Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Under the existing law unmarried children of American citizens up to 18 years of age are admitted outside of the quota. Children of citizens between 18 and 21 years have preference only within the quota. Many hardships have ensued as a result of the separation of sons and particularly of daughters who have just passed their eighteenth birthday from their citizen parents, especially in those countries where the quota is very small, and the children are obliged to wait a number of years before they may obtain visas to join their parents in this country.

Illustrative cases.-R. B., a girl of 20, at present in Warsaw, Poland, is the daughter of an American citizen. Her father has sent for his wife and three younger daughters, but the 20-year-old daughter, who has preference only within the quota, can not join her family in the United States. It will be several years before she may hope to obtain a visa because of the large number of applicants who belong to the preferential quota group. This girl has a brother of 18 who is also in the preferential quota group and who is at present residing in Havana, Cuba. A brother of 19 is in Argentina. The father in Brooklyn is obliged to send maintenance to his daughter in Warsaw, to his son in Havana, and to the third child in Argentina.

Another case which presents a most unusual problem is that of R. J., a 17year-old girl who is now a Russian refugee at Le Havre, France. This girl and her mother left Russia on their way to the United States and reached Le Havre in October, 1924. In addition to the husband and father in this country, the girl had an older brother who had become a citizen some time ago. The mother was therefore granted a preferential visa and was permitted to proceed on her journey. R. J., however, could not procure à visa, as her father was not yet a citizen and was obliged to remain in Le Havre. Meantime, the father of the girl, who had made application for his second papers at the time the wife and daughter were due to arrive in the United States, was called for his final examination in the fall of 1925. He was scheduled to receive his certificate on December 15, 1925, but on November 2 he died suddenly. His naturalization, therefore, was not completed, and the girl consequently has no preference within the quota.

Aged parents of American citizens have preference only within the quota. In numbers of cases this means that they are separated from their sons and daughters for years, and as their span of life is not very long, many of them can not hope ever to see their children again. Civilization prides itself upon the fact that the aged are given care and protection. To whom should parents look for affection and maintenance in their old age, if not to their children? And where do they belong but with children, if the latter are ready to maintain them?

Illustrative case.--Mr. A. M., a well-known editor and author, of Russian parentage, now living in the United States, has a mother, a widow, 70, who is a refugee in Berlin at the present time. Even though the mother has preference within the quota, it will be several years before his mother may join her son in this country. Similarly, this gentleman's wife has a widowed mother, also a refugee in Berlin, who for the same reason can not join her daughter in the United States.

Wives and children of artists or of ministers and rabbis who arrived in the United States before July, 1924, have no preference within the quota now, nor may they enter outside of the quota, as was the case before Congress passed the restrictive immigration act of 1924.

Illustrative case.-The C trio. Mr. L. C., who has a music training school at Charleston, W. Va., is the father of three children, two sons and a daughter. The three children comprise a well-known musical trio which has appeared in concerts on the continent and which has achieved remarkable success. Mr. C. was admitted to the United States as an artist before 1924. His two

sons are British born and came to the United States recently under the British quota. The young daughter (21), however, who is the pianist in this famous trio, was born in Lithuania while her mother was visiting relatives in that country. She therefore belongs to the Lithuanian quota. As the father, Mr. C., can not obtain his final citizenship papers until the summer of 1928, the trio is now disbanded.

Under the present law, husbands, wives, or children of declarants have no preference within the quota, nor may they enter the United States outside of the quota.

It is our firm opinion that those men who arrived before the passage of the new immigration act of 1924 had no reason to believe that their wives and children would be unable to join them; and if they have declared their intention to become American citizens, they will be even better citizens if this country permits their families to enter at once and gives the men an opportunity to live normal, wholesome home lives.

Similarly, children of declarants who at present have no opportunity to enter the United States and who must wait until their parents become citizens, are deprived of American schooling, although it is obvious that they will, after their parents become citizens, be admitted to the United States (provided they pass all other requirements under the immigration laws of 1917).

Illustrative cases.-Mr. H. K., an Armenian, residing in New York City, is confronted with the problem of having two of his children in this country while the mother and youngest child are still abroad. Mr. K. is a chemist by profession and his wife is a teacher. He obtained a visa from the American consul to enter the United States with his family exempt from quota. Shortly before sailing the youngest child was taken ill. It was decided that the mother remain with the child until it recovered and the husband set sail with the two older children.

The man arrived with his two children in June, 1923. The wife was ready to sail again in May, 1924. Under the new immigration law she could not obtain an exempt from quota visa. The woman is still in Cairo, Egypt, awaiting a visa for herself and her child. Mr. K. has been obliged to place the children in the home of friends in another State. His work in New York City keeps him separated from them as well as from his wife and child who are still abroad.

Mr. P. J., an electrical engineer, from Czechoslovakia, was permitted to enter the United States exempt from quota, having arrived before 1924. He immediately procured an excellent position with a large electrical firm in upState New York, and purchased a home, believing that it would be possible for his wife and four-year-old daughter to join him here shortly as nonquota immigrants. When the new law was passed his wife and child could not procure visas because the Czech quota was full and they had no preference. Although Mr. P. has succeeded very well in his profession, he has now decided to sell his home which he purchased and is planning to go to Mexico, having sent for his wife and child to join him there. In this instance the man's employers have taken considerable interest in his situation, finding him a very trustworthy employee, whom they were desirious of retaining.

