, CALIF.

BERNARD W. KEARNEY, N. Y.

JAMES B. FRAZIER, JR., TENN.

DONALD L. JACKSON, CALIF.

EDWIN E. WILLIS, LA.

GORDON H. SCHERER, OHIO

RICHARD ARENS, DIRECTOR

August 21, 1956

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Council on Foreign Relations
58 East 68th Street
New York, N. Y.

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

The Committee on Un-American Activities expects to release its symposium entitled "Soviet Total War" some time in September, and copies will be mailed to you at that time. When Congress reconvenes and a resolution authorizing the printing of several thousand copies is enacted, additional copies will be mailed to you.

In the meantime, we are sending you 100 copies of our previous symposium on the 20th Party Congress, entitled THE GREAT PRETENSE.

Additional copies are available upon request.

JPJ:

k

(Not printed at Government expense)

Congressional Record

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 84th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

Immigration or Invasion

EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF

HON. FRANCIS E. WALTER
OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Monday, June 4, 1956

Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD, I include an address which I delivered at the 66th national congress, Sons of the American Revolution, on Memorial Day, May 30, 1956, at the Sagamore Hotel, Bolton Landing on Lake George, N. Y.

The address follows:

This year—like all election years—brings us that most bipartisan of all political games: The courting of the minorities. It is again played with great fervor by those candidates for elective office who believe that organized minority groups wield enough power to clinch the vote in so-called close districts and States.

There appears to be an irresistible fascination in the belief that when a certain congressional district or a State elects a Democrat one time and a Republican another by a small margin of ballots, the minority groups are responsible for the result.

Consequently, as predictably as night follows day, we are confronted again in this election year with the peculiarly American sport of claiming at political rallies, at fundraising banquets, and in political propaganda pronouncements that this country does not admit a sufficient number of immigrants of one or another nationality.

We do not admit enough Greeks, they say, or enough Chinese. Not enough Italians or Rumanians or Portuguese. We should admit more people from India, more from Indonesia, more from Pakistan, or from Iran.

If we ask how many we should admit, the answer is always the same cry—more. And if we ask more of whom, it turns out that the speaker always means more of the people of that national group which the immigration auctioneer is addressing at that particular moment.

All right then, 5,000, 50,000? No. Sixty thousand? Or that part of the number of immigrants which another nationality has

not sent to this country? No. Still not enough; and around and around we go.

And now this quadrennial numbers lottery is on again. The irresponsible, lusty auction has started already this year, exactly as we heard it in 1952 and in 1948—just as we heard it earlier, and in between the presidential election years as well.

The auction is being conducted in the usual uninhibited manner by the presidential aspirants, by governors facing election, by Senators whose terms are about to expire, and by some of my colleagues in the House of Representatives. It is being carried on by all their assistants and helpers, and by all the professional immigrant-handlers who make a living as paid servitors of various social, religious and charitable agencies which have made a crude business out of the truly noble and humanitarian task of assisting the immigrant.

At the risk of losing some popularity contests within my own political party as well as in my congressional district, I have long ago refused to look upon immigration as a means of winning friends abroad and political support at home.

To me, immigration is first and foremost a matter of the national welfare and national security.

The volume and the type of immigrants coming to the United States must, in my opinion, be predicated solely on unbiased and impartial findings as to how many we should admit and whom we should admit. Findings that are scientific and not political.

The quantity and the quality are of equal importance, and the interest of the American people must be the sole and exclusive yardstick.

Immigrants entering the United States are entering into the bloodstream of the Nation. It is like an injection into the bloodstream of a human being. It can be beneficial to him, increasing his strength and his vitality. But, if the injection is one of improper quality or improper quantity—it could be fatal.

THE PAST

A comprehensive picture of our current problems cannot be presented without an outline of the historical background of American immigration.

From the first settlement of the North American colonies to the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783, immigration to the New World was regulated not by the colonists but by the governments of Europe. The interest of the European ruler was enhanced by the size of the population of his domain. The

389019—58866

2

more abundant the labor force, the greater his profits and the more gold that accumulated in the royal coffers. Consequently, all European rulers tried to prevent the exodus of their subjects, the peons, who were already then attracted by the magnificence of the wide open land and the opportunities beckoning from across the seas.

The new settlers on this side of the Atlantic deliberately encouraged immigration. Here, more people meant more producers, more consumers, and more wealth to be extracted from the newly acquired soil and—last but not least—more people meant increased safety of life and property.

