Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

newspaper, would be subject to deportation because the offense would involve moral turpitude. The maximum penalty which could be imposed may be only a few days in jail, yet, under the terms of the bill, such alien, though his conduct in the country had otherwise been blameless, and though he may have made important contributions during a lengthy residence to the common welfare of the country, would be subject to deportation.

In neither of the foregoing instances would a pardon prevent deportation, since it is proposed that deportation be accomplished forthwith at the time the alien is released from confinement or placed upon probation or is pardoned. Under present law an alien convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude and receiving a sentence of 1 year or more is subject to deportation if the offense was committed within 5 years of entry or if so convicted and sentenced for more than one offense irrespective of when the crime was committed. A pardon in either instance prevents deportation. Therefore, the more vicious alien criminal ordered deported under existing law could avoid deportation through a pardon, whereas an alien ordered deported under this part of the bill, even in the case of a petty offender, would have no such remedial action available to him.

Clause 3 of section 1 requires the deportation of an alien convicted of violating a narcotic law of any State, Territory, insular possession, or the District of Columbia. I approve of this provision but with this qualification: Aliens convicted of violating Federal narcotic laws are subject to deportation with an exemption in favor of the addict who was neither a dealer nor peddler. Consistency requires a similar exemption where the narcotic law violated is that of a State, Territoryinsular possession, or the Distrct of Columbia.

Clause 4 of the same section would render deportable an alien lawfully committed to a public or private institution as an habitual user of narcotic drugs. This, I believe, is unjust. Many derelicts and wholly undesirable persons might fall within the terms of this clause but, on the other hand, it is so broad as to include a person who may, through the use of narcotics during a prolonged illness, have become an addict and may be in a hospital attempting to effect a cure. It should not be the purpose of this Government to add further tribulations to them.

I am in accord with the principle of providing for the deportation of an alien who arranges for the illegal entry of other aliens into the United States. Clause 5 would require the deportation of an alien (1) who knowingly and for gain aided anyone to enter the United States in violation of law, or (2) who after the passage of the bill aided anyone to so enter whether or not commercialism is involved. While I agree with the first part of the clause, I feel that the latter portion is somewhat too broad. Under it a father who in a single instance in any way aids in the illegal entry of a minor child would be subject to deportation. A differentiation should be made between the professional smuggler or the one who habitually assists aliens in illegally entering the country and the isolated noncommercial

The situation could best be cared for by making the noncommercial offender deportable for more than one transgression.

Clause 6 requires the deportation of an alien who has been engaged in espionage for a foreign government. This is so broad as to include aliens engaged in such activities on behalf of countries allied to the United States during the late war. The clause is not limited to the prohibited activity against this Government, nor is it limited to espionage activities within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

The last addition to the deportable classes is contained in clause 7 of section 1. This clause provides for the deporation of an alien convicted of possessing or carrying any concealed or dangerous weapon. I agree that some provision should be contained in our immigration laws which would permit of the deportation of aliens convicted of possessing or carrying concealed or dangerous weapons but I feel the necessity for some administrative latitude in order to prevent injustices. It is realized that often members of criminal “gangs” or “rackets” are convicted for nothing more serious than the possession of a dangerous weapon. They should be deported. But, on the other hand, a technical violation and conviction might easily result through ignorance on the part of an alien in possession of a firearm. An inflexible provision such as contained in clause 7 would undoubtedly result in grave injustice in certain cases.

Clause 2 of section 1 in effect removes the time limitation of 5 years relative to the deportation of aliens who entered the United States in violation of section 3 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917. Reference in clause 2 to the Anarchist Act of October 16, 1918, as amended by the act of June 5, 1920, is actually surplusage for the reason that that act provides for the deportation of aliens in the United States in violation of its terms at any time after entry. I am opposed to

case.

this provision. If an alien effects surreptitious entry into the United States this is accomplished almost invariably in violation of the Immigration Act of 1924, which requires the production of an immigration visa and under that act is subject to deportation at any time irrespective of when entry occurred. Where an alien enters with a visa, is regularly inspected and permitted to enter, it seems only just that there should be some time limitation within which he could be arrested and deported for a ground of exclusion enumerated in section 3 of the act of February 5, 1917, and which should have been ascertained the time of his entry. A period of 5 years within which to discover his inadmissibility would seem to be ample.

