STATEMENT OF NATHAN D. PERLMAN The CHAIRMAN. Please give your name and address to the stenographer. Mr. PERLMAN. Nathan D. Perlman; 475 Fifth Avenue, New York City. The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to see you with us, Mr. Perlman. Mr. PERLMAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the committee. The stenographer has my name and address. My present occupation is a member of the bar of the State of New York. Having been a Member of the House in four Congresses I appreciate the need for a brief statement by me so that the Members of the House may attend to other matters, and so I shall not make a congressional speech this morning, but rather just a brief talk. I am here this morning as the grand master of the Independent Order of Abraham, and with me I have the grand secretary, Mr. Max Hollander, and also the counsel of the order, so that the gentlemen with me would like to address the committee, but they realize the shortness of the time, and they asked me to speak for them. Our order has 167,000 members in the United States. We have approximately 520 lodges in the United States, a lodge for nearly every State, if not more. I am also here as the chairman of the executive committee of the American Jewish Congress, and later you shall hear the honorary president of this body, Dr. Stephen S. Wise. I am here to tell you that I favor first H. R. 5645. This bill is similar to a resolution that I introduced in the House of Representatives in 1925. Then it was in the form of a resolution, to give relief to a number who had previously received visas from American consuls, and who, after receiving those visas, had broken up their homes and had left their native countries and were on their way to the United States when they learned, before they embarked, that the annual quotas of their native countries had already been exceeded, and that if they should come into the United States they would have to be deported; so the steamship companies left them stranded in countries that they never had been in before. Mr. SCHNEIDER. Just briefly, do you know how they were taken care of? Mr. PERLMAN. I was, in the summer of the year 1925, at East Lee, England. I had made a trip across to England to study the bankruptcy laws of Great Britain for the Judiciary Committee, and for myself, and I stopped there at East Lee and saw a great many people being taken care of there by the charity of the people of Great Britain, and there were several hundred men and women and children who had in their possession valid passports and valid visas, issued by the American consuls. They were living in little buildings that were erected temporarily for their use. They were not permitted to work, because they were aliens in Great Britain. They were anxious to work. They were maintained there by their American relatives and by others who were charitable. They would not have had to have that charity if they had been allowed to come here, because at the time they arrived at East Lee, I think all of them had sufficient money that they had gotten from the sale of their house furnishings in those countries from which they came, to maintain them here until they could have gotten employment; but by the time I got there, in the summer of 1925, all of their life savings had been exhausted in maintaining themselves, and from that time on they had to live on the charity of American citizens, members of their families, and others. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether any of them are in that camp yet? Mr. PERLMAN. I do not know. There may be some there. The CHAIRMAN. I want to ask Mr. Simmons, of the visa office of the State Department, have you any knowledge that the United States shipping lines are carrying some of those visa passport people? Mr. SIMMONS. It is my understanding that the aliens who had entered into stipulations at the European ports are being maintained there by the White Star Line and one or two others. The CHAIRMAN. I will ask the clerk of the committee to get the committee's files and the letters from the Shipping Board to the committee, and they will be inserted in the record at this point. (The matter referred to by the chairman is here printed in the record as follows:) Hon. ALBERT JOHNSON, UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: As one preeminently interested in immigration legislation, this matter is being presented to you in the quest of relieving the Government of a continuous expense involved in the maintenance of 15 Russians detained at Bremen, Germany, due to the change of quota in 1924, which now restricts this immigration to such an extent as to make remote the possible admission of these aliens. The aliens originally shut out were a number far in excess of this. Of the 276 which the United States Lines (formerly the Shipping Board's passenger service and recently sold) alone had, 15 remain. These hold consular visas, issued in October, 1923, but to date the preferences under the law have exhausted the Russian quota to the exclusion of these aliens. Exhaustive efforts have been made through the State Department and Labor Department and by various expedients to get rid of the expense amounting to about $5,500 