It is estimated that in 1640, the population of the North American colonies numbered 25,000 people and by 1700, it had risen to 200,000. It took another 50 years to bring the population figure to the first million.

When the Articles of Confederation were adopted in 1777, the population of the Thirteen Colonies was well over 3 million, and the first census taken in 1790 put it at 4 million. About two-thirds of the white population were of English, Scotch, and Welsh origin; about one-third were Dutch, French, German, Scandinavian, Spanish, and Portuguese.

Except for a short-lived restrictive period created by the alien and sedition law of 1798, immigration flowed into the United States unfettered by any legislation. The vast growth of the new American economy, its progression to the limitless frontiers of the West and the ready acceptance of the newcomer by the thriving communities—already established—exerted an increasing attraction on poverty-stricken Europeans in the countries devastated by the Napoleonic wars. Recurring famines and the great industrial revolution resulted in increased population pressures and caused a gradual relaxation of the restrictive attitude of the European rulers who suddenly reversed themselves and began to encourage emigration. As a consequence, the first official record of arriving immigrants established in 1820 indicated that the population of the United States had jumped to almost 10 million persons.

By that time, public opinion, both in Europe and in America, became aroused by disturbing reports of appalling conditions on vessels carrying immigrants on their transatlantic journey. Thousands of them were crowded among the horrors of the@dreaded steerage space where they died of hunger, thirst, and disease. In 1819, a law was enacted in the United States limiting the number of passengers that a ship could carry and prescribing the minimum amount of water and food that had to be aboard. The master of every ship reaching our shores had to report the number of passengers he had brought and their personal data, such as age, sex, occupation, and country of origin. Thus originated the first immigration statistics in the United States.

But, except for these efforts to humanize transportation of immigrants, no attempt

at regulating immigration was made during the first part of the 19th century.

The first legislative enactment which may be considered as relating to the quality of immigrants was passed in 1863. It prohibited Americans from carrying on the trade in Chinese coolies. Later laws, still qualitative in nature, established rules for the exclusion of immoral persons, paupers, and criminals.

A tremendous influx of Chinese immigrants after the discovery of gold in California prompted the enactment of the first Chinese exclusion law in 1882. That trend of legislation continued, as witnessed by the enactment, in 1885, of a restrictive immigration measure aimed at prohibiting the importation of cheap labor from abroad.

A few years later, in 1891, the Congress excluded insane persons, persons likely to become public charges, felons, feebleminded persons, polygamists, persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude excepting, however, persons convicted of political offenses.

The ethnic pattern of our immigration began to change in the last two decades of the 19th century. Around the year 1890, there appeared for the first time an appreciable number of immigrants from eastern and southern Europe. They came from the Balkans, from Italy, and from Russia, where the czarist persecution of Jews began to drive them out in ever-increasing numbers.

These changes in the immigration pattern continued until after World War I: While in the decade of 1871 to 1880, almost 74 percent of the immigrants came from northern and western Europe, and only 7 percent hailed from southern and eastern Europe, in the decade of 1901 to 1910 only 22 percent of the immigrants came from northern and western Europe while immigrants originating in southern and eastern Europe contributed up to 71 percent of the new arrivals.

It was about that time that the Congress turned its attention from qualitative restrictions to quantitative restrictions. The first law establishing a ceiling on the number of immigrants—a quota—was enacted in 1921. The second quota law was passed in 1924 and remained in effect with very little change until the enactment of the present law in 1952. The 1924 act was the one that established the much discussed national origin system, a system based on the allocation to every national group of as many immigrants as that national group had contributed to the population of the United States as of 1920.

### THE WALTER-M'CARRAN ACT

The 1952 law, commonly referred to as the Walter-McCarran Act, is a comprehensive codification of over 148 laws that were on our statute books when we first began a study of our immigration and naturalization problems in 1947.