Z. A., 141⁄2 years of age, was separated during the war from his family, who were Russian refugees. The father is a declarant who will be unable to obtain his second papers for several years. The boy is at present residing in a village near Prague, Czechoslovakia. For a while the boy was so very greatly exploited by an employer that he became quite ill. The mother is greatly grieved because the boy can not join her here. Money for the boy's passage was advanced by the parents several years ago, who were constantly hoping that the boy might receive a visa within the quota.

The case of R. C. is a Syrian woman whose husband is a shoemaker in Clevis, Calif. This man sent for his wife in 1923, but because the quota was exhausted upon her arrival at Ellis Island she was excluded and was obliged to return to Marseille, her port of embarkation. Here the woman has been living since 1923, maintained by funds sent her by her husband,

who is a declarant. Recently the husband, becoming discouraged and feeling. that it would be many years before his wife might joint him, suggested that she return to Damascus, their former home. Unfortunately the massacre at Damascus occurred just at that time, and the woman is therefore still in Marseilles. The editor of the Clovis Tribune has been in constant communication with us regarding this particular case, as he states the husband is a very deserving, honest man who is suffering a great deal because of the difficulties which his wife has encountered.

Mrs. N. Q. arrived in the United States with her child destined to her citizen husband residing in Seattle, Wash. Mrs. Q. was obliged to leave a 6-yearold daughter by a former marriage in Harbin, China, because she could not obtain a visa for the stepchild of an American citizen. Mrs. Q. is preparing herself for citizenship so that she may in November, when her year's residence in this country has expired, become a citizen in her own right. Meantime, however, she is greatly perturbed over the fate of the 6-year-old child. For some time no letters were received by her from the family with whom she had intrusted the little girl and so great was the mother's anguish that she became very ill. At her request we obtained a report from our correspondent in Harbin, which has just reached us, and which reads:

"N. Q. looks very sickly and listless. The woman with whom the mother had left the child recently became very ill, and the child was placed in another home of a poverty stricken and unwholesome atmosphere."

In addition a report from the Seattle office states that Mrs. Q. "is so worried over the little girl that she can not eat or sleep, and we are very much afraid that if something is not done soon to admit this child, the mother will have either a mental or physical breakdown." The mother was persuaded to leave the child in Harbin by her husband, who advised her that the sooner she joined him in the United States, the sooner she herself may become a citizen and the sooner she would be reunited with her child.

In addition to these memoranda, we attach marked copiees of The Immigrant for February, 1925, November, 1925, and February, 1926. These bulletins contain a discussion of some social aspects of the immigration law; copy of the resolution adopted by the National Council of Jewish Women at its annual meeting in November, 1925. Also a reprint of an article which appeared in the February midmonthly issue of the Survey entitled Shall we give these aliens a chance?"

Many large national patriotic organizations have indorsed the provisions of the bill; representatives of some of these organizations appeared this morning and addressed you. Among these organizations are the American Jewish Committee, headed by Hon. Louis Marshall; American Jewish Congress, headed by Rabbi Stephen S. Wise; the Independent Order Brith Abraham, of which Hon. Adolph Stern, of New York, is grand master. Recently in Washington at a convention of the Order of the Sons of Italy in America, the following resolution was adopted:

At a supreme lodge convention of the Order of the Sons of Italy in America, held in the Hotel Washington, in the city of Washington, D. C.;

Resolved, That this convention, through its legally constituted officers, shall urge the House of Representatives of the Sixty-ninth Congress, as well as the members of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, to favor and approve the bill to amend the immigration act of 1924, known as H. R. 7089, introduced by Congressman Perlman, permitting the entry of certain immigrants into this country, more particularly an immigrant who is the unmarried child under 21 years of age, the wife, the husband, the father, or the mother of a citizen of the United States, or of an honorably discharged veteran of the American military or naval forces in the World War, or of an alien legally admitted to the United States prior to July 1, 1924, for permanent residence therein, who has declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States and still residing therein, etc.

Editorials favoring this legislation have appeared in many of the largest daily newspapers in the United States. The Springfield Republican states:

From the point of view of cold-blooded economics the proposed changes might conceivably work to the disadvantage of the country by limiting the proportion among the immigrants of persons of the more productive ages. From the humanitarian point of view the advantage is all on the side of the Wadsworth-Perlman proposal.

The New York World in its editorial states:

This separation was inevitable under the drastic restrictions of the act. We allow Greece only 8 immigrants a month, Esthonia only 10, Hungary only 36, Yugoslavia only 55, and even Italy only 3,845 a year. Many a father on this side suddenly found that he could not bring in his wife and children, for whom he had been saving transportation money, dollar by dollar. Many a son is left without aged parents. A survey of ports of northern Europe last November revealed at least 6,000 persons, mostly women and children, in a particularly unhappy situation. Their breadwinners were in America; they had no home to go back to, having sold their means of livelihood or left their country against its regulations.

