« ÎnapoiContinuă »
unusual punishment. So many aliens do not know about these regulations, and do not know how to conform to them. I know about that, because in our work we help them fill out an infinite number of documents. I believe the man who was accused of attempting to assasinate the King of England not so long ago received a sentence of 1 year. There should be some relationship between the nature of the crime and the punishment decreed for it.
This question of registration comes up every year, and I think Mr. Taylor stated the truth and struck the nail on the head when he said that instead of Americanizing the foreign born, we were trying to Europeanize the people of this country, trying to bring over European customs into this country, some of which have grown up in the past few years in Europe, which does not indicate to my mind that we want to emulate those countries and create the disrespect and hardship and unhappiness that is taking place in Europe at the present time.
I should like to refer next to 1363. Reference has been made to the fact that aliens who have been on public or private relief for 6 months shall be deported. I want to say a word about aliens on private relief. I am sure you know what the Jewish organizations of the United States have, ever since Jewish immigrants have come to this country, taken care of them, if they were in a position where they had to apply for aid. I believe the statistics will show that very few Jewish aliens have been deported on account of being public charges. Some have been deported on account of mental ills, which is a very different question. This question of giving private relief to people who need it is a very serious question. No doubt most of us find a time in our lives when we need neighborliness and good will.
We know what it means to these people to have to be on any kind of relief, and we do not think they should be deported for that reason. If we were in times of great financial success in this country, we could understand that we do not want any paupers because we are very rich ourselves and we can get along fine. If people are poor because they do not want to work, they are not good citizens. But we know from experience that thousands of very fine people have been obliged to accept relief. Receiving it for a temporary period does not mean the person will not take a job and support his own people as soon as he can. We have mentioned these things in other hearings.
I think we must not forget that ever since 1924 the people who have come here have many of them brought their families in the United States, and many of them were not able to bring their families when they came. A great many of those people have become American citizens. If man has become a citizen, he may want to send for his mother. He may have been supporting her abroad for years. He can take care of her in this country, and he wants to send for her. Is she living on relief? Does this mean because she has accepted relief from her son she would have to be deported? If he is out of a job temporarily and gets relief from the community or from some other body, is he going to be deported and separated from his family?
The alien is not any longer the isolated unit that he used to be when we imported labor in great quantities, men who worked in the mines and factories and did not have their families with them. They never became American citizens, but went back to their home country. The alien who comes here now is already joining family relatives who
are here, and he expects to remain and become an American citizen as soon as possible and to feel that he is a part of the United States, and I think that should be our attitude toward him.
I would like to say a few words about the deportation bill, 1365. Those of us who have been opposing these bills in the past have asked for just one thing. I think it is an American principle that we should not overlook. That is the right of appeal. I think it has been said. so many times that it is probably boring to hear it again, but in every other kind of case that I know anything about they have the right of appeal; and yet, in the case of a man who comes into this country illegally and who has established himself with an American family, he has no right of appeal. I could cite a good many cases to you, particularly young girls, women, children, who, if deported, would have no one in their homeland with whom to live. They would have no close relatives in that country. Yet they must be deported unless Congress gives the Secretary or the President or some committee or somebody the right of discretion. If there is a right of discretion in all these cases, then, of course, whoever has that discretion can exercise it and decide as to the type of persons who are to be deported. There can be no objection to deporting criminals, but I would just like to read this present wording in paragraph 1 of 1365:
At any time after entry is or has been convicted of an offense which may be punishable by imprisonment for a term of one year or more, or of a crime involving moral turpitude, even though a sentence of imprisonment may not have been imposed, the said deportation to be made by the Secretary of Labor forthwith at the time he is released from confinement, or placed upon probation, or is pardoned.
But if you have no discretion there to anybody, and you allow a person to be deported for a crime involving moral turpitude, which may mean the pilfering of something in a 5-and-10-cent store, that is a pretty serious thing, and it deprives him of the right to return at any time in the future and to rejoin his family. It really works a tremendous hardship, and many of us feel that it is un-American not to grant the right of appeal. These folks do not have a court trial and an opportunity to present their side of the case. It is all administrative, and, without discretion, the administrative officer has no alternative but to deport.
Take paragraph no. 7 under section 1 of this bill, which requires that an alien be deported who has been convicted of possessing or carrying any concealed or dangerous weapon. Every labor leader I have spoken to objected violently to that, because they say in case of a strike anybody can "plant" a dangerous weapon on a striker; and if he happened to be an alien then he would have to be deported. Section 2 provides that—
The Secretary of Labor may suspend the execution of deportation against an alien found subject to deportation for a period not to exceed twelve months dated from the issuance of the original warrant of deportation, if the alien has a dependent wife or child who is a citizen of the United States.
We have had a large number of these stayed cases reported to Congress for 3 years, and no action has been taken. Those stays have been granted in other administrations, and in some instances persons have been carried under a deportation that has been stayed for a number of years, because of the very cruel hardship that would ensue if the person were deported. It has taken us 3 years, and still we have no information as to what action will be taken by the Con
gress, and under this bill these people would be deported forthwith because the law says "12 months and no longer period."
Paragraph (c) says:
The Secretary of Labor is authorized to provide transportation for a dependent husband or wife or minor children of an alien ordered deported from the United States if the separation involves extreme hardship: Provided, however, That the wife or minor child of a citizen of the United States born in the United States accompanying an alien deported from the United States shall be positively and definitely identified by fingerprinting or footprinting for the purpose of establishing their right of reentry as citizens of the United States.
Senator SCHWELLENBACH. The purpose of that is to make certain American citizenship may be maintained.