We had before us then a hodge-podge of antiquated, and piecemeal immigration and

389019-58366

3

naturalization laws. They had been often
amended, but never codified. They were
shot through with loopholes, inequities, am-
biguities, and outright inconsistencies.
There were discriminatory statutes exclud-
ing Japanese, Indonesians, Koreans, and
other Orientals. There were laws prohibit-
ing the naturalization of large groups of
people permitted to remain in this country
forever in an alien status. There were un-
reasonably strict rules under which no mem-
ber of a subversive organization, however
thoroughly reformed, could remain in this
country and become a United States citi-
zen. We were admitting alien wives of our
citizens outside of the quotas but we were
denying such privileges to the husbands of
American girls. The wives of lawfully re-
siding aliens were treated differently from
the husbands of females who were admitted
lawfully. There was no provision under
which brothers and sisters of United States
citizens could be placed in a preferential po-
sition under the immigration quota. There
were no provisions under which even the
most highly skilled alien technician, engi-
neer, doctor, or nurse, could come even when
urgently needed in this country.

We corrected all of those inequities in
the Walter-McCarran Act. All countries of
the entire globe were granted—without dis-
crimination—immigration quotas under a
formula equally applicable to all areas re-
gardless of the color of the skin or the shape
of the eyes of its inhabitants.

At the same time, the Walter-McCarran
Act made it infinitely easier to rid this coun-
try of foreign-born subversives, criminals,
racketeers, narcotic peddlers, professional
gamblers, and aliens who have surreptiti-
ously entered this country.

These—briefly—are the main achieve-
ments of the law about which there has
been so much heat and so little light gener-
ated.

### DISPLACED PERSONS AND REFUGEES

I am stating my views on immigration
frankly and openly because I do not have
to defend my record in this matter. During
the last decade, since 1945, to be exact,
immigration has been one of the major sub-
jects of my activities nationally and inter-
nationally.

The guns had hardly stopped smoking
when I moved with the American army of
liberation into the infamous concentration
camps in Europe which nazism had left
as monuments of everlasting shame. I was
one of the first Americans to see the wretched
survivors of Nazi bestiality. I saw Hitler's
victims anticipating with hope an oppor-
tunity to start a new life in a free land
and I saw them committing suicide when
forced to return to the lands where Hitler's
former ally, Stalin, was busy continuing
his program of enslavement and mass
murder.

I am rather proud to point to my work
on the laws which, since 1945, have brought

to the United States almost half a million
displaced persons who are now well inte-
grated into our life, and who have caused
but a few instances of disappointment.

Let us not forget that this country alone
took one-third of all the displaced persons
left in Europe by Hitler's reign of terror and
Stalin's postwar conquests. We took one-
third; yet we have only 6 percent of the
land area of the world. It was certainly a
little more than what is referred to as "a
fair share."

I believe that the record will bear me out
when I say that the success of our own
national resettlement effort undertaken un-
der the displaced persons laws of 1948, and
of 1950, is, in part, attributable to my own
activities in Washington, in Germany, and
in Geneva, Switzerland.

More than that—and at the risk of ex-
posing myself to the accusation of immod-
esty—I want to mention briefly that the
erection of the Intergovernmental Commit-
tee for European Migration is similarly the
result of my personal efforts.

This organization which we set up at
Brussels, Belgium, in December 1951, has
so far moved to happier lands almost half
a million people who had no opportunities
of making a livelihood and bringing up their
childern in the war-ravaged overcrowded
countries of Europe. It is good to see that
the committee which had 16 nations as
its members at the start, has grown into
an efficiently functioning organization with
a membership of 26 independent nations.
We keep the Committee outside of the
United Nations in order to prevent any So-
viet interference and we excluded from it
any nation under Communist domination.

Australia, Canada, Argentina, and other
South American countries have cooperated
splendidly with the United States and with
the immigrant-sending European countries
in the furtherance of the Committee's aims.
With the assistance of my colleagues who
serve on congressional committees handling
foreign affairs and appropriations, I intend
to continue my work in behalf of that use-
ful organization.

I now intend to insist, both in Washing-
ton and in Geneva, that the Intergovern-
mental Committee for European Migration
undertake a determined and sustained effort
designed to explore and open up new vast
areas of South America and central and
southern Africa for the benefit of European
migrants who should be resettled in larger
numbers on farmlands and not in con-
gested industrial areas.

To bring the unskilled surplus European
manpower and families to unsettled lands
where they could engage in agriculture,
would serve a double purpose. In addition
to providing the migrants with new oppor-
tunities, it will increase food production for
the ever hungry and now increasingly hun-
grier world.

339019—56866

4

## EXPLOSION OF HUMAN FERTILITY

Let me digress here for a moment and give you an idea of what is going on in the field of human fertility—a marvel that has a decisive import on our immigration problems.