Section 2 of the bill would authorize a suspension of deporation for a period not to exceed a year where an alien has a dependent wife or child and is not subject to deportation under the Anarchist Act of October 16, 1918, as amended, or because of conviction of a felony, or where the alien is not suffering from a hereditary physical or mental defect. A list of all aliens whose deportation has been suspended must be submitted to Congress quarterly with the complete record and reasons for the action taken. This information is to be open to public inspection. Although the bill does not so state, presumably it is intend d that Congress shall make disposition of all cases reported to it.

I am in hearty accord with any measure which would tend to prevent family separation in the case of deserving aliens. I do not feel that section 2 is sufficiently inclusive. Consideration should be given to an alien who has a husband or parents in the United States. I believe that the general welfare would best be served by affording the same consideration to relatives of aliens who are lawful residents of the country as to those who are citizens. We have accepted such aliens as an integral part of our social and economic life and by that act should give due consideration to their welfare. Whether an already overworked Congress should be burdened by the necessity for giving consideration to administrative detail requires careful thought and study.

I believe the provision in subdivision (c) of section 2, authorizing transportation for a dependent husband or wife or minor children of an alien subject to deportation, is advisable and meets with my approval.

Section 3 would permit the arrest of aliens without warrant under certain circumscribed conditions to fortify against abuse. I recognize the desirability of such a provision from a practical standpoint but I believe it would be in contravention of the Constitution and therefore I am unable to approve of it.

I have no objection to section 4 which provides a penalty for anyone who violates or attempts to violate the provisions of the bill. Neither have I objection to section 5 which merely makes it clear that the bill would be in addition to existing provisions of the immigration laws.

I trust that this comment may be of some value to you in consideration of this measure. Very truly yours,

FRANCES PERKINS.

(S. 1366, 75th Cong., 1st sess.) A BILL To further reduce immigration, to authorize the exclusion of any alien whose entry into the United

States is inimical to the public interest, to prohibit the separation of families through the entry of aliens leaving dependents abroad, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) from and after July 1, 1937, the quota in the case of any nationality for which a quota has been determined and proclaimed under the Immigration Act of 1924, as amended, shall be 10 per centum of such quota, but the minimum quota of any nationality shall be one hundred. From and after July 1, 1937, no immigration visas shall be issued under subdivision (c) of section 4 of the Immigration Act of 1924, but all the provisions of the immigration laws shall be applicable to immigrants born in any of the geographical areas specified in such subdivision as if each of such areas had at that time a quota equal to 10 per centum (but not less than one hundred) of the number of nonquota immigration visas issued, during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1930, to immigrants born in such area: Provided, however, That reciprocal arrangements may be entered into by the Department of State with the Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, the Republic of Mexico, the Republic of Cuba, the Republic of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the Canal Zone, or any independent country of Central or South America, whereby as many immigrants born in any said country otherwise admissible under the immigration laws may be admitted into the United States for permanent residence in any fiscal year as the number of persons born in the United States who were admitted into any said country for permanent residence during the preceding fiscal year.

(b) Section 6 of the Immigration Act of 1924, as amended, is further amended to read as follows:

“Sec. 6. (a) Immigration visas as to quota immigrants shall be issued in each fiscal year as follows:

“(1) One hundred per centum of the quota for each nationality for such year shall be made available in each year for the issuance of immigration visas to the following classes of immigrants: (A) Quota immigrants who are the fathers or the mothers or the husbands or wives by marriage occurring after January 1, 1933, of citizens of the United States who are twenty-one years of age or over; and (B) quota immigrants who are unmarried children under twenty-one years of age, or the wives or husbands, or the mother or the father, of alien residents of the United States who were lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence.

“(2) Any portion of the quota of each nationality for such year not required for the issuance of immigration visas to the classes specified in paragraph 1, but not to exceed 20 per centum of such quota, shall be made available in such year for the issuance of immigration visas to other quota immigrants such nationality.

“(b) The preference provided in paragraphs 1 and 2 of subdivision (a) shall, in the case of quota immigrants of any nationality, be given in the calendar month in which the right of preference is established if the number of immigration visas which may be issued in any such month to quota immigrants of such nationality has not already been issued; otherwise in the next calendar month."

Sec. 2. From and after July 1, 1937, no immigration visa shall be issued to any married applicant for entry into the United States unless, at the time of application, he or she applies for visas for all dependents admissible as nonquota immigrants, or entitled to preferences within the quotas under immigration Acts in force at the time of the passage of this Act: Provided, however, That he or she submits satisfactory evidence that transportation will be provided for the spouse and minor dependents to accompany the applicant, and that nothing in this section shall exclude a child born in transit after issuance of a visa to a parent.

SEC. 3. (a) From and after July 1, 1937, no immigration visa shall be issued to any applicant who shall fail to pass an intelligence test equivalent to, or higher than, a normal rating of American white stock, or whose reputation or personal characteristics in the judgment of the consul would render the applicant not readily assimilable among the preponderant element of the population of the United States.

(b) If any member of a family fails to meet the requirements of subsection (a) of this section, that fact shall exclude the whole family from admission to the United States.

Sec. 4. The President may in his discretion direct the Secretary of State to deny a visa to any alien whose presence in the United States, as a visitor or for permanent residence, he deems inimical to the public interest, and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to bring to the attention of the President applications for entry by any person or persons, not otherwise excluded, whose activities or reputation fall within the purview of this section.

SEC. 5. The ninth proviso of section 3 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, be amended to read as follows: Provided further, That the Commissioner of Immigration with the approval of the Secretary of Labor shall issue rules and prescribe conditions, including exaction of such bonds as may be necessary, to control and regulate the admission and return of otherwise inadmissible aliens applying for temporary admission solely for the purpose of receiving medical treatment not obtainable at an immigration station pending deportation.”

Sec. 6. If any alien has been arrested and deported in pursuance of law, he shall be excluded from admission to the United States whether such deportation took place before or after the enactment of this Act, and, if he enters or attempts to enter the United States after the enactment of this Act, he shall be guilty of a felony: Provided, That this Act shall not apply to any alien who has, prior to its enactment, obtained the lawful permission of the Secretary of Labor to reenter the United States and has reentered, or who arrives in the United States with such permission within sixty days after this Act becomes effective. For the purposes of this section, any alien ordered deported (whether before or after the enactment of this Act), who has left the United States, shall be considered to have been deported in pursuance of law, irrespective of the source from which the expenses of his transportation were defrayed or of the place to which deported. Section 7 of the Act entitled “An Act to further amend the naturalization laws, and for other purposes”, approved May 25, 1932, is hereby repealed.

5 years ending June 30, 1936, a total of approximately 42,608_nonpreference quota visas were issued out of a total quota allotment of over 768,984. This means that about 8,522 nonpreference quota immigration visas were issued yearly, a number which, when compared with the total population of the country, becomes relatively small and insignificant and obviously not a menace either to American labor conditions or traditions.

(2) It has been the policy of the Government of the United States to foster friendly relations with the countries in the Western Hemisphere. No more certain way of creating ill-feeling toward the United States by the people of those countries can be engendered than by placing their populations within the quota restrictions. For that reason alone the proposal to abandon the definite policy established in 1924 by placing those countries under a quota should not receive the approval of this Department, especially at a time when the Secretary of State is so active in promoting the good-neighbor policy in the Western Hemissphere. Moreover, immigration from countries in the Western Hemisphere has not reached the proportions where any proposal to limit entry of their people should be passed without great care. In the 5-year period ending June 30, 1936, a yearly average of about 7,965 persons, of which about 5,205 were Canadians, were given section 4 (c) visas. If the bill is enacted it will mean that about 4,300 Canadians can enter the United States yearly in the future. The decrease in immigration from Canada of only about 1,000 will not compensate for the loss of friendship of the Canadian people. In the same 5-year period an average of 1,351 section 4 (c) visas were issued to Mexicans. Under the bill Mexico would have a quota of 1,178. The decrease in this instance is not impressive.

(3) The proposal to give to the Department of State the authority to enter into reciprocal agreements with present nonquota countries to permit as many of their nationals to enter the United States as natives of the United States are permitted to enter their countries will not cure the evil which, it is believed, the bill carries. While accurate figures on the emigration of United States citizens to nonquota countries is lacking, there probably is no question that the number of nonquota country entrants exceed native citizens of the United States departing to other countries, and there will be a reduction in the number of immigrants from present nonquota countries.

(4) The provision whereby 100 percent of the quota may be used for the preference classes is undoubtedly a recognition of the fact that aliens who are residents of the United States should be permitted to bring their immediate family ties to this country. As above indicated, however, it falls far short of a correction of a serious fault of the bill. It might also be observed that this provision will effectively prevent any new-seed immigrant from coming to the United States from a number of the foreign countries. Notwithstanding an alien's learning, his achievements in the arts or sciences, his desirability to American industry and culture, if he is an immigrant of a country whose preference classes exhaust the quotas he may not enter the United States. Any law which proposes such an extreme restrictive policy should provide for some flexibility in its administration. This bill does not do so.

Section 1 has a number of technical defects. Present law makes wives of citizens, and the husbands of citizens by marriage occurring prior to July 1, 1932, nonquota immigrants. The nonquota relative provisions of the act of 1924 are 'not altered and, therefore, the preference classes proposed in the bill should be corrected to exclude the wives of citizens and to include the husbands of citizens. by marriage occurring subsequent to July 1, 1932. Otherwise, the husbands' of citizens by marriage occurring between July 1, 1932, and January 1, 1933, would. be without preference, a proposal which it is not believed was intended.

PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2

This section prohibits the issuance of an immigration visa from and after July 1, 1937, to any married applicant unless the applicant also applies for visas for all dependents admissible as nonquota immigrants or entitled to preference within the quotas or unless the applicant submits satisfactory evidence that transportation will be provided for the spouse and minor dependents to accompany the applicant to the United States.

COMMENT ON SECTION 2

While this section is evidently intended to make a family migrate to the United States as a unit, it fails of its purpose. The new seed immigrant would not be affected by the section because obviously his wife and children could not be of the nonquota class or preference immigrants and the section expressly applies only to “dependents admissible as nonquota immigrants or entitled to preference within the quotas.” Again, it is to be noted that the bar placed by the statute is to the issuance of a visa. After the visa is issued the head of the family can still proceed to the United States and leave his family abroad. While the intent of this section might have been of value in the years when unrestricted immigration was permitted and a great number of aliens came to the United States leaving their families abroad, it is not believed that today it would serve any useful purpose.

PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3

This section requires that after July 1, 1937, no immigration visa shall be issued to any applicant who shall fail to pass an intelligence test equivalent to or higher than a normal rating of an average sampling of American-born white stock or whose reputation or personal characteristics, in the judgment of the consul, would render the applicant not readily assimilable among the preponderant element of the population of the United States. It further requires that a visa be denied to all members of a family if one member thereof fails to meet the requirements of the section.

COMMENT ON SECTION 3

Aside from the fact that the standards set up to judge the admissibility of aliens under this section are at best vague, it is quite evident that, when consideration is given to the number of American consuls which will have to pass upon those standards, uniformity of action in administering the law will be impossible. Undoubtedly, the purpose of the section was to keep out of the United States persons mentally and morally subnormal but it is questionable whether the proposal will be more effective than the present provisions of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917. Persons suffering from any mental defect, or who are morally delinquent, as determined by the fixed standards set forth in the act of 1917, are now excluded from admission to the United States. If some aliens of these types have entered it is not because of lack ofl aws to keep them out but because of the human fault to err possessed by the administrators of the immigration laws as well as others and also because maladies and infirmities are not always manifest at a given time when an examination of an individual occurs. It is for this very reason that there are clauses in the deportation laws which require the removal of aliens who have entered who are found to have been at the time of entry inadmissible aliens.

PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4

This authorizes the President to direct the Secretary of State to deny a visa to any alien whose presence in the United States, either as a visitor or as a permanent resident, he deems inimical to the public interest and that it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to bring to the attention of the President applications for entry (applications for visas) by any person or persons not otherwise excluded whose activities or reputation fall within the purview of the section.

COMMENT ON SECTION 4

Because of its vagueness as to the group of aliens sought to be denied visas, it would be difficult for the Secretary of State to determine which classes should be brought to the attention of the President. If the Congress intends to exclude additional classes from admission to the United States, those classes should be set forth in the law with definiteness.

PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5

This section amends the ninth proviso to section 3 of the act of February 5, 1917, so as to make the proviso applicable only to aliens seeking temporary admission for the purpose of receiving medical treatment not obtainable at an immigration station pending deportation.

COMMENT ON SECTION 5

The meaning of this section is not clear. If an alien is seeking temporary admission for medical treatment, it would seem to be a matter of no relevancy whether any medical treatment can or cannot be given at an immigration station.

147479—37-72

« ÎnapoiContinuați »