Mr. TREVOR. As a matter of fact, Senator, I think it should be made very clear that admission to any country under international law is merely a privilege and not a right, and is subject to withdrawal. That is universal law. Senator HOLMAN. The theory was advanced by some one that we should require nothing more from immigrants than from our own people. We have our people, whatever they are, and it is our problem. The thought occurred to me, why take on this other problem? Why let aliens in here when we have our own serious problem to deal with? Mr. TREVOR. That expresses exactly our view of the situation. Mr. HOUGHTELING. May I ask a question? Mr. TREVOR. Yes. Mr. HOUGHTELING. What is your interpretation of the words "public relief"? Is that, in your opinion, relief at the expense of the State or relief at the expense of charitable organizations? Mr. TREVOR. Senator Reynolds can state it better than I could do, but my interpretation would be any person who receives relief from the Federal Government or any public authority, State or municipal. Mr.HOUGHTELING. They are not eligible for the W. P. A. now. Mr. TREVOR. I understand that. Mr. HOUGHTELING. They are not eligible in a good many States to public employment. Mr. TREVOR. If they cannot live here they should be deported. They are the problem of the country from which they came. Now, I will finish with S. 411. That provides: That any alien or group of aliens whose presence in the United States is inimical to the public interest shall upon warrant of the Secretary of Labor be taken into custody and deported forthwith. I have listened to the discussion in regard to that word "inimical." I cannot say what the Senator has in mind. I would suggest to this committee that the British system for admission of aliens would be worthy of your study, because there it is my understanding the Home Secretary may order the deportation of any person whose presence in Great Britain is not conducive to the public welfare. Senator HOLMAN. At first I was opposed to that. I thought it left too much arbitrary power in the judgment of one person, regardless of whom that person might be. There is no provision for a hearing. Mr. TREVOR. I do not believe there is any danger to anybody under this bill. I cannot conceive of the Secretary of Labor deporting anybody who has a real meritorious case. Senator HOLMAN. It might depend upon who was Secretary of Labor. Mr. TREVOR. The previous Commissioner stated in an official communication that made it impossible under existing law to get rid of 20,000 habitual criminals. I am rather inclined to believe that Senator Reynolds had in mind that the dictionary interpretation of "inimical" would allow the Secretary to deport any of those, particularly criminals Senator HOLMAN. It looks to me as though they are throwing them out without a day in court. Mr. TREVOR. That is what all foreign countries do. Senator HERRING. We do not pattern after foreign countries in these things. Mr. TREVOR. No; we do not. If you gentlemen would care to consider a draft of an amendment to this bill Senator HOLMAN (interposing). I want to learn all I can on this subject. Senator REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, in reference to the deportation of certain classes of people. Not expressing an opinion in regard to what the Department of Labor is doing, I would like to bring to your attention just one case. Senator HERRING. Have you finished, Mr. Trevor? Mr. TREVOR. Yes; unless you have some questions. Senator REYNOLDS. Mr. Trevor referred to the so-called deportation hardship cases, that I am now about to refer to. The cases I discussed in the Senate on April 3 and 4, 1936, were selected at random out of the files by the representatives of the Department of Labor themselves. I did not do it, because I was afraid I might be charged with picking out cases to prove my cases. I want to call your attention to the case of Rebecca Kabbaz, who came here as a visitor on January 11, 1932. This is 1939, and she is still here. When I made inquiry of the Bureau of Immigration, Department of Labor, the other day, the Department advised me as follows: Rebecca Kabbaz: Recommendation has been made that action in her case be held in abeyance for 1 year from February 14, 1939. She has been here since 1932, and the Department has not got rid of her yet. She came in "for a temporary purpose" 9 years ago. Senator HOLMAN. How long are they supposed to stay here? Are these visas good for 90 days, 6 months, a year? Senator REYNOLDS. In some instances more than that. The 1924 law reads: "An alien visiting the United States as a tourist or temporarily for business." Mr. HOUGHTELING. There is no particular time limit at all. Senator REYNOLDS. They can stay here indefinitely then, apparently, although the law says "visiting" here "temporarily" and directs the Secretary of Labor to make all "necessary and appropriate rules and regulations" to see that visitors "visit temporarily.' Senator HERRING. Possibly the Congress is to blame for thatnot the Department. Senator REYNOLDS. No; it is a question for the Department of Labor. Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. May I bring the file up here tomorrow? Senator REYNOLDS. If you are going to do that, I would like to go into every one of these cases. I recall that in some instances a party was even allowed to leave the United States and to return later to the United States. Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Maybe we can clear up that issue in the morning. Senator HERRING. Mr. Trevor wishes to comment on the registration bill. Mr. TREVOR. The argument has been advanced against the registration bill that it would put the alien in a precarious position, and there would be no possibility of catching them, and that in many instances they would be subject to blackmail. As a matter of fact, at the present time, the Labor Department itself is unable-if I am going too far they will correct me to establish the fact that an alien belongs to some particular country. That is one argument in favor of fingerprinting. The other is that everyone who is registered and fingerprinted is immune from the blackmailing tractics of the racketeer, because all he has to say when someone threatens him with deportation is, "No, fellow; I am registered. I have got a card. I will take you before the immigration officials and establish the fact that I am legally in the country." It is the greatest protection that could be given to anybody. I have been fingerprinted. I understand that the President has been fingerprinted, as have the members of the White House staff. We are all registered-every lawyer or professional man, automobile driver. Senator HOLMAN. And voter. Mr. TREVOR. That is correct. If we were all registered and fingerprinted, they would not be able to vote some of the dead people that have been voted. I thank you. Senator REYNOLDS. Before Mr. Trevor concludes, may I have your attention for a moment? It has been suggested by Senator Holman that some changes be made in the bill that I have presented to this committee for consideration. May I suggest that if Mr. Trevor will suggest to the committee the changes in the form of amendments, and let this committee, if it is going to report any of the bills, report them out as amended by me, it will simplify and expedite matters. If I were called upon to reintroduce the bills, it will cause delay. It will be the same thing over from year to year, and we will never get anything done. Senator HERRING. Very well. Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. I would like to clear up for the record the difference between a criminally deportable alien because of his record, and an alien who has committed a crime for which he is not deportable. There are three classes of aliens that are deportable because of their criminal records. One is the alien, without regard to how long he has been in the United States, who has been convicted or who admits the commission of a crime involving moral turpitude prior to entry. Another class is an alien who, within 5 years after entry, has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, for which he is sentenced to imprisonment for a year or more. A third class is the alien who, with regard to the time of entry, has on more than one occasion been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, and on each occasion sentenced to imprisonment for a year or more. Now, we have certain classes of aliens who may have long criminal records, but are not subject to deportation. An alien after 5 years' residence may commit a most heinous crime, for which he may be sentenced to 10 or 20 or 30 years' imprisonment. He may also have a long petty criminal record. But because the conviction did not occur within 5 years after his entry, he is not deportable as a criminal. That is what we attempted to get cured in the program we sponsored in the House, which passed the House last year. I just wanted to get that clear in the record. STATEMENT OF JAMES L. WILMETH, PHILADELPHIA, PA., REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE JUNIOR ORDER OF UNITED AMERICAN MECHANICS Senator HERRING. Please state your name and whom you represent. Mr. WILMETH. My name is James L. Wilmeth, of Philadelphia. I represent the National Council of the Junior Order of United American Mechanics. Senator HERRING. You may proceed. Mr. WILMETH. I understand from the remarks of the chairman that our time is limited. Senator HERRING. Yes. Mr. WILMETH. These bills have been pretty well analyzed on both sides of the question, and for that reason my statement will be more or less general. Our fraternity is a patriotic and not a labor organization, even though its name might so indicate. It is 86 years old, or will be in May. I am not sure, but I think we are the original sponsors of restrictive immigration in this country. As a fraternity, or as an organization, we sponsored it when it was not attractive and when it was not acceptable to do so. We were in existence at the time of the old padrone system and had a good deal to do with the doing away of the contract labor system. We were also in existence at the time of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Incidentally, in speaking, I want to make reference to that and the Japanese Exclusion Act with reference to the friendliness advocated in connection with the countries of the Western Hemisphere. In the pioneer days they used to call it neighborly when one person had something to do and neighbors came in to help him, and at another time he would help them. We think it would be a neighborly thing for these countries in the Western Hemisphere to adopt that part of the bill which puts them on a reciprocal basis. We would have no objections to admitting as many of their nationals as they would admit of ours. When we see fit through legislation to completely restrict Japanese and Chinese immigration, that, of course, is considered as an unfriendly act; but we cannot see where it would be unfriendly, as proposed in one of these bills introduced by Senator Reynolds, in dealing with the nations of the Western Hemisphere, to admit as many of their nationals as they will take of ours. Now, with your permission, I will try to cover a few of the things that have been spoken about today. The first gentleman who spoke on both of these bills and analyzed them quite completely, thought it would be unwise to enact the provisions of S. 407 to further reduce immigration. We cannot accept that view nor that conclusion. The first restrictive immigration act in this country was the Burnett bill in 1917. I was a member of our fraternity at that time, and we had a great deal to do in helping to prepare that. Senator REYNOLDS. He was from California? Mr. WILMETH. No; Alabama. That bill had to be passed over the veto of the President of the United States, but it was passed, nevertheless. Then the next general bill was in 1924, which fixed the present quotas. Let me digress for a moment to inquire if the figures given this morning referred to the quota immigration. I think it did for the most part. : Mr. HOUGHTELING. Which figures? Mr. WILMETH. You spoke of the number who came and went during the last few years. Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. That included the whole world. Mr. WILMETH. Quota immigrants? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Quota and nonquota; quota for the Western Hemisphere, and nonquota for the rest. Mr. WILMETH. It was the act of 1924 which established the quota. That has been 15 years ago. Conditions were entirely different then from what they are now. We were in prosperity at that time, and if in a time of prosperity we considered it necessary to reduce immigration and to put a limit upon it, how much more forceful is the argument today, with conditions entirely different, with depression and unemployment, that there should be a revision of these quotas? We submit that it is time, high time, to redraft the quotas for these various countries. I do not wish to draw any conclusions for these gentlemen here, but they stated specifically that they had no particular recommendation to make on the quotas at the present time. Our organization wants to see the quotas cut down at least 90 percent, which we think would be in accordance with the times now, as compared with the times and economic conditions when these quotas were established in 1924. We submit that for the careful consideration of the committee. I must hurry along, but I do want to say a word about the registration of aliens. I am registered, and am proud of it. I am a citizen and voter in Pennsylvania. I went down the other day and took my wife along to purchase some postal-savings certificates. They had her put her fingers down, and they registered her. She did not object. I do not object to this card. I think it is something to be proud of. It identifies me as an American citizen. I do not accept the view of the first gentleman who brought up the question of the expense of that system. I think it will be worth every cent it will cost and it will pay large dividends in the long run. We are for the registration of aliens. We are for the registration of visitors here. I want to say just a word, if I may digress from my line of thought, not in criticism, but the Senator from Oregon, in speaking about some activities in his section of the country by organizers and leaders who were aliens, referred to what they were doing there. Week before last, in the city of Bellingham, not far from your domicile, Senator Holman, there was a conference held under the domination of two outstanding alien leaders on the west coast, one from San Francisco and the other from the Puget Sound district. There was no smoke coming out of the stacks of those great plants at Bellingham. Those great lakes that were jammed with logs were vacant. The lumber industry in that section is paralyzed today. Why? |