According to statistical data placed at my disposal by experts from the Population Reference Bureau in Washington, D. C., the world is faced today with a true explosion of human fertility. Every morning there are 95,000 new mouths to feed. Every second 1 person dies, and 2 are born. The world's population is growing infinitely faster than the food supply produced by the globe's good earth.

Japan with a land area about equal to the State of Montana has 88 million inhabitants. In order to realize the overcrowding of Japan, one would have to imagine one-half of the population of the United States squeezed into Montana.

Communist China has 500 million people. That is one-fourth of the world's population. If the present birth rate continues in India, coupled with the decreasing death rate, that country will have 450 million people by 1970. The population of our neighbor to the south, Mexico, has increased by 30 percent in the last 20 years, and the population of Mexico is still growing so fast that at the current rate of growth Mexico's present population of 30 million will jump to 60 million in less than two decades.

And now a quick look at our own population picture. According to figures supplied by the Bureau of the Census, the population of the United States on April 1, 1956, was 167,440,000. This figure represents an increase of over 16 million, or 10.8 percent, since April 1, 1950, the date of the last national census. Since 1950 immigration has contributed 1,700,000 to our population increase. Over 4 million babies were born in the United States in 1955. In comparison, births in 1940 numbered 2,800,000 babies.

Statisticians and economists of the Population Reference Bureau maintain that the increase of our population is entirely out of proportion with the rate of accumulation of capital in our country. They say that we are not earning enough capital to expand our production facilities, our housing, our schools, and our highways, so as to accommodate the future generations of our own citizens.

One glance at the world's population picture and the picture reflecting the increase of our own population leads to one inescapable conclusion: Immigration into the United States has long ceased to be a solution to the problem of crowded humanity. The only solution is a bold concerted effort to increase food production on the still virgin continents of the southern hemisphere coupled with an enlightened attempt to limit the uncontrolled increase in the total number of inhabitants of the globe.

To pile up more people on top of an expanding native mass of people seeking employment and a decent living in the countries with a population density similar to ours, is worse than folly. It is clearly an invitation to disaster.

## THE PHONY REFUGEE LAW

Having told you how proud I am of the part I played in helping to resettle displaced persons and refugees, I want to refer to another legislative enactment with which I had much to do—mostly opposing it. What I have in mind is the much talked about, the deceptively labeled Refugee Relief Act of 1953. The refugee relief law under which no relief was granted to refugees.

I have on many occasions called that law—a “phony” and I still use the same word to describe it. It was a fraudulent gesture of brazen political hypocrisy. For all its purported humanitarian aims the law, rammed down the congressional throat by a new administration seeking popularity which it lacked, is a crudely concocted piece of old-fashioned pork-barreling on international and national level.

Under that law refugees were created as a matter of pure legislative fiction writing. Real refugees were overlooked. Large numbers of nonquota immigrant visas were arbitrarily allocated to certain countries. The allocations were made entirely out of proportion to any acceptable economic or demographic standards or equitable humanitarian considerations. I believe that the numerical visa allocations of the 1953 act are simply in direct proportion to the strength of the political minority lobbies on Capitol Hill and at the White House.

I opposed this inequitable 1953 law, but having been outvoted in the subcommittee over which I now preside and in the committee of which I am the ranking member, I have undertaken on the floor of the House a little salvage operation. I submitted a total of 11 amendments permitting United States citizens to bring to this country their close relatives because even they, the relatives, just as the genuine refugees, were overlooked by the sponsors and pushers of the phony Refugee Relief Act. All the sponsors and the pushers of the 1953 law were interested in was but one thing—getting in good standing with the strong big-city pressure groups.

However, the Refugee Relief Act of 1953 has served at least one good purpose. It provided a perfect demonstration of what happens when immigration visas are distributed—“passed around” would be a better way of saying it—by politicians instead of mathematicians. It provided the strongest argument against any departure from the present equitable, mathematical formula of distribution of the annual immigration quota in accordance with the national origins of those immigrants who fashioned the fundamental legal and social concepts upon which

389012-58666

5

this Republic has been built and upon
which it stands.

As you know, it is this fair, nondiscrim-
inatory method of distributing our annual
immigration quota that is under the sharp-
est attack by the leaders of special inter-
ests.

I will resist that attack. We all must re-
sist it just as we would resist a foreign in-
vasion. Yes, invasion—and I shall attempt
to convince you that the word I use is not
just a figure of speech.