per year, but the only solution of the problem appears to be through legislation permitting these aliens to depart for the United States in a special preference group. Because of the Government's interest in the matter through the expense involved and the remote possibility, according to the State Department, of reaching these aliens after present preferences are taken care of in the quota, it is thought that the attitude of Congress might be changed from that of 1924 when several bills were introduced in Congress to relieve the situation but none of which were enacted. The purpose of this letter is to ask an expression of your views of the advisability of advancing this solution, and whether or not you feel that the Committee on Immigration would receive with favor a bill to accomplish the departure of these aliens. Your opinion would have an important bearing upon the board's further consideration of the matter. Very truly yours, T. V. O'CONNOR, Chairman. Mr. PERLMAN. May I say, by way of explanation of the statement made by Mr. Simmons, that I do recall that I was told in 1925 that the steamship companies had built this camp and were then maintaining the camp; but still those aliens, those immigrants, had to be supported, in a way, by their American relatives. They were not entirely maintained by the steamship companies. Mr. GREEN. Do you know anything about conditions in Cuba? Mr. PERLMAN. I do not. I have never been there, and I know nothing at all about that. Now, that situation at East Lee was also the situation in other ports. It was not the fault of the aliens who had these passports and visas. I do not want to criticise anybody. We were not able, I suppose, in 1921, 1922, and 1923, or even to 1924, to have the machinery that the Congress and the State Department and the Labor Department have set up under the permanent quota law of 1924, and you will recall, Mr. Johnson, that the consuls had not that control over the number of visas issued to know when to stop issuing visas; and those aliens, hard working and honest people, had the right to believe, when they got their visas, that they could go back to their native homes, and there break up their homes and sell their belongings, and embark for the United States. Now, I think it is fair at this time to say that the number who did that can not even be estimated. As to whether all of those people are still alive, as to whether all of them are anxious to come here now, and as to whether they have not some of them gone elsewhere, that is another proposition. I think when you get down to it, the relief extended under 5645 at this time will not be to more than a few hundred; and certainly the Congress of the United States can be fair and just and humane to those few hundred. We were responsible for the breaking up of their homes, and we should say to them now, "Come in, and be part of us." H. R. 5646 is very similar to what was called at one time the Wadsworth-Perlman bill. It is a bill to permit the father or mother or husband of a citizen to have a nonquota status. The CHAIRMAN. You can save some time if you will let the husband alone. We have got him. Now, if you will just discuss for a little bit the father and mother. Mr. PERLMAN. As to the father and mother, this father and mother provision first came from the chairman of this committee, Chairman Johnson himself. I recall that on the first Monday of December, 1920, the first day I took my oath as a Member of Congress, the first so-called Johnson immigration bill provided for a general stoppage of immigration, except certain relatives of all American citizens, and I recall specifically that Chairman Johnson then advocated that those who should come into this country immediately were the father and mother of an American citizen; and I take my cue from that statement, that just because the Senate in 1921 did not see fit to take advantage of that bill, but gave us a quota bill, Mr. Chairman, you ought not to change from the position that you took then. The CHAIRMAN. That bill came out of the 3 per cent temporary quota. Mr. PERLMAN. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. The next bill was somewhat different, and it finally came out as a 2 per cent quota restriction. Mr. PERLMAN. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. Now, what we want to get is your estimate as to the number of fathers and mothers. Mr. PERLMAN. I suppose that the State Department, having in its possession the number of applications in the Form 633-I think it is of the number of parents who want to come in, could give us the number that have been approved up to date. They come in the preference class. I do not think there are very many. But, no matter how many there may be, when we are hoping to make our people happy in the United States, we want to have happy homes. Can a son be happy with his father and mother many miles away from him? Can he be happy when his father or his mother is in some other country? The CHAIRMAN. I saw that they had some riots in New York on Saturday. Mr. PERLMAN. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. That was the young communists. Mr. PERLMAN. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Now, if the parents of those young communists are in some other countries, those parents are probably happy; and yet the sons want them here? Mr. PERLMAN. I suppose you would not want to inflict on your own State the vices of some few in your State, and say that the people of your State are of the type of a few communists in your State. We believe that those communists are the exceptions. They are not the type that will come over here as parents, as a matter of fact. The parent to-day, in Russia especially, knows that the republican form of government in this country is far superior to what the Russians have at this time. If ever they dreamed of communism, that dream is over; and those who come over now are more willing to assimilate the ideas of others, even more so than those who came over years ago. I say there is no danger of communists coming over here. There is no danger of the parents of those hardworking sons coming in here to destroy our institutions. That is a red flag. But at any rate, if some do come, a few, shall we punish those fathers and mothers, and say "You must keep away, because some few communists at the city hall have rioted down there "? Mr. GREEN. You know, we have to give and take if we want to get a bill through. If you had to choose between the husbands or the fathers, which would you recommend? Mr. PERLMAN. I would recommend them all alike. Mr. CABLE. But I say, as between the two classes, which would you recommend? Mr. PERLMAN. I do not think there should be any compromise as to what is just and humane. Mr. CABLE. But, if you could get through one or the other, which would you take? Mr. PERLMAN. I would not answer that question. I say to the man that makes that offer: That is no way to make laws for the United States. The CHAIRMAN. That question is as old as the Old Testament. Mr. PERLMAN. I appreciate that. Now, I say it is fairMr. CABLE. I asked the question and I want an answer to it. Mr. PERLMAN. Now, on the husband proposition, we have heard so much this morning from the chairman of the committee and others about these marriages of convenience, or to avoid the law. Mr. Chairman, you say to the wife of an American citizen, "If you want to be dishonest and crooked, you can go to Europe and violate our law and marry a man and bring him in here, and it is perfectly all right for you to be dishonest." If we are going to have dishonest women who will go over there and marry and avoid the law, we have those who will bring in these men. There is no justificationThe CHAIRMAN. I do not want to be unkind. Mr. PERLMAN. I know that. The CHAIRMAN. Now, we find that the husband is the head of a household. The European countries have not been quite so liberal as the United States, and it is natural to suppose and we know that the husband is the mainstay of the family. That is why the wife was given the first preference. We have to decide these questions, even if we do not let Mr. Cable ask you questions. Mr. PERLMAN. Mr. Cable and I will ask each other questions after a while. The CHAIRMAN. In 95 per cent of cases out of a hundred the decision is right. Mr. PERLMAN. I suppose that the House, that is right, will be able to impress every Senator with the justice of their position. I do not believe that the chairman ought to stand on that position. But, at any rate I hope that the House will pass the bill, that the Congress will pass the bill, and perhaps, since there have been some changes in the Senate, and they have seen the light they will in this Congress accept the House bill and not ask for any change. As to H. R. 6852, that is the bill which provides that an alien who came here prior to July 1, 1924, shall be eligible to be registered for permanent residence in lieu of the time of June 3, 1921. I think that is a fair bill. I understand that the Commissioner of Immigration favors it also. There has been some talk here this morning about those who have violated the law by coming in here and the question has been asked, "Why should we give them relief?" Let me tell you there have been a number of instances that have come to my attention of what you may call technical violations, but in fact they were not any violations of law. The CHAIRMAN. What do you think about the sailor? Mr. PERLMAN. About the sailor? I think the sailor who came here, honestly believing he could stay here, who did not understand our laws at the time and who stayed here beyond the 5-year period so that we can not deport him, should be given the right to become a citizen. The CHAIRMAN. Is it not a fact that the La Follette Seamen's Act was made a law in 1915? Mr. PERLMAN. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Is it not fair to suppose that all sailors of all countries reaching ports of the United States have some knowledge of the fact that they can leave the ship to reship foreign? Mr. PERLMAN. I suppose some know and some do not know, and I think we should do something for those who do not know. After all, under this proposed act, as in the act of 1929, the Secretary of Labor has certain discretion to pass on the application, and his discretion runs to determining whether the man is a person of good moral character, has been a person of good moral char |