Senator WILLIS. I understand it to be your contention here that this law should apply to the wives and minor children without regard 'to the time when the citizens and aliens themselves came here.

Mr. LEWIS. No. We believe very distinctly that any person who came here after the enactment of the quota act, after it became the definite and final policy of the United States, came with his eyes

Senator WILLIS. You were referring to those who came before 1924?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes. In other words, a man who came here and became rooted, we feel that he should be able to bring at least his wife and minor children.

The CHAIRMAN. If I understand you, you think that he should be permitted to bring them without regard to whether he is a citizen or whether he has declared his intention to become a citizen.

Mr. LEWIS. I believe that if he wants to bring his wife and children here he should take out a declaration of intention. I believe that would be the thing to do. But my point is that it would follow normally that all of this group will take out their declarations of intention.

The CHAIRMAN. I thought I understood you to say that it made no difference whether he had declared his intention or not.

Mr. LEWIS. Prior to July 1, 1924, I should say.

The CHAIRMAN. It is your argument that he should be permitted to bring his wife and minor children here whether he had declared his intention to become a citizen or whether he had not declared any intention to become a citizen at all?

Mr. LEWIS. We would not go that far. We believe that a man should take out a declaration of intention.

The CHAIRMAN. I beg your pardon. I misunderstood you, then. Mr. LEWIS. What I wanted to say is that whether the date of the taking out of his declaration of intention is prior to July 1, 1924, or not is not so important, because in many cases it is no mark of a superior intention that an individual had taken it out before that date. But we do feel that a man should take out a declaration of intention before he gets the benefit of this peculiar quota status. The CHAIRMAN. Have you concluded your testimony?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Unless there is someone else who desires to be heard particularly-and I know of no other-the matter will stand submitted.

Mr. ADAMS. I submit to you a memorandum on this subject and also an editorial from the New York Herald-Tribune and ask that they be inserted in the record.

Senator COPELAND. I would like to have inserted in the record of the Senate Committee the statement made at the House Committee by Congressman Jacobstein.

The CHAIRMAN. We were going to consider both the House hearing and this hearing together.

Senator COPELAND. If that is the understanding, I am satisfied. The CHAIRMAN. The papers submitted by Mr. Adams will be inserted in the record.

(The papers referred to are as follows:)

NEED OF ALIEN REGISTRATION

Although the Senate Committee on Immigration has decided to let Chicago struggle alone with its crime wave the committee has not rejected the suggestion of the Chicago Better Government Association that the Federal Government shall register aliens. At least it has taken the plan under consideration. The experience of Chicago with its alien gangs is as good an argument as any committee needs for supporting legislating that will afford means of revealing and rooting out foreigners who are here illegally and who compose, it is guessed, a large percentage of the criminal element in this country.

In the estimate of immigration officials the number of illegal entrants rurs up to over a million. This is only a surmise, because the Government has never attempted to check up the alien by identification. The smuggled immigrants, if they have any luck at all, are sure of staying here permanently. It is perfectly easy for them to join a crime ring in a large city and fatten on the community.

If registration were required the status of these persons would be discovered on their first contact with the criminal law. The failure of Congerss to provide a way of keeping tally of alien inhabitants of the United States is a glaring oversight in the immigration policy. A restrictive law is defeated when immigrants who cheat the law entirely have every change of avoiding disclosure of their illicit status. Naturally these aliens do not want a registration law. They are the only class which has a reasonable objection to alien enrollment.

The immigration statute is weakened by neglect to provide for the registration of all aliens as the simplest and most effective method of spotting the bootlegged immigrants. That defect can be cured by appropriate legislation. The quota law needs that supplement. It is threatened on another hand by a sweeping extension of the nonquota privilege. The, Wadsworth-Perlman bill, which lifts the bars for the unmarried children, wives, husbands, and parents of alien declarants for citizenship who came here before July 1, 1924, might let in more than a million immigrants in excess of the quota, and the bulk of these immigrants would come from the countries whose quotas were drastically and designedly reduced in the last quota revision. The restrictive law would be quite submerged by this section of the Wadsworth-Perlman bill. The statute should not be honeycombed by large nonquota indulgences and it should be backed up by a registration law.

66

THE ATTACK ON THE IMMIGRATION ACT

Senator Wadsworth and Congressman Perlman have recently introduced bills to amend" the restrictive immigration act of 1924. These bills (S. 2245H. R. 7089), if enacted into law, would nullify that act.

The bills would permit all aliens legally admitted at any time prior to July 1, 1924, upon proof that they had made the declaration of intention-i. e., had taken out their first citizenship papers-to bring in all their immediate relatives without restriction, for the mere asking. We say this because the declaration, made a condition of the proposed privilege, is little better than a farce. Under our lax naturalization law any alien legally admitted can, without being able to speak, read, or write the English language, make the declaration; he need not even be able to sign his name. He is not required to produce any witness to support his declaration. Moreover, he is free to change his intention at will, for the declaration of intention imposes upon him no legal duty to the United States.

Propaganda statements that the privilege is to be limited to aliens having declared their intention before July 1, 1924, or before the enactment of the proposed law are contradicted by Congressman Perlman's own testimony. (House hearings, January 7, 1926.)

An attempt is being made to disarm criticism of the proposed destructive privilege by coupling with it two provisions, loudly proclaimed humane and patriotic.

The first of these provisions would enlarge the nonquota privilege now granted to naturalized citizens.

When an alien becomes naturalized we congratulate ourselves upon our progress in Americanization, and then, curiously enough, at once extend to him, if his family is not already here, the privilege of bringing in free from the quota limits his alien wife and all of his alien unmarried children under 18, thereby more than offsetting the Americanization through him achieved. We are now called upon to permit him in addition to bring in free from the quota limits his father, his mother, and his unmarried children between 18 and 21, relatives presumably even less assimilable than those now exempted. It would seem that Congress has already yielded to the plea of humanity as far as can safely be done if we are ever to catch up in the process of Americanization. If such additional relatives of citizens must be taken care of, they should be taken care of within the quotas.

The second of these provisions would admit free from the quota limits honorably discharged veterans of our forces in the World War not now residing in the United States, together with their immediate relatives.

It may safely be said that practically all of these alien veterans would now be citizens, enjoying as to their relatives the existing nonquota privilege had they, after the Great War, decided permanently to settle in the United States and to accept the citizenship then tendered. Moreover, any cases of hardship are sufficiently covered by special legislation now pending.

The total quotas last year were only 164,667. There are about 5,500,000 aliens legally admitted. If the Wadsworth-Perlman bills are enacted into law, hundreds of thousands-it may be millions of aliens will make the declaration of intention, in order to secure the proposed nonquota privilege for their families, and will then flood this country with unrestricted immigration. HUGH WHITE ADAMS.

STATEMENT OF THE ALLIANCE OF DECLARANTS AND FUTURE CITIZENS (INC.)

The Alliance of Declarants and Future Citizens, an organization composed of resident aliens, who have declared their intentions of becoming citizens of the United States but who still have their wives and children in their native countries, hereby appeal to the Senate Immigration Committee to report favorably those immigration bills, which would exempt wives and children of declarants from the quota.

It is not necessary for us to go into lengthy details as to the necessity of such legislation. Those who are more or less familiar with the operations of the immigration act, now in force, urge a modification which will make the law more humane. The act, passed by Congress in 1924, is in direct opposition to the accepted moral standards of civilized people, as it breaks up families and parts wives from husbands and children from fathers.

The unity of the family, the bulwark of society, has always been sanctified by all nations. It is recognized as a sacred institution which is jealously guarded. The family builds the nation and the progress of the nation depends upon the progress of the family.

It is, therefore, only fair and just that the United States of America, the most prosperous and free nation in the world, should not depart from this universal tradition of preserving the unity of the home and the family. It is only logical and reasonable that those declarants, future citizens of the United States, should be given the opportunity to bring their wives and children and thereby keep the families intact.

A

The tragic consequences of the immigration act of 1924 are too numerous to mention. By closing the gates of America to wives and children of declarants the act has brought about deplorable situations. Families are separated, children do not get the proper training because they lack a father's care. great portion of the earnings of the declarant is forwarded abroad to upkeep his family, which otherwise would have been put to use in the United States. The husband, as well as the wife, is sentenced to live apart in loneliness and in painful agony.

There is no reason why the United States Congress should allow the continuance of such a situation. There is no reason why these families should be separated, when their heads are in a position to bring over their dear ones and provide them with a home and give the children a proper education which will make them law-abiding citizens of the United States.

We, therefore, again appeal to the Senate Immigration Committee to take all these words into consideration and report favorably such bills, which will exempt from the quota wives and children of declarants. [SEAL.]

PAUL SCHOCHET,

Vice President. M. LIEBMAN,

Chairman of Executive Board.

INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION SERVICE,
New York, March 22, 1926.

COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: The International Migration Service does not take any position in respect to the Wadsworth-Perlman bill or any other legislation. It, however, submits a memorandum containing information which it believes would be of benefit to the committee in considering this bill. The service was formed for the purpose of helping immigrants to solve the problems arising from the consequence of a person, frequently the breadwinner of a family, leaving one country and settling in another. The resultant consequence to the unity of the family and to the ties that the family relation brings with it presents situations on which our advice has been often requested. The accompanying memorandum contains a statement of the facts of these cases.

It is submitted for the information of the committee and not as an argument for or against any legislation or any bills pending before either House of Congress.

I am, very sincerely yours,

JOSEPH P. CHAMBERLAIN.