FIGURES TELL THE TRUTH

The participants of the immigration num-
bers lottery say all over this country—and,
indeed, have unfortunately advertised that
brazen lie all over the world—that under
the present immigration laws, access to this
country has been curtailed, if not well nigh
closed.

Let us look at the figures rather than
listen to the chant of the auctioneers. In
the fiscal year of 1955, we have admitted
855,736 aliens, of which 237,790 have come as
immigrants to dwell among us for the rest of
their lives and to bring into the world na-
tive-born American citizens. The corre-
sponding number for the previous fiscal year,
1954, is 774,790 aliens admitted, of which
208,177 were immigrants coming to this
country for permanent residence. Going
back to the preceding years, the figures in-
dicate a lesser number of aliens admitted to
the United States, but looking at the figures
for the current fiscal year and even disre-
garding those that come under special legis-
lation, it is obvious that as the years pass,
our annual intake grows larger and larger.
It is quite possible that during the fiscal year
1957, possibly even in 1956, we will pass the
one million mark of aliens admitted to this
country temporarily or permanently.

You also hear from the immigration huck-
sters that we have closed our doors to for-
elners who come to this country tempo-
rarily to transact business, to visit or to work
here, or to study. Let us again take a look
at the figures. In the fiscal year 1955, we
admitted 26,288 foreign government officials,
68,696 foreign businessmen, 27,192 foreign
students, well over 18,000 actors, artists, lec-
turers, writers, press, radio and television
reporters, 16,077 foreign trainees who came
to our colleges, hospitals, laboratories and
similar institutions. In addition to these, an
imposing total of 332,394 persons came here
to visit. Each of the figures which I have
just cited represents a 10 to 20 percent in-
crease over the preceding year which in turn
represented a similar increase over the fiscal
year 1953.

You have also heard much about the "in-
adequacy" of our total immigration quota.
The truth is that due to the extremely lib-
eral treatment we accord under the existing
law to natives of the independent countries
of the Western Hemisphere and to all wives,
husbands, and children of American citi-

zens—regardless of race, color and place of
birth—our annual immigration quota has
become but a basic premise from which we
operate. Nonquota immigration represents
almost double the number of immigrants
which we admit under the quota.

In the fiscal year 1955, we admitted 82,232
immigrants under the quota and 155,558 im-
migrants outside the quota. Of the latter
only 29,002 came under the Refugee Relief
Act.

The numerically unrestricted nonquota
immigration is rising constantly. Here are
the figures. In 1951 we admitted 49,170 as
nonquota immigrants; in 1952—71,273, in
1953—36,259, in 1954—114,079, and in 1955—
155,553 nonquota immigrants.

It is safe to predict that in the current
fiscal year, we will pass the 200,000 mark of
nonquota admissions.

What little bearing the alleged inadequacy
of our immigration quota has on the actual
number of those who come to this country,
is best illustrated by one example. You have
heard much about the immigration quotas
for the people of Asia. What you probably
have not heard is the fact that during the
last fiscal year, well over 2,000 Chinese and
2,439 Japanese came to the United States as
nonquota immigrants, although the quota
for Chinese persons is 105 and Japan's quota
is 185. Thus, nonquota immigration from
these two countries exceeds the annual quota
10 to 22 times.

THE MEXICAN INFLUX

The most remarkable increase in the num-
ber of immigrants coming outside the
quota is immigration from Mexico. This is
reflected in the amazing increases of 128,
347, and 525 percent, for 1953, 1954, and
1955, respectively, over the annual average of
the years between 1916 and 1952. In other
words, we are admitting now annually six
times as many nonquota immigrants from
Mexico as we were admitting in any earlier
fiscal year prior to the enactment of the pres-
ent immigration law.

The great increase in Mexican immigra-
tion in the last 2 years is caused to a large
extent, undoubtedly, by the closing of our
southern border to illegal entrants, which
had assumed the alarming total of over 1
million in the fiscal year 1954 alone. In the
first instance, thousands of Mexicans who
had married American citizens and had
American citizen children were living as re-
spected members of their communities de-
spite their original illegal entries. Many of
these returned voluntarily to Mexico in the
face of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service drive for the purpose of obtaining
immigration visas, passing inspection, and
reentering this country in order to pursue the
road toward American citizenship.

