« ÎnapoiContinuați »
The amount of liquor seized represents seizures for only three months, namely, April, May, and June, as statistics prior to that time are not available. A fair estimate for the fiscal year would be approximately 400,000 quarts. This liquor was turned over to prohibition officers and other agencies engaged primarily in the enforcement of the prohibition law. During these three months, in addition to seizures made, 56 persons were arrested for liquor smuggling and turned over to the prohibition squad by immigration officers. It should be understood that officers identified with the Immigration Service, particularly the border patrol, do not confine their efforts to the prevention of alien smuggling but engage in the enforcement of all Federal laws which have to do with the unlawful introduction into this country of contraband.
The work in which patrol officers are engaged is an extremely hazardous one and already quite a number of officers have lost their lives in the line of duty. In some sections of the country they are not infrequently fired upon from ambush, and it is a tribute to their courage that in spite of these dangers they carry on with unwavering zeal. From statements made by smugglers who have been captured the force is generally recognized by this unlawful element as one which carries with it a constant menace to their successful operations. The files of the bureau are replete with reports of the many valiant acts performed by officers connected with the patrol force, and if space permitted some of them would be incorporated into this report, in order that the people at large might be made acquainted with the work which they are performing and the dangers with which they are confronted. Only recently one of the officers on the Mexican boundary became suspicious of two Mexican youths, and through his resourcefulness it was brought to light that these two youths had just previously murdered an American citizen traveling by automobile over a lonely road, thrown his body into a cavern, and confiscated the machine that he was driving, which they had subsequently wrecked. This is only one of many instances where the officers have been instrumental in bringing law violators to justice. They are in many respects, therefore, not only the guardians of our boundary, but to a certain extent at least they safeguard the interests of the people of the communities in which they operate.
The bureau is justly proud of this force and its accomplishments, and I take this occasion to pay a compliment to the high character of the officers and employees identified with it.
DEPORTATION OF ALIENS UNDER WARRANT The deportation of undesirable aliens found to be unlawfully in the United States has developed into one of the most important functions of the Immigration Service. This is substantiated by the fact that during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1926, there were deported from the United States 10,904 aliens, including those permitted to reship one way foreign and otherwise depart from this country in lieu of deportation, and consisting of practically all nationalities and classes. This number exceeds that for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1925, by 1,409 and is the greatest number deported in any year since the establishment of the Immigration Service. The number deported in each month during the year was as follows:
342 August 940 March.
April October. 909 May
1, 063 November
835 June. December.
Total. It will be observed that during the month of June, 1,924 undesirable aliens were deported. This was also a record breaker, that number being the largest ever deported in a single month in the history of the bureau.
It will also be observed from the foregoing monthly figures that there was a marked increase in the activities of the service beginning with the month of March, 1926. This resulted from additional funds being made available by Congress for use of the service in conducting investigations and for the transportation and deportation of aliens found unlawfully within the United States,
Included in the number of undesirable aliens disposed of through deportation proceedings during the fiscal year just closed were 1,087 who were permitted to reship one way foreign as members of crews of vessels in lieu of deportation and in fulfillment of the terms of the warrants of deportation in their respective cases, 560 who were permitted to reship after arrest and in time to obviate the necessity for issuing warrants of deportation, and 868 who were permitted to depart voluntarily at their own expense to other than foreign contiguous territory, in lieu of deportation. In ridding the country of these aliens in this way a saving to the Government of between $250,000 and $300,000 was effected.
Of the number of aliens removed from the country as outlined in the foregoing paragraphs, 2,077 were returned to Canada and 2,588 to Mexico. The remainder, with the exception of 589 Asiatics and a small percentage of South Americans and Africans, were deported to European countries.
The number of aliens permitted to reship one way foreign in lieu of being deported from the respective ports was as follows: Portland, Me..
80 Baltimore.. 90 San Francisco
123 New York (barge office). 32
69 Portland, Oreg
423 New York (Ellis Island)--- 391)
San Juan, P. R. Jacksonville.
Honolulu, Hawaii. Boston.
14 New Orleans.
302 Of the cases originating in the San Francisco, Los Angeles, El Paso, San Antonio, and Galveston districts, 750 were deported through the port of Galveston, Tex., instead of conveying them to New York, thereby effecting a saving to the Government of about $52,500.
Over one-half of the number of aliens deported in 1926 entered the country over the northern or southern land boundaries, 3,341 coming from south of the Rio Grande and 2,904 from Canada. At the Atlantic seaports 3,539 entered and 470 landed at Gulf of Mexico ports; 617 at Pacific ports; and 33 at ports in the outlying possessions of Alaska, Hawaii, and Porto Rico. Of the 10,904 aliens deported this year, 5,088 were sent to European countries, 2,588 to Mexico, 2,077 to Canada, 589 to Asia, and the remaining 562 to Cuba and the other countries. Of the year's deportees, 2,039 were returned at the expense of the steamship companies bringing them to our shores. In the cases of 6,910 aliens the Government paid the transportation charges, mainly to Canada and Mexico, where little or no expense was incurred beyond the border.2
In the transportation and deportation of aliens the bureau continues to practice the maximum of economy and with that end in view judiciously controls the movement of deportees from point to point within the States as well as en route foreign. During the fiscal year under discussion it authorized the movement of 60 large groups, or parties, of aliens to ports of deportation, 30 of which were transcontinental, handling over 4,000 aliens by this method. Through negotiation with the various railroads and steamship lines these deportation parties were moved at the lowest obtainable rate and a saving of fully $12,000 thereby effected.
The principal causes of deportation during the fiscal year just ended were: Total..
Unable to read (over 16 years
494 Insanity, epilepsy.796 Contract laborers..
27 Loathsome or dangerous conta
793 gious disease.. 100 Immoral classes.
412 Other physical conditions...
90 Had been deported within one Other mental conditions.... 257 year..
Entered without inspection... Likely to become a public
Under Chinese exclusion act. 178 charge.
Under per centum limit act of Professional beggars and va
1921 (excess quota)
Under section 17 of immigra-
256 Accompanying aliens.
1 Without proper visa under imUnder 16 years of age (unac
migration act of 1924 companied by parent)--54 All other causes.
! For further details see Tables 48 and 49 pp. 139, 143.
The average cost of deportation was about $75 per alien, which is considered very low in view of the amount of labor and the intricacies connected therewith.
A survey conducted by the bureau discloses that there are approximately 60,000 undesirable aliens confined in State and Federal institutions against whom deportation proceedings have not been instituted. Of this number it is estimated that approximately 10,000 are subject to deportation under the existing statute. The support of these aliens in our institutions is an immense burden upon the several States, and relief should be given at the earliest possible moment. Tens of thousands of aliens are, no doubt, in this country illegally-visitors who have overstayed their time, deserting seamen, aliens who smuggled across the land boundaries, and the like. The bureau's records show that at the close of the fiscal year 1926, there were pending 5,318 cases in which warrants of deportation had been issued, the largest number for a similar period on record. Of this number 499 were detained at immigration stations and 1,192 in jails or hospitals, at the expense of the immigration appropriation; 595 detained at the expense of other Government services; 1,438 at the expense of States and cities; 1,594 released on bond.
It is quite obvious that there is a vast amount of warrant and deportation work ahead of the bureau, and only an adequate appropriation of funds and suitable legislation are needed to carry it on effectively.
NEW LEGISLATION The past year has seen three important legislative changes which I believe warrant comment.
The act of May 26, 1926, relating to alien veterans of the armed forces of the United States during the period of the World War is of very wide application, and under it provision is made for the admission of such veterans not only without regard to the quota but also without regard to many of the general provisions of the law. In addition, their wives and minor children accompanying or following to join them within six months are exempted from the quota. It is estimated that there were in 1924 from 12,000 to 15,000 such veterans in Italy alone. It is believed that this number represents the largest group in any one country, but the figures for the coming year will be interesting indeed in showing the effect of this relaxation of our restrictive policy. It will enable many expatriated naturalized American citizens to return, with the families they have acquired abroad, and will, no doubt, prove an important exception to the quota law. The burden of administering this act falls directly upon the Consular Service.
In its effect upon the admission of immigrants exempt from the quota, the act of July 3, 1926, pertaining to the wives and children of ministers and professors who entered the United States before July 1, 1924, was next in importance. Under it, for a period of one year, this class of immigrant may be admitted upon showing that the husband and father entered in pursuit of the exempt vocation. This, I am glad to say, is in accord with a recommendation which I included in my annual report for the fiscal year 1925, and I am certain that the opportunity may well be given, if only for so limited a period, for these relatives to qualify under our laws for admission.
By another act, of May 26, 1926, Congress has provided for the admission to Porto Rico without regard to the immigration act of 1924, subject, however, to the burden of proving their status, of Spanish residents of that territory who elected to retain their Spanish citizenship under the treaty of April 11, 1899, between the United States and Spain. This measure, while entirely just in its application to these residents of Porto Rico, is not of broad application.
I regard the air commerce act of 1926 as the most far-reaching act of the last session of Congress, in its effect upon future immigration, and at the present time I am inclined to the opinion that farreaching changes in the law and regulations will be necessary to give this act effect at designated air ports of entry for aliens. The drafting of regulations for the purpose is under way, and I may say that the bureau has already received proposals for the establishment of three air lines for the carrying of passengers across our land and coast boundaries. I regard it as essential that there be close cooperation between the Departments of State, Treasury, Commerce, and Labor in the efficient and economical administration of this act.
LEGISLATION RECOMMENDED The preparation of this report affords me the opportunity of bringing to your attention ways in which I believe the immigration situation may be still further improved, and our administration of what has now become a complex body of law made more efficient. Some of the following were made heretofore:
First. Subdivisions (b), (c), (d), and (e) of section 11 of the immigration act of 1924, under which the allotments will be determined according to national origin rather than by country of birth, should be rescinded. The advantages of the present method, for administrative purposes, are its simplicity and certainty and the further fact that it is well established by practice for more than five years, the allotments under the previous quota law having been thus ascertained.
Second. A quota should be fixed for natives of countries of the Western Hemisphere, and section 4 (c) amended accordingly. The stream of immigration of these peoples should quite properly be checked to accord with the limitations which have been placed upon the migration of our parent stock from Europe. The design of the present law is obviously to bring to our shores in reasonable numbers the races and peoples from which we are descendants, and we are not justified at the same time in permitting the unlimited flow of immigrants from this hemisphere.
Since the beginning of the quotas in 1921, a total of approximately 900,000 natives of nonquota countries have been admitted. If quotas were fixed for those countries only something over 100,000 might have entered for permanent residence.
Third. A permit to reenter the United States, once issued to an alien resident, should be made prima facie evidence of his right to return, barring fraud or disease. We should treat the alien who is legally within our gates with the utmost fairness. To give an alien a permit to reenter, which he has a right to believe entitled him to readmission, and then to bar him because of some requirement-which he has previously met and passed—is an injustice of which no government should be guilty, and gives rise to a great deal of justifiable criticism of our governmental methods.