I have taken up much more time than I intended to. I want to take up now the last bill that I want to say something about, which is H. R. 7703, a bill which provides that it shall not be necessary to deport people who entered under the temporary status of visitors, or the like, if they are, under existing law, admissible for permanent residence.

I have suggested to Congressman Dickstein that I think inadvertently that bill is too broad, there, and I have suggested limiting it so as to make it applicable to these temporary visitors covered by section 3, only as far as subdivision 2 and 6 are concerned, because I do not think that people who came over in transit, for instance, or as sailors, or in transit to another country should get the benefit of this bill if they are in a different status now. But the situation is different in regard to persons who came over here under treaties authorizing them to enter for the purpose of trade, and people who came over here as visitors for pleasure or business or the like.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. You are talking now about H. R. 7703?

Mr. KOHLER. About 7703.

The CHAIRMAN. We will have inserted in the record at this point the bill 7703.

(The bill referred to is here printed in the record, as follows:)

[H. R. 7703, Seventy-first Congress, second session]

A BILL To amend the immigration act of 1924

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the act entitled "An act to limit the immigration of aliens, and for other purposes," approved May 28, 1924, be amended by adding thereto a new section to be known as section read as follows: "SEC.

to

Whenever an alien theretofore admitted under subdivisions 2 and 6 of section 3 of this act becomes eligible for admission under any other section of this act, it shall not be necessary for such an alien to depart from the United States in order to reenter this country, but the Secretary of Labor is hereby authorized to prescribe by regulation such a method as will permit such an alien to enter this country without application for a visa to be made to any consular officer."

SEC. 2. This act shall take effect immediately.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. There will be inserted at this point H. R. 5648, with amendments proposed by Mr. Kohler.

[H. R. 5648, Seventy-first Congress, second session]

A BILL To provide for a family quota

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the immigration act of 1924 be amended by adding thereto a new section, to be known as section 4 (a) and to read as follows:

"SEC. 4. (a) Whenever a quota place (number) was or shall hereafter be issued to an applicant therefor as provided by this act and a number assigned to such an applicant, such number shall include the applicant's wife or husband, if any, and children under the age of twenty-one. Such quota number, once issued, shall be sufficient to cover the wife or husband, respectively, and any children, and it shall not be necessary thereafter for any such party to apply for a quota number: Provided, That the person to whom such quota number is issued shall depart for the United States promptly and the persons entitled to join them in such quota actually enter this country within one year thereafter."

SEC. 2. This act is to take effect immediately.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Kohler.

Mr. KOHLER. As so limited, the scope of such bill will be very narrow indeed. There are comparatively few people who come over here as visitors for temporary purposes of visiting relatives, or trade, or for commercial purposes under treaty, and the number is particularly narrow under the recent ruling in this Canadian entry case, in the Supreme Court of the United States, which construes very narrowly the term "business," so as not to include laborers, entitled Karmath v. U. S. (279 U. S. 231).

Mr. KOHLER. It is a well-known case. It involved the phrase "trade and business," under the treaty covering Canada, under which the people who make a practice of coming over as laborers here have been held not to be covered by that, if they were not born in Canada, and within the treaty quoted.

The CHAIRMAN. I remember, now.

Mr. KOHLER. In addition, that bill, as drafted, does not permit anyone to stay here unless he is enjoying, under the new law, if he came over, anew, nonquota status. Really, the present law is absurd unless it was intended-which, of course, is an absurd supposition to benefit the railroads and steamship companies, and to compel people who have a right to come over unconditionally-for instance, if they married an American citizen or anything of that kind-to go over and come right back again.

When the Gottlieb case was decided-I am not going into the merits of the case-Congress had just passed the act of 1924, and the wife and children of a minister of religion were involved; and Mr. Marshall, who was chief counsel in the case, in view of the act of 1924, which gave a nonquota status to such persons, moved the Supreme Court to amend its mandate to permit the Secretary to admit those people, as it would be absurd for them to go back and then come over anew at heavy expense and bother. They were enjoying nonquota status under the new law. The court granted the motion, and the department admitted them.

The CHAIRMAN. Congress passed an act to relieve the situation. Mr. KOHLER. That act was passed later on. They were admitted immediately.

There is a decision under the Chinese exclusion laws, in California, in the case of Tsoi Sim v. U. S. (116 Federal Reporter, p. 920), by the California circuit United States Circuit Court of Appeals, which expressly turns on that point. The court said in effect that it is ridiculous and unreasonable to suppose that people who may have been unauthorized to remain here, under the laws at the time of their entry, but who are now permitted to stay, should be forced to go out of the country and then return. In that case the woman, after an unauthorized entry, was married to a bona fide Chinese merchant, and it was held to be unreasonable that she should have to leave the country and then reenter, and they held that those people were admissible.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, that would not increase the quota at all, because persons of that character would be entitled to remain if they had an extension.

Mr. KOHLER. That is all the bill does and, with the limitation I have suggested, the potential number that could be benefited,

which are, I presume, the classes that Congressman Dickstein had particularly in mind, would be very small indeed, and, of course, the immigration authorities go very carefully-and they are going, probably, more carefully now, after this Canadian entry case-into the bona fides of people who claim they are coming over here for visits, temporarily, or want to conduct trade here.

I have taken up much more time than I intended to, and I thank the committee for its attention.

The CHAIRMAN. Your statement has been very important, and is greatly appreciated by the committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. EMANUEL CELLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee and colleagues, I desire to register my emphatic approval of H. R. 5647, H. R. 5646, H. R. 5645, H. R. 6852, and H. R. 7703, with the amendments that have just been suggested by Mr. Kohler, the previous speaker, as well as other perfecting amendments.

With reference to H. R. 5645, which is a bill concerning holders of visas, of which there are 2,000, since the number is so small, and it would be in a sense a redemption of the pledges made by the Government in the granting of the visas, I see no good reason why we should not grant the right to come into this country to those who are Possessed of such visas.

I have just returned from Cuba, and I have been down there for some time, and I saw a number of men and women there who were armed with these visas, and they are leading rather pitiful existences, out of their habitat, away from the climate that they were born into; and it would be indeed a mark of charity, if nothing else, to help those poor individuals who are thus stuck in mid-migration as the result of the sudden coming of the act of 1924.

With reference to the bill H. R. 5646, I presume also that there can not be very many of those husbands and fathers and mothers of American citizens. I presume the record will disclose subsequently the number of them. It seems incontrovertible that civilization revolves around the family, and so far as by this bill we would unite families, we would aid the march of civilization, and they should be admitted.

The CHAIRMAN. From time to time I see dispatches in the papers stating where some man has been arrested in Austria for marrying several women, or one woman has made 17 or 18 marriages, hoping that she can beat this law, and is in prison in Austria for that act. Is there any chance of that practice being carried on?

Mr. CELLER. I hardly think there are many cases of that sort, and even if there are one or two here and there, it would be wrong to bring an indictment against all these other people who are blameless, just because of the immoral act and moral turpitude of one or two individuals.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to ask you frankly this question. While you were in Cuba did you hear of any processes by which temporary marriages were actually made, under the laws of Cuba?

Mr. CELLER. I did. I took up that matter with our astute and wise consul general there. Everything should be done by the consul to withhold a visa from any person who had subscribed, by his action, to any such wretched procedure by marrying in the manner you have indicated; and I think the consul general there is taking care of those cases. There are not a great many, as he pointed out; I do not think they are flagrant in the sense of number. But in any case, we should not destroy the good purpose as embodied in this bill, because of the comparatively few cases that you have indicated.

The CHAIRMAN. I will be very frank with you. The House passed the bill recognizing the full equity for husbands of American wives. The bill was in conference toward the end of the session, and one of the conferees representing the other body, up and down would not stand for it unless there was a certain date, as close as possible to the passage of the bill, and we had to take that or nothing. That Senator is still a member of the Senate Immigration Committee, and we are up against that problem.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. I do not think you will be this time, because things have changed a little since that time.