Others who had repeatedly entered the
United States illegally in the past now
faced the necessity of making a legal entry
into this country, which includes the meth-
od of obtaining an immigration visa for perm-

309019-58866

6

herent. The latter class is swelled
by the present operation of the Mexican
bracero program under which, except for a
small percentage of individuals, the two
Governments concerned have not established
a mutual system whereby the recontracting
and reemployment from year to year of a
bracero can be assured. We know that a
bracero wants to come to this country and
earn American dollars. If both Governments
can agree on a method to stabilize the Mex-
ican labor force and if the bracero is assured
that he will be able to come to this country
for an unlimited number of times to work,
I am certain that he will be content to stay
in Mexico and remain a Mexican citizen.

The Immigration and Naturalization Serv-
ice is now engaged in a unilateral operation
seeking to achieve this desirable result. Un-
der that system the bracero is inspected, re-
ports concerning him are screened, and if he
is found acceptable and satisfactory in all
respects, including from the security stand-
point, he receives a laminated identification
card I-100. This is issued to him with the
hope that he will again be selected by his
Government the following year for agricul-
tural work in the United States.

Recent reports have been received that in
one locality a group of aliens on a farm en-
deavored to foment unrest among the bra-
ceros employed there. None of the suspected
subversive aliens in this group was in pos-
session of the laminated identification card.
Similar instances have occurred in the past.
It is obvious that the protection to the
United States which the identification card
provides against entries of such aliens, who
have infiltrated the bracero program for
ulterior or sinister purposes, is essential in
the interest of national security.

The Department of State informed me just
a few days ago that nonquota visas issued to
Mexican nationals will increase this year by
693 percent above the 1946 to 1952 level.
This means that we will admit seven times as
many Mexican immigrants as we admitted in
any single year before the present immigra-
tion law became effective.

In 1 single workday, our consuls in Mex-
ico are issuing a peak of 324 visas. This
simply means that if our consuls in Mexico
work 8 hours a day—allowing a few minutes
for a coffee break or a chat with the staff—
they are issuing in Mexico 1 immigration
visa every minute. However, they are also
busy issuing visas to Mexican visitors, and
in the last fiscal year they were doing that
at the rate of 76,870 visas per year, plus
approximately the same number of border-
crossing cards, and plus 367,461 cards to
Mexican agricultural workers coming to this
country.

It would take too long and it would be
too tedious to burden you with more fig-
ures, but as you may readily visualize, the
increase in the number of entries from Mex-
ico—lawful entries only, mind you—reflect
a truly vertiginous rise. A graphic chart

which the Department of State sent to my
office the other day depicts immigration
from Mexico in an almost vertically rising
line.

What I have not seen as yet is a graphic
chart which could reflect in a similarly ris-
ing line a like increase in our school fa-
cilities, available job opportunities, housing,
and four-lane highways.

THE EISENHOWER PROPOSAL

Now, despite all the facts which I have
just presented to you, we find President
Eisenhower coming before the Congress and
recommending, in a message dated Febru-
ary 8, 1956, that the volume of annual im-
migration intake be considerably increased,
possibly trebled.

First, President Eisenhower proposed that
we accept the census of 1950 as a new basis
for the allocation of annual quotas. That
proposal if enacted into law, would by itself
mean that our present annual quota of 154,-
657 immigrants would be increased to 220,000
annually.

Second, in addition to recommending an
increase in the total annual quota, Presi-
dent Eisenhower recommends that quota
numbers not used by countries to which
they are originally allocated, would be made
available for use elsewhere. This proposal,
if enacted into law, would mean that at all
times, all of the annual quota will be ac-
tually used although right now, due to the
fact that Great Britain, Ireland, Germany,
Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium, and a few
other countries do not provide a sufficient
number of immigrants, there is seldom more
than 60 percent of the total quota used in
any single fiscal year.

Third, the President recommends that we
wipe out the so-called mortgage imposed on
about a dozen immigration quotas for the
purpose of deducting from the annual ar-
rivals a prorated number of displaced per-
sons already admitted to this country. This
would have a net effect of adding about
8,000 immigrants annually.

Fourth, the President does not recommend
any change in the present very liberal pro-
visions under which immigrants are admitted
outside of the quota.

