« ÎnapoiContinuă »
ought to be some provision that if he is deported it must be for having been convicted of possessing or carrying a concealed or dangerous weapon for the purpose of committing crime or some act of moral turpitude. When you read the Constitution it says it protects the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms, because the country needs the militia. I would hate to see a law passed whereby an alien who had a gun planted on him by some enemy would be deported.
Section 2 gives the Secretary of Labor power to suspend the execution of deportation against an alien found subject to deportation for a period not to exceed 12 months dated from the issuance of the original warrant of the deportation, if the alien has a dependent wife or child who is a citizen of the United States. That is good as far as it goes, but I think there should be some discretionary power. I believe there should be some discretionary power to inject some sort of flexibility into our immigration laws. You cannot write a law to fit every case and not work a hardship somewhere, either on the American citizen wife or children or some member of the family.
I know a man in our town who is technically subject to deportation. The reason for his being deportable is that, when he came from Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, by boat to Boston, through no fault of his own a record was not made of his entry. He came in with his mother and brothers and sisters and without his father. How they failed to make a record I do not know. He supposed a record had been made. He went to school in Boston. He was naturalized. He always considered himself an American citizen. He had visited relatives in Nova Scotia and had always been admitted on his father's citizenship papers, on which his name appeared.
Then suddenly a few years ago some inspector discovered there was no record of his admission. Under a technical construction of the law, if he was never legally admitted he could not have been naturalized by his father's naturalization. It seems to me the burden of proof in that case should be on the Government, in view of no record of his admission having been made. There is a case directly in point. This man has an American wife and children. If he were deported to Canada he would be put to the inconvenience of securing another visa, waiting until he could get it approved, and then coming back.
I have had a number of cases of people who have had to do that. There is a list of documents the counsul requires that are 22 in number, and some are hard to get. They have to be furnished in duplicate to the consul and supported by affidavits. They cannot go back until they can prove they are in a position that they will never become a public charge. I would hate to be called upon to prove that in the last 4 or 5 years. I think some of the rest of us would.
Section 2 is a good section, so far as it gives the discretionary power, but it does not go far enough. We should lodge some discretionary power somewhere, in the President, a committee of Congress, interdepartmental committee, Secretary of Labor, or somebody who can study each case and come to some conclusion as to the best way to deal with that individual. There is no provision that a decision shall be reached within the 12 months.
I think the intent of paragraph (b) is that Congress might decide whether these people ought to stay here. But with some 2,600 cases before Congress for the last 3 years, they have not found time to
decide them, and with all the important matters now before Congress they cannot find the necessary time. It seems to me you should delegate the authority to some administrative officer.
I do not like paragraph (c) a little bit. It provides that— .
The Secretary of Labor is authorized to provide transportation for a dependent husband or wife or minor coildren of an alien ordered deported from the United States if the separation involves extreme hardship.
That looks to me too much like the deportation of American citizens. That would not relieve the hardship. It would add another hardship. It is saying to the man who might be separated from his family, saying to these American citizens: "If you don't want to stay with us while your husband and father goes out of the country, we will pay your fare to get rid of you." That does not sound like the American spirit. They might not be acceptable in the country to which they are deported.
Section 3 provides that—
any employee of the Immigration or Naturalization Service designated by the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization shall have power to detain for investigation any alien who he has reason to believe is subject to deportation under this or any other statute. Any alien so detained shall be immediately brought before an immigration inspector designated for that purpose by the Secretary of Labor, and shall not be held in custody for more than 48 hours thereafter, unless prior to the expiration of that time a warrant for his arrest is issued.
I suppose the idea was to give the Immigration Commissioner authority to detain and authority to issue orders. If that was what that said I would be 100 percent for it, but it does not say that. The way it reads, he can designate any employee who shall have power to detain for investigation any individual or individuals that employee may have reason to believe are subject to deportation. That seems to me a delegation to the person designated of a dual authority, to judge the case and to issue an order in his own way, with no protection to the person detained.
In respect to the last part of the section, my feeling is that if the man making the arrest does so under the authority of a warrant from a supervisory official, and then orders him immediately brought before the proper authority for a decision, it would be very fine. I would not object to it.
Senator MOORE. It says "immediately.'