MEMORANDUM ON THE SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE SEPARATION OF FAMILIES BY THE LAW OF 1924

The International Migration Service, organized to aid immigrants and their relatives in meeting problems consequent to migration, and with branches in six different countries, contains in its files records of personal experience which it believes may be of value in consideration of the proposed amendment to the immigration law of 1924.

In a survey of close on 500 cases, made with a view to discovering in each particular instance the social consequences of family separation, certain outstanding categories have presented themselves which are hereunder grouped for ready reference.

I. ALIEN MOTHERS OF MINOR CHILDREN THEMSELVES CITIZENS

The year 1920 saw many revisits to Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Greece. It was in May, 1921, that the first quota regulations were established. In spite of prolonged residence in the United States, wives of declarants and mothers of American citizens, whose absence was prolonged more than six months, often for reasons beyond their own control, have been detained abroad. Among these are:

1. Alien mothers detained abroad whose children remained with her.-In many cases, rather than to separate these American-born children from their mother, the family prefers that they shall stay abroad. Thus the children fail to get the American education and training so important for the future exercise of their rights as citizens. Some of these American children are known to us to be growing up as illiterates.

(Thirty-nine cases on file.)

Case No. 5884: Mr. P. came to the United States in 1909 from Hungary. He is a declarant and has two American-born children. In 1922 he took his family back to the old country in response to a cable asking them to come, as his old father was dying and wanted to see the children. The family remained over there three years. At the end of this time their savings were only sufficient to pay for one steamship passage. Mr. P. therefore returned with the intention of earning the passage money for his wife and American children, but when he had gotten the money together Mrs. P. was not able to get a

visa. The children (8 and 10 years old) can not come over alone, so they are living in the primitive village with their mother. }

The situation of Mr. P's family causes him anxiety, not only because the children are not getting proper education but because the small village is in territory transferred to Czechoslovakia, where a Hungarian family is apt to meet with some hostility.

Case No. 6127: Mr. D. is a butcher who has three American-born children, the oldest 11 years. In 1923 Mrs. D took her three children on a visit to her parents in Poland. She lost her husband's address. He sent her money, but failed to put the address in the letter, so that there was some delay in arranging for her return. Now she can not obtain a visa. The three children are living with her in a small Polish village until they can get quota visas or Mr. D. gets his second papers.

2. Alien mothers detained abroad and citizen children in the United States.Our records show 18 cases in which the children were left in this country. The mother's absence has been unduly extended and she has been unable to obtain a visa for return. The serious result in these cases is that the children are growing up without maternal care and a normal family life.

(Eighteen cases on file.)

Case No. 5882: The child in question, an American-born citizen, is now a girl of 20, a half orphan, who, after the family had lived in Milwaukee for 16 years, was taken on a visit to her mother's home country in Lithuania in 1921. Remaining there two years, the United States consul considered the mother to have relinquished her United States domicile and refused a return permit. The girl came back to this country. On the advice of a steamship agent, the mother went to Cuba in 1923, where she is being supported by her minor daughter until the latter reaches her majority and can file a petition for an immigration visa for the mother. Since the Polish quota for Cuba preferred class" is small, it may be years before mother and daughter are reunited.

46

3. Alien mothers who give birth to children both in America and abroad.A more complicated situation arises when an alien mother, with one or more American-born children, has also given birth to children in the foreign country. In such cases the alien mother and the foreign-born child have been refused visas. It results that either the young Americans in the family stay with the mother abroad and are deprived of American education or the unity of the family is broken.

Case No. 5045: Mr. S. came to the United States in 1907 and sent for his wife two years later. They lived in Kansas City, Mo., for nine years. Here Mr. S took out first papers. Three children were born to them in the United States-two sons, aged 11 and 8, respectively, and a daughter, now 4 years of age. With these children and their eldest daughter, born in Greece, the parents returned to their home country on a visit. There Mr. S. fell ill and overstayed the period of his visitor's permit. He was, however, finally included in the quota and returned to the United States with his two sons, leaving the American-born daughter with her mother in Greece. Now Mrs. S. and her Greekborn daughter are detained in Greece, together with one American-born child, while the two little boys here are needing her care also.

II. CHILDREN WHO FAIL TO OBTAIN NONQUOTA STATUS

The quota law provides that children under 18 of naturalized citizens shall be admitted exempt from quota. There are many reasons outside the control of immigrants' families why, even when the father has resided here the length of time required for naturalization, the children's entrance into the country is delayed until they have passed the age of 18 and therefore they cannot benefit by the intent of the law. Among such causes are:

(a) Overworked Naturalization Bureau, which runs anywhere from six months to a year behind schedule, thereby delaying the parents' citizenship. (b) Carelessness of notaries and steamship agents, who give wrong information, lose papers, send incomplete documents, etc.

(c) Infrequent court sessions, with postponement; e. g., from June to September.

(d) Official delays in the consulates due to mislaid documents, etc.

(e) Illness of the emigrant, preventing departure during the validity of the visa.