EXEMPTION FROM THE QUOTA OF AGED FATHERS AND MOTHERS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS

JANUARY 22, 1932.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. DICKSTEIN, from the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 8174]

The Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, to which was referred the bill (H. R. 8174) to exempt from the quota fathers and mothers over 60 years of age of United States citizens, having had the same under consideration, reports it back to the House, without amendment, and recommends that the bill do pass.

Under the present law fathers and mothers of American citizens are granted preferences within the quotas of the countries of their birth. Such preferences have alleviated many hardships due to the separation of families, but by reason of the fact that many quotas are exceedingly small, the preference is of no benefit or relief in certain cases. The situation is one of inequality as between American citizens of different national origins. For instance, an American citizen establishing preference for his aged mother born in England is able to secure her admission almost immediately, whereas an American citizen establishing preference for his parent born in a country of southern Europe must wait indefinitely. This is an inequality which has been well appreciated by students of the immigration problem since a date soon after passage of the immigration act of 1924. Its correction is not only a simple act of justice and humanity, but decidedly of advantage to the policy of selective immigration and an economic benefit to the United States. The humanitarian aspect of the matter is in respect of the reunion of separated families. The justice of it is the establishment of parity as between American citizens equally entitled to benefit. The advantage to the policy of selective immigration results from the opening of places in the quotas (heretofor assigned under the parent's preference) to aliens economically desirable. The economic benefit operates through the probability that numbers of parents now supported by American money

transmitted abroad may hereafter be supported by American funds in the United States, thus keeping an amount of wealth, estimated at millions annually, at home.

The committee is therefore of the opinion that where the parents of an American citizen are over 60 years of age they can not seriously come into competition with American labor, and if their children who are citizens of the United States wish to bring them into this country, they should be given an opportunity to do so without quota restriction. By this humanitarian act the committee will have relieved cases of extreme hardship, in accordance with the suggestions repeatedly contained in the Annual Reports of the Commissioner General of Immigration, as well as the Secretary of Labor.

The bill also specifically includes within the first preference under the quota the fathers and mothers, not over 60 years of age, who are parents of citizens of the United States. This does not change the effect of the present law in so far as parents under 60 years of age are concerned.

In compliance with paragraph 2A of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in the existing law made by the bill are shown as follows: Existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman; new matter is printed in italics.

SEC. 4. When used in this act the term "nonquota immigrant" means

(a) An immigrant who is the unmarried child under twenty-one years of age, or the wife, of a citizen of the United States, or the husband of a citizen of the United States by marriage occurring prior to June 1, 1928, or the father or the mother of a citizen of the United States, if such father or mother is over sixty years of age.

SEC. 6. (a) Immigration visas to quota immigrants shall be issued in each fiscal year as follows:

(1) Fifty per centum of the quota of each nationality for such year shall be made available in such year for the issuance of immigration visas to the following classes of immigrants, without priority of preference as between such classes: (A) Quota immigrants who are the fathers or the mothers not over sixty years of age, or the husbands by marriage occurring after May 31, 1928, of citizens of the United States who are twenty-one years of age or over; and (B) in the case of any nationality the quota for which is three hundred or more, quota immigrants who are skilled in agriculture, and the wives, and the dependent children under the age of eighteen years, of such immigrants skilled in agriculture, if accompanying or following to join them.

EXEMPTION FROM QUOTA OF AGED FATHERS AND MOTHERS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS

FEBRUARY 22, 1932.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr JENKINS, from the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, submitted the following

MINORITY VIEWS

[To accompany H. R. 8174]

Restriction of immigration is a well-recognized national policy. There is no denying the fact that the American people desire further restriction. This bill seeks to lay down the bars and admit many outside the quotas. Restrictionists should not be induced by antirestrictionists to lay aside a policy which they have long espoused. In all but two countries of Europe the present quotas are sufficient to take care of all fathers and mothers now demanding admission and who are qualified to be admitted. Why lay down the bars and put outside the quota thousands of fathers and mothers coming from the large countries in order to admit 515 waiting in Rumania and 354 waiting in Turkey, all of whom can be reached under the present system in three and one-half years. This would in effect be increasing the quotas of the other countries by thousands in order to admit the 869 from two small countries.

The following table shows the five countries in which there is any demand for relatives that is not being absorbed by the preferences allowed within the quotas. And in three of these all that have been found to be qualified have been admitted to date, but there are a few in each of these countries who have been rejected once but who are kept on the list in order to give them a chance to remove the objection if they can do it, but which no doubt will not be done in a great majority of the cases. A word of explanation of this table might be worth while. In the first column is the quota for each of the countries referred to. The second column is the number that might be given preference as fathers and mothers or husbands. The third column shows the active demand which include those who have been accepted for visas and are waiting to come. The fourth column shows the inactive demand and includes those who have made application

HR-72-1-VOL 1-22

but have been rejected but are kept on the list. The fifth column shows the time required for a new applicant to secure a visa if he is qualified. The sixth column shows the time that might elapse if all who have applied and once rejected may yet clear their record. Their column is, of course, of no value except to show the most extreme date that the rankest propagandist may claim.

It is pertinent to state that the policy of the immigration officials of the Departments of State and Labor is to give preference within the quotas at all times to members of families. This policy shows results in the six months of the current fiscal year, when more than 63 per cent of all quota visas issued went to fathers, mothers, and husbands married after the limit date of May 31, 1928. These figures establish the fact that there is no basis for the assertion that there is any injustice being done to fathers and mothers and that there is no dire necessity for the enactment of this bill.

If fathers and mothers should be admitted outside the quotas for humanitarian reasons and to reunite families, why put an age limit on them? Is family affection felt only before or after parents reach the age of 60? Fathers and mothers of American citizens over 21 years of age are not lawfully within the family of such citizen, for when the American citizen reaches 21 years of age he or she legally finds himself or herself outside the family of the father and mother or at least the potential and legal head of another family. Suppose a German father and mother had brought up their children and one was located in Australia with his family, another in Canada with his family, and another in the United States with his family, in which of such children's family is that father and mother a member? By the growth of the family it is separated into new families. Our immigration laws have never recognized a father and mother as being a member of the families of their children but it recognizes the minor children as being members of their fathers' and mothers' family. Our social structure and immigration law is built up on the theory that the children are members of the family of the father and mother and while such they should be permitted to come in with the father and mother, which has always been done under all of our immigration laws; but to permit the father and mother to come to a child who has been here more than five years is identically the same as admitting another family outside the quota. It might be admitted that in some instances it would be an act of human kindness to permit aged parents to come to children who can care for them, but this bill does not prevent the coming of fathers and mothers into homes in which already there may be many unfavorable conditions. Suppose a father is 60 years of age and a mother is 45 years of age, how will this law relieve the situation? Rather will it create other much more acute situations. Once the bars are lowered the worse will be the situation.