Mr. TAYLOR. It does not say he has got to get a warrant from somebody else.
Senator MOORE. What does it say about a warrant?
Mr. TAYLOR. Nothing. It gives him authority to detain him. I know the reason for that. Lots of people know when the inspector is away, and they run away. It ought to be possible for the inspectors to make the arrests, but we think more than one inspector should be on the job. I hate to say in the presence of Commissioner Shaughnessy that there have been cases where inspectors have used their authority for gain to themselves. I have nothing more to say on S. 1365.
S. 1366 is a bill to further reduce immigration, to authorize the exclusion of aliens whose entry into the United States is inimical to the public interest, to prohibit the separation of families through the entry of aliens leaving dependents abroad, and for other purposes.
The purpose of that is to reduce immigration. If these quotas are cut to 10 percent of what they are now, they would hardly be big enough to take care of the families already admitted. It seems
to me establishing a quota for other countries in the Western Hemisphere, with whom we have lived in peace for a number of years, particularly Canada and Newfoundland, would be construed by them as a slap in the face. I think it is going to militate against the President's "good neighbor" policy that has had such good results. I object to it for that reason. It also includes political refugees, because 100 percent of the quotas apply to the relatives of people already here. Section 3 provides that
From and after July 1, 1937, no immigration visa shall be issued to any applicant who shall fail to pass an intelligence test equivalent to, or higher than, a normal rating of American white stock, or whose reputation or personal characteristics in the judgment of the consul would render the applicant not readily assimilable among the preponderant evidence of the population of the United States.
What is the average intelligence of American white stock? Who is to be the judge? These intelligence tests are coming in disrepute. I heard one of the leading exponents of them no later than February 6, Johnston O'Connor, director of Stevens Institute in Hoboken, who has had more to do with tests than anybody else, say most of them were subject to very specific limitations. He would only admit one test that had been found conclusive.
Section 4 provides that
The President may in his discretion direct the Secretary of State to deny a visa to any alien whose presence in the United States, as a visitor or for permanent residence, he deems inimical to the public interest, and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to bring to the attention of the President applications for entry by any person or persons, not otherwise excluded, whose activities or reputation fall within the purview of this section.
It is the duty of the Secretary of State to call attention to such cases. I am not clear as to just what is meant by that. If it is an attempt to bring in a discretionary power through the Secretary of State to the President, and an appeal from the decision of the consul abroad, I think it is very fine; but it does not make it possible for a person who has been denied a visa, and who thinks he has good reason to come here, and it would be a benefit to the country if he did come, to be able to come. I really do not know just what it
Section 6 provides
If any alien has been arrested and deported in pursuance of law, he shall be excluded from admission to the United States whether such deportation took place before or after the enactment of this Act, and, if he enters or attempts to enter the United States after the enactment of this Act, he shall be guilty of a felony: Provided, That this Act shall not apply to any alien who has, prior to its enactment, obtained the lawful permission of the Secretary of Labor to reenter the United States and has reentered, or who arrives in the United States with such permission within sixty days after this Act becomes effective.
This is what I object to:
For the purposes of this section, any alien ordered deported, whether before or after the enactment of this Act, who has left the United States, shall be considered to have been deported in pursuance of law, irrespective of the source from which the expenses of his transportation were defrayed or of the place to which deported.
If a person is here and has not gone out and changed his status, may have overstayed his time on a visitor's permit, and he wants to comply with our laws, how is he going to do it? I have one man in that condition right now. He has overstayed his time. The order of
deporation has been made against him, but its execution has been stayed because he has advised the Commissioner that he wants to go out legally and come back in legally. Under this amendment such a man would be forever barred from coming back. Gentlemen, forever is an awfully long time. If a man is deported as a public charge under other provisions of these bills, he might get himself in a position where he could qualify in every other respect and come back, and yet, because he has been deported once, he cannot come back, and there is no authority resting in anybody from the President down to permit him to come back.
Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Such as the case you referred to of the man who came in with his family?
Mr. TAYLOR. Exactly. That case I referred to is pending on appeal. He is a high-grade engineer. He was born in Hungary which is now Rumania, since the Treaty of Versailles. He has invented a device for automobiles and busses which greatly cuts down the amount of gas used. He is having it tried out by a large company and they are paying him for it. He has found an American company with American capital to manufacture it in Elizabeth. He has overstayed his time. He is subject to deportation.
