Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

and was anxious to come to the United States. He and the children could come, but the wife could not.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. How would the children get in?
Mr. Dyer. Under section 1993 of the revised statutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Will somebody state that provision? We have with us this morning Mr. Edward J. Shaughnessy, assistant to the Commissioner General of Immigration, and perhaps he can tell us about that.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States. Under Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes the foreign-born child of a native-born citizen is a citizen of the United States. That means that if this man was born in the United States he is a citizen. If he goes to China and there children are born to him, they are citizens of the United States. If his child remains in China and marries there, his grandchildren will not be citizens of the United States unless his children—the parents of the grandchildren-begin to reside in the United States prior to the birth of the grandchildren.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. But it does not have any bearing up the mother of the children?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. No. We are speaking of the children.

Mr. Box. One born in the United States is a citizen by constitutional right.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes.

Mr. Box. And one born to American citizen abroad becomes a citizen by statutory right.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes.

Mr. Box. The Constitution confers one citizenship and the statute confers the other?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Has it not always been the custom of Chinese living in the United States to keep their wives in China ?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. It is. Custom shows that. Or, I should say, experience shows that. They seem to like to go to China to marry. They invariably have a large number of children in a minimum of time and then return to the United States.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. How many Chinese would be benefited by the enactment of this proposed measure ?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. I can not tell you that. However, for the fiscal

years 1918 to 1924, when they could come in, in 1918 there were 132 wives of United States citizen of the Chinese race admitted. Of course, they came from China. In 1919 only 91 came. In 1920 141 came.

In 1921 there were 290. In 1922 there were 396. And in 1923 there were 387. The last year they came, during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1924, 396 came.

Mr. DICHSTEIN. Did the immigration act of May 26, 1924, stop it! Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes, sir; that is when the present law became effective and stopped this practice.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any statistics as to the number en route or traveling to the United States at the time the imigration act of 1924 was effective?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Thirty-two were admitted temporarily after the law became effective. They were on the high seas.

[ocr errors]

The CHAIRMAN. Did that cover all who were in transit, so far as you know?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Presumably, it did.

The CHAIRMAN. And, as I understand, those 32 have been admitted under bond ?

Mr. CHAUGHNESSY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAX. And that status has been maintained from that time to this time?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. They are still under bond.

The CHAIRMAN. This act would be a modicum of relief to those who were en route at the time the 1924 act was effective and who are now here under bond.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes, sir; we recognize a hardship on those people.

Mr. CABLE. Would it be proper to put in the number of wives of American Chinese merchants, and so forth, affected?

Mr. DICKSTEIN. They are here under a treaty.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Wives of Chinese merchants admitted for corresponding years, starting with 1908, are, 1918, 88; 1919, 91; 1920, 166, 1921, 271; 1922, 301, 1923, 319; and 1924, 273.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. What are those ?
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Wives of those exempted, largely merchants.
Mr. DICKSTEIN. Did they come in under a treaty of commerce?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes, sir; the treaty of 1880, which has been construed to be a treaty of commerce, and under the Chinese exclusion acts.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Do they not come in temporarily?
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. No; permanently. This was all prior to 1924.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you a list of wives of Chinese merchants admitted since the immigration act of 1924 went into effect?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. I have not. Mr. DICKSTEIN. Do you say that these women came here as the wives of merchants of citizens of the United States?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. They came in under the treaty of 1880, Chinese exclusion laws and court decisions thereunder.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Assuming that some of them did not maintain the status of merchants, would not that exclude them from the country?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. It had nothing to do with it. Maintenance of status was not known until the act of 1924. Those who would come now would be subject to deportation if status under which admitted was not maintained. Since the 1924 act became effective, the wives of merchants are admitted only so long as their husbands continue their mercantile status.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you not rules and regulations whereby a Chinese coming as a merchant may maintain his status for one year and after that he is considered here in a permanent status as a merchant?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. No; not since the 1924 act. That 1-year proviso was a condition to get return papers. They have to maintain the status of merchants all the time.

Mr. CABLE. If the merchant dies, how about his wife!

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Theoretically, she becomes subject to deportation the same as the minor son when he becomes a major; he is no

[ocr errors]

longer a minor son of a merchant. That is a question the department is still battling with, and it is a hard one.

The CHAIRMAN. Do these merchanis bring in any daughters? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Very, very seldom. Mr. DICKSTEIN. How does the department stand on the Dyer bill, which would give these native-born American Chinese the right to bring in wives from China ?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Without necessarily committing the department, I will say that I believe Mr. Dyer's bill is the same one he had up in 1926, and if that bill were passed by the insertion of that class (a) from section 4, it would overthrow the Chin Bow decision that we fought years to get. If the Dyer bill, as written, were passed, it would overthrow the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in that case, which held that the foreign-born grandchildren of United States born citizens born to foreign-born children are not citizens of the United States unless the children of the foreign-born citizens who are the fathers of the third generation commenced to reside in the United States prior to the birth of this third generation. The bill reads:

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 subdivisions (a), (b), (d), or (e) of section 4 or:”

The only change in this subdivision of section 13 is the inclusion of subdivision (a) of section 4, and subdivision (a) of section 4 not only includes the wives of American citizens, but it includes the children under 21 years of citizens of the United States.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Of Chinese?
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Of all citizens of the United States.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Why can we not amend that to relieve that terrible condition?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Mr. Husband this morning showed me a bill introduced in the Senate by Mr. Bingham. I believe there is a companion bill in this committee for that.

