I appeal to you gentlemen in the name of those American traditions of fairness, of fair play, of Americanization, which is our common task, to make it possible for these immigrants who have been separated from their families to bring their immediate relatives here, so that they, too, may renew their faith in the American Government and American traditions. Humanize the quota law and you facilitate the Americanization of the stranger in our midst. STATEMENT OF S. KENT COSTIKYAN, PRESIDENT OF KENTCOSTIKYAN (INC.), NEW YORK CITY

Mr. COSTIKYAN. I did not come to appear before this Committee, but I had the pleasure of spending a few minutes with Secretary Davis, who is an old friend of mine, and discussed this subject. He suggested that I might appear here and say a few words. There happens to be a case before me which just briefly explains how this

works out.

A woman, an Armenian, who happened to be the widow of my brother, was in Constantinople, left by her husband very well off, with plenty of property and two sons, graduates of Roberts College. She had to leave Constantinople during the war, to escape. Her property has been entirely confiscated by the Government, because of that. They had to go to Bulgaria. Citizens of Turkey became citizens of no country. One of the sons came over here. I helped him to establish himself. The other one went to Union Theological Seminary to prepare himself for the ministry. His mother was here, all of them were here. Six months passed, we renewed her bond; six months passed again and we renewed it again, and eighteen months passed. The authorities are willing again to give her another extension. Here she is without a country. She can not go back to Turkey to get her quota status. She can not go to Bulgaria, because they are too poor to receive any body, and while the spirit of our laws is that it unquestionably means for a person like that should be brought to this country, where her son is a citizen of this country. A technical operation of the law. I am told this by the best lawyers in New York-requires that she must go back to that country and stay there and get her son's privilege used in that way. What is the result? The woman is in good health. She is not interfering with our labor conditions. She is independent here, has relatives here. She is well where she is. Secretary Davis said that "you have a good example to bring before the committee."

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Who is this you are talking about? Is it your sister?

Mr. COSTIKYAN. My elder brother's widow.

I agree with my friend over here that it is the duty of your committee not only to take care of your consicences but also your good judgment-your head, and it occurs to me that the very objections which our friend has brought out could be overcome by establishing a law whereby those who are entitled to come to this country could come by merely putting a safeguarding clause whereby the Secretary of Labor or any one else who may be placed in charge can, in such cases where there are no objections, remove the restrictions. There may be objectionable cases. But where there are no objectionable reasons, let the children bring in parents that are not likely to become a care on the community. But let us open the

gates, with safeguards where, except under stress of conditions, the door is left open but not promiscuously so that anybody can come in.

It may be very interesting to say just one thing. I happened to be before the committee in regard to this tariff problem and that question came up of bringing in a lot of undesirable goods to this country in competition with our goods. I made a suggestion: Let's put in a duty, leave out the ad valorem tax, but ship out all undesirable goods brought to this country that are in competition with our goods of our country. What was the result? We took the manufacturers into conference, whereby they agreed that the tariff rate should be 50 cents a square foot but not less than 45 cents. We put in a safeguard there of a 45 cents per square foot minimum that could be brought here. So I believe you gentlemen are wise not to put some provision in there that the door can be closed against the desirable aliens. But when it comes to a national policy, let us not put in something that would keep out those who should be let in.

Mr. GREEN. I take it you are in favor of restricted immigration? Mr. COSTIKYAN. I am in favor of restricted immigration, but I am not in favor of taking anything which looks like injustice and unfairness and which the spirit of our laws are not intended to allow. I maintain the spirit of our laws is not injustice, but the immigration law is so framed that a great many cases are quite unjust.

Mr. GREEN. You are in favor of the immigration laws except this one which affects admission of relatives?

Mr. COSTIKYAN. I have not given any study to other problems in the other bills. I was just bringing this one where it affects nearby relatives of father or mother.

Mr. GREEN. Then, as a national policy, would you or not favor restricted immigration?

Mr. COSTIKYAN. I believe in restricted immigration by all means. That is one of our means of salvation. If we do not do that we will be lost.

STATEMENT OF MISS EMME MAAK, NEW YORK CITY

Miss MAAK. I was called "Mr. Maak," a while ago. I am sorry, but I chastise God all my life that I am not a man. I wish I were a man. But this morning I am not going to be here pleading for men, as the first woman speaker this morning was accused of pleading for the men. I am pleading this morning to you gentlemen on behalf of the future generations of American citizens. I claim that the woman should have equal rights with the men when it comes to selecting the father of her children. You gentlemen certainly want to produce a country governed and run by men and women of sound bodies and healthy minds and if the women are not allowed to select where they can, where they happen to be, the man who is going to be the father of their children, then I claim it still goes back to what was referred to this morning as a "marriage of convenience." I represent and bring a plea pleading to you gentlemen on behalf of 50 clubs of which I am a member in New York City and Albany, and I am also a member of the Woman's Club of Paris and the Woman's Clubs of London. I have lived abroad for a number of

As

years, and I can speak from both sides of this great ocean. Miss Sire said there are not enough men to go around. I don't agree with her. I think there are enough to go around, but they do not go around enough. [Laughter.] And, as a consequence, we women must go around. Now, we go around all over America. You do not look at us, and we happen to go abroad and we live there a few years and we find a wonderful man over there, well educated— no, not as well educated as you men, of course—and we marry and bring him over here.

Now, you gentlemen and ladies all have studied medicine. What kind of child or American citizen can a woman produce if you take her husband away from her and send him back? She is longing for his companionship. What kind of child can she bring into the world? She is a good American citizen? She has means. She has health. She has been reared to believe she must help populate the United States-our land of liberty. What kind of children can she bring up? And if her husband goes back to remain indefinitely, can she bring children at all under the laws of our government?

I hope that gentlemen on my left will not ask me about our quota laws. I think they are like the hives, the quicker you get rid of them the better it will be.

I claim if a woman wants to bring a husband over here into the United States, that is a good husband, it is wholly her affair and under the laws of the United States let him become a citizen.

I thank you.

Mrs. SALLY THOMAS, representing the Women's National Democratic Club (Inc.) of the State of New Jersey was present and asked to be registered as indorsing the several bills under consideration.

Mr. ISADORE HIRSCHFIELD, representing the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, was given permission, upon request, to file a memorandum in behalf of the several bills under consideration by the committee. STATEMENT BY HON. W. W. HUSBAND, SECOND ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. HUSBAND. It is not my purpose to discuss the bills at any great length but simply to call atention, if I may, to the attitude of the Department of Labor toward some of the measures that have been proposed.

The bill H. R. 5645: It is my understanding that this bill proposes to accord a nonquota status to holders of visas issued under the immigration act of 1921, who were unable to embark for the United States before July 1, 1924, when the present quota law went into effect. It is understood that the holders of such visas have been given a priority in the issuance of nonpreference quota immigrant visas under act of 1924, and a good many of them have come to the United States within the past five years. The department is not advised as to the number still waiting for immigration visas. I do not recall that the department has ever made a recommendation either for or against relief legislation in these cases. I may say that we look upon the proposal as a matter of policy, something for Congress to determine, rather than an administrative question. The proposal presents no administrative difficulties so far as the Department of Labor is concerned.

The bill H. R. 5646: This bill proposes to extend a nonquota status to fathers and mothers of United States citizens, and to the husbands of United States citizens regardless of the date of marriage. The present quota law accords a nonquota status to such husbands in cases where marriage occurred prior to June 1, 1928.

I may say that the department has never understood why that particular limitation was enacted into law, nor why there should be any discrimination between the husbands of United States citizens and the wives of United States citizens so far as their quota status is concerned. Husbands of citizens by marriage occurring on or after June 1, 1928 are entitled to preference in the issuance of quota immigration visas but not exemption from quota requirements. Fathers and mothers of United States citizens are also accorded preference in the issuance of quota immigration visas which preference they share on equal terms with husbands of citizens by recent marriages, and also with persons skilled in agriculture in the case of nationalities having a quota of 300 or more.

Mr. John F. Simmons, chief of the visa office, inserted a table in the committee's record of January 21, which shows that there is now a waiting list of over 21,000 relatives of United States citizens in whose behalf a preference in the issuance of quota immigration visas has been authorized, as the law provides. All of these are the fathers or mothers or husbands of United States citizens and all would become nonquota immigrants under the terms of this bill. The Secretary of Labor has been and still is inclined to favor this proposed legislation. In the course of a year a considerable number of appealing cases come to the department's attention, the most appealing being those of elderly widowed mothers who are waiting for their quota numbers to be reached in order that they may join a son or daughter, and in some instances several children, who emigrated to the United States a good many years ago and have become citizens. Usually the children in the United States are the sole or chief support of these waiting mothers. Perhaps it would be unwise to give a nonquota status to all fathers and mothers, regardless of age or other conditions. I am sure that all of us who have to do with the administration of the law are of the opinion that such status ought to be granted to the widowed mother of citizens and also to parents generally after they have reached a given age.

1

Mr. Box. We will probably be able to find out how many there are in these different classes of immigrants.

Mr. HUSBAND. We know that about 22,000 who are now waiting for nonquota visas would become quota immigrants under the proposed law.

Mr. Box. I would like to have some one to put these figures in the record here.

Mr. HUSBAND. Mr. Simmons's statement gives the number. I am not able at the moment to estimate how many there might be in the future. I will insert in the record, if you wish, the number of preference petitions that have been approved by the Department of Labor during the past year. That might afford some indication of the extent to which the number of non-quota immigrants would be increased if the bill becomes a law.

The records of the Bureau of Immigration show that during the fiscal year 1929, 9,200 petitions were approved for preference

in the issuance of quota-immigration visas to relatives of United States citizens. The number of persons involved was 11,600, which number was distributed as follows: mothers, 6,820, fathers, 4,500, husbands, 340.

The bill H. R. 5647: The act of March 4, 1929, provides that an alien who has been arrested and deported, either before or after that date, shall be excluded from admission into the United States. An amendment to that act, adopted June 24, 1929, provides that an alien deported prior to March 4, may be given permission to apply for entry into the United States if, prior to March 4, the Secretary had given such alien permission to reapply. The Secretary of Labor, Mr. Davis, had recommended that the department be authorized to grant permission to reapply to any alien whose deportation occurred before March 4, but the act of June 24 limits that authority to cases in which such permission had already been granted at the time the act passed.

The amendment of June 24, has made it possible to keep faith with a number of persons who were deported, or who departed voluntarily in pursuance of an order of deportation, prior to March 4, and who had already been granted permission to reapply when they could do so in a legal manner. It may be explained that in most of these cases deportation had occurred for violation of the quota law of 1921 and in such cases the person concerned was free to apply for entry at any time without permission. Therefore, the Secretary's permission was only a friendly gesture.

On the other hand, aliens deported for violation of the general immigration act of 1917 were not eligible to reapply within one year following deportation, except with permission of the Secretary of Labor. Secretary Davis still feels he should have authority to permit aliens who were deported prior to March 4 for violation of the quota laws to apply for legal admission, and he so recommended in his last annual report.

The bill under consideration, however, appears to provide that such permission may be granted regardless of when deportation occurred, but the department believes that such authority might well be limited to cases arising prior to the passage of the act of March 4, 1929.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. At this time let us clear this thing up a little bit. The Department of Labor makes four recommendations. The Department of Labor or the Commissioner General of Immigration supports four bills out of five bills on this calendar?

Mr. HUSBAND. I have not checked with the recommendations of the commissioner general, but I believe that is true.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. I will give you in brief in just a moment the specific bills you approve. You approve the bill in favor of fathers and mothers of citizens of the United States or husbands of American citizens.

Mr. HUSBAND. We approve, without qualification, the bill to grant husbands of citizens the same privilege that is granted to wives of citizens.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. And you also approve the bills exempting from the quota the fathers and mothers of American citizens, providing, however, in your recommendation that the age is over 60, if I am correct?