acter, and has not been a public charge. We can trust the Secretary of Labor to use his good judgment when the application comes before him for a permit.

The CHAIRMAN. You were about to state something about some good people that had gone wrong.

Mr. PERLMAN. No; they are good people and have not gone wrong; but they come in the class of those who can not prove that they were admitted to the United States for a permanent stay, and therefore they can not apply for naturalization. For instance, a person goes to an American consul and applies for a passport. The quota is open. He can pass all the requirements of the immigration laws of the United States. He would have a right to come with an immigration visa under the old law. He says, "I am going to the United States." The consul says to him, long are you going to stay there?" "I do not know." Now, that immigrant wants a visa. He does not read English. He does not study it. The American consul decides that he is a person who is coming in as a visitor, and not to remain permanently; so that he gives him a visa as a temporary visitor.

How

The immigrant supposes that he has gotten a visa to come and stay here. That is what he came for. He is admitted, and stays in the country six months. Probably the Department of Labor will say, "You are not here for a permanent stay. Our records go to show, and the immigration authorities of the port so characterize you, that you are a temporary visitor, and therefore you can not become an American citizen."

The CHAIRMAN. Now it is proposed to change that so that he can come here and stay here.

Mr. PERLMAN. The proposal under H. R. 6852 is to say to the Secretary of Labor, "that a person who came here before July 1, 1924, is classed by you as a visitor, who is here more than five years, you can not deport him. Let him apply for a permanent stay in the United States, and if he meets all of your requirements as to moral fitness and character, and all the other restrictions you want to make, give him his permanent stay, so that he can become a citizen."

The CHAIRMAN. That would bring us down to five and one-half years ago.

Mr. PERLMAN. That is correct. I am only referring to the visa

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not think that those who are here now, and as their time expired, remained, would pretty soon be organizing to get their status recognized?

Mr. PERLMAN. No, sir; because the law and the machinery since July, 1924, was not adequate; and the instances of this kind were the result of the lack of sufficient machinery and understanding of the law by our own consuls and our own officials prior to July 1, 1924. There are a number of those instances that we ought to help along.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. The ones who came in up to 1924 are not deportable, but those coming in afterwards are deportable, and the ones coming in now naturally would not be eligible unless we removed that deportable section in the act, or removed the statute of limitations in the act of 1924.

The CHAIRMAN. That is to say the burden of proof is on that man to show that he is not here as a visitor; and I presume in two-thirds of the cases, or a large number of the cases, he asks for an extension of time, and even a second extension.

Mr. PERLMAN. More than likely he does; and he gets the extension. The CHAIRMAN. And very often he marries here, and his children born here are American citizens.

Mr. PERLMAN. I suppose the only way to stop that would be to stop all immigrants coming in here.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that that should be.

Mr. PERLMAN. I do not think there is a sentiment in the United States for the stopping of all immigration, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GREEN. I think that you would find that all of those immigrants would besiege the Commissioner General for permanent residence.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. We are not interested here in those coming after July, 1924. We ought to provide a law to get them out. We are talking now of the time previous to July, 1924.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we have had enough on that argument for the present. That is a pretty live subject. What is the other statement you want to make?

Mr. PERLMAN. I just want to make one statement about the machinery. You called attention to that when you asked the question of Congressman Celler. The applicant for permanent stay pays a fee, and the more applicants, the more fees, and that money should be sufficient; and as a matter of fact this service is self-supporting, I understand, from the fees paid in by these applicants for permanent stay; and if the fee is not sufficient, Congress should supply to the Department of Labor sufficient machinery so that it will not be an expense, because these applications will pay it.

I think the history of naturalization is that just as fast as men become eligible to apply for citizenship, they immediately apply. I think you will find the proportion is greater from northern Europe of those who feel that their country is better than ours. The proportion is larger. There is no particular rush at this time, but here are the children in this country, and shall they have to say, My father can not become a citizen?" Are we not punishing those children? They would like to feel their parents are citizens. Parents and children can not be deported. Let us establish the machinery. It will be paid for by the applicant under the fee system you have in the present law; and let them become citizens if they are morally fit, and if they understand our laws and will subscribe to them; and I think, in cleaning that up, up to July, 1924, you will make a great deal of happiness in this country.

As to H. R. 7703, what is a little unusual in the law, which was brought up by this section, is this:

The right to be admitted into the United States to-day depends on a piece of paper, a paper called the immigration-visa certificate. The State Department is the department dealing with those visas, not the Department of Labor. The Secretary of State is the superior of all American consuls. The Secretary of State has not any right to issue an immigration-visa certificate or a nonquota certificate, but his subordinates may issue them. Why should we not give to the

Secretary of State the same power that we give to his subordinates, the American consuls?

If we gave that power to the Secretary of State, then when an alien in this country is eligible to stay here as a nonquota immigrant, why should he have to go out of the country? Instead of going to Washington to see the Secretary of State and presenting his case before him, why shall he go out of the country to apply to a subordinate of the Secretary of State, and there get the paper? It is not the right thing. The Secretary of State ought to have the power, right here in the United States, to issue visa certificates, and that will avoid a hardship.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, if you will just prepare a little brief right along that line, I am sure the visa officers of the department will help you, and I am sure the committee will be glad to have it.

Mr. PERLMAN. So far as the visa is concerned, I do not believe you want any citations of law. At any rate, I do not think Members of Congress, as a rule, want to be burdened with long legal decisions. When you make the laws, you understand the constitutionality. I am appealing to the justice of the proposition. I hope that these bills will pass so that there will be just a little more happiness in the homes of those who come to the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your testimony.

STATEMENT OF RABBI STEPHEN S. WISE

The CHAIRMAN. No session of Congress would be complete without your testimony. Will you state for the stenographer your name and address?

Rabbi WISE. Stephen S. Wise, rabbi of the Free Synagogue, honorary president of the American Jewish Congress.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, it would seem to me that we ought to make clear what perhaps, up to this moment, has not been made sufficiently clear, that none of us, as far as I know, appears to be willing to controvert or to challenge the principles which underlie the immigration policy of our country.

Whatever, Mr. Chairman, may have been our differences in the past-I mean our different viewpoints-the law reigns, and as lawful and loyal citizens of our country, we accept the new legislation. We accept its spirit, although we believe the time may come, or the time will come, when certain modifications of the letter of that policy may prove to be necessary.

The CHAIRMAN. We agree with you, but we do not get the side doors stopped.

Rabbi WISE. I, myself—perhaps because I do not enjoy the advantage of being a member of the bar and therefore learned in legal precedents do not assume that it is my business to point out to you what the decisions have been. I assume, as of course Mr. Kohler representing the American Jewish committee does, that you gentlemen, legislators of the United States, know the law; but I also feel that, after all, the Congress is a coordinate branch of the Government, and that you are not governed either by the executive, or by the judicial, but as a coordinate branch it is your business and your high perogative to frame policies within the framework of the Constitution, and under its law.

There are just a few things that I want to say about the bills that have been proposed, Mr. Chairman. First, I will take H. R. 5645. It has been said already, and I just want to make it perhaps a little more sharply clear than it has been made up to this time, there can be no question, and I think you all take it for granted, that while you are patiently hearing us, you are prepared in advance to assent to the restfullness of this proposal, namely, to admit into the United States all persons having duly authenticated passports issued prior to July 1, 1924.

Our Government assumed, as was said by Mr. Louis Marshall and others at earlier hearings before your honorable body, the moral obligation, Mr. Chairman, and I can not believe, excepting under the compulsion of an emergency arising, for example, out of the circumstances of war, any retroactive legislation can annul a moral obligation; particularly, Mr. Chairman, when that moral obligation is undertaken solemnly by this United States of America. We have virutally said to those immigrants who duly and lawfully hold a visa of admission, "We have changed our minds. We have modified the regulations. This document of yours has ceased to be valid," and I can not believe, Mr. Chairman, that you and your associates wish that state of affairs permanently to obtain; more particularly as, although the numbers do not touch the heart of the case, no more than 1,808 according to the chairman of the committee, nor more than 2,000 according to Congressman Dickstein's estimate, are in question.

The bill 5646, Mr. Chairman, does a very simple thing from the standpoint of those moralities that lie at the heart of our people, which is to provide that there shall be exemption, rather than a nominal but almost futile and nonexistent preference, for the father and mother of a citizen of the United States, as well as the husband of a citizen. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether any question can really be raised in regard to the rightfulness, the fitness, from the viewpoint of our own ethical ideals as a Nation, of admitting a father and mother of a citizen over 21, with the almost unethical implication that these people are elderly folks, and therefore are entitled to the support of their children?

Mr. Chairman, under the bill 6852, I need not reiterate the claims that have been urged on behalf of those persons dwelling in this country

Mr. GREEN. Will you let me return to H. R. 5648? Do you believe it is any more the duty of the Federal Government to permit these relatives to come in? In other words why, then, do you put the burden upon us to admit them, when their relatives have come to the United States and abandoned them and left them in a foreign land? I feel that they could not have abandoned their relatives if they had wanted to remain with them. Why should we now induce the Government to admit their relatives because they came here?

Rabbi WISE. If I may address myself, Mr. Chairman, to one of the members of the committee rather than the chairman, do you believe that the term "abandoned" is fairly used by you? The native who leaves a land of injustice and oppression in order to achieve opportunity and freedom for himself, in the ultimate hope of most of the immigrants to this country, of establishing a home

for his family, for his parents, can hardly be charged with abandonment. He goes before, but he does not abandon.

I know that my father, an immigrant to this country in 1874, never had a happy hour until it became possible for him to invite his mother, the wife of a great teacher in central Europe, to come to this country. He did not abandon his mother. He went before his mother, in the hope of establishing a home; and you will see, Mr. Representative, I am not trying to establish a legal case. I am saying that, in the main, for the country it were an act of high and wise mentality on the part of our Government to permit a citizen who has come before to send for his father and mother, a husband to send for his wife and a wife for her husband, in order that the domestic unity may be reestablished; in order that the family integer may be set up anew.

Mr. GREEN. I see the man's circumstances and I sympathize fully with the situation. It is commendable that they would undertake to guard themselves and that they would undertake to go to a place where they can share in the government. We commend that. On the other hand, I feel like we must consider the safety of those who are in America, and who are our direct charges.

Rabbi WISE. That goes without saying, Mr. Congressman, but you would hardly maintain that the security of this Government is threatened by the ageing or aged parents of an alien who has become a citizen of the United States.

Mr. TAYLOR. I think Doctor Wise should be permitted to make his statement, and then if any member of the committee wishes to ask him any questions, it will be all right.

Rabbi WISE. I think it will. When a man who is in a pulpit challenging the opinions of others it is nothing but right that he should himself on occasion be subject to cross-examination, to which the distinguished Member of the House of Representatives feels like putting me.

Mr. TAYLOR. We will have a cross-examination for you, Doctor, later on.

Rabbi WISE. Yes, sir. I am prepared therefor. My people are accustomed to cross-examinations. Under H. R. 6852, Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to say this: There is a group of nondeportable persons, nondeportable under the laws of the United States. Do you know what you have now touching these people? You have a group of persons in America who have no legal status. That is to say, their status is a status of statuslessness.

We declare to them, "You are statusless. You are undeportable, and at the same time you are nonadmissible to citizenship in the country," and I can not help making the observation that I wonder whether much of this legislation, after all, was not drawn under the impact of a certain degree of post-war psychosis, which psychosis I believe, Mr. Chairman, is leaving us, and I hope forever, and with the country facing a certain peril of establishing rigidly and permanently a caste of aliens without status in America. These are, Mr. Chairman, if I may say so, citizens without a country, and I wonder whether I may not ask a question of you and your associates of this committee, and it is this, Whether it is desirable or well, from the viewpoint of American traditions and ideals, to have a group of citizens in America, without a country, for the most part through