RPT. 2405
Part

FURTHER RESTRICTING FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS IMMIGRATION INTO THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 28, 1931.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. DICKSTEIN, from the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, submitted the following

MINORITY VIEWS

[To accompany H. J. Res. 473]

This measure is a substitute for House Joint Resolution 439. The latter was introduced by Congressman Johnson of Washington, originally as a companion bill to Senate Joint Resolution 207, introduced by Senator Reed, of Pennsylvania, for the avowed purpose of merely reducing "the number of newcomers into the United States who come here for the purpose of seeking employment" (73 Congressional Record 42), and even that was unnecessary for that purpose, and contained some objectionable and oppressive provisions having no bearing on this alleged purpose.

FALLACIOUS ATTITUDE OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT

In consequence of some casual remarks by the Secretary of State made December 18 before the Senate Committee on Immigration, printed in Senate Hearings on Senate Joint Resolution 207, entitled "Suspension for Two Years of General Immigration into the United States" (pp. 67-87), an entirely different bill is now being substituted by the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of this House, containing almost incredibly oppressive provisions in no way relevant to this fundamental purpose of remedying the unemployment situation.

Secretary Stimson called attention to the enormous curtailment of immigration which his department had recently effected under subsisting laws by refusing visas on the ground of likelihood to become public charges, in view of unemployment conditions, to wit, for October, 1930, to 22 per cent of quotas of immigration of all classes, and to 13 per cent of quotas, considering only the nonpreference classes,

and for November, 1930, to 15 per cent and 7 per cent, respectively. The figures for Mexico and Canada show a similar reduction. He called attention, however, to the fact that the immigration from eastern and southern Europe is made up almost entirely of near relatives of residents, unlike that from northern and western Europe, so that a complete stoppage of emigration would practically stop all immigration from northern and western Europe, while it would not seriously interfere with that from southern and eastern Europe. The result of a temporary prohibition of all general immigration would be to reverse the ratios for these countries underlying the national origins system, which Congress finally enacted as permanent legislation, and this reversal of ratios would be even greater under the so-called Johnson bill as amended (H. J. Res. 439). This apparent discrimination against one group of countries, the Secretary thought, might cause resentment and international friction. (Idem, p. 78.) Accordingly, instead of stopping all general immigration, he recommended a reduction of all quotas to 10 per cent, with a minimum of 100 retained.

The main point of Secretary Stimson's plea was that, instead of cutting off all general immigration, it should be reduced to 10 per cent of subsisting quotas, with the administrative rejection of persons likely to become public charges, in view of present unemployment conditions, reducing these maxima still more. The question of exemption of near relatives of residents was purely incidental. Secretary Stimson erroneously assumed, however, that this difference as to "family relationship" between the so-called Nordics and nonNordics was due to the fact that the former (unlike the latter), commonly brought their families with them in the first instance. He overlooked the undeniable fact that the non-Nordic immigration has been so heavy during the past few decades antedating quota laws (though relatively small, when national origins are considered), that the non-Nordics from the countries of southern and eastern Europe, with their small quotas under the national origins plan, have been unable to bring very appreciable numbers of near relatives over thus far, and the preference accorded to their near relatives exhausts many of their quotas for years to come. The grave and cruel separation of families that has resulted has been deeply deplored and criticized ever since and has led continuously to repeated promises for rectification from all sides, only partly performed so far, which subject is more fully referred to hereafter.

Secretary Stimson's argument was concededly hastily prepared, he, himself, stating as to these immature suggestions (idem, p. 77):

I am bound to say that neither Mr. Hodgson nor myself knew the way your bill would work until we took pencil and figured it out this morning.

He wholly overlooked the important fact that elementary justice and fair dealings placed the near relatives of alien residents of this country in a wholly different position from general "new-blood immigration, and that the quota laws did not purport to apply these relative ratios to all near relatives of residents, and even as far as they did, Executive, Congress and both political parties had repeatedly pledged themselves to rectify such cruel separation of families. He also wholly overlooked the fact that the near relatives of residents involved, wives and minor children, are not seekers of positions, and

are not properly within the scope of a bill merely seeking temporarily to remedy the unemployment situation. Yet on the basis of these hasty comments, the maturely worked out resolution (H. J. Res. 439), framed after long hearings and careful consideration, is suddenly disregarded, the vote to report it is reversed, without any new hearing on this plan, and the number of nonlaboring near relatives of residents, wives and minor children, are to be admitted only within a maximum of 10 per cent of subsisting quotas, subject to further administrative curtailment.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Even as to general immigration, there is a strong feeling in business circles in this country that this bill will hurt the business of the United States far more than it can help it, by reason of the international bad feeling and other intangibles it will give rise to. The President's annual message to Congress pointed out, and is now reinforced by the State Department figures, that through recent administrative orders, promulgated under subsisting laws because of unemployment conditions, the monthly issuance of visas was reduced to almost nominal figures. In the face of these figures, it is very difficult to see why any new legislation should be enacted, as administrative action already in force under subsisting law seems quite adequate to deal with this phase of the unemployment situation. This would have the additional advantage of being much more flexible than legislation for a term of years is, and can be dropped automatically when the present emergency is over. The resolution now reported, on the other hand, is made effective until July 1, 1933, without any reasonable ground for supposing that the present emergency will last so long. In fact, such pronouncement by Congress would be tantamount to a declaration that the emergency is expected by it to continue so long, and would for that reason in itself have a detrimental effect in the present nervous and frightened condition of public opinion.