The following excellent editorial appeared in the Day (New York Jewish daily newspaper), one of the largest foreign-language papers in the United States:

IMMIGRATION BEFORE THE SENATE

The hearing on the immigration bills of Senator Wadsworth and Congressman Perlman, which propose to admit parents, wives, and children of immigrants living in this country, is about to take place before the Senate Immigration Committee.

The exclusionists are exerting every effort to prevent these bills from becoming law.

It is therefore very important to make it clear, for the hundredth time, that the bills of Senator Wadsworth and Congressman Perlman do not propose to relax the present system of admitting aliens; nor do these bills aim at increasing the present quota, or aiding any criminal or mentally defective person to enter this country.

The object of the bills of Senator Wadsworth and Congressman Perlman is to remove a great injustice from the present immigration law, an injustice that has been conceded by Secretary Davis and many other Government officials connected with the administration of the immigration laws. It is true that our country has a right to regulate its own immigration and decide upon the class and the number of immigrants to be admitted; but there is a higher right which does not tolerate injustice, even when it is sanctioned by the law. And the present immigration law is unjust to a large number of American citizens of to-day and to many who will be American citizens to-morrow.

What justice is there in a law that prevents a father from helping his own children? What man can regard a law as just which denies him the right of having his wife and children near him?

The Wadsworth-Perlman bill would not, and could not, help any undesirable element. The only object of the bill is to help honest immigrants to live a clean and decent family life, which is the best preventive against the spread of crime in this country.

The present immigration law was passed during a time of great economic depression in 1921. Over 3,000,000 American workers were unemployed, and every alien that arrived to our shores was therefore looked upon as one more competitor for the longed-for job.

Now, however, the economic condition in the country has been stabilized. The statistics of the Labor Department, now published, show that the country is in a state of prosperity. There has never been so little unemployment as now; all industries are busy; almost all workers are employed. There is, therefore, no reason for our country to deny a woman the protection of her husband, nor little children the protection of their fathers. There is no argument, either logical or moral, that can excuse their being kept away from our shores.

The Wadsworth-Perlman bill must be passed, because it serves the interests of America no less than the interests of the immigrant in taking away the .sharp edge of a merciless law.

On January 11, 1926, the following editorial appeared in the Dayton Daily News:

ALIEN FAMILIES

Steps have been taken to "humanize" the immigration restriction law recently enacted by making it possible for families to be united regardless of any quota which may seem to stand in the way. The relief is promised in identical bills introduced in both the House and the Senate to exempt from the quota system certain relatives of aliens already in the United States and also aliens who served with the American forces during the World War. The measures have been introduced by Representative Perlman and Senator Wadsworth, of New York, and are said to have been given the President's approval. This has not been tacitly announced, but the proposed law appears to be in keeping with one of the recommendations of the President's message to Congress in December.

If the present immigration law, the President said, deprives people in this country "of the comfort and society of those bound to them by close family ties, such modifications should be adopted as will afford relief, always in accordance with the principle that our Government owes its first duty to its own people and that no alien inhabitant of another country has any legal rights whatever under our Constitution and laws. But we should not be unmindful of the obligations of common humanity."

Most people who have studied the immigration restriction law and its operation have been shocked by the glaring brutality of some of its features, chief of the evils being in the fact that when the law went into effect it found thousands of alien residents in the midst of preparations to bring their families to the United States. In some cases the father alone was here; in others both the father and mother with children left behind; and in many cases destitute and aged parents. Some of the difficulty was due to the lack of understanding of the new law, but admittedly the law itself was not humanely designed.

The bill now pending provides that the nonquota class of immigrants shall include the husband, wife, father, mother, or unmarried child under 21 years of age of an American citizen, or of a veteran of the American World War forces, or of an alien legally admitted to the United States prior to the passage of the immigration act who has declared citizenship intent. In addition to these nonquota changes the bill provides that the same lineal relatives mentioned shall enjoy preference within the quota, irrespective of the time of arrival of the immigrant in this country.

No let down of the bars against indiscriminate immigration is contemplated nor is there any departure from the policy which has been followed. The purpose is simply to put a little of human kindness in the operation of law which by its very nature must be somewhat inhuman.

In conclusion I desire to state that it is clear that the estimates of the American consuls are not applicable to the Wadsworth bill, now under consideration by you. It has been estimated that there are about 7,000,000 aliens now in the United States, and of these only about 1,000,000 are declarents. Mr. du Bois, of the State Department, stated this morning that the estimates of the American consuls are applicable to all the 7,000,000 aliens and that the estimates might logically be reduced by six-sevenths under the provisions of the Wadsworth bill, since that bill limits the nonquota classification to fireside relatives of declarents who were admitted prior to July 1, 1924. This would result in an estimate of approximately 100,000 that may be permitted to enter if the Wadsworth-Perlman bill is passed. It is fair to assume that not all will come. I have made a study of this question and I am convinced that Commissioner Curran's estimate that the net gain will be approximately 40,000 is correct.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »