a person of good moral character and that deportation would result in extreme and/or extraordinary hardship or in such alien's permanent separation from an American-citizen wife, husband, child, or parent, he may in his discretion suspend execution of the order or warrant of deportation. As to each such suspended order or warrant of deportation, the Secretary of Labor shall on the date December 31 next following, report the facts to the Congress together with his recommendation in respect of the ultimate disposition appropriately to be made of the particular case, which recommendation shall be carried out as a final order in the matter unless Congress, within 6 months after the submission of such report and recommendation, shall by act or resolution otherwise direct. If the final order in the case of any such alien is a cancelation or recission of the order and warrant of deportation, the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization may accept any headtax theretofore due and unpaid, may amend nunc pro tunc, the entry record of the alien so as to establish lawful admission for permanent residence, and may issue, upon receipt of the fee therefore required by law, a certificate of arrival. The promulgation by the Secretary of Labor or regulations appropriate or necessary to the administration of this act is hereby authorized. Such a bill will provide relief for every case that was submitted to this committee in the course of these hearings. It confers some discretionary power but leaves ultimate disposition with the Congress. It preserves the mandatory features of the law. It disposes of the question of registry in all such cases and would be a safe and sane provision under which to operate in the future. Such a bill, if implemented with additional legislation dealing with deportations of undesirable offenders, would achieve every purpose and still preserve a restrictive policy which is so necessary at this time in view of continued wide-spread unemployment. The CHAIRMAN. Are your through, Mr. MacCormack? Mr. MACCORMACK. I have one short statement to make, and then I am through. The recommendations of the Ellis Island committee and of the technicians of the Immigration and Naturalization Service have not been inspired by mawkish sentimentality, but by a desire to provide for a better and more effective enforcement of the immigration laws. The solutions suggested are such as calculated to bring these statutes into consonance with our American ideals of justice. The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Commissioner, I want to take this opportunity at the conclusion of this enlightenment which you have given us, first to thank the Ellis Island committee for its exhaustive study of this human problem which has been confronting the American people and which has been very troublesome to our internal life and existence. I think that they have rendered a fair, honest, and careful study, unbiased, and unprejudiced. I think that they have rendered a great service to the American people. And on behalf of the committee, I want to thank them sincerely as Americans. I want to thank you, Mr. Commissioner MacCormack, for the very enlightened and very intelligent presentation of the views of the Department and the observations which you have given this committee, which I hope this committee will take under advisement when this matter will shortly be considered. I want to call attention to and thank Mrs. Cohut, whom I am advised has done a great service, aided in the enlightenment which has been given this committee. Mr. MACCORMACK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will say that before I came to Washington I had been told that I might as well run the gauntlet as to go before a congressional committee, but I have had no such experience in any of my appearances. The CHAIRMAN. We are very grateful to everybody, and we will consider this hearing closed. (The committee thereupon adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.) (Statements received for filing in printed record follow :) THOMAS F. MULHOLLAND (See p. 59) (Filed as supplemental to his testimony before the House Immigration Committee on May 8, relative to H. R. 9518, H. R. 9365, and H. R. 9364.) I will appreciate having included in the record an official statement submitted to this committee February 18, 1927, by the National Catholic Welfare Conference on this important subject of preserving the unity of the family. The statement reads as follows: "The National Catholic Welfare Conference has waited with anxiety for some action by Congress which would effect a solution of the great problem that has existed in the United States since the immigration restriction laws became effective the forced separation of alien families. This problem of the reunion of families is one of great moral import and one in which all Americans are deeply interested. "A measure which would effect a solution of this moral problem-the reestablishment of the family-could be readily enacted without violating or weakening the general policy of restrictive immigration, the numbers involved being comparatively small. The measures proposed to this end, we learned with regret, were rejected by the Immigration Committee of the United States House of Representatives. The measure substituted by that body does nothing in a practical way to solve this pressing and important problem. Indeed, it is the more deplorable that the phraseology of the House committee resolution gives to the uninformed reader the impression that concessions are made that will facilitate the reunion of these separated families. "We respectfully urge once more upon you, as a member of this committee, that you give your interest and support to a measure that will practically aid in the reuniting of the separated families of those aliens who came to the United States at a time when they had reason to believe that their wives and children would follow them within a short period. Above all else, to the families of declarants-wife, husband, and minor children—the legal opportunity to reunite should be extended at once. "We will be grateful for your careful consideration of this matter." APPENDIX SUBMITTED BY JUDGE LEARNED HAND (See p. 68) Hon. SAM DICKSTEIN, JUDGE LEARNED HAND'S CHAMBERS. Chairman of House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. DEAR MR. DICKSTEIN: In conformity with your request I am writing the substance of what I said on Tuesday as to the amendment of section 19 of the Immigration Act of 1917, proposed by House bill 9363, introduced April 26, 1934. What I am especially interested in is the protection against deportation of aliens admitted at 10 years of age or less, and some conditional protection for those admitted between 11 and 16. Except in the case of L. P. C. cases there is no statute of limitations anywhere in the bill that I can find. It is true that section 5 (a) gives the Secretary power to dispense with deportation, provided the alien be a person of good moral character, have not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, and have not engaged in "subversive political agitation"; but if one turns to section 2 it appears that of the 12 subdivisions stating the grounds for deportation, only 3-numbers 1, 7, and 12— can fall within section 5 (a). There might be cases under subdivision 4 in which good moral character could be proved, but not many. Subdivision 10 could never apply, because the Secretary would not dispense with deportation in cases where deportation depended on his decision to deport. The result is that in cases where the alien is a person of bad character, has been convicted of a morally shameful crime, or is politically "subversive -a most elastic phrase at best-no length of residence will protect him. This seems to me to result in extreme severity and to presuppose a social irresponsibility which is dishonorable to the American people. Speaking broadly, alien children become deportable only for conduct occurring after they are 16 years of age; that will not be absolutely true, but it must cover the enormous preponderance of cases. If they have been brought here below the age of 11 and have been reared indiscriminately with the native born, they are ordinarily indistinguishable from them; at least it would be quite unwarranted to ascribe their criminal or immoral propensities to their foreign birthplace. They are as much mistakes of our own conditions as those who have been born here of the same stocks and environment; having admitted them before they could choose and while they were perfectly malleable to their surroundings, we are in honor bound to accept responsibility for them. We cannot ship the native born elsewhere, we must deal with them; I submit that we ought not to disown their alien fellows because of the immaterial accident of birth. Deportation in such cases is an excessively harsh punishment, which in most cases is practically certain to effect their destruction so far as that has not already come to pass. Their formative years have been passed here; this is their home, ours are the only associations they know, the only habits to which they are used; generally ours is the only tongue they can speak. To set them down in a foreign country is to banish them quite as effectively as it would banish any of us; they have by hypothesis already proved themselves unfit, we finish their ruin by putting them where it would be extremely difficult for even the best to adjust themselves. I append a list of decisions in which the second circuit has commented upon the unfairness of the present law. Therefore, if I could have my way, I would prevent the deportation of anyone admitted at the age of 10 or less. As I have said, this would, speaking generally, not cover anyone who had not been here for 6 formative years; that is, 90006-34-No. 73-2-2--14 205 between 10 and 16; on the average it would cover those who had been here from 5 to 16. I should also like to see this prohibition extended to those who entered between 11 and 16, provided they had been here for 5 years; this by analogy with section 5 (a) (4) of the proposed bill. This would still leave open harsh possibilities, e. g., the deportation of a child of 16, but that is inevitable if you proceed