« ÎnapoiContinuați »
SEVENTY-FIRST CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
ALBERT JOHNSON, Washington, Chairman J. WILL TAYLOR, Tennessee.
JOHN C. BOX, Texas. ARTHUR M. FREE, California.
SAMUEL DICKSTEIN, New York. BIRD J. VINCENT, Michigan.
SAMUEL RUTHERFORD, Georgia THOMAS A. JENKINS, Ohio.
JOHN W. MOORE, Kentucky. GEORGE J. SCHNEIDER, Wisconsin.
JOHN M. EVANS, Montana.
JOHN H. KERR, North Carolina.
V. A. DAVIS, Clerk
WIVES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS OF ORIENTAL RACE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Tuesday, March 4. 1939. The committee this day met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Albert Johnson, chairman, presiding:
The CHAIRMAN. This hearing was set for hearing of statements with regard to H. R. 2404, introduced by Mr. Dyer, of Missouri, and which reads as follows:
(H. R. 2404, Seventy-first Congress, first session]
A BILL To permit the admission, as nonquota immigrants, of certain alien wives, and
children of United States citizens
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That clause (1) of subdivision (c) of section 13 of the immigration act of 1924 is amended to read as follows: "(1) is admissible as a nonquota immigrant under the provisions of subdivision (a), (b), (d), or (e) of section 4 or."
Also, the committee set aside this day to hear witnesses concerning H, R. 5654, by Mr. Houston of Hawaii. This relates to the admission to the United States of Chinese wives of certain American citizens and reads as follows:
(H. R. 5654, Seventy-first Congress, second session)
A BILL To admit to the United States Chinese wives of certain American citizens
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That subdivision (c) of section 13 of the immigration act of 1924, approved May 26, 1924, as amended, is amended by striking out or" before “(3),” and by insertitng after “section 3” the following: “or (4) is the Chinese wife of an American citizen who was married prior to the approval of the immigration act of 1924, approved May 26, 1924."
For general information it may be said that the Houston bill has the same identical purpose in view as the Dyer bill, but has a limitation in that it provides that the Chinese wife of an American citizen who married prior to the approval of the immigration act of 1924 is affected. The Dyer bill refers to all wives.
Mr. DYER. That proposes an amendment to section 13 of the immigration act of 1924 and the amendment is that clause 1 of subdivision C, of section 13, of the act of 1924 shall be amended as follows:
(1) is admissible as a nonquota immigrant under the provisions of subdivision (a), (b), (d), or (e) of section 4 or
In other words, this would give the alien wives of American citizens the privilege of entering the United States. As the law is now construed by the Supreme Court of the United States, citizens of
the United States, former World War veterans or whatever they may be, and we have many of them who served in the World War who have wives in China, can not bring them here, and these men here can not go to China and marry a Chinese or Japanese woman and bring her
to the United States. This has had the effect, in part, of separating families, which I am sure this committee on a general broad principle does not approve of. There are not very many American-born Chinese in the United States and it would not affect very many cases. As far as the Japanese are concerned, it would not affect more than a few, if any, because during the picture-bride régime some many years ago many Japanese women came here and married Japanese men living in the United States. Their families have grown up and there are abundant Japanese women here eligible to marry Japanese men, so that this would not affect their status. Practically speaking, it affects the Chinese only. As the chairman and members of the committee know, the Supreme Court, when it passed upon the provisions of the immigration act, said that the wives of Chinese merchants could come to the United States under our treaty. Chinese merchants born in China may bring their wives here under treaty rights. The Supreme Court says they may bring their wives here. These Chinese go to China, marry, and bring their wives here, but American-born Chinese, represented as they are here to-day at this hearing by Mr. Fung, who is here to testify, can not bring their wives here. Mr. Fung has on previous occasions appeared here in behalf of American-born Chinese.
Mr. CABLE. In what business would these people engage? I refer to those who can not bring their wives in. The merchants may bring in their wives. There are, as I understand, quite a few Chinese who are American citizens, but, being of the Chinese race, they can not bring their wives here. What is their business?
Mr. DYER. I will call on a witness who will give you that information. I refer to Mr. Kenneth F. Fung, of San Francisco.
The CHAIRMAN. Your bill, Mr. Dyer, is identical with the one you introduced in the Seventieth Congress.
Mr. DYER. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. I think that we will, without objection, restate in this hearing the statement made by Mr. Dyer at that hearing, which carries the text of the section to which it is proposed an amendment shall be made. Without objection, that will be placed in the hearing at this time to save restating it. It says:
Mr. DYER. Under section 13, paragraph (c), of the immigration act of 1924, we wish to insert before the letter (b) the subdivision (a) of section 4, which is as follows: (a) An immigrant who is an unmarried child under 18 years of age, or the wife, of a citizen of the United States who resides therein at the time of the filing of the petition under section 9.
Let me state it again. All this bill would do would be to include paragraph (a) of section 4 with (b), (d), or (e) of section 4. In other words, it will read then as follows:
(c) No alien ineligible to citizenship shall be admitted to the United States unless such alien (1) is admissible as a nonquota immigrant under the provision of subdivisions (a), (b), (d), or (e) of section 4
Paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) of section 4 of the act of May 26, 1924, in defining the meaning of the term “nonquota immigrant," read as follows:
(b) An immigrant, previously lawfully admitted to the United States, who is returning from a temporary visit abroad;
(d) An immigrant who continuously for at least two years immediately preceding the time of his application for admission to the United States has been, and who seeks to enter the United States solely for the purpose of carrying on the vocation of minister of any religious denomination, or professor of a college, academy, seminary, or university; and his wife, and his unmarried children under 18 years of age, if accompanying or following to join him; or
(e) An immigrant who is a bona fide student at least 15 years of age and who seeks to enter the United States solely for the purpose of study at an accredited school, college, academy, seminary, or university, particularly designated by him and approved by the Secretary of Labor, which shall have agreed to report to the Secretary of Labor the termination of attendance of each immigrant student; and if any such institution of learning fails to make such reports promptly, the approval shall be withdrawn.
Paragraph (a) of section 4 of the act of 1924 was, in my opinion, unintentionally left out from section 13c of that act. This bill has only one purpose, namely, to include that letter (a), which would enable an American-born Chinese to bring his alien wife to the United States from China.
The CHAIRMAN. It means more than that, does it not? You mean an American-born perso of oriental ancestry, not necessarily Chinese, do you not?
Mr. DYER. Yes.
Mr. DYER. I ask that the testimony given by Mr. Husband, Assistant Secretary of Labor, on February 7, 1928, on a similar bill, be included.
The CHAIRMAN. The hearing at which Assistant Secretary Husband testified in the Senate on that date?
Mr. DYER. He testified in the House on February 7 and in the Senate on February 6 on the same bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, one of the statements will be carried in this hearing.
Mr. DYER. A bill similar to mine is now pending in the Senate. It was introduced by Senator Gould.
I should now like to introduce Mr. Kenneth Y. Fung, executive secretary of the Chinese American Citizens' Alliance, of San Francisco. He represents, in a way, these American-born Chinese who are asking for this legislation.
Mr. Fung. Mrs. Kahn is present, and no doubt the committee desires to hear her first.
STATEMENT OF HON. FLORENCE P. KAHN, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The CHAIRMAN. We shall be glad to hear you, Mrs. Kahn.
Mrs. Kahn. I want to say that I am heartily in sympathy with the Dyer bill, and I do hope something may be done to remedy the deplorable situation in which this group of intelligent, patriotic, native-born American citizens find themselves. They are deprived by law of one of the fundamental rights of the human race, namely, the right to enjoy family life. This right is not denied a Chinese merchant who is a temporary visitor here. They may bring their wives here, but these native-born American Chinese are not allowed to bring in wives. It seems to me that something should be done soon to remedy this regrettable condition.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you figured out why it is these native-born Chinese girls go to China and do not return to the United States as the boys do?
Mrs. Kaun. You mean American-born Chinese girls who go to China.