If the present bill were limited to a year, there would be no serious obstacle to extending its duration, if conditions a year from now would seem to make such action desirable. If this measure, stripped of oppressive clauses not related to the labor situation, would really answer a useful purpose in relieving our present economic situation, it should be supported unanimously, but that is not the case. On the other hand, opponents of immigration make no secret of the fact that under cover of the emergency they propose to endeavor to make such legislation permanent, a course which would be impossible if the temporary economic distress could not be used as an excuse for new and ill-advised legislation.

EFFECT ON NEAR RELATIVES OF RESIDENTS

Turning, however, from opposition to the bill as a whole, serious questions arise, above indicated, that can and ought to be remedied by amendment. Limitation to one year has already been referred to as desirable. Much more oppressive and unjust, however, is the new provision contained in section 1, cutting down maximum quotas to one-tenth. Immediate relatives, such as wives and minor children of resident aliens born in some of the European countries involved, have been separated in shocking fashion for many years by the

brutalities of the quota laws, which have called practically unanimously for rectification, and pledge after pledge to remedy these evils has been given, but practically wholly disregarded by Congress. Such wives and minor children are not breadwinners and do not come over to seek employment, and their presence here would not aggravate the employment situation in any way. Even after some slight but really inadequate relief was furnished by the act of May 29, 1928. amending section 6 of the quota law of 1924, repeated pledges were given that adequate relief would be afforded to the countries with small quotas, whose citizen husbands and fathers had been coming over here in large number in late years.

PARTY PLEDGES DISREGARDED

The Republican national platform, adopted June 14, 1928 (a few weeks after this amendment of 1928), on which President Hoover and the present Republican Congressmen were elected, while favoring continued restrictions, expressly provided:

Where, however, the law works undue hardship, by depriving the immigrant of the comfort and society of those bound by close family ties, such modification should be adopted as will afford relief.

The Democratic national platform, adopted two weeks later, contained the following clause:

Laws which limit immigration must be preserved in full force and effect, but the provision contained in these laws that separate husbands from wives and parents from infant children are inhuman and not essential to the purposes or the efficacy of such laws.

DISREGARDING PRESIDENTIAL AND DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION

Although President Hoover has repeatedly declared himself as favoring such modifications, as did also his predecessors, and his Secretary of Labor and the Immigration Bureau again and again recommended such remedial legislation, Congress failed to carry out this pledge, and now is even asked to strike out practically ninetenths of the inadequate relief it granted in 1928. Its Committee on Immigration and Naturalization is proposing to do this, despite the recommendation of Secretary of Labor Davis, contained in his annual report dated November 1, 1930, reading:

I would exempt from this plan of control immigrants coming to join near relatives already in the United States. I have always advocated liberality in the matter of reuniting families, and my attitude has not changed in this respect.

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RESIDENT ALIENS

The present bill arbitrarily treats wives and minor children of resident aliens quite differently than of citizens, section 4 (a) of the act of 1924 applicable to them not being modified in any way, though it is elementary that such residents ought to enjoy the same civil rights and family happiness as those already citizens. Separation of families is quite as inhumane, antisocial, and contrary to American interests in the case of the resident alien and prospective citizen as in the case of the man already naturalized.

Figures recently furnished by the State Department as to the number of applications of such near relatives of resident aliens registered at our consulates down to July 1, 1930, are striking as showing the number of persons involved, and how largely residents of southern and eastern Europe are discriminated against, because of the small quotas assigned to them.

Twenty-seven thousand seven hundred and thirty-five wives, children, and parents of residents born in southern and eastern European countries are registered as seeking admission, as compared with 1,566 from northern and western Europe, as also 23,404 fathers, mothers, and husbands of United States citizens from the former group of countries, as compared with 692 from northern and western Europe. It will take many years for many of the former group before these near relatives can come over under our oppressive quota laws, even without such new curtailment. Strong representations on this subject from all creeds and races, submitted to the State Department shortly after the Secretary of State was heard before the Senate committee, are heretofore annexed as part of this report, marked "Appendix A."

MILLIONS REMITTED ABROAD TO NEAR RELATIVES SEEKING TO COME OVER

As already pointed out, wives and minor children who are not breadwinners are involved, whose maintenance must be and is provided for by the husband and father resident in the United States.

Far from aggravating the employment situation in the United States, their presence here would keep hundreds of millions of dollars within our country to be spent here instead of being sent abroad for their maintenance there. Trade Information Bulletin No. 698, issued by the United States Department of Commerce for the year 1929, gives what it calls a conservative estimate of the amount of money sent that year by residents of the United States to their relatives abroad, namely, $247,000,000, exclusive of currency sent by mail. Figures kept by the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society as to remittances by residents of the United States to near relatives abroad through its bureau during 1929, compared with the first 11 months of 1930, show that despite the hard times the amount did not greatly fall off in 1930, it having been more than 79 per cent of the preceding year's totals, and figures from other sources indicate a still higher percentage than this for 1930. The total of $247,000,000 for all races and creeds, reported by the Department of Commerce for 1929, reduced to the same 79 per cent for 1930 amounts to over $195,000,000. It is thus obvious that far from injuring our economic condition, just and humane laws authorizing reunion of families would keep enormous sums here to be spent in our own country. Nay, more, the narrow and oppressive provision barring reunion of families, and consequently involving transmission of such enormous sums to relatives abroad for their maintenance there for years past, is itself a serious contributing cause to our present economic troubles. In fact, Jane Addams, who has no superior in familiarity with conditions among the foreign born, in her newly published work, The Second Twenty Years at Hull House, suggests that our quota law immigration policy is responsible for much of our present disturbed economic