Mrs. DAVIDSON. Of course, we give these people a Hobson's choice. If they stay here they become public charges. If they go with the husband and father they may not be welcome in that community. They are deliberately expatriating themselves. Undoubtedly that is what it means. If they should return some years later they would not have the opportunity of American people getting an education. We really make foreigners of them, and when they return we have got to go through the process of re-Americanizing them, because we have sent them away.
Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Does not that go to the question of whether or not we should substitute sections (a) and (b) in place of the hardship provisions of the Kerr-Coolidge bill?
Mrs. DAVIDSON. Yes.
Senator SCHWELLENBACH. So far as paragraph (c) is concerned? Mrs. DAVIDSON. Yes.
Senator SCHWELLENBACH. You give the right to these people to go out of the country if they want to.
Mrs. DAVIDSON. But many of these people do not know the language of the country of the husband and father.
Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Yes. That goes to the merit of .(a) and (b), assuming that the father is deported. As far as paragraph (c) is concerned, it is a humane provision, providing for the money for those people to go if they want to. Is that not correct?
Mrs. DAVIDSON. Yes; that is true. But if you pass paragraph (a), then that naturally follows:
Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Your objection is not to paragraph (c), but to paragraphs (a) and (b)?
Mrs. DAVIDSON. Yes. Because we deport the man we are going to be good to the family and let them go with him, if they want to. Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Yes.
Mrs. DAVIDSON. Of course, we would like to see the bill now recommended from the House committee passed, which provides a substitute for that. That certainly is a compromise bill, and I think we have done some compromising.
Senator SCHWELLENBACH. I think your group has shown a greater disposition to compromise than the other.
Mrs. DAVIDSON. We want to save these people. You cannot estimate what it means to these people not to know from day to day just what is going to happen to them-whether they will be deportedwhat it means to the whole family and relatives not to know what is going to happen to them.
Section 3 has caused very much dispute. It is certainly against the Constitution. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but this would take
into custody a person without due process of law. The objection that we have made is that under this section an officer or an employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service can arrest anybody and hold him for 48 hours before he is taken before an inspector. We have had experience with people who were kept in jail for months before they were tried. That was in other administrations. That is why we are very anxious about not having this provision go through as it is at the present time.
S. 1366 provides for the reduction of quotas. Mr. Taylor has shown you the number of documents that are required by the American consuls. I think there are very few of us who want to open the doors to new immigrants at this time. We realize that the consuls have been very careful about giving visas to persons, to make sure they will not become public charges. Yet last year, according to the figures of the Labor Department and the State Department, they issued visas to the nationals of various countries in a greater number than would be the case if only 10 percent of the present quota was admitted. They were issued to relatives of aliens who were here as permanent residents. We are again creating new hardships, more separations of families, more difficulties and problems, when we attempt to pass legislation of this kind.
Furthermore, the present method of deciding on the number of visas, which is carried on by the State Department, allows an elasticity which is very helpful in these times. For example, take the provision of 100 percent of the quota made available to relatives. That would exclude a man like the Hungarian engineer Mr. Taylor spoke of. It would exclude persons of culture and education who could make a real contribution to this country in the scientific and industrial fields. I know of a German refugee who was admitted to this country about 2 years ago. He opened a big factory, bought a new house, for which he paid $10,000, is employing about 300 Americans, and is really benefiting the town by his presence. Such people would have no opportunity to go on without that flexibility.
When we come to section 3 on page 4, there you have the question of the intelligence test. It is very difficult to decide what is the normal rating of American white stock, and our scientists would have to have conference after conference before they could agree upon anything of that kind. It just seems to me that is an impossible provision. If section 4 could be amended so that the President could give the right of appeal from the decision of a consul, so that we can appeal both ways, that would be very helpful. I asked for that a number of times and the State Department was opposed to it. I think taking away the power from the consul in the case of denial, and not taking it away in the case of granting the visa, is rather unfair.
Mr. Taylor also touched on section 6. I could cite thousands of cases where that would work a great hardship. A man might have entered illegally, opened a large business, or was employed, had a family, and then was deported. He would remain away for a year and then would be given permission to return. He is a man of good character and is a real contribution to our country. If he had never been permitted to return the family would have had to give up the business to join him elsewhere, and that would have been a great hardship, not only upon the members of the family, but upon the
persons who worked for that jewelry business, who were already Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one further plea. If we can in this Congress get legislation passed which will grant discretion over the right of appeal in the deportation cases, limited to certain groups, if you will, that is what we have been working for these many years, and that is what we ask of you.
Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Thank you very much.
I hand the reporter a letter from. Melvin M. Fagen, representing the American Jewish Committee, which may be incorporated in the record at this point.
(The letter referred to is here set forth in full, as follows:)
Senator LEWIS B. SCHWELLENBACH,
APRIL 29, 1937.
Chairman, Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Immigration,
SIR: In the name, and on behalf of, the American Jewish Committee, 461 Fourth Avenue, New York City, I am authorized to express the opposition of that organization to the Senate bills which were the subject of deliberation by your subcommittee this morning-S. 1363, S. 1364, S. 1365, and S. 1366. To this end, I associate myself with the remarks made by Mrs. Cecelia Davidson of the National Council of Jewish Women at today's meeting and ask that the opposition of the American Jewish Committee to these bills be inserted into the record of the subcommittee's hearings.
With deep respect,
MELVIN M. FAGEN,
(For the American Jewish Committee).
Senator SCHWELLENBACH. The subcommittee will suspend at this point until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the subcommittee adjourned until the following day, Friday, Apr. 30, 1937, at 10 a. m.)