has been arrested and deported to return. The Blease Act makes it a penal offense for a man arrested and deported, not merely excluded, but arrested and deported to come back. Under this bill there is no felony if the deported alien waits one year before returning.

Mr. FREE. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Kinnicutt. Has it not been interpreted and as to even those persons deported voluntarily after there has been an order of deportation, that they could enter again?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. There are two different classes. The first is where the man deports himself voluntarily, offers to do that, rather than to go to his home country, and the second is where he is sent out. The Government then is saving the expense, but for all intents and purposes it is a deportation.

Now then there is still another differentiation, you see. That man who is a debarred man, who surreptitiously enters and is really deported, and the man who is given an opportunity to deport himself.

Now, without going over the details, I understand that there are some letters and other literature here for the record and other material for our consideration when we go into executive session to consider that.

Mr. KINNICUT. Yes. As to H. R. 5647, I just want to call your attention to the language of this bill, because it is perfectly plain what is really going to be done. It just takes the heart out of the first part. The act says that if any alien has been arrested and deported in pursuance of law he may not be eligible again to seek admission to the United States until the expiration of one year from the date of such deportation.

In other words, the whole penalty is removed after the man waits a year.

The present act is a permanent law, and makes it a felony to enter the country where a man has been arrested and deported.

Now, with this amendment, he can do this after waiting a year. He would probably wait a year anyhow. He would not have the nerve to come back within the next six months. In other words he can come back without penalty if he waits a year, Mr. Chairman.

Well, we all recollect how that was adopted. There were several more elaborate deportation bills which failed of passage. A short deportation bill was passed which is good as far as it goes.

Let us keep this as we have it. That is the position of our society. I will hurry on to the next bill, H. R. 5648.

Do I understand that this bill has been abandoned, Mr. Dickstein, this 5648, family quota?

Mr. DICKSTEIN. There have been no hearings asked on that; no hearings demanded.

The CHAIRMAN. We did not have any hearings on that. I know why.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Well, tell us why. Now, you are inclined to talk. Give us all you know. I would not deprive you of one word.

The CHAIRMAN. Which one of the bills is this that you refer to? Mr. DICKSTEIN. I do not know.

Mr. KINNICUTT. The family quota bill.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not care to have that gone into now; you do not care to have us hear anything on that.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. I have not asked for any hearings on that, nor have I asked to be heard on it, nor have I presented anything on it, but if the distinguished gentleman from the patriotic society wants to tell us something about it, I will listen to it.

The CHAIRMAN. We will pass that. We can take that up some other day.

Mr. KINNICUTT. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to say anything on that at all. But the proponents of these bills asserted that they were not opposed to our restriction of immigration in general but simply desired to cure certain alleged defects in the law. Now, this bill would absolutely destroy the quota law. And there is not a word said about it.

I just want to say a word or two, but I shall not go into any argument. It would take all of the members of the family out of the quota, all of those immigrants would become nonquota, so that the present total immigration would be multiplied by the average size of the family (say by six)-that is, the wife and children—and give us a quota admission of 900,000 instead of 150,000.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee may some day find time to undertake to establish a unit with regard to the principle of quota administration.

Mr. KINNICUTT. That would be a different prosopition, Mr. Chairman. But it is pretty nearly that at present. The wife, husband, and children are already admitted either under preferences or outside of the quotas.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we are treating this for the future.

Mr. KINNICUTT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. KINNICUTT. And the next one is H. R. 6852.

Mr. Steele has pretty well covered that. That extends the date beyond which the illegal entrant-immigrant-is enabled to obtain. certificate of entry by changing it from 1921 to 1924. We hope that that will be left the way it is now. Now, we have an amendment to the bill passed last year by which a certain number were legalized, and the present bill would enormously increase that number. The Patriotic Society (Inc.) has passed a resolution with reference to amending the bill that was passed so as to confine it to entrants who had not intentionally violated the law. I would like to put that resolution in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The resolution is as follows:)

Resolution of Allied Patriotic Societies adopted at meeting of April 3, 1929; reaffirmed at meeting of October 9, 1929:

Resolved, That we recommend

(1) Retention of the immigration act of 1924, including the fundamental national origins provision for apportioning the immigration according to the present composition of the American people, both native and foreign born.

(2) Extension of quota restrictions to Mexico, the West Indies, and countries of Central and South America without invalidating the provision of the present law excluding as permanent immigrants persons not eligible to United States citizenship.

(3) The enactment of a law requiring the registration of all aliens in the United States.

1

(4) Adequate appropriations by Congress for the maintenance and extension of the border patrol and for the deportation of all deportable aliens as well as the strengthening of the law as to the deportation of criminal and defective aliens.

(5) The repeal or strict amendment of the Vincent-Copeland bill, passed at the last session as Public Law No. 962, granting certificates of entry to aliens who have unlawfully entered the country and enabling such aliens to become citizens.

(6) Making the act of 1924 applicable to inhabitants of the Philippine Islands not eligible to United States citizenship, as proposed in a bill introduced by Congressman Albert Johnson at the second session of the Seventieth Congress.

Mr. KINNICUTT. Now, there is a good argument against this whole proposition, it is really twofold. In the first place, we do not think that the kind of immigrant who illegally enters the country, as his first act, is the kind we want as a citizen. Now, the great bulk of these illegal entrants came in after the first quota law of 1921. According to official estimates, at least 250,000 entered illegally between 1921 and 1924. This estimate was made in a report of the Department of Labor about 1925 or 1926, and was based on the number of aliens who had been refused permits to go abroad, because of the fact that they could not prove legal entry.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, should not someone else put those things in the record?

The CHAIRMAN. I thought that he was giving them now.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. He said something about a statistical department, or the Labor Department, and the record that gives the figures. Do you have those figures?

Mr. KINNICUTT. Yes; Mr. Congressman.

The CHAIRMAN. Put them in the record?

Mr. KINNICUTT. I was merely stating the official report the Department of Labor made. That is an estimate.

Mr. Box. You will find them here in the hearings of January 12, 1926. That is when it was stated definitely to this committee. Mr. KINNICUTT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Those figures have been corrected since they were put in. But, the figures have been changed, because they have gotten some statistical information in connection with the act to permit those who could qualify, those who came here prior to June 3, 1921, qualified and they have brought forth some additional statistics. Mr. KINNICUTT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. As to the other class, that is, the part from June 3, 1921, and July 1, 1924, of that, we have more accurate figures that have come up a little later.

Mr. KINNICUTT. I have not been able to obtain the figures as to how many have availed themselves of that last year's act; that is, who entered before 1921. It will be very interesting to know that, Mr. Chairman, and I hope those figures will be forthcoming, certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is a slow process.

Mr. KINNICUTT. But, we all know the great volume of illegal entrants was after 1921, and not before. Since 1921 we have had the numerical restrictions. Compared to the illegal entries after 1921, the illegal entries before 1921 were only a drop in the bucket. We all know that after the numerical restrictions were put on there was tremendous pressure. They were entering illegally any way they could, after 1921, and even after 1924, because the quota got somewhat tighter.

The CHAIRMAN. That was due to the provision in the law with regard to the 1921 act.

Mr. KINNICUTT. Well, a great many of these immigrants were doing anything they could to get in. They were getting in one way or the other. And, if they could not get in, and can not get in to-day, from abroad, they come to Canada or Cuba, and at that time the law was not so tight, as you remember, in Canada and Cuba. Since then it has been somewhat tightened. The immigrants previously found an easy way into the United States, by coming in through Canada, over the border, or from the West Indies. That has been to some extent corrected now.

Am I correct in saying that they came in that way?

Mr. Box. You are correct. We saw it at that time, even under the temporary act of 1921. We extended the time required of the European to stay in Canada or Mexico before he could get into the United States over the time that was provided in the act of 1921, before we passed the act of 1924.