There are no Rumanian quotas available until next July 1. This man was never a Rumanian. He was born a Magyar, in Hungary. His father was an officer of the Hungarian Government, and yet under our law this man must be a Rumanian, and he cannot come in now under the quota from Rumania. In the meantime, he has got to watch around and try to get in somehow or other, while his valuable inventions are being developed and manufactured.
I feel that I have trespassed too long upon your time, and I thank you very much.
Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Thank you for your contribution.
STATEMENT OF MRS. CECELIA RAZOVSKY DAVIDSON, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, NEW YORK, N. Y.
Senator SCHWELLENBACH. You may state your name and whom you represent.
Mrs. DAVIDSON. My name is Cecelia Razovsky Davidson. I represent the Washington Council of Jewish Women and the National Council of Jewish Women. The council was organized in 1893. It has a membership of about 42,000 American women who are very much interested in the assimilation of the foreign-born, particularly Jewish people. The American Jewish Committee was organized in 1906 for the defense of civil liberties of Jews throughout the world. Senator SCHWELLENBACH. You may proceed to make such statement as you care to make.
Mrs. DAVIDSON. I was wishing that I could answer your question when you spoke about being unwilling to compromise. Most of us have been in this work for a number of years. I have been doing it for 15 years. We have had a direct personal relationship with thousands of foreign-born people living in this country. We know most of them are decent human beings, who are only asking to be let alone so they can provide for their families, give them the kind of homes they should have, and educate their children.
When we hear it broadcast over the radio that all aliens should be deported, we know that the very next morning there will come to our
office women and children who are worried to death because they heard that. "What do they mean? Are we going to be driven out? Are we going to be separated from our families?" That is what we would meet every morning after such a broadcast. Perhaps you might think these statements are only lip service, but to the foreigner they may mean a good deal, because they have been discriminated against in the past. We have our history of discrimination in the past and we cannot forget it. They follow such statements very closely, and they know what it means when they see such legislation as this introduced.
We have been and always are willing to compromise, but there are certain fundamental American principles on which I think no American should compromise. I think some of the provisions of these bills are un-American. I will take them up in their order, but I should like first to mention an episode that recently happened to me, which indicates why registration of aliens is a very dangerous thing. I will have to be personal, if you have no objection.
I was traveling in Cuba for a week. I had my passort with me under the name of Davidson, but it also had the name of Cecelia Razovsky. I was born in St. Louis. My family lived there a good many years, and my brother served in the State legislature. We are known in Missouri. We like our name Razovsky and we keep it. When I came off the boat the immigration inspector very properly examined us, and immediately saw my name Razovsky. He said, "Where were you born?" I told him I was born in St. Louis. asked me, "What part of St. Louis?" I tried to figure it out, but I couldn't remember what my mother had told me. I said, "I think it was the central part of the city." He asked me questions indicating that he did not believe me.
Of course, he had a right to question me, but the way he did it was very unpleasant. If you have registration of aliens, and I come along with the name of Razovsky, anybody has a right to make me show proof that I am an American citizen, and the burden of proof is on me. If you multiply that by hundreds of thousands of people who have foreign names, you can see that it will create a good deal of trouble for the foreign-born people in this country. It is not just an academic question. I think it is a very important question, this whole business of registering groups of people.
Since I started with the registration bill, I think I will continue discussing it. If we had universal registration, that would be another matter. Every one would have a card, and we would all be treated alike. I believe, and I think a good many agree with me, that this is fundamentally un-American to have this kind of system brought into this country. Pretty soon, if you cross the State line, you will have to have a passport, and you will have to show that you live in a certain village or city, or wherever you might live. That is what you are liable to have if we begin to register people in the United States. As some of the gentlemen have already stated before the committee, the cost of such a service would be tremendous to the Government and to the persons involved.
I would like to call attention to one very important feature of this bill, and that is the punishment. It does not fit the crime at all. If an alien fails to register his change of address, he is subject to a $10,000 fine and 5 years imprisonment. I think that is a very cruel and