NO DIFFICULTY ENCOUNTERED This act allowed a total quota immigration of about 350,000 from the quota countries (which then were and still are limited practically to Europe), and under this act the consuls were given power to give preference within the quotas to relatives. Inasmuch as the quotas under that act for all countries were still quite large, no great difficulty was encountered by the near relatives in getting in; and it was only when the immigration act of 1924 reduced the total quota immigration to about 164,000, with small quotas for many countries, that any serious pressure on this score was encountered. To a great extent this pressure was gradually relieved by an important provision of the 1924 act itself, which permitted the entry of the wives and children of naturalized immigrants without quota restriction. In The opportunity offered by this exemption has been utilized extensively. the year ending June 30, 1926, the number of citizens' wives and children admitted outside of the quota was 11,154; in the next fiscal year it was 18,505; in the year ending June 30, 1928, it jumped to 25,761; and in the last fiscal year, ending June 30, 1929, it was no less than 30,313. This last figure included 1,046 husbands of women citizens, an amendment to the law in 1928 having given quota exemption to alien husbands previously married. One reason, doubtless, why this big opening in the quotas is now so largely used is that all immigrants arriving before 1924-when, as already pointed out, the first real pressure of near relatives occurred-have now had time to become naturalized. Large numbers having done so, their near relatives now come in without quota restriction. The figures already cited show that these relatives constitute a large and increasing addition to the total immigration. Some cases of fraudulent marriages to citizens for the sole purpose of entry have already occurred, and it is to be hoped that means will be found to check this evasion of law. THE JENKINS BILL The next great step facilitating the entry of the near relatives of immigrants was the bill introduced by Representative Thomas A. Jenkins of Ohio, which became law on May 29, 1928. By this act 50 per cent of all the quotas was set aside for the preferential entry of the wives and minor children of all immigrants naturalized or not who had been (or hereafter should be) legally admitted. Under these various provisions the law is now working well and accomplishing the reunion of immigrant families and there are few cases where the fireside relatives have to wait any considerable length of time before being allowed to enter. Many of the other relatives, of course, are able to get in under the quotas. To go further than this and let in all kinds of relatives outside the quotas, would be fatal to all restriction and would result finally in the entire breaking down of the immigration wall which Congress has erected. Nevertheless, the cry which was raised at the outset about “ separation of families" is still being heard and Congress must continue to show real firmness in resisting this appeal which is not due to any actual hardships in the law but is being used as a means of propaganda to break down the law by those whose real object is to increase the total immigration of their respective races or fellow nationals. It has also been raised by other interests opposed to restriction, even before the enactment of the first quota law. SITUATION BECAME GRAVE 66 Kenneth Roberts, in his interesting book, 'Why Europe Leaves Home," published in 1920, quotes the director of a large immigrant-carrying steamship line in Holland as saying: "With the numbers that are going now, our steamship line will be kept busy for years to come so that any new legislation will not affect us. Most of them, you know, have relatives in America and you can't stop the relatives." Organizations in the United States opposed to restriction seized upon the same idea that a sentimental appeal for the admission of relatives was the best means of defeating the new legislation. A circular letter issued by one of these organizations urged that some effort be made to work up individual cases of "separation of families" with a "human interest appeal" with a view to securing wide exemptions from the quotas. It was noticeable that many articles, evidently inspired by the same idea, appeared from time to time in the press and came to be known as "sob-stuff propaganda." It was always made to appear that the United States had separated the families, whereas in general, the fact was that the immigrants themselves had voluntarily taken the risk of separation when they emigrated from their home countries without bringing their families with them, well knowing it might be some time before all could come in under the quotas. MANY BILLS PRESENTED For the period of about seven years after the enactment of the quota act of 1921, Congress was literally bombarded with all kinds of bills for exemption from the quotas of all kinds of relatives of immigrants now here, and it looked at one time as though the immigration wall would be completely demolished by the adoption of some of the more serious of these proposals. The two bills introduced by Congressman Perlman and Senator Wadsworth of New York were defeated only after a long struggle on the part of the restrictionists forces. The first of these bills introduced would have admitted the alien relatives of immigrants outside the quotas to the extent of about 270,000, according to State Department estimates based on the reports of consuls. This bill was defeated as was likewise the modified Perlman-Wadsworth bill, although it put a limit of 35,000 upon the number to be admitted outside of the quotas. In the session of 1925-26 some 14 bills similar in many respects to the Perlman-Wadsworth bills were introduced in the House. Each of these bills would have