connection with the refusal of a consular officer abroad to grant nonimmigrant status to an applicant for a temporary visitor's passport visa :)

Hon. C. C. DILL,

United States Senate.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 18, 1929.

MY DEAR SENATOR DILL: I refer to your two personal calls at the department in the interests of Miss Helen Vanvankas, who is now in Vancouver and who wishes to enter the United States as a nonimmigrant to visit her parents. In accordance with the assurance given you when you were last in my office, I have given this case very careful consideration with a view to ascertaining whether there might be any way consistent with a proper and impartial administration of the immigration laws whereby Miss Vanvankas could be given the status of a nonimmigrant temporary visitor.

Before discussing the particular case in point, I might mention that after the passage of the immigration act of 1924 it soon became apparent that the restrictive features of that act could not be given full effect if aliens, who were prevented by quota restrictions from immigrating into the United States and who did not have fixed domiciles abroad, were to be permitted freely to proceed to this country as nonimmigrants.

As you of course recall, the act of May 19, 1921, first checked the flood of immigration into the United States. During the 12 months prior to its effective date 805,228 aliens were admitted to this country for permanent residence. The 1921 act established a quota of 357,803, and the immigration act of 1924 reduced this total to 164,667. These legal enactments have apparently had little effect upon the desire of aliens to come to this country, as evidenced by the fact that the estimated demand for quota visas on July 1, 1928, aggregates 1,738,627. It is significant that of this demand 1,211,925 is against the quotas of the countries of southern and eastern Europe, which total 20,447.

It is understandable from the above figures that there is a great pressure against the barrier of restrictive immigration. This pressure has manifested itself chiefly in an increasingly insistent demand from disappointed applicants for quota immigration visas for consideration as "aliens visiting the United States temporarily as tourists or temporarily for business or pleasure." Upon the basis of the demand figures, it is obvious that the number of potential temporary visitors is unlimited.

To cope with this situation and insure an effective enforcement of the restrictive features of the law, it was provided in the regulations issued jointly by the Departments of State and Labor under authority of section 24 of the immigration act of 1924 that “an alien visiting the United States temporarily as a tourist or temporarily for business or pleasure' shall be construed to mean an alien who, having a fixed domicile in some other country which he has no intention to abandon, comes to the United States to remain for a temporary period only."

In passing upon individual cases under the above provisions of the law and regulations issued thereunder, consular officers base their decisions upon a personal examination of the applicants and a careful consideration of all of the evidence presented in support of their applications. Evidence that an alien has close relatives, property, and other ties in his home country making certain his voluntary return thereto is material and would support his application for classification as a nonimmigrant. On the other hand, the absence of compelling ties abroad and the presence of close relatives and means of support in the United States give rise to the presumption that the applicant does not have a fixed domicile abroad which he does not intend to abandon and that he is not properly classified as a nonimmigrant under section 3 of the immigration act of 1924.

If such an alien has already abandoned his fixed domicile abroad or has declared it to be his intention to immigrate into the United States and is only applying for a visa as a temporary visitor because he is prevented by quota restrictions from immigrating, the above presumption is confirmed.

Although consular officers take into consideration the recommendations and assurances of responsible persons in the United States in deciding such cases, these are not sufficient in themselves to establish nonimmigrant status where the circumtances of the applicants for visas clearly show that they are

classified as immigrants under the provisions of the law and regulations just outlined.

As to the effect of offers to give bond in such cases, I may say that consular officers have no authority of law either to require or accept bond in connection with the issue of visas. The question of bond does not arise in the case of any alien until after he has established his status under the law, has received a visa appropriate to his case, and has come before the immigration authorities of the United States. In applying for a passport visa as a nonimmigrant, an alien must declare that he understands that a bond may be required of him. Willingness and ability to furnish such bond is therefore taken for granted and is not sufficient to rebut a presumption of immigrant status arising from the circumstances in the case.

As to the particular case of Miss Vanvankas, I understand that she is an unmarried girl of Greek birth whose parents now live in the State of Washington. It appears that she endeavored without success to obtain an immigration visa in Athens, and that she subsequently proceeded to Vancouver, Canada, where she has now been refused a passport visa as a nonimmigrant temporary visitor. From the information before me it is apparent that Miss Vanvankas has been unable to establish that she has close ties abroad indicative of a fixed domicile in a foreign country. On the contrary, it seems that her closest ties are in this country. These facts, coupled with her earlier endeavors to obtain an immigration visa and her subsequent abandonment of her home in Greece, would indicate that the action of the consul general at Vancouver in refusing to classify her as a nonimmigrant was in strict accord with the pertinent provisions of the law and regulations.

