love with her, and she fell in love with you, and you were married; why should you not be permitted to stay here with your own wife? Mr. MITCHELL. For this reason, that when a woman loves a man so much as to take that man for her husband, she should be greatly enough in love with him to live with him where he resides. Mr. DICKSTEIN. In other words, she should abandon her rights of suffrage and her customs and the country of her birth, and move to England to live with the man she marries. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Congressman, she should take those things into consideration. That is the existing law of the country, and she should carefully weigh those things, and if she does not love the man enough to do that, then she could put off marrying him until he had the privilege of becoming an American citizen. Mr. DICKSTEIN. You know, under the present law, a man can bring in his wife and as many lawful minor children as he has; you know that. Mr. MITCHELL. All right. Mr. DICKSTEIN. That is all right, is it? Mr. MITCHELL. A man can bring in a wife and as many minor children as he has. Mr. DICKSTEIN. That is all right, is it? Mr. MITCHELL. Yes. Mr. DICKSTEIN. Suppose Congress should not have passed that law. Mr. MITCHELL. What did you say? Mr. DICKSTEIN. Suppose Congress, in its discretion, should make the man amenable to that law. Mr. MITCHELL. I think any man who is married and who has a family that is reared in another country, if he is married and rears a family over there, and comes back to this country, his situation, I think, is entirely different. I think he has a right to resume his citizenship here. Mr. DICKSTEIN. But you claim the woman is not entitled to that? Mr. MITCHELL, I feel, as I say, that it is a question of law. The law covers that before she takes unto herself a foreign husband. This is the situation, Mr. Congressman, that when a woman marries a man you could not expect, and it is not the custom for her to support him. She makes her home with him. Mr. DICKSTEIN. I do not know about that, of recent years. Mr. MITCHELL. I think that has been the custom since the beginning of civilization. Mr. DICKSTEIN. Do you know anything about the legal separate estates, and separate properties? Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Congressman, I think if you will reflect back over history you may agree with me that the male of the species has always provided the home. Mr. DICKSTEIN. I see. The CHAIRMAN. You can go clear back to the Old Testament for that. Mr. MITCHELL. Yes. Mr. DICKSTEIN. Surely, you can go right back to Adam and Eve. The CHAIRMAN. Exactly. Mr. DICKSTEIN. The only thing is that Adam only had one leaf and one tree then. The CHAIRMAN. It is the female of the species who says, "Where thou goest, I will go. Thy people shall be my people." Mr. DICKSTEIN. And, that was bologna then, and it is bologna now. Now, let us go back to the fathers and mothers and make some observations as to that. Let us suppose that your mother was living in some foreign country, and you were here, and as a son you were capable of providing for her, and taking care of her, could do everything for her, she would not have to work, and you wanted to bring your mother in. Do you think that we ought to keep the American citizens, the son, who is a citizen of America, from bringing his mother here? Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Congressman, I will answer that question in this way: If I came over here knowing such a condition to exist Mr. DICKSTEIN (interposing). Suppose you came over here and did not know it. Suppose you came over here and remained 10 or 15 years, and you had been a veteran of the World War, and you had contributed materially, both economically to your State and financially to your country? What then? Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir. Mr. DICKSTEIN. You had been a good, respectable citizen. Mr. DICKSTEIN. You have a mother over on the other side. Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir. Mr. DICKSTEIN. You want to bring her here. Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir. Mr. DICKSTEIN. And Congress tells you that you can not bring her in for the next 50 years. Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir. Mr. DICKSTEIN. Do you think it would be detrimental to this country to change that? Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Congressman, if I were as good a citizen as you have outlined, I would certainly and willingly live up to the Letter of the law. Mr. DICKSTEIN. You would live up to the letter of the law? Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir. Mr. Box. You meant to say that your organizations were on principle opposed to anything that would increase the quota ? Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir. Mr. DICKSTEIN. As I understand, you are opposed to uniting the father and mother of an American citizen, in exemption of a quota? Mr. MITCHELL. If it calls for the violation of the United States immigration laws. Mr. DICKSTEIN. What calls for a violation of United States immigration law? There is no violation of the immigration law in this. They have a preference. Tell me this: Are you not opposed to uniting the father and mother of an American citizen in exemption of a quota? Mr. MITCHELL. I am if it in any way violates the immigration laws. Mr. DICKSTEIN. You keep saying that. Now I ask you to tell me what law it violates. Mr. MITCHELL. You gave an illustration. Mr. DICKSTEIN. If Congress passes this law, it will not be a violation, and if it does not pass it, it will not be a violation. Mr. MITCHELL. We do not feel that it should pass it. Mr. DICKSTEIN. There is no violation of law. You do not believe they should come in under exemption at all, whether it takes 50 years or 110 years? Mr. MITCHELL. They should come in only under the quota. Mr. DICKSTEIN. If it should take 110 years, you would want them to stay there until that time is reached? Mr. MITCHELL. An immigrant coming here should thoroughly appreciate the laws governing immigration and be governed by them. Our country has reached the point where Mr. DICKSTEIN (interposing). Let us not discuss that now. Mr. MITCHELL. I will answer the question if you will allow me to proceed. Mr. DICKSTEIN. But you are opposed to allowing a mother and father of an American citizen to enter the United States outside of the quota? Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir; I am. Mr. DICKSTEIN. Whether it takes 10 years or 110 years to bring them in under the quota? Mr. MITCHELL. We deeply sympathize with the individual, isolated case, but we realize that the best interests of the citizenship of America will be served by enforcing stringently our immigration laws, even though a few may have to suffer for the benefit of the whole. Mr. DICKSTEIN. Tell me this: Were you in the service during the 'late war? Mr. MITCHELL. No, sir; I was too young to enter the military service. Mr. DICKSTEIN. Do you know that they took men from all walks of life, citizens of the United States Turks, Poles, Russians, Rumanians, Englishmen who made up our defense? Mr. MITCHELL. I feel that any citizen of this great republic, regardless of whence he came, who was living in this country at the time the war broke out, owed a duty of allegiance to this Government, and he should have been willing to fight for that Government. Mr. DICKSTEIN. But you do not think that Congress should recognize that by giving him the right to bring in his mother and father? Mr. MITCHELL. The administration of our immigration laws should not be allowed to jeopardize the future stability of our Government. In conclusion, I will say that we are heartily in favor of the immigration bills introduced for a more restrictive immigration into the United States from the Western Hemisphere as well as immigration from European countries, and we feel, further, that unless our Government takes drastic action with respect to the curbing of the influx of aliens, many of whom are of an undesirable character and who disseminate dangerous doctrines to the citizenship of our country, we will suffer much social and industrial disturbance by their actions, as well as to allow them to endanger the fundamentals of our Government. Our organization during the past six or eight years at each national convention, as well as at various State conventions, has gone on record by resolution as strongly indorsing all measures favoring the rigid enforcement of restrictive immigration laws. Expressions from our membership throughout the Republic have been of a concern with reference to the large number of aliens being admitted into the United States. They have urgently stressed the need of joining in a nation-wide action through the organization for a concerted drive toward more firmly portraying to the American public the dangers of aliens who are constantly seeking admission to our shores. I do not believe I have anything further to say. The CHAIRMAN. I desire to insert at this point the petition from the New York State delegation. We, the undersigned Members of the House of Representatives of the State of New York, do hereby indorse the bills introduced by our colleague, Samuel Dickstein, with reference to changes in our immigration laws, being bills H. R. 5645, H. R. 5646, H. R. 5647, H. R. 6852 and H. R. 7703, since the bills in question placing immigration on a humane basis, will be instrumental in bringing families together and relieve cases of extreme hardship, due to the present immigration policy of this country. In doing so, we do not intend in any manner to change the policy of Congress, with reference to the quota law, which has become a basic and fundamental principle of our present immigration policy, but we wish to emphasize the humane character of the Dickstein bills and the fact that they will relieve intolerable conditions of hardship. ANNING S. PRALL. J. M. FITZPATRICK. EMANUEL CELLER. CHRISTOPHER D. SULLIVAN. D. J. O'CONNELL. PATRICK J. CARLEY. JOHN J. BOYLAN. GEORGE W. LINDSAY. JOHN F. QUAYLE. THOS. H. CULLEN. ANDREW L. SOMERS. LORING M. BLACK. WILLIAM J. SIROVICH. The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much for your interesting statement. Inasmuch as it is more than 1 o'clock, the committee will now adjourn to meet Thursday next, at 10 o'clock a. m. (Thereupon, at 1.15 o'clock p. m., Tuesday, February 4, 1930, the committee adjourned to meet at 10 o'clock a. m., Thursday, February 6.) |