Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. No. It is left to the discretion of the Secretary to determine culpability. It is not mandatory.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your statement, Mr. Shaughnessy. Is that all?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes.

STATEMENT OF CARLETON H. PALMER, CHAIRMAN OF THE ELLIS ISLAND COMMITTEE OF CITIZENS DESIGNATED BY THE SECRETARY OF LABOR

The CHAIRMAN. We will next hear Mr. Palmer, representing the Ellis Island Committee. Please state for the record your full name, Mr. Palmer.

Mr. PALMER. My name is Carleton H. Palmer. I am chairman of the Ellis Island Committee, appointed by the Secretary of Labor, to study immigration problems.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. I am going to heed your admonition to be brief, and especially so, as we have a good many of the Ellis Island Committee present, who would like, I know, to describe to you from personal knowledge the work done by this committee.

Mr. DIES. May I suggest this if it is not out of place. We have had a discussion of the bill now, and I think the committee understands what the bill proposes to do. I just want to suggest that he confine himself to the merits of the measure.

The CHAIRMAN. Let him proceed in his own way. proceed in your own way, Mr. Palmer.

You may

Mr. PALMER. In order to facilitate the work, I have had a comparison made of the proposed bills and the recommendations of the committee, which I would like to offer here to be included in the record, but I will not read it unless the committee specially wants me to do so.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well; that course will be adopted.

(The paper referred to by Carleton H. Palmer, chairman, Ellis Island Committee is as follows:)

To the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the House of Representatives:

As chairman of a group of citizens invited by the Secretary of Labor to study immigration problems I have been forcibly impressed with the necessity for changes which would make possible a more rational enforcement of our immigration policy. The group, as a committee, has made a number of recommendations which have been submitted to the Secretary of Labor. A study of H. R. 9518, 9364, 9365, 9366, and 9367 has shown that many of the needs which resulted in our recommendations made have been recognized by the authors of this legislation. However, in my opinion-and I am speaking for the group as a whole--a number of our specific recommendations should be added to any comprehensive program of corrective legislation. I desire to point out in what respect the proposed legislation fails to meet what appears to us to be the requirements of a just and equitable solution of a problem which vitally affects the lives and homes not only of desirable aliens, but also of their American dependents.

DEPORTATION OF ALIENS

H. R. 9518 is a step in the right direction in humanizing the present inflexible immigration law. The committee is of the view, however, that the proposed bill does not go far enough. While approving the bill in its entirety, the committee recommends that the following provisions be added:

Hearings before quasi-judicial officers.-That hearings in exclusion and deportation cases be held before quasi-judicial officers selected by the Secretary of Labor who shall perform no other duties, shall be subject to removal only for cause, and whose determinations shall be final except upon review by a board of review similarly constituted and appointed sitting in Washington.

Upon sound principle the committee believes that administrative officials or tribunals exercising quasi-judicial power in determination of questions of law and of fact upon which individual rights depend, should render their decisions quite independent of the views and policies of superiors. This principle is ignored in the administrative determination of questions of exclusion and deportation.

Returning residents.-That a temporary absence from the United States of an alien who has been legally admitted to the United States shall not be held to constitute an entry within the meaning of the deportation provisions of the immigration law, provided such alien is readmitted on presentation of a reentry permit or a nonquota immigration visa or is otherwise readmitted as a returning resident alien, and provided further that this provision shall not apply to persons subject to deportation for crime after reentry.

Under existing law, which is not affected by H. R. 9678, the reentry of an alien is his last entry for deportation purposes. As an illustration of hardship occurring from this situation: An alien who has been legally admitted to the United States and who, within 5 years of that entry, returns from a few minutes' visit to Canada, may be deported if, during his previous stay in the United States, he has been convicted of petty theft, regardless of whether or not he was sentenced upon conviction and irrespective of the family ties he may have in this country. This notwithstanding the fact that if he had remained in the United States he could not be deported unless he had been sentenced to serve 1 year or more. None of the provisions in the proposed bill, giving the Secretary discretionary authority to waive deportation, would protect such an alien against the injustice of deportation.

Limitation on deportations.-That no alien be liable to deportation for entering the United States illegally except within five years after entry, and that no alien be liable to deportation for remaining illegally in the United States, except within five years after his stay becomes illegal.

Illegal entry or illegal residence after entry are not offenses which can be classified as immoral in themselves. Deportation without time limit seems too harsh a penalty for an act which is not inherently wrong.

While under section 5 (a) 2 of H. R. 9518 discretionary power is vested in the Secretary of Labor to waive deportation in the case of aliens who have resided in the United States for more than 10 years, it is the belief of the committee that the limitation on deportation should be set by law as recommended.

Right of political belief.-That no alien is to be deported for mere belief in any of the doctrines prescribed by the various immigration or deportation acts.

In view of the fact that the United States has always stood for the principle of freedom of conscience and belief, there would seem no reason why an alien should not be entitled to the same freedom of belief which is accorded. other persons in the community.

REGISTRY OF ALIENS

H. R. 9364 meets with the approval of the committee with the following exceptions:

Nondeportable aliens.-The bill, as it applies to this class of aliens, would permit registry after a residence of 10 years. We have recommended a 5-year limitation on deportations. If both the bill and this recommendation are put into effect, it would result in nondeportable aliens being left in the country for 5 years without the opportunity of correcting their illegal status by registry.. Aliens without nationality.-The bill also would extend the privilege of registry to aliens without nationality. It is stipulated, however, that this privilege is to be given only in the discretion of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization. While it is a small point, we believe that for aliens of this class no discretionary limitation should apply.

Political, racial and religious refugees.-A third group of aliens who would be permitted to register under the terms of H. R. 9364 is composed of political, racial, and religious refugees who have lived here for 5 years. It would appear more equitable to reduce the required period of residence from 5 to 2 years..

ADMISSION OF ALIENS

We are in accord with the provisions of H. R. 9365, but are of the opinion that the clauses in the existing immigration laws relating to the admission of aliens should be supplemented by the following provisions:

Admission of spouse of citizen, notwithstanding commission of crime.—That an alien who is the wife or husband of a citizen of the United States shall not be excluded from admission to the United States because he or she has been convicted of or admits having committed a crime involving moral turpitude, provided such crime was not committed during the 5 years immediately preceding entry, and provided further that such alien is otherwise a person of good moral character.

The present immigration law mandatorily excludes any alien who has committed a crime involving moral turpitude. Such a crime may have been committed while the alien was a minor and be all but forgotten. Where it is shown that, except for the commission of such an offense, an alien applicant is a person of good moral character, the committee is of the opinion that the privilege of admission to the United States should not be denied.

Spouse and minor children not to be excluded as public charges.-That in order to unite families, the clause "likely to become a public charge" in section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1917 providing that certain classes of aliens shall be excluded from admission to the United States, be amended to read "persons likely to become a public charge except that no person otherwise admissible shall be excluded on this ground who seeks to join husband or wife in the United States and that no minor otherwise admissible shall be excluded on this ground who seeks to join father or mother in the United States, provided in all such cases bond or bonds conditioned upon the immigrant not becoming a public charge within 5 years after entry may be required in such amount, not less than $500, as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe.

Under existing law, the Secretary of Labor has discretionary authority to admit aliens of the class defined. It is believed that that discretionary authority should be removed and that, as of right, the alien should be permitted to enter upon the filing of a bond to assure that he will not become a public charge.

Appeal from consular decision.-That there be added to the immigration law a provision that the right of appeal from the decision of a consul refusing an immigration visa to any alien in whose behalf a petition for a nonquota or preference quota visa has been approved, or who claims to be entitled to preference by reason of relationship to an alien resident of the United States shall be accorded to such resident alien, to any citizen of the United States entitled to file a petition for such alien, or to any person legally resident in the United States upon whom such alien is dependent for support, and that such appeal shall be made to a board sitting in Washington.

The present law gives the consul sole authority to decide whether an immigration visa shall be issued. There is no provision for review by a superior officer after a visa is denied. In a matter so vitally concerning human rights it is believed that such an appeal should lie, as a matter of right, not in favor of the alien applying for a visa but in favor of his relatives in this country, and that the State Department or some other tribunal should have definite legal authority for reversing the decision of a consul when necessary.

Insanity prior to entry. That aliens with the history of more than one attack of insanity be mandatorily excluded, as at present, but that aliens with the history of one attack of insanity shall not be mandatorily excluded but shall be informed on obtaining their papers from the American consulate that their case will be reviewed and finally decided upon by the medical board at the port of entry; and that any case of doubtful neuropsychiatric diagnosis be notified before embarking that the final disposal of his or her case will rest on the decision of the medical board of the United States Public Health Service at port of entry.

It is for the purpose of introducing into the present procedure a greater degree of elasticity in the certification of insanity that this recommendation has been made. Once an alien is certified as insane, he is, under the present law, mandatorily excluded. Insanity cannot be defined either medically or socially in exact terms. There are obviously different kinds and degrees. Certain mental states to which the term insanity might be loosely applied are of a temporary nature and do not affect permanently the effectiveness of the individual. The recommendation would introduce into the present procedure

the possibility of adding to the judgment of the doctors abroad the opinion of United States Public Health surgeons stationed at a port of entry in those cases in which, in fairness to the alien, the opinion of more than one physician seems desirable.

Reclassifying students.-That inasmuch as aliens admitted temporarily as students are not immigrants, paragraph (e) of section 4 of the Immigration Act of 1924, defining who may be admitted as students, be omitted from section 4, defining nonquota immigrants, and be added as clause (7) to section 3, defining aliens who are not immigrants.

Students are classified by the act of 1924 as nonquota immigrants. As a matter of fact they are not of the immigrant class; they seek admission for a temporary period only. Logically, as a group, they fall within the class of nonimmigrants and the mechanical change of the statute so as to bring them within the proper classification is desirable.

Illiterate returning residents.—That the exemption from the operation of the illiteracy provision as set forth in section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1917, reading "All aliens who have been lawfully admitted to the United States and who have resided therein continuously for 5 years and who return to the United States within 6 months from the date of their departure therefrom ", be changed to read: "All aliens who have been lawfully admitted to the United States and are returning to a lawful domicile following a temporary absence."

Since the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, alien residents of the United States are permitted to obtain reentry permits to facilitate their return after a temporary visit abroad. The permits are valid for 1 year and may be extended for a greater period of time. Notwithstanding the possession of a reentry permit, an illiterate alien who remains abroad for a period in excess of 6 months is denied readmission. In view of the restrictive provisions of the act of 1924, the clause barring illiterate returning residents is of little importance in the scheme of restrictive immigration. We are of the view that the length of time spent abroad by illiterate returning residents should have no bearing on their admissibility because of illiteracy.

Readmission after 5 years domicile of certain deportable classes.-That the following proviso be added to section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1917; Provided that no alien returning after a temporary absence to an unrelinquished United States domicile of 5 consecutive years shall be excluded from admission to the United States by reason of any fact or condition existing at the time he left the United States for which he was not then liable to deportation. There is no provision in the present law or in the proposed bill which would permit the readmission of an alien who has had less than 7 and more than 5 years of domicile in the United States and who is found to be subject to exclusion because of some disease or injury acquired or contracted in this country for which he could not have been deported so long as he remained in the United States. It is believed that this recommended exception to the excluded classes should be made.

Criminal proceedings.-That an alien entering the United States illegally for the first time shall not be held guilty of a misdemeanor.

Since the act of March 4, 1929, illegal entry has been classified as misde-meanor punishable by imprisonment of not more than 1 year or by a fine of $1,000. Many of the aliens who enter illegally do so through ignorance of law or because of youth and recklessness. It is our view that the provision in question is too harsh for the aliens who generally are subject to its provisions. That there be added to our immigration and naturalization laws a section which provides in effect that whoever solicits, requests, demands, charges, collects, or receives, or agrees to receive, from any alien or from any person or organization acting on behalf of, or in the interest of, any alien, any fee or moneys or any other thing of value, upon the representation that such person can or will procure any action by any official or employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service affecting the immigration or naturalization status of such alien, shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, provided, however, that this section shall have no application to assistance honestly given by welfare agencies or to legal advice honestly given with respect to the rights of any alien or the enforcement or assertion of such rights.

Exploitation of aliens is particularly common in matters concerning deportation and naturalization. Under the present law no action can be taken against many types of exploiters who prey upon aliens. It is for the purpose

of giving to the Immigration and Naturalization Service the authority and right to prosecute such persons that the recommendation set forth above has been made.

In closing this statement I wish to reemphasize, (1) that there is urgent need for immediate congressional action to make possible a more just and humane administration of our policy of restrictive immigration; (2) that the proposed bills go far toward a solution of the problem, and (3) that the supplemental legislation herein recommended must have a place in any complete program designed to meet adequately the imperative present needs found to exist by our committee in our careful study of the situation.

Mr. PALMER. The present bills cover only in part the recommendations of the Ellis Island Committee. The committee has prepared other recommendations. They have been arrived at after an impartial study by a representative group of citizens, having in mind the best interests of the United States, as well as the welfare of the immigrant.

Among the most important of these other recommendations are the following:

First. Establishing a quasi-judicial procedure and a quasi-judicial board of review, to pass on all questions of deportation.

Second. Establishing in the Immigration and Naturalization Service a bureau of information and immigrant aid, to promote the assimilation and citizenship of the 6,000,000 aliens in this country who are not citizens.

Third. Establishing a statute of limitations for deportation for illegal entry, permitting such aliens who, over a period of years in this country, have proved themselves persons of good moral character and desirable citizens, to legalize their status and become naturalized.

Fourth. Excepting from our deportation law the alien brought here as a child, who has lived here long enough to be considered a product of American conditions.

Fifth. Redefining what constitutes "last entry in deportation cases, in order to prevent frequent injustice.

Sixth. Seeking to unite families by modifying the provision as to "aliens likely to become a public charge ", and providing for a review of the consular certificates in cases of American citizens or residents.

Our report is not intended to increase immigration, but is intended to develop into efficient conduct one of our most important Government agencies.

I think that states in brief our opinion.

Mr. DIES. There are a great many of your recommendations not found in any of these five bills?

Mr. PALMER. Yes, sir. And here [indicating paper] you will find a complete analysis. That is what I have gotten this document up for, to give a complete analysis of them.

The CHAIRMAN. And you are not a paid agent, or anything of that kind?

Mr. PALMER. No, sir. I am the president of E. Squibbs & Sons drug chemical house.

The CHAIRMAN. And you have volunteered your services, with others, in order to study these immigration problems and conditions which have been referred to by Mr. Shaughnessy?

Mr. PALMER. That is correct.