Typical cases of the status of citizen wives-names, addresses, earnings, and savings Mr. JOHNSON. Before that goes in, following the insertion, let it be needed in the name of this person, and a little later the fund is in the name of that person. Mr. UNDERWOOD. May I inquire, Mr. Chairman, whether there has been any evidence introduced to substantiate the statement the gentleman just made? Mr. FREE. The State Department testified that when they investigated these funds, they found them rather loose. The CHAIRMAN. I do not want to take up the committee's valuable time. These figures run from $2,000 up to $5,000, up to $4,000, up to $9,000, up to $4,500, and $6,000. This just simply answers my colleague, Mr. Free, in the examination of Mr. Bernstein, who came here as a witness in support of a number of cases that he says they investigated. Mr. FREE. I do not see a $10,000 case, though. Mr. JOHNSON. $9,000. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I will be good to Mr. Free; I will show you $9,007. That is only 10 per cent off. This is a research made by the Hebrew Immigration Aid Society, in all of these cases they have submitted to the State Department, and I will ask that this be made a part of the record. Mr. FREE. It does not appear from the record that is the only reason these men were kept out. For instance, it appears in one instance that it was partly on the fact that the fellow did not have any money; but, as a matter of fact, he had violated his oath two or three times before that and did not have the right character. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Free, you are just picking up that isolated case, in which that boy did not give his right age, and I do not think that has any pertinency. Mr. JOHNSON. But you are making an extraneous record here, not for the purpose of this particular bill. The CHAIRMAN. I have a petition here filed by a former Congressman and member of this committee, Mr. Isaac Siegel, of New York, and he asks me to have the unanimous consent of the gentlemen to place this in the record. Mr. FREE. What is that? The CHAIRMAN. I admit this is not to support this bill. It is to let these husbands of American citizens come in; and he has been a former member of this committee. Mr. JOHNSON. It is rather an assault on the methods of the consuls abroad. Mr. JENKINS. Who made it? Mr. JOHNSON. Former Representative Isaac Siegel. We are making an extraneous record here, aside from the purpose of the bill to admit alien husbands of citizen wives, and the admitted purpose is to assault and attempt to break down the methods provided by law, and under which the consuls at stations overseas shall have some power to investigate and look into the cases of the aliens, generally, seeking to get into the United States as immigrants or otherwise. We have had this hearing and it is proposed simply to admit husbands, and we are undertaking to develop a series of assaults that ultimately will develop into a plan to break down the authority given the consuls. overseas to examine and sort out the prospective entrants. The CHAIRMAN. I do not think that assaults them. Mr. JOHNSON. Read that. It is politely put, though. In an effort to reduce immigration, our consuls abroad have not exercised wise discretion when giving serious consideration to the granting of visas to men who had married American citizens. The CHAIRMAN. What is wrong about that? You would not even ask any questions. Here is a petition presented and it ought to get some consideration. He has been a former colleague of ours and I do not see any reason why we should not take his statement, and take it for what it is worth. Mr. JOHNSON. I have no objection. (The statement referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT BY FORMER REPRESENTATIVE ISAAC SIEGEL OF NEW YORK Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, during the eight years that I had the great privilege and honor of serving as member of this committee, I learned that all the members of the committee were heartily in favor of uniting families. In fact, in 1922 when the legislation providing separate citizenship for women was proposed it was our understanding that women who were American citizens, would be given the same rights and privileges which the male citizens already possessed. Some of you will recollect that I voted on this legislation. In an effort to reduce immigration our consuls abroad have not exercised wise discretion when giving serious consideration to the granting of visas to men who had married American citizens. I am reliably informed as result of inquiries which I have heretofore personally made in Washington, and from other sources that the total number who are affected does not exceed 1,000 cases. In New York City I have been told by Federal officials that the number is much less. To my mind the fairest way of establishing to the satisfaction of this committee, that there is something wrong in the manner in which these applications are being handled, is by taking at random two or three cases and giving the facts. Take the case of E. Z. O. She has two brothers who served in the Army, one going through the Argonne offensive with Company K, One hundred and forty-eighth Infantry. Both were honorable discharged. She became a citizen on the 16th day of August, 1915, by virtue of here father's naturalization. She lived here all these years until on the 4th day of March, 1930, she went abroad to visit Poland. She met M. D. at the home of a relative and on the 6th day of July, 1930, was legally married by a rabbi. She remained abroad altogether about nine months, living with her husband for five months after her marriage. She is employed here, has been and is still earning $25 per week. She has on deposit and has had for quite some time $3,111.85. All of her brothers are, of course, American citizens, as well as her father. There is no question that M. D. is physically, mentally, and morally fit to enter the United States. He is a radio mechanic. Her brothers and father are in a financial condition to give any bond which the Government can ask, to the effect that her husband will never become a public charge. The members of this family are earning right now over $10,000 per year. In addition thereto, the brothers of M. D. are all American citizens and earn about the same sum. They, too, are ready and willing to give any required bond, that their brother will not become a public charge. Surely this is a case which should appeal to the common sense and reason of those who have the power to grant a visa. Another case is that of I. L. G., whose two brothers saw service abroad and one of them has made the supreme sacrifice. On the 29th day of August, 1930, she married S. Z. M. abroad. She is an American citizen for a very long number of years. So are her brothers and parents. It is uncontroverted that her husband is mentally, physically, and morally fit to enter the United States. She herself has on deposit in a bank her own money amounting to over $3,000. Her father is a business man having a bank deposit of over $10,000. Her brothers are of the finest character and reputation. This matter was brought to my attention by the cleanest fighter I have ever known. I am referring to Benny Leonard. Another case is that of B. F. M. who while abroad married M. B. M. She is an American citizen for more than six years and is employed here, earning at least $25 per week and having on deposit in one of our