Mr. KINNICUTT. I do not doubt but that has been responsible for a good deal of it. These men were doing anything that they could to get into the country, and they came to Canada and Cuba, and took their chances on getting in. Now, just one word more on that. No law is any good unless it can be administered. Now, the great trouble-one of the great troubles-Mr. Chairman, I think you are agreed with the principle one of the great troubles of this law is with regard to these illegal entrants.

Now, I can not conceive of any better way of encouraging illegal entries than to hold out the promise of full citizenship to the man who comes in illegally.

This goes much beyond the matter of deportation. The argument that they are not deported after a substantial period, of course, is just a matter of public policy, as they probably have children by that time, and it would involve a great hardship; but at the same time to give them full rights of citizenship, to give that to a man who has absolutely defied our laws to start with, and put him on the same basis as a legally entered immigrant, who has gone through all of the red tape, proved that he was free from 27 different disqualifications, which this man has had to prove, the man who is an illegal entrant is bad. We think that it is bad in every way, and it is not right to put the illegal entrant on exactly the same basis as the man who has legally come into the country.

What I want to say is, we feel if you want to encourage illegal entry, there is no better way of doing it than passing this act.

It

Now, H. R. 7703 makes it easier to evade the law. It allows any man who did not have nonquota status when he entered, but who acquired it later in one way or another, to stay right on in the country. It makes it much easier for men to evade the law. is a well known fact that the department has more trouble with these visitors than with any other class of nonimmigrants. That is, those who come here and are supposed to go back, but do not go back. A great many of them do not go back, and the Government has to deport them at a great expense to the country.

Now, if that class desires to evade the law, a very simple thing to do is to get married. And we are putting a premium on fraudulent marriage. That is one feature of this thing that has to be given

consideration. Now there has been a good deal of that going on. I juset want to read one sentence from page 23, of the annual report of 1929, of the commissioner general. He speaks of the very large number of marriages of students supposed to be here temporarily. Now, that comes under this provision make it easier for them to stay here permanently. He says:

There has been a decided increase in the number of marriages on the part of students (especially women) to American citizens. In this connection, the following table is not without significance when it is remembered that marriage to a United States citizen carries with it special preference in the issuance of quota visas not accorded in general to other aliens. Over 61 per cent of such marriages were contracted by the nationals of four countries, the quotas of which are heavily obligated for many years to come.

The suggestion here is that marriage was used as a way to evade the quota. But, if we are going to facilitate this matrimonial agency by the United States Government, why we are going to make another great big hole in the immigration law.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you do not think that the United States Government should operate the divorce courts and the marriage bureaus also.

Mr. KINNICUTT. That is about what it would be, Mr. Congressman. We have had similar entrances such as referred to in the case of the Austrian woman.

And we remember the picture-bride incident as regards the Japanese immigration.

The tendency to resort to fraud would apply as to those visa holders before 1924. The pressure is so great that fraud is resorted to all along the line. Two million people, according to a recent statement of the State Department, are trying to get in at the present moment, and the pressure is something enormous.

The chairman referred the other day to this case of the woman who claimed to be a United States citizen and who married 18 Austrians. We have any number of examples of fraud. We have cases of marriage, in order that they may be admitted into the United States.

Mr. GREEN. Out of the 2,000,000, how many would you say were husbands of American citizens?

Mr. KINNICUTT. Well, I think very few, very few. That stands to reason, because that situation is very abnormal, the case of a woman coming in as an immigrant first and leaving her husband behind. That is unnatural. There is something phoney about it right away. It can happen. There are cases, of course.

Now, I believe Congress was very wise in stopping the admission of aliens as a result of this type of marriage. And where a husband has really married an alien who is a United States woman citizen before these quota laws, there is a very good reason for granting an exception in administering the act for those couples previously married. I mean, you might say, they had a pretty good claim.

The CHAIRMAN. If the committee should decide to report a bill and arrange, as far as possible, for the family unit, we can then take care of the husband.

Mr. KINNICUTT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. If we reduced it or if we enlarged the number to take care of the countries with very small quotas. Then, for the others, to require the quota to be for the whole families, coming immediately or within a year, we could clean up all of these cases