If we add these figures together, we see
that the President's proposal will have the
net effect of increasing our present annual
immigration intake by well over 100 percent,
and this estimate does not take into con-
sideration the possibility of a further increase
in the nonquota immigration from Mexico.
If we consider this, too, it is obvious that
what President Eisenhower is really advocat-
ing is a trebling of our annual immigration.
Mr. Brownell, the Attorney General, admitted
it in his testimony before a subcommittee of
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

There is another consideration involved
in President Eisenhower's proposals. If we
heed his advice regarding the change of the
census base and if we continue to follow the
same course of action after the census of

359019-58666

7

1960 is taken and again after the census of
1970. I believe that it would be entirely safe
to assume that by, say 1980, we will have
much difficulty making ourselves understood
in the English language in some parts of this
country.

The distribution of immigrants in the United States represents a growing problem. According to a report prepared at the request of the great statesman who is now the Governor of the State of New York, 33 percent of all immigrants entering under the 1953 law remain in New York and according to other reports, as many as 75 percent of all aliens in this country reside in 9 States out of the 48. When the Immigration and Naturalization Service reviewed the postcards received in 1955, under the alien address reports program, they found that all but 20 percent of the resident aliens live in the following States in this order: New York, California, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio.

Do not overlook, please, that the most recent figures released by the Department of Labor place—with the exception of California and Texas—all the areas affected with the highest figures of unemployed in exactly those States.

SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT

Is it wise to permit at the present time
the entry of well over half a million immi-
grants annually? I do not believe that it
would be advisable to embark upon such a
venture without having first a good look at
both the domestic and the international
ramifications of such a decision.

The United States is today the richest
country in the world. Our standards of liv-
ing are undoubtedly the highest in the world
with the possible exception of but one coun-
try—and that one, Switzerland, is a country
practicing the most restrictive immigration
policy in the entire world.

With the population growth on the ram-
page all over the world and with the ensuing
lowering of standards of living in the over-
crowded countries of Europe and Asia, in
the absence of any sustained effort on the
part of most countries to have their food
production increased and also their industrial
capacity, the favorable conditions prevail-
ing in our country have upon the hungry
and unemployed masses the effect of a mag-
net placed near a heap of steel shavings.

Obviously, millions and millions of peo-
ple are attracted by American prosperity and
the opportunities which it offers. It is un-
fair to blame anyone for wanting to come
to our shores, but is it wise to create in this
country a problem of unassimilable surplus
population on top of the problems created by
our fast rising birth rate? Is it wise to bring

in more people before we arrange our econ-
omy so as to take care of the present 3 mil-
lion average additional citizens born in this
country every year? I have no doubt that
the United States has ceased to be what in-
ternational migration experts call an area of
resettlement.

Of course, we can afford to extend our hos-
pitality to a sizable number of victims of
totalitarian persecution. We can well live
up to our tradition of opening the doors of
the land of the free to people who love free-
dom and want to remain free. Many of
those have already joined forces with us in
our struggle for survival which we are wag-
ing against the cunning attack of a godless
conspiracy. Many more want to come to
our shores in their quest for asylum. We
shall welcome them, although we would ex-
pect other free nations to do likewise, and
we would expect that they stop insisting
that we take once again an unproportionate
share of political refugees.

It is also true that we can afford to permit
immigrant families to be united and to bring
their closest relatives. The present immi-
gration law has been written with that
thought ever present in the minds of its
authors.

But—we must resist with courage and de-
termination the attempt to convert this
country into a disorganized, multilingual,
overcrowded dumping ground for the un-
wanted rejects of the rulers of those coun-
tries who selfishly refuse, or neglect, to cope
with the problem of their own fast growing
population. We must tell those governments
that after having spent approximately $50
billion of our taxpayers' hard-earned
money to rehabilitate their lands, we would
expect them to provide employment and
food, to provide improved farmland and
modernized industry for their own people
instead of conveniently, yes, brutally, seek-
ing to simply "get rid" of them and "send
them to America."

Overcrowded and impoverished, torn apart
internally by conflicting ideological con-
cepts of uprooted immigrants swarming
across our sea and land borders in excessive
numbers, the United States could not main-
tain its present position in the world. The
United States will be unable to stay strong,
to remain the bulwark of liberty, the stand-
ard bearer of the free world and humanity's
last reservoir of spiritual and material
strength able to repel the onslaught of the
atomic age Huns. We must resist the in-
vasion in our own interest as well as in the
interest of those who need our assistance.

This Nation cannot afford to play the im-
migration numbers game. The stakes are
too high.

389019—58866

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1956