savings banks over $2,600. Her brothers are unmarried and live together in the home where she resides. These people are of clean character and excellent reputation, honest and law-abiding in every way. Surely the members of this committee and Congress as a body never intended to keep out of the United States the husbands of American citizens when an impartial and fair interpretation of the facts discloses that these husbands can not possibly become a public charge. If administrative officials had approached the subject with the thought that, although Congress at the present time is opposed to a large immigration, yet it was never the intention of Congress to keep out a few hundred husbands who can not in the slightest degree by their presence here retard the economic progress of the Nation. To permit them to come here is to demonstrate beyond words that the spirit of fair play still prevails. I shall not refer at great length to the statements which have been made to me as to what has been told to applicants when at the office of the American consul in Warsaw. Female American citizens have been told by consular subordinates that they have a perfect right to marry abroad and that there would be no difficulty about having their husbands come back with them. The committee may be interested to learn that in the three cases which I have cited, the motivating force which led to these marriages were first, love on the part of these female citizens and second, the men they married were real observers of their religious faith. This Republic was founded upon the propositions that love of God and country were the two elements constituting the basic foundations of our institutions. Every reason, both moral and spiritual, must urge members of the committee to enact legislation which will give to these female American citizens the undoubted right to have their husbands come to the United States, when it is fairly established that they are mentally, morally, and physically fit to enter and at the same time their wives and other relatives are in a position to show here, upon their arrival, they will never become public charges. It may be interesting to note that I am informed that no case can be found, where a husband has been allowed to come here to join his wife, an American citizen, where it has ever become necessary, to institute deportation proceedings. If the members of this committee have any fear that these husbands will actually become public charges, may I suggest that provisions be made for the giving of a bond to the Department of Labor to meet the situation. Such a bond to be given here, when the application for a visa is made. I do not possess the ability to fully paint the picture of suffering that these wives are undergoing. If the tears shed by them, evidence of true love and devotion to their husbands, were seen by you, then indeed you would be moved to give this matter your prompt and favorable consideration. Let me add that should the committee desire to have the full names of the cases to which I have made references, they are at its disposal. The CHAIRMAN. I have another petition here of the Independent Order Brith Abraham. You know they turned this one over here a year ago on this question and they asked for the support of this. It is only a page and a half. Mr. JOHNSON. No. Let it be inserted. (The matter referred to is as follows:) Hon. SAMUEL DICKSTEIN, INDEPENDENT ORDER BRITH ABRAHAM, . Chairman Committee of Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Independent Order Brith Abraham is an American Jewish Organization with a membership of over 100,000, in approximately 500 lodges, throughout the United States. Our officers and members are very much interested in the legislation amending the immigration laws, so as to make the same more humane and just, so that the families of American citizens and residents should be united. We have given serious consideration to H. R. 5308, introduced by you, amending the immigration act which would make the parents of citizens of the United States, over 55 years of age, nonquota immigrants. We heartily approve this bill and respectfully ask you to have this approval made part of the hearings on the bill. Our order is also very much in favor of the bill introduced by you, which would place into the nonquota status all husbands of American citizens. It surely is a hardship for the citizen wife to be separated from her husband. We have recognized the right of an American citizen to bring his wife into the United States as a nonquota immigrant and we believe that the husband of the American citizen wife should be placed into the same class as alien of a nonquota American. We respectfully ask that you make part of the record of your committee, our approval of the bill introduced by you, to grant nonquota status to the husband of an American citizen. Respectfully yours, ISIDORE APFEL, Grand Master. The CHAIRMAN. Now, there is no necessity of having any further hearings on the bill H. R. 5869 and the companion bill H. R. 7614, and the hearing will be considered closed as to these bills. That is all, ladies. We might now want to go into executive session. I want to call the committee's especial attention to the fact that the Chair received from the committee yesterday S. 2656, which is before you, and a committee report No. 72, passing the bill pertaining to the husbands of American citizens. I understand it has passed by a unanimous vote in the committee and was passed on the floor, after discussion, without a dissenting vote, last Friday. Now, suppose we take up consideration of either my bill or the Senate bill, it does not make any difference to me which, and when we get into executive session Mr. DIES. They are exactly the same bill? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Now, I just want to find out whether any consideration can be given of these naturalization fees. Do you gentlemen want to hear that, or put it over? Mr. FREE. Let us put it over. Mr. JOHNSON. I move that it be postponed. Mr. RUTHERFORD. I have got a bill here restricting immigration, and I would like to fix a date to have a short hearing on it. It shuts them out, even from the Philippines. Mr. FREE. What is your bill? Mr. RUTHERFORD. H. R. 8831. Mr. GREEN. I move that we have a hearing on that bill, say, next Tuesday. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jenkins has made a request for his bill and two more bills have been introduced on the same question. Mr. Rutherford has introduced a bill that is going to be on hearing and I want to fix the early part of next month Mr. JOHNSON. This is the last week of January and next Thursday would be what? Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mine is for the permanent Mr. JOHNSON. Your motion will be made upon a bill of a similar character? Mr. RUTHERFORD. Yes. Does it suit you to hear them all together? Mr. JENKINS. Anything suits me. Mr. JOHNSON. The promise will be given that we will get at this bill the first week in February and Mr. RUTHERFORD. And consider them all together? The CHAIRMAN. I have made that statement clear, and I have made my position clear, that I was trying to get through with a lot of these small matters. This is going into some hearing, and I thought we would give it a hearing as you stated just a moment ago. Mr. JOHNSON. I think the chairman has been very fair. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jenkins only asked me about it yesterday. |