by general rule; such cases the Secretary could control if his discretion is preserved in the bill. My argument for this is the same as above, though possibly it is not so strong; the higher the age, the less the injustice. If these suggestions were found acceptable, they could be put into effect by an amendment to the first sentence only of section 5 (a, so that it should read as follows: "The Secretary of Labor is authorized to order by warrant the deportation of aliens found by him to be subject to deportation under this or any other act, except aliens who were at the time of their admission at the age of 10 years or less, or those who, being between the ages of 11 and 16 at admission, have lived here continuously for 5 years." Subdivision 4 of section 5 (a) would then be dropped as redundant. As no alien can be deported except on warrant this would absolutely prevent the deportation of such aliens. If this should seem too radical, but it was nevertheless thought well to modify the severity of the present law by confiding to the Secretary a discretion, this could be accomplished by amending the second sentence only of section 5 (a) so as to read as follows: "He may, in his discretion, allow an otherwise deportable alien to remain in the United States, if at the time of his entry he was 10 years of age or less, or if he entered between the ages of 11 and 16 and has lived here continuously for a period of not less than 5 years; or in case he falls within neither of the 2 classes just mentioned, but is of good moral character, and has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, and has not engaged in subversive political agitation or conduct and if he"". Again subdivision 4 would be omitted. May I take this occasion to thank you for granting me a hearing on a matter which, as I have said, I have long had at heart? Respectfully yours, MAY 10, 1934. LEARNED HAND. CASES IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT DISCUSSING THIS QUESTION SUBMITTED BY READ LEWIS (See p. 79) FOREIGN LANGUAGE INFORMATION SERVICE, INC., New York City, May 11, 1934. DEAR MR. DICKSTEIN: In connection with my testimony on Tuesday, May 8, before your committee on Immigration and Naturalization, you asked me to send you a memorandum of the amendments which I proposed to the bills under discussion. I take pleasure in enclosing such a memorandum. Sincerely yours, Mr. SAMUEL DICKSTEIN, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. READ LEWIS, Director. AMENDMENTS TO H. R. 9518, H. R. 9364, AND H. R. 9366 URGED BY MR. READ LEWIS IN CONNECTION WITH THE HEARINGS ON THESE BILLS MAY 8, 9, 10, 1934 H. R. 9518.-1. Insert the words "knowing the character of the place" after 66 managed or " in section 2 (a) (4) on page 2, line 15. The language of the bill as it stands is broad enough to cover an alien who has worked only a few days at a dance hall or place of amusement frequented by prostitutes, and who obtained such employment in entire ignorance of the character of the place. 2. Insert the word "knowingly" before "assisted" in section 2 (a) (5), page 2, line 18. 66 3. Insert the words involving moral turpitude" after "two or more crimes and strike out the words "do not involve moral turpitude and" in section 2 (a) (10), page 3, lines 14 and 16. The language of the bill is so broad that it would cover not only felonies and misdemeanors, but might even extend to traffic violations and other local violations declared by ordinances to constitute misdemeanors. To give the Secretary of Labor discretion to deport and to place an alien in jeopardy of deportation, for acts which do not involve moral turpitude or wrongdoing in the ordinary sense is dangerous and unjust. Deportation should not be possible unless the alien has been guilty of offenses involving moral turpitude. 66 4. Strike out the words "at any time" in section 2 (c), page 4, line 18, and in their place insert the words "within 5 years after entry." The present law limits to within 5 years after entry the deportation of any alien who at the time of entry was a member of one or more of the classes excluded by law" and "any alien who shall have entered or who shall be found in the United States in violation of this act, or in violation of any other law of the United States." There is no justification for increasing the stringency of the present law as applied to the above classes. Occasionally an alien applies and in entire good faith is admitted to the United States who, it is later discovered, was at the time of entry tubercular, or suffering from some other excludable disease. Under the proposed bill, such an alien may be deported at any time, although he was thoroughly examined by doctors of the United States Public Health Service before admission. Such deportation would be unfair and unjust. Paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6) have to do with illegal entry. For practically every crime except willful murder there is a statute of limitations of 5 years or less. Certainly for an offense which is not a wrong in itself a person ought not to be placed in perpetual jeopardy. Every legal means and resource 207 |