Senator HOLMAN. I did not think so. Senator REYNOLDS. May I ask one question at this point? Senator HERRING. Yes. Senator REYNOLDS. Is it not true that the new legislation that has been suggested or offered by the Immigration Division of the Department of Labor has been really for the purpose of protecting the illegal entrants and other immigration-law breakers. Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Not primarily; not at all, Senator. That is misinformation on the part of many. The primary purpose is to protect the wives and children, or the husbands and children, that is, the dependents of the alien who is illegally here. Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. We will use only one word. The primary purpose is not to protect the alien who is illegally in the United States. The primary purpose is to protect the families, the citizen families, of the alien who may be illegally here, and the alien families legally here. Is my answer clear, Senator? Senator REYNOLDS. I do not want to take up much time right now. It is not clear to me. As a matter of fact, you have illegal entrants here now; aliens who are in America illegally and unlawfully? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. That is correct. Senator REYNOLDS. These laws are for the purpose of protecting the members of the families who are legally here or want to come here? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. American citizens. Senator REYNOLDS. In what respect do you mean they are to protect members of this family? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Let us take a particular case. Since July 1, 1924, there has been no statute of limitation for the deportation of an alien for illegal entry. Take the case of an alien admitted as a treaty trader under subdivision 6 of section 3 of the 1924 act. He is admitted so long as he maintains his status as a treaty trader, which means that his business must be of an international character between the United States and the country of which is a citizen or subject. Conditions may have changed a good deal in that country. He may have found the nature of his business shifting to one of local character. Due to that fact, he becomes subject to deportation. Now, this is 1939, 15 years later. By this time he may have acquired an American citizen wife, and three or four citizen children. Is it to the economic interest of this country to deport that man and deprive his family of the necessary care and comfort and support that a family rates from a husband and father? That is a sample case. Primarily, we are interested in the members of the family, the citizen family, and the alien family lawfully here Senator REYNOLDS. The alien lawbreaker, like this treaty trader, is responsible for the hardship to his family. But at the same time, isn't it equally true that many of these illegal entrants are alien criminals, and that the law operates to protect the alien criminal as well as it does the alien who came in illegally and remains here illegally? Unless you do work a hardship on the law violator and even his innocent relatives, how else can you compel law compliance and deter lawbreaking? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. When you say the "law operates to protect," do you mean our program? Senator REYNOLDS. Yes. Mr. HOUTELING. If it had been enacted. Senator REYNOLDS. Yes. Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Let me say Senator REYNOLDS (interposing). I say that in itself it would operate to protect the alien criminal. Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Not necessarily the deportable criminal. You understand that the deportable criminal and the man who may be guilty of a minor offense are two different things in the eyes of the law. It was not the purpose of the program to protect a deportable criminal. As a matter of fact in our program we provided for the deportation of three or four additional classes of criminals not now subject to deportation. Under section 2 of the bill it was specifically provided that a deportable criminal, other than a man who may have been guilty of perjury in connection Senator REYNOLDS (interposing). Is perjury a minor offense? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. It is not a minor offense, it involves moral turpitude. The House of Representatives wrote that amendment in the bill, which we did not include, providing that if perjury was committed in connection with the securing of documents with which to come to the United States, it should be excused. That was not a part of our program. That was an amendment on the floor of the House. Senator REYNOLDS. As a matter of fact, the Immigration Bureau of the Department of Labor has not asked for the passage or the enactment of any law that would restrict immigration. That is true, is it not? You have not suggested the enactment of any law that would restrict immigration? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. No; we have not. We have not asked for any bill of that sort. Senator REYNOLDS. I remember that several years ago I discussed on the floor of the Senate some 50 so-called hardship cases. My recollection is now that I brought to the attention of the Senate the names of each and every one of those men constituting the hardship cases. Do you recall that? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. That is correct. At least, you openly discussed a number of them. Senator REYNOLDS. Several days ago I directed an inquiry to the Department to ascertain how many of those 50 aliens whose cases I had discussed had been deported since the time of that discussion in 1936. I wonder if you have that information with you? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. I have. Did you not receive our letter? Senator REYNOLDS. No; I did not. I was anxious to know how many of the 50 so-called hardship deportation cases, whose names I cited in my letter to you, had been deported, since I called attention to this particular lot of hardship cases in the Senate. Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Under date of March 16 I signed a letter to you. enclosing a list of those names. I have an extra copy, if you care to have it. Senator REYNOLDS. I will be very much obliged to you if you will give it to me. Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. I think you will find my letter in your mail. Your friend George Greiner is among them. Senator REYNOLDS. Was he deported? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. The Federal court in Chicago sustained a writ of habeas corpus against the Government, and we asked the Attorney General to appeal the case to the circuit court. The Federal court would not sustain the Government in its attempt to deport him. Senator REYNOLDS. Now, there is one further question I desire toask you at this point. Does the Department of Labor, or the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization of that Department, approve, or, I might go further and say, are you sponsoring to any extent or giving any encouragement to Senator Wagner and his bill, which asks for the additional admission of 20,000 refugee children? Do you favor that or do you disapprove of it? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. We have submitted a report on the Wagner bill. We are not recommending it. Senator REYNOLDS. Are you opposing its passage? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. We are submitting it without recommendation. May I answer, Senator Reynolds, by asking if it is not proper for the clerk of the committee who has our answer addressed to the chairman of the full committee, to give you our reaction on the Wagner bill? Senator REYNOLDS. You are not recommending it? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. No. Senator REYNOLDS. You are not recommending it? Senator REYNOLDS. Are you opposed to it? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. We do not recommend it. Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. That is correct. Senator REYNOLDS. Why does not your Department take a drastic and firm stand upon that very important issue, so far as immigration is concerned? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. We have adopted the policy of submitting bills without recommendation. Senator REYNOLDS. As a matter of fact, have you not opposed every one of my bills? I will ask you whether you have not taken a stand in direct opposition to them? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes; that is correct. Senator REYNOLDS. Then why did not you oppose Senator Wagner's bill that would admit 20,000 refugees? Its enactment would increase Germany's enormous quota 10,000 per year for 2 years, and would be certain to be followed by a demand for a similar increase in the quotas of some other countries and its extension at its expiration. Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. It is not a bill dealing with general legislation. It is a bill dealing with an extraordinary situation—an extraordinary bill. Senator REYNOLDS. But you did not assume that attitude toward my bill? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. But you are dealing with general legislation. Senator REYNOLDS. That also deals with general legislation to a large extent, does it not? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. No. Senator REYNOLDS. If those 20,000 are admitted, certainly they will want to be reunited with their families on American soil? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. I think that is a natural desire. Senator REYNOLDS. And that would mean 100,000 in addition thereto. There would be sisters and brothers. Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. When these children become majors and can acquire citizenship in their own right and place some of their relatives on a preference status Mr. HOUGHTELING. Some of them would be on a preferential status. Senator REYNOLDS. It would resolve itself into a proposition of reuniting the families upon American shores, would it not? That is what it really means, does it not? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes; there would be that desire or tendency, but no preferential status runs to brothers or sisters of citizens. Senator REYNOLDS. I have no more questions now, Mr. Chairman. Senator HERRING. Have you something further? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. The comment on the next three bills is very brief, if I may proceed. Senator HERRING. Yes. Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. We come now to S. 409. The bill provides that 60 days after its passage immigration of aliens into the United States for permanent residence shall be suspended for a period of 10 years, or until such time as the Department of Labor shall certify to the Congress that unemployment in the United States does not exceed 3,000,000 persons. The bill also contains penal provisions for violation of the provisions of the terms of the act and other immigration laws. By wholly suspending immigration its effect appears to be not only to eliminate the number who come under present restrictions, but also to prevent near relatives of American citizens or legally resident aliens who now enjoy either nonquota or preference quota status from uniting with the family in America. Furthermore, the bill would erase the nonquota immigrant status now afforded natives of neighboring countries in this hemisphere. A number of aliens have been admitted to the United States who probably because of economic reasons were unable to bring with them other members of their immediate families-wife, husband, children and parents. The bill if enacted into law would make impossible the union of such families for at least 10 years, although the aliens who have come to the United States to settle with the consent of this Government have always been of the belief that the admission of their families at some later time when they were able to send for them would not be denied. It would seem wise to make some provision for permitting normal family life to continue. The administration of the existing immigration laws has done much to reach what appears to be the objective to the bill. The number of immigrants admitted into the United States in the last 5 years has averaged less than 50,000 per annum. It is unlikely that this number has greatly affected the conditions of the unemployed in this country, especially when consideration is given to the fact that a large part of the number admitted were dependents of citizens or aliens legally here, or were otherwise not of the employee class, and further, that about 33,000 aliens yearly left the country in the same time. The next bill in order is S. 410. That is a bill to provide for the deportation of aliens subsisting on relief under certain circumstances. The bill provides for the deportation of all aliens who have subsisted on public relief for an aggregate of 6 months in any 3-year period subsequent to the enactment of the bill into law. The United States has for many years accepted aliens as immigrants making their stay in this country dependent upon personal qualifications. For some years past many individuals, including aliens, have required public assistance not because of their unwillingness to work,. but because of their inability to find self-supporting employment.. To enact now legislation which would make necessary the deportation of such aliens for causes beyond their control and the inevitable separation of families that will accompany such an action, is a departure from previous policy. Dealing with the public charge feature, for many years and in the basic act of 1917 Congress provided that any alien who became a public charge within 5 years after entry-I am quoting the languageof the statute from causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen subsequent thereto, shall be deported from the United States. In other words, the policy of our country thus far has been that once an alien passes the test of entry, passes all the requirements under existing law and qualifies, if he later becomes a public charge because of conditions which arose subsequent to his entry and over which he had no control, he is not deportable. The theory has been that we accepted him. This would be a departure from all of that policy. I submit that on 410. The fifth and final bill is S. 411, which provides for the deportation of aliens inimical to the public interest. Existing provisions of law have brought about the deportation each year of an average of 3,500 criminals, narcotic violators, immoral persons, mentally or physically defective aliens, anarchists, and kindred classes, whose presence in the United States is considered as not being in the best interests of the country. I suppose that this bill by referring to aliens inimical to the public interest" refers to aliens not within that group. I also presume that the Secretary of Labor, on whose warrant such aliens are to be deported, must determine in what cases an alien's presence is to be regarded as inimical to the public interest. The bill fails to define the terms "inimical" or "public interest" so that it is altogether indefinite as to what is to be regarded as the public interest or under what circumstances an alien's presence is to be regarded as inimical thereto. On the whole, I think the provision is so vague as to make responsible administration of it impracticable. That concludes my remarks on these five bills. Senator HERRING. Senator Stewart wishes to ask a few questions. Senator STEWART. Some of these may have been covered. I just wanted the information. Senator HERRING. Certainly. Senator STEWART. With reference to the estimated number of aliens in the United States at the present time, which you say is approximately 3,800,000, please tell the committee how you arrived at that figure. Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. According to the 1920 census, there were 7,300,000 aliens here, Senator Stewart. Senator STEWART. In 1920? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. In 1920. Senator STEWART. That is a definite figure, because that was procured from the census? say Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. That came from the 1920 census. I would not it is definite. Senator STEWART. It is better than an estimate. Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. It is better than an estimate. During that next decade between 1920 and 1930 we admitted as high as 800,000 |