Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

DEPORTATION OF ALIENS

FRIDAY, AUGUST 6, 1937

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee convened in room 412, Senate Office Building, at 10 a. m., Senator Lewis B. Schwellenbach (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Schwellenbach (chairman) and Austin.

Present also: Senator Robert R. Reynolds, Senator from the State of North Carolina.

STATEMENT OF READ LEWIS, DIRECTOR OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE SERVICE, NEW YORK CITY

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. You may proceed, Mr. Lewis. First give your name and whom you represent.

Mr. LEWIS. My name is Read Lewis. I am director of the Foreign Language Information Service, with offices at 222 Fourth Avenue, New York City.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. I would like to say, Mr. Lewis, for your information, and also that of Captain Trevor, that I agreed with Senator Reynolds before these hearings started that in binding up the hearings after we get through we will bind together the hearings on the Reynolds bills and the hearings on this bill, so they will all be bound in one book. I do not want to limit your testimony; but in view of that fact, it will not be necessary to repeat in detail some of the things you have said before.

Mr. LEWIS. If I attempt to do so, please check me. I am not sure that I remember everything I said before.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. I will not limit your testimony.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the bill before us this morning is one that marks an important forward step in the development of our immigration and deportation policy. I hope that certain amendments I will refer to later may be adopted.

The portion of the bill to which the chief objections have been manifested is section 2. I should like to begin by discussing that section. It deals with the so-called hardship cases that have been before the Congress and the country for some time.

There are, as you know, several thousand men and women, chiefly men, who have been in the United States for, in most cases, upward of 5 to 10 years. They are persons who, for the most part, entered the country without inspection, and who remained here before the expiration of the temporary period for which they were admitted.

They have established themselves in this country, earning their livings in jobs. Most of them have families. I am informed that 98 percent of them have families, according to the figures in Colonel McCormack's report to the House of Representatives something over a year ago, and I think the proportion must be true in the cases at the present time, although they may have changed somewhat. Those figures showed that at that time there were 2,862 cases of persons who, if deported, would leave behind them some 6,400 relatives, of whom 73 percent were American citizens, and that of these some 62 percent would in all probability become public charges if the breadwinners were deported.

Senator REYNOLDS. You are speaking of the hardship cases now, are you?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes. I think even those who have opposed the discretionary feature of the bill have admitted that something ought to be done about many of these cases. The problem is how to do it. It has been proposed that such cases might be covered by private bills. Mr. Dies advocated that for a while, but he said in the debate on this bill that was impossible, because there were too many cases to be dealt with.

I think there was and is an extreme feeling of dissatisfaction with that method in the House of Representatives. A number of bills had been reported in an omnibus bill covering a large number of cases. The House spent 5 hours debating that bill and disposed of only six cases. Mr. Dies referred to that in discussing this bill on the floor of the House. This bill does attempt to approach the problem, in my judgment, in a way which will bring about a constructive solution.

Now, Mr. Chairman, these persons are guilty of no offenses other than those of entering the country illegally, or overstaying the period for which they were admitted. They have not been guilty of any crime involving moral turpitude. Most of them are self-supporting and respected members of their communities.

Senator REYNOLDS. Do you tell this subcommittee that the only offenses in all these hardship cases is illegal entry?

Mr.

Mr. LEWIS. I said that was true in most of these cases. Shaughnessy said that they investigated some 40 or 50 cases, and found that about 10 or 12 were not really entitled to consideration. May I ask you to repeat that, Mr. Shaughnessy?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes. I said that no people weigh evidence exactly the same. They do not see out of the same eyes. We had a check-up early this year of all these cases by a committee of three. One member of that committee was from our own office, one from our field service, and a member taken from the public. In weighing the evidence in these cases, out of 33 cases that were submitted to them, they figured that 9 of them would not be entitled to consideration. Senator REYNOLDS. Nine out of 33?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. How many cases altogether were reviewed by that committee?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Something over 2,500.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. And out of the 2,500 what was the figure? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. I think there were 148 cases the committee decided on.

Senator REYNOLDS. Out of the 2,862?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Is it somewhat more than that now.

Senator REYNOLDS. You referred this morning to the cases I selected. I did not select them. The gentleman in charge told me to pick out the cases in order, and I said it would be charged that I had picked out certain cases.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Let us stipulate that they were taken at random, 33 of them.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Proceed, Mr. Lewis.

Mr. LEWIS. The point I was making was that the bulk of these cases, I think, had nothing against them except this matter of illegal entry. No final decision has been made in these cases, and if they are not found worthy of consideration, throw them out. We are not interested in them, except those persons of good moral character who have families here.

This matter of illegal entry is a serious thing, but is it so serious that it should bar consideration of humane claims involved in this particular situation? What are the motives that prompt illegal entry? They come under two or three very special heads. Most of the people coming into the country without inspection do so to join relatives that are already here, or because they are trying to escape oppression and persecution abroad, or trying to better themselves economically. Many of them come in illegally, certainly not a few, such as a seaman who is discharged in an American port and drifts from one place to another.

Now, that is not an offense involving moral turpitude. We have for practically all kinds of offenses in this country a statute of limitations, in most cases from 3 to 5 years. We have never regarded the statute of limitations as necessarily inviting the commission of any particular offense. It is an established principle of legal procedure in dealing with offenses. It seems to me we might very well invoke a somewhat analogous practice here, so that these people who are deserving may not have their whole family penalized. So we are not asking this, it seems to me, so much for the sake of the individual concerned as for the sake of the family.

Senator REYNOLDS. In reference to the statute of limitations, I believe you expressed the opinion that in those cases there should be a statute of limitations?

Mr. LEWIS. I said that it seemed to me we have a statute of limitations for all kinds of offenses, and that we might very well invoke a somewhat similar practice here.

Senator REYNOLDS. Is there no distinction between these cases and the cases where American citizens have committed crimes? Where an American citizen commits murder or larceny or any other offense under the law, they know where he is, as a rule. They know who he is. He has a residence here and can be located. But these people come into the country, and we do not know how long they have been here, how they got in, what are their names, who they are, or anything about them.

Mr. LEWIS. We do not always know who commits these crimes. When the statute of limitation runs we may not apprehend them. Senator REYNOLDS. But we do not know when the alien comes in. Mr. LEWIS. That is true.

Senator REYNOLDS. We know when a crime is committed here and when the statute of limitation runs; but we never know when the alien

comes into the country, we never know when he violates the law. If a crime is committed by an American citizen we know the day it was committed and where it was committed, but we do not know when the alien came in or at what port he entered the country.

Mr. LEWIS. I do not see what difference it makes.
Senator REYNOLDS. It makes a lot of difference.

Mr. LEWIS. I cannot see that it does.

Senator REYNOLDS. Excuse me for interrupting you.

Mr. LEWIS. Certainly. It seems to me we are urging this action for the sake of the American families involved. That is the chief concern we have in this legislation. It is in their behalf that I think this bill will accomplish a very much needed act of clemency and, if you will, justice.

It is a strange situation that, while we have vested in our executive officers the power to pardon for any offense, here we have a situation in respect to deportation where no one from the President down, under our existing law, has the power to stay deportation. I think that is a situation which should be corrected, and which this bill takes a step toward correcting.

It is said theoretically that deportation is not a punishment. As a matter of fact, it is a very severe punishment. It seems to me that we ought, as a matter of sound practice, to have some officer or board vested with the power to consider these cases on their merits, and if there are exceptional circumstances to be able in effect to pardon the person. That is what you have in this bill for a limited period. It is, after all, a power to pardon, so far as deportation laws are concerned. Now, it is true that we are providing this discretion shall not extend beyond 4 years, and shall be limited to 8,000 cases. It seems to me that is being very conservative. We are trying out something new and, if people object to it, it seems to me we have made about as much of a concession as we could make.

Senator REYNOLDS. You say the bill provides for a limitation of 4 years and that it shall apply only to 8,000 people.

Mr. LEWIS. Yes.

Senator REYNOLDS. At the expiration of 4 years, let us assume for the sake of argument that we have 8,000 other cases of people who have come into this country and found themselves in similar circumstances. Would you then advocate a continuance of the practice proposed in this bill?

Mr. LEWIS. I certainly should.

Senator REYNOLDS. You would?

Mr. LEWIS. Certainly. I think that power of discretion should be written into the law as a permanent feature.

Senator REYNOLDS. Let us say that 8,000 new people should come into the country during the next 4 years. Under similar circumstances and at the expiration of that time, I understand that you would recommend to the Congress that this power of discretion be continued.

Mr. LEWIS. I should recommend now that this power be written into the law as a permanent feature. That does not mean that if, during the next 4 years, a certain number came in illegally, it should be exercised in their favor. Every effort should be made to apprehend them.

Senator REYNOLDS. Those others would come in illegally.

Mr. LEWIS. If these people came in during the next 4 years, if they were not apprehended during 10 years or more, and if during that time

they had proved themselves of good moral character, industrious members of the community, married American wives and established homes, I should say the same sort of clemency should be extended to them.

Senator REYNOLDS. Do you consider that in making that statement now you are notifying the world to the effect that anybody who comes into this country illegally and succeeds in evading the law for a period of years will be pardoned? That is virtually what you say. As a matter of fact, that is just what you did say, is it not? Mr. LEWIS. I think it is.

Senator REYNOLDS. That is all.

Mr. LEWIS. We have had in the past a statute of limitations for illegal entry and for practically all our crimes. If people are in the same situation in years to come, I think we should follow the same procedure.

Take this matter of numerical limitation. While that is proposed here, I think that numerical limitation is, from the standpoint of fundamental principle, somewhat similar to saying that the power of pardoning by the President may be exercised only for a limited period and not to exceed a certain number of cases, which would be a very strange situation. Yet that is what we are doing here.

Senator REYNOLDS. You say we should limit that to a certain number of cases?

Mr. LEWIS. I did not say that. I say that, from the standpoint of principle, numerical limitation here is as inconsistent as it would be to propose to limit the number of pardons which the Executive might grant.

Senator REYNOLDS. Do you think there should be any limitation at all?

Mr. LEWIS. I think there should not, but I think, after all, where there are cases in which certain features that are deserving, you should deal with them. Suppose we should find there were 8,001

cases.

Senator REYNOLDS. Why should they not all have the same treatment?

Mr. LEWIS. If there are more than 8,000, I think they should. Senator REYNOLDS. And therefore, in your opinion, this bill is wrong from the standpoint of principle.

Mr. LEWIS. I think there should be no limitation.
Senator REYNOLDS. And this bill is wrong.

Mr. LEWIS. I think it is a first step, but people like yourself, who are opposing it, make it necessary from the standpoint of compromise to set a limit. We can try it out and see how it works. I do not believe this discretion will be abused by our governmental officers. Some of those who oppose the legislation feel that it would. Let us try it in a limited number of cases and see how it works. If it is abused, it can be repealed, just as you could repeal the power of pardon, if it was deemed necessary.

Referring again to these hardship cases, they are, except for the fact of the initial offense of entering illegally, law-abiding people. If they are not, we are not interested in them.

I would like to call your attention to an article in this morning's Washington Herald relating to the hearing yesterday, which I think should be a part of the record.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »