Its provisions were not as well thought out as those of the present law. Its administration encountered difficulties with which many of the members of this committee are familiar and which, fortunately, have been corrected in the enactment of the law which took effect on July 1, 1924. Under the provisions of that statute, which for the first time applied the quota system to the matter of immigration, a married man could come to this country and be admitted permanently, and upon being admitted could send back to his old country and have his wife and children follow him.

Quite a number came pioneering, as it were, as has always been the case down through the years that have gone by. The husband and father comes in advance to get himself a good job if he can, and to find a home and establish it and get it ready for his wife and his children. During that period that I have just referred to quite a number came, and they came with the thorough and distinct understanding of the statute which was in existence at the time that afer they had established their home-after that man had established his home and got himself a good job-he could send for his wife and his children.

But suddenly-and, of course, it is sudden to these people to whom I am referring, who have not all the advantages to understand what Congress is apt to do or is planning to do suddenly a new law takes effect on July 1, 1924, and that law operates to prevent him from having his wife and children come here, although he has made all preparations, has worked hard, and is longing for and looking forward toward their arrival.

Now, the law provides in effect that he may send for his wife and children after he has become a citizen of the United States. As you know, it takes five years at the least for an immigrant to become a citizen. If he arrived here in 1923, we will say, or before July 1, 1924, he would have to wait in the first instance until 1928 or 1929, probably until 1930, before he could become a citizen and hope to see his wife and children.

I submit to you gentlemen that that is a cruel situation, which was not intended when the enactment of the law which took effect on July 1, 1924, was done. There are to-day in this country quite a number estimates may be given to you later-of these men, perfectly decent people, who come ahead to pioneer, as it were, to get the home established and the occupation assured, and who to-day are confronted with the prospect of waiting from four to five or six years, perhaps, before they can hope to see their loved ones.

Senator REED. Wasn't that true under the temporary quota law of 1921? They had no assurance that their wives and children might follow them. There was a provision in there that in the application of the law preference should be given as far as possible to the wives, parents, brothers, sisters, children under 18, and fiancées of citizens of the United States and aliens in the United States who had applied for citizenship, but that provision merely operated to give them preference

Senator WADSWORTH. That is true.

Senator REED. In the list of passengers on any steamship. It could not give them preference as against somebody who had arrived before their own arrival.

Senator WADSWORTH. Yes.

Senator REED. So the preference was really not operative?

Senator WADSWORTH. It was inoperative. It did not have the effect which those who wrote that provision thought it might have. We have some of those men here and I ask you to consider the social effect of a situation of that kind.

Senator KING. You are speaking on behalf of the man who has not become a citizen and not about those who have made their application?

Senator WADSWORTH. I am speaking in behalf of the man who has not had a chance to become a citizen because he has not been here long enough. This bill provides that they shall receive the benefits of this law, as it were, if they have become in the meantime veterans. I think that these people should be relieved who have given good evidence that they intend to remain in this country as citizens and become part of our social system.

Here is a man whose wife and children are 2,000 miles away from him. You can imagine the state of his nerves-how he worries about them. You can imagine also that he works as hard as he can—the normal man does-and sends his earnings back to the old country for their support, because in the great majority of instances they are left in the old country without any means of support except the money that they may receive from him in this country. It strikes me that that is not an entirely healthy situation for this country as a whole-that that man must support a family. If that man has been admitted to this country and has started out to become a good citizen, it will be better for this country and better for that man that he have his family with him here, for, after all is said and done, in cases of that sort a man will be a much better citizen in every way if he has his wife and children with him and supports them here rather than in some other country thousands of miles away.

Cases of that sort are somewhat numerous; and many of the complaints against the law, which are apt to be expanded into attempts to break down the whole law, with which I would have no sympathy at all, emanate from that kind of grievance, which is, Mr. Chairman, I submit, a very genuine grievance from the immigrant's standpoint.

I know that some extraordinary estimates have been made and given to the public from one point or another as to the number of persons who would be admitted to the United States under the provisions of this bill. I do not hesitate to say that they have been grossly exaggerated.

The CHAIRMAN. I am advised that Mr. Dubois would be here this morning prepared to testify in reference to this matter, as well as a representative from the Department of Labor. Oh, yes, I see Mr. Dubois here.

Senator WADSWORTH. Now, in general, the purpose of the bill is to expedite the reuniting of families of those separated in this unlooked-for manner, unlooked for by the families themselves, whose members could not realize that a new law would take effect and would separate them for this considerable period of time.

It must be remembered-or it should be remembered-that the members of the families that are left over on the other side of the

ocean will try their best to get here. Under this law they must wait there unil their husbands on this side become citizens and then they can come under the provisions of the present law ex-quota or they must wait to be picked up in the quota of the country of their origin. Senator KING. This bill-I have not had opportunity to examine it-does not contemplate, does it, letting down the bars so that fathers and mothers and children over 18 years of age or 24 years of age shall be admitted where the father is a citizen or a prospective citizen?

Senator WADSWORTH. Well, under the present law, if the husband is a citizen, the wife and children under 18 can come in ex-quota. Senator KING. I meant the father or mother or the collateral relatives or children over 18 or 21.

Senator WADSWORTH. No collateral relatives are mentioned in this bill except that fathers and mothers of the men who came here before July 1, 1924, and who have become declarants may under the provisions of this bill come as do the wives and the minor children. The CHAIRMAN. The wife, the husband, and the father or mother? Senator WADSWORTH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. The bill will provide for that?

Senator WADSWORTH. Yes. I have mentioned in my remarks thus far and I have tried to paint a picture of the man who is separated from his wife and children. Now, a very similar picture may be drawn with respect to a man who separates from his mother. It is very difficult, gentlemen of the committee, to explain to a son or to a mother that the United States insists that they shall not be reunited. Of couse, we can continue this situation

Senator KING. That is, reunited in this country?

Senator WADSWORTH. Yes; reunited in this country, when the man came here in good faith and was not separated from his mother by his own act alone but who found himself separated through the enactment of a new law following his arrival. I would not propose for one moment that those families that have been separated since the new law went into effect are entitled to be reunited by making them exempt to the provisions of the existing law. My belief is that when families have been separated without their suspecting that they would be separated at the time when they had reason to hope and to believe that they could be reunited as soon as the man had established a home in this country, in that case I think that we ought to smooth out the rough spots.

I think it would be better for all of us if we make these people a happier people. We want them to be contented in this country, not to have a grievance against our Government and our laws and go about stirring up opposition against this splendid policy which we have adopted. They will be better citizens, more valuable to us, and happier in their own lives if we straighten out some of these things. I think it can be done-I know it can be done-without doing any injury whatsoever to the national policy of restricted and regulated immigration.

That is all I wanted to say at this time. I might want to say something later at the conclusion of the hearing.

With your permission I am going to call on Maj. Henry Curran, commissioner of immigration at Ellis Island, to address the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. At this point the reporter will insert in the record the bill under discussion-Senate bill 2245-as a part of Senator Wadsworth's remarks, so that it may be in juxtaposition to the testimony in the record.

I was going to ask if Senator Copeland desired at this time to make a statement upon these bills of his.

Senator COPELAND. Mr. Chairman, I think that since Senator Wadsworth has some witnesses here, it would be just as well for him to go on with this particular bill.

(For text of S. 2245, see p. 1 of this hearing.)

The SENATE COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,

Washington, D. C.

NEW YORK, March 17, 1926.

GENTLEMEN: The Hebrew Sheltering and Immigrant Aid Society (Hias) respectfully favors the adoption of the Wadsworth and Perlman bill (H. R. 7089), now under consideration by your honorable committee.

The work of our society very naturally and obviously brings to us many inquirers as to the possibility and procedure of bringing their close relatives to this country. In nearly every instance the inquiry represents a separated family with one member either a citizen or a declarant, economically able to maintain his family here and who by every decent impulse of humanity desires to have his family with him in this country.

The family unit is the foundation of all sound social life. It represents the natural manner in which men and women should live. Where this country under its laws has admitted the head or principal member of the family, it surely is somewhat and somehow obligated to enable him to make his residence in and citizenship of this country complete by having his family here with him. Even from a selfish social, financial, and economic point of view, it is clearly to the interest of the United States that men expend here in this country the moneys necessary for the maintenance of their families rather than send a substantial part of their earnings to be expended abroad for the maintenance of such families.

In the first quota law, the act of 1921, the important principle of having families united was indicated in the statute itself.

66

Section 2, subdivision D, in its third proviso, requires that preference shall be given, so far as possible," to the wives, parents, and children (also brothers and sisters) of citizens, declarants, and World War veterans.

It quite clearly and logically follows that aliens who were admitted prior to the quota act of 1921, or under the act of 1921 but prior to July 1, 1924, when the present quota law became effective, had reasonable ground to believe that upon becoming citizens or declarants or having been World War veterans they could expect to have their wives, parents, and children united with them in this country shortly and under preference given by the act of 1921. These persons now find themselves divested of the preference given in part by the quota act of 1921, and of all preference and exemptions whatever for their close relatives (excepting only as to American citizens). They have been lawfully admitted, have become attached to this country, as indicated by their declaration of intention to become citizens, and many of them have served in our Army and Navy during the World War, and have acquired an economic foundation and foothold in this country, thereby contributing directly and indirectly to its prosperity and welfare. But under the present law and the limited quotas of many countries, they are destined to be without their near and dear ones for many years. It needs no great imagination to visualize how destructive this is to the sound moral and social life of these persons. Our country is manifestly interested in having every declarant and citizen enjoy not only economic prosperity but also social and moral well being.

The pending bill (H. R. 7089) will remedy this distressful situation. It does not at all destroy the principle of numerical restriction of immigrants. As to citizens it merely extends quota exemption to their children between the ages of 18 and 21, to their parents and to the husband of an American-citizen wife. These individuals are already in the preferred quota class, but such preference is meaningless and a mockery under the very limited quotas of some countries.

Your honorable committee at the sixty-eighth session of Congress reported favorably a bill granting quota exemption to the husband of an American citizen wife so as to treat our female citizens equally with our male citizens who aiready have quota exemption for their wives.

H. R. 7089 grants similar quota exemption to an honorably discharged veteran of the American military and naval forces in the World War. These men have in a practical and in a patriotic way shown most conclusively their attachment to and devotion for our country. Is it too large a recompense for their service to grant them an opportunity of having with them in the country which they served in its hour of stress and peril their wives, childreň, and parents?

H. R. 7089 grants similar exemption to the same relatives of an alien legally admitted to the United States prior to July 1, 1924, for permanent residence therein and who has declared his intention to become a citizen.

We have already pointed out in this memorandum that these aliens, when they obtained legal permanent admission, were justified in expecting that under the laws then in force they could soon bring their families to this country. Whatever number of additional immigrants may be admitted under this provision of H. R. 7089 will only mean that they come to heads of families already here, giving service in the industries of our country and already of an economic and social statuts indicative of their ability and willingness to see that their families do not become public charges. (See provisions to be stated in the petition as required under section 3, subdivision B, of H. R. 7089.) The larger number of aliens who will be so admitted will be supported by the head of the family here and will not become independent workers, and therefore there will not be a substantial influx of seekers for gainful employment here with supposed competition for jobs with those already residents or citizens of this country.

We are confronted with two alternatives. Is it better from a moral, social, and economic point of view that we shall have many men permanently in this country and who can not be deported, but who are doomed to remain here indefinitely without their families and subjected to obvious temptations destructive of good morals and social well-being; or whether by this one act of legislation we can promote good morals, economic welfare, and social justice by permitting their families to come to them? The happiness and well-being of the whole family in this country can not but react most favorably upon the happiness and well-being of our country itself. Respectfully submitted.

HEBREW SHELTERING AND IMMIGRANT AID SOCIETY (HIAS). By JNO. L. BERNSTEIN, President.

STATEMENT OF HENRY CURRAN, NEW YORK CITY, UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AT THE PORT OF NEW YORK

The CHAIRMAN. How long have you been in that particular official position, please?

Mr. CURRAN. Since July 1, 1922.

The CHAIRMAN. So that the administrative end of the new immigration law, if I may term it such, has been in your hands at the city of New York for that time?

Mr. CURRAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We should be glad to have you proceed in your own way with such statements as you desire to make.

Mr. CURRAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my statement will be short, because Senator Wadsworth in a general way, with the absence only of certain specific cases, which with your permission I shall cite, has covered the merit and need of this legislation, I think, almost conclusively.

Personally, I am very strong for a small, limited, carefully regulated immigration law for our country for all time. I am a restric