admitted one or another class of aliens outside of the quotasthat is to say, without numerical limit. The relatives included a varying degree of relationship from wives and children to grandchildren, collaterals, fiancés, stepchildren, adopted children, and adopted parents. Among the Members of Congress who introduced these bills were Messrs. LaGuardia, O'Connell, Dickstein, Bloom, Jacobstein, Somers, Oliver of New York, Berger of Wisconsin, Mrs. Norton of New Jersey, and Messrs. Sabath, Doyle, and Kunz of Chicago. Again, however, these bills were defeated. During the next session of Congress, namely, the first session of the Seventieth Congress, 1927-28, many bills seeking further quota exemptions for relatives were defeated. The most ambitious of these was that introduced by Mr. McGregor, of New York, who proposed to turn over one-half of all the quotas for two years, that is to say, a total of 164,000 places to relatives of aliens already in the United States. Hearings were had on this bill and it was strongly supported by various racial and religious organizations. The bill, however, was rejected by the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. One principal reason appears to have been that there was no evidence that there still remained any considerable number of near relatives of aliens admitted prior to the act of 1924 who had not succeeded since that time in gaining admission either under the quota or under the quota exemptions granted to wives and children of United States citizens. The McGregor bill would have changed the entire character of our immigration, since it pooled all the national quotas together for the admission of relatives from all countries collectively, thus making possible and probable a great preponderance of the racial strains of the imigration from southern and eastern Europe which prior to the war constituted 80 per cent of our total immigration. M'GREGOR BILL REJECTED Congress, after giving careful consideration to the various proposals, tabled the McGregor bill and passed on May 29, 1928, the Jenkins Act already referred to giving preferences within the quotas to the near relatives of alien immigrants. A report issued in November, 1928, showed that during the first four months in which the Jenkins Act was in operation, 8,119 wives and children of aliens had gained admission under preferences granted by the act and in only three or four countries was the unsatisfied demand under these preferences in excess of 1,000. Even as to these couqntries, the indications are that the near relatives of aliens legally admitted prior to 1924 are reduced at the present time to a very small number; also that the remaining persons of this class, as well as the relatives of aliens legally admitted since 1924, are being taken care of with all the expedition which can be reasonably demanded in one of three ways: (1) Under the continuing Jenkins Act preferences. (2) Under the remainder of the regular quotas. (3) Under the quota exemptions for wives and children of United States citizens. In view of the legislation reviewed above, it would seem that the problem of the relatives has been satisfactorily solved by Congress after years of controversy and consideration. The provisions for the quota exemption or preferential treatment of the rear guards of immigrants have been far-reaching and liberal. To go further in this direction would certainly endanger all real restriction of immigration. A number of bills affecting the admission of relatives within or without the quotas are now before the Committee on Immigration of the House of Representatives. Restrictionists in and out of Congress should be on guard and should not let anything through which will further weaken our immigration laws. The CHAIRMAN. Who is the next witness? STATEMENT OF HUGH G. MITCHELL, MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, PATRIOTIC ORDER SONS OF AMERICA The CHAIRMAN. Just give your full name and the organization you represent. Mr. MITCHELL. Hugh G. Mitchell, member of the legislative committee. Patriotic Order Sons of America. The other members of the committee with me, representing the national organization, are Mr. H. H. Koontz, who is national president of the order; Mr. C. H. Paul, Altoona, Pa., a member of the committee; and Maj. Wade Phillips, chairman of the committee. The CHAIRMAN. And Maj. Wade Phillips is the head of that committee? Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And you speak for that committee? The CHAIRMAN. You represent what organization? The CHAIRMAN. You want to make a statement in connection with what is being presented here? Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed in your own way, then, to make your statement. Mr. MITCHELL. This organization is particularly interested, gentlemen, in more restrictive immigration measures, in the Western Hemisphere as well as Europe. We appreciate very strongly the attitude that Mr. Kinnicutt has outlined to you on this point. Our organization is very strongly against any immigration legislation that would tend to increase any quotas. We are in favor, primarily, of greater restrictions on immigration. We appreciate very keenly the situation that has arisen here by virtue of the activities of certain aliens, who are doing things that tend toward the destruction of our Government. And we feel that our Republic has reached the state where it is necessary to preserve even more than ever the fundamental principles that our Government is founded upon; that we should become more and more stringent in these laws that are passed by Congress for the admission of immigrants from foreign countries. Certain influences are at work in our country on the part of these immigrants and some of them are in North Carolina as I stated a while ago, and you gentlemen of this committee are very familiar with the outcropping of certain of such