Inasmuch as adherence to the interpretation of section 3 of the immigration act of 1924, above set forth, is believed essential to an effective enforcement of the restrictive features of that act, and as Miss Vanvankas appears clearly not to be entitled to nonimmigrant status thereunder, I regret to say that there is nothing which I can consistently do to assist her to enter this country as a temporary visitor.

If as I now understand may be the case Miss Vanvankas is not yet 21 years old and her father is a citizen of the United States, she would be entitled to nonquota status under the provisions of section 4 (a) of the immigration act of 1924 upon the approval by the Department of Labor of a petition therefor. If, on the other hand, her father is not an American citizen but should complete his naturalization before his daughter becomes 21 years of age, he can establish nonquota status for her by filing in proper form the prescribed petition in duplicate with the Commissioner General of Immigration at Washington at any time prior to her twenty-first birthday.

As of interest to Mr. Vanvankas, in this connection I inclose an information sheet with respect to the filing of petitions together with a blank petition form in duplicate. I also inclose the letters which you left at the department upon the occasion of your first call with respect to this case.

I am, my dear Senator Dill,

Very sincerely yours,

FRANK B. KELLOGG.

The CHAIRMAN. The chairman and the committee members desire to thank the chairman of the House Naval Affairs Committee for the use of the committee room.

(Thereupon, at 1.30 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until 10 o'clock Tuesday.)

COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Tuesday, February 4, 1930.

The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Albert Johnson of Washington (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

To-day was set aside to hear witnesses in opposition to various bills upon which the committee held hearings a few days ago, and

while a number of witnesses are to be heard on putting the countries of this hemisphere upon a quota basis, I think we should devote the remainder of the morning to the others, inasmuch as they have been invited to be present. If there is no objection, we will so entitle this new hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. I have the following resolution:

[National Immigration Legislative Committee, 204 Albee Building, Washington, D. C.; Demerest Lloyd, chairman]

RESOLUTION

Whereas restriction of immigration has become the established policy of the United States of America; and

Whereas restrictions have already been imposed upon all countries of the Eastern Hemisphere but not as yet upon countries of the Western Hemisphere; and

Whereas immigration from these latter countries has shown a marked increase since the enactment of restriction upon European countries so that the total is again assuming alarming proportions; and

Whereas this large immigration is contributing to the serious unemployment problem in our country: Now therefore be it

Resolved by the National Legislative Committee at a meeting held January 24, 1930, that this committee as a whole go on record as approving legislative measures to limit and control incoming immigration from countries of the Western Hemisphere, particularly as it competes or conflicts with American labor; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to the House Immigration Committee, and also be referred to the individual organizations of this committee for further action.

Organizations represented.—Allied Patriotic Societies; American Legion; American Legion Auxiliary; American War Mothers; Daughters of America; Daughters of American Colonists; Daughters of 1812 of District of Columbia; Disabled American Veterans; Junior Order United American Mechanics; Keyman of America; Ladies of the Grand Army of the Republic; Military Order of the World War; National Civic Federation; National Society Daughters of the American Revolution; National Society Sons of the Revolution; National Society Dames of the Loyal Legion; National Patriotic Council; National Sojourners; Reserve Officers' Association of the United States; United States Air Force Association; United Spanish War Veterans' Auxiliary; Washington Chapter Officers of the World War.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Why not have some of these patriotic societies come down here and tell us about these matters instead of having them send resolutions. These resolutions are simply wasted paper. These people who send them should come here and give us some constructive reason why they oppose the uniting of a son with his mother. I honestly believe, Mr. Chairman, that half of these organizations, whose names you have read, do not understand or know anything about the proposed legislation at all. They are simply a body or a handful of men that send out these letters, and they would have appear to us Members of Congress that they are really acquainted with the subject about which they try to talk.

it

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand, this hearing to-day was set to hear representatives of these organizations and to those opposed. Mr. DICKSTEIN. I wish I had known something about this proposed hearing beforehand. Unluckily, I got here only this morning, and I did not know that you proposed to hear these people to-day.

Mr. Box. This matter was mentioned some time ago in open committee, and certainly the chairman can not be blamed for doing as he is doing now.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. I was not advised that opposition had been made, and that they would be here against these bills. However, I do not object to opposition, because I think it is useful in proportion to the

accuracy.

STATEMENT OF FRANK B. STEELE, SECRETARY GENERAL SONS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

The CHAIRMAN. Give your name and address to the reporter, please.

Mr. STEELE. Frank B. Steele, secretary general Sons of the American Revolution.

The CHAIRMAN. You speak as the representative of that organization?

Mr. STEELE. I represent the Sons of the American Revolution, also the Immigration Restriction League legislative committee.

The CHAIRMAN. And the Sons of the American Revolution is an organization consisting of what?

Mr. STEELE. About 25,000 members, scattered throughout the United States in every State in the Union. I also happen to represent the Immigration Restriction League legislative committee. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. STEELE. My statement will be very short. I simply want to say, speaking for the Sons of the American Revolution, we originally worked, as Mr. Johnson knows

Mr. DICKSTEIN (interposing). Just take your time. You are talking so fast we can not understand you. I am perfectly willing to listen to you, because I am anxious to hear what you say.

Mr. STEELE. I will say it very slowly.

From back in 1924 our society, the Sons of the American Revolution, as Mr. Johnson knows, worked with the committee on the immigration bill that was passed in 1924.

We have in our legislative committee and in our immigration committee we have always felt that the so-called Johnson bill, or the 1924 act, was one of the finest and best pieces of legislation that was ever passed by the United States Congress.

The far-reaching effect of that bill certainly has been most effective on the future of this country. So, therefore, we have constantly stood against any attacks, and I say in using the word "attacks" I want to include attacks or any changes in that bill, except the possibility to extend its provisions in some ways that would make it stronger as to the restriction of immigration, if possible.

I, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I was not present during the hearings in favor of these bills of Mr. Dickstein. I have those bills here, and I have not looked over them very carefully. I am not prepared to go into details on this.

Mr. Kinnicutt will do that. He knows more about that situation than I do.

There is one provision that I am particularly interested in, and some of your gentlemen were here about a year ago when we had the question up of the last bill which was considered here I spoke before this committee and gave my views then.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. What do you really know about that bill?
Mr. STEELE. That is the bill.

is

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the one that you have suggested, that bill

Mr. STEELE (interposing). No. 6852.

The CHAIRMAN (continuing). That is the bill bringing the nunc pro tunc provisions up to July, 1924.

Mr. STEELE. I spoke against that bill a little over a year ago, as you recollect, and we had quite a discussion here.

Our position as to that is that that bill-that the electorate in America is as high, considering everything, and as good as probably any country in the world-but that bill would allow men to come in indirectly and become citizens of the United States who have come in, most of them-we will not say all of them—but a portion of them, a part of them, a large part of them, have come in in some way or other that was not legal.

We do not think it is a good plan that these men should become entirely citizens in America having come into the country originally illegally.

That is our standpoint, and we feel that that is one of the things that we are opposed to very definitely.

The other bills, as I said before the other bills, I have not looked into very carefully, but casually glanced over them-but as I said at the beginning, we object

Mr. DICKSTEIN (interposing). Do you object to all of these bills? Mr. STEELE. We object to all of these bills; yes. I might just add one thing.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. I think you might as well say, in short, that you are objecting to all of them.

Mr. STEELE. I want to add just one thing that I heard Mr. Dickstein say in relation to the question of relatives, and in that matter I am speaking personally, I think I might say. The relatives come in here; the men come here originally from other parts of the world, from other countries, and the man is entitled to bring his family. He is here, and there is a tremendous sentiment along that line. We all have a tremendously strong sentiment along that line for our families.

But it seems to me that they are coming here for their betterment and that for their own interests, and then when they get in here they want to bring in their relatives. That is a perfectly natural thing. But yet the situation arises here in our own country. I might say, in a personal way, I have a son who is in the engineering business. He is going to San Francisco. I may never see him again. I may see him and I may not. He is going out there for business reasons. We may meet again. That is a matter of senti

ment, and it is a matter that is perfectly natural.

I do not think that they present very strong reasons for bringing their people over here or for breaking into this country over the quota.

I do not have anything further that I care to say, unless you have some questions.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. I have quite a few questions, because I earnestly desire, if possible, to clear up some of this confusing smoke. I would like to get this clear in my mind. I understand you to say that your organizations, or all enumerated in this exhibit which the chairman has placed in the record, are opposed to all of these bills?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.