Mr. CELLER. If somebody does something wrong, that is no reason for our receding from our position.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee is well informed on that.

Mr. CELLER. I reckon so. Now, in reference to changing the date from June, 1921, to July, 1924, as is embodied in H. R. 5645, making those who came in up to July 1, 1924, eligible for admission, legalizing their stay here, I admit that the process is somewhat slow, and the machinery may be somewhat inadequate; but if the principle is sound, I think that the proper machinery ought to be provided, and moneys ought to be provided for the purpose of erecting suitable machinery to take care of these cases, and I can not conceive how inadequate machinery should militate against the passage of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. I believe in the last Congress you were recognized to secure more money?

Mr. CELLER. I do not recall that.

The CHAIRMAN. Was it not an increase? Were you not recognized to present the amendment to the bill?

Mr. CELLER. Recognized to present it? No, indeed; I was recognized to move the previous question or to recommit.

The CHAIRMAN. That amendment did increase the appropriation? Mr. CELLER. No, sir; you have in mind a motion to recommit, which I made as a matter of courtesy to somebody you well know. The CHAIRMAN. You are appealing now for more money for the Department of Labor to set up procedure to take care of the laws that exist; and you, as a courtesy, moved the previous question, to make the fight to get money?

Mr. CELLER. I do not care to enter into a controversy with the Chairman at this time, on that score.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to see it in the record.

Mr. CELLER. I do not think that the record should be marred by any controversy of that sort.

The CHAIRMAN. You are willing to help now to get a little more money?

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I am willing always to help the proper enforcement of the immigration statutes, and to use all my endeavors to get funds for that purpose.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. GREEN. You would go as far as anyone to find out people who are here unlawfully?

Mr. CELLER. If you mean registration, I say no. I do not think the one has anything to do with the other.

The CHAIRMAN. Quite a large number of aliens are here who arrived after June 3, 1921, and prior to July 1, 1924. Is that the class that you are referring to now?

Mr. CELLER. That is the class.

The CHAIRMAN. And they are domiciled here, and in all of the cases all of the time has run, excepting the cases of very serious crimes. They are domiciled here and have taken their places in the United States; and if they have either wives or children here their position is good, except that they can not proceed to citizenship. Is that about it?

Mr. CELLER. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. In the old days when the immigration was only kept down a little bit by examination as to poverty and disease, and things like that, many aliens came in and were very slow about stepping into citizenship. What is the rush now?

Mr. CELLER. I think there is another element involved. These people take advantage of the privileges and advantages that grow out of community life, and they should assume the duties of citizenship, jury duty, and going to war to defend the country, and so forth. I will put it on that ground, if on no other ground at all. They are here and they ought to assume the responsibilities; but you will not let them, because you will not give them citizenship. The CHAIRMAN. That is the only thing?

Mr. CELLER. No; there are many others.

The CHAIRMAN. They are not damaged by that.

Mr. CELLER. Does it not hurt-denial of citizenship? I think we all know that life is not only logical but psychological. They seek citizenship, and we withhold it from them. I think you would be the last man in the world to withhold citizenship from worthy men and women. They feel keenly the stigma of withholding the prized privilege. They feel like pariahs-outside the pale of citizenship. Psychologically they feel depressed and hurt, like social outcasts. The CHAIRMAN. I think you are right, but I think that the time of domicile in order to obtain citizenship should be twice as long as it is.

Mr. CELLER. Then you must make it applicable to everyone.

The CHAIRMAN. Everybody who came into this country honestly. Mr. CELLER. We have heard several say this morning that there are a number of these who came in, not with any dishonest motive, and they would make the best of citizens.

Now, with those few remarks I conclude, hoping that these bills will have favorable consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have your help when the time comes to pass them.