influences that have been introduced by immigrants in this country. We feel that these influences will tend, if we are not careful, by actual example, to disrupt the civic progress of our communities. They are tending to, in a way, to demonstrate their lack of respect for law and order and we feel that the one and most effective way of curbing this situation that has arisen is in more stringent immigration laws. We believe that our Republic will be best served in this respect by a close adherence to the laws that have been enacted, and by our further enactment of more stringent immigration laws. We think that any of these bills that have been suggested here, or that have been introduced at an earlier date, tend, in a way, to increase the quota and we feel that to be detrimental to the welfare of our country. Recently, in your own city, 400 of the leading manufacturers of the Nation, I am informed, met for the purpose of producing greater industrial activities in our Nation. We think that this information which in all probability will be disseminated throughout the neighboring countries in the Western Hemisphere, as well as in the European countries, will tend to increase the number of aliens seeking admission into our country. Therefore, we think that any bill that would tend towards greater immigration restriction is highly advisable at this time, and for that reason, we wish, as an organization, to support the stand of the Allied Patriotic Society, for which Mr. Kinnicutt has just spoken, and to express ourselves as being highly in favor of any legislation that would tend to increase immigration restriction. Mr. DICKSTEIN. Mr. Mitchell, has your organization had any of these bills before it for discussion? I am asking you whether your organization has had any of these bills up for discussion as to what they would be; or do you know anything about them? Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Congressman, my organization has deemed it unnecessary to discuss any bills that would tend to increase immigration quotas. Mr. DICKSTEIN. Have they looked at these bills, and can you tell me what each of these bills would and would not accomplish? Mr. MITCHELL. I have given them only a very brief examination, but I feel that the bills that have been presented here this morning would tend, in a certain measure, to increase the quotas. Mr. DICKSTEIN. You used the word "detrimental." Now, if an American girl, traveling abroad, met a young man, we will say, in Sweden, and married him, and wanted, we will say, to bring him in here, would that be detrimental to our country? Mr. MITCHELL. I think, as has been stated, that the American girl should first of all appreciate the immigration laws of her country. Mr. DICKSTEIN. American girls ought to appreciate the immigration laws of our country? Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir; she should appreciate them, and she should abide by them. Mr. DICKSTEIN. Suppose an American girl finds herself in this position: She goes into a foreign country, of the kind I have mentioned, and honestly falls in love with a man, such as she really could not find in her own country, and she wanted to marry and bring him here. In what respect would that deteriorate or vitiate the American Government or the American principles, as you have used the word? Mr. MITCHELL. Because, Mr. Congressman, if you grant such blanket authority, it might be dissipated to the extent of bringing undesirables into our country. Mr. DICKSTEIN. Why could not a male citizen, who has that privilege under existing laws, do the very same thing that you are talking about? Mr. MITCHELL. A man citizen is more susceptible to the influences that might be brought to bear upon him in carrying out such activities as that; more so than a woman. Mr. DICKSTEIN. Do you think that women are inferior to the men? Mr. MITCHELL. No; I do not think so. Mr. DICKSTEIN. I mean in bringing in a husband in connection with the immigration law. The CHAIRMAN. Some of these societies may have gotten their ideas, Mr. Dickstein, from the New York World, that carried on a Jong battle for years against American women marrying foreign men. Those were men with titles, of course, and that has all been brought into the question here. That was an obsession of the late Judge Raker. Mr. DICKSTEIN. Yes; I agree with some of our colleagues here that some of these girls do go down there now and marry these titled gentlemen. I am talking about the ordinary working girl, the girl who happens to go over there, falls into honorable love with a man, marries and wants to live with him, and marries him for the purpose of living with him and raising a family. In what respect would that vitiate our exalted principles or be a detriment to any community? That is what I am trying to learn from the gentleman. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Congressman, the right of franchise has not been exercised as long in our country by the female element as it has by the male. Mr. DICKSTEIN. Then you make a distinction because the male element has had the right of franchise longer; that is why we should not give the women this opportunity to bring their husbands here as men bring their wives here? Mr. MITCHELL. No; not at all. Mr. DICKSTEIN. What objection do you find, as representative of your organization, to women citizens bringing here their husbands? Mr. MITCHELL. Because the woman citizen of this country, in going abroad and living over there, should appreciate the fact that if she marries a citizen of an alien government that she, by the law of human custom, we might say, makes her home with the man. She takes that upon herself when she marries him. Mr. DICKSTEIN. Suppose that you came to the United States to live with us say that you came here from England on a visit and met an attractive American girl of which we have many, and fell in |