The CHAIRMAN. Read the Bingham bill.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. It is Senate 2836, Seventy-first Congress, second session, and was introduced on January 6, 1930, by Mr. Bingham, of Connecticut. It is a bill to admit to the United States Chinese wives of certain American citizens. It provides:

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 imniigration act of 1924, approved May 26, 1924, as amended, is amended by striking out or " before “(3)”, and by inserting, 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."

Mr. DICKSTEIN. That puts a dead line. It provides that the Chinese wives of American citizens may be admitted if they were married prior to the approval of the immigration act of 1924 on May 26, 1924.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. It preserves the Chin Bow decision, because it does not include the alien children as citizens, but it only takes care of Chinese wives of American citizens where the marriage took place before May 26, 1924.

66

66

Mr. DICKSTEIN. We would allow a Chinese woman who married a native-born citizen of the United States prior to May 26, 1924, to come here?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes, sir; by the Bingham bill. You are favoring the Chinese over the Japanese. You deal specifically with Chinese, and the Japanese finds himself in a position unfavorable to that of a Chinese. By the deletion of a few words, that possible objection could be remedied. Why should a Chinese who married a woman on May 25, 1924, have more right to bring a wife here than one who married a woman on May 27?

The CHAIRMAN. You have read that particular bill and struck it down again completely. You are back where you started.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. No.
The CHAIRMAN. What is left!

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. In the Bingham bill I would strike out the word “ Chinese ” and the words “ who was married prior to the approval of the immigration act of 1924, approved May 26, 1924.” Then the bill would read:

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 inserting, after “section 3,” the following: or (4) is the wife of an American citizen."

That would take care of the whole problem satisfactorily, I believe.

The CHAIRMAN. How would that compare with your bill, Mr. Dyer? Mr. DYER. It would be all right. The CHAIRMAN. What would it do that your bill would not do?

Mr. DYER. It would take care of the wives, but not the alien children. It would leave the latter out.

The CHAIRMAN. It would protect the United States against alien children?

Mr. DYER. It would just authorize the admission of the wife of an American citizen of the Chinese race.

The CHAIRMAN. Until we got the Supreme Court decision, Chinese were coming in from the third generation?

Mr. Fung. There were not many of the third generation coming in.

Mr. DYER. I am more interested in permitting American citizens of Chinese descent in the United States who desire to go to China and marry Chinese women to bring those women to the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. We have to consider a lot of other things in connection with that. Suppose a Chinese should go to China and marry a widow. How about the stepchildren?

Mr. Fung. They could not come in.

The CHAIRMAN. How many Chinese are there in the continental United States?

Mr. Fung. I really do not know.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you think there are as inany as 80,000?

Mr. Fung. The last census showed 61,000. They have been decreasing every 10 years.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. What percentage of those Chinese are males and what percentage are females ?

Mr. FUNG. I will have to refer to my notes. I find that the 1920 census shows 53,000 males and 7,000 females.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. In other words, there are not enough women to

go around?

Mr. Fung. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. There never have been nearly enough female Chinese in the United States to have borne the number of Chinese we have here.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Mrs. Kahn, as I remember, stated that the California law prohibited the intermarriage of Chinese with whites.

Mr. FUNG. Arizona and Colorado also prohibit those intermarriages. In fact, there are 11 States of the Union that prohibit such marriages.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. But there are marriages between your race and the white people?

Mr. Fung. Not many in California. The people there would not receive them as they would if they had married amongst their own race.

Mr. Shaughnessy made a good suggestion. We are interested only in the admission of wives. He put that matter very clearly and satisfactorily.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Suppose one of your men married a woman in China and left some children there and brought the wife in. Do yoti

think the children should be left there? Mr. FUNG. We seldom do that. We bring the wife with the children.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. But under the amendment you could bring the wife only.

Mr. Fung. The children would be taken care of by present statutes.

Mr. DYER. Like the case of the American who has lived in China for many, many years. He was an official there connected with the municipal government of the city of Shanghai. He went there with the Army and remained. He married a Chinese woman and they have grown children. Two of his daughters are occupying secretarial positions in American business concerns in Shanghai. He has now been retired on a pension and would like to come back to the United States and bring his family with him, because he has young children that he would like to send to schools in the United States. Under present law, he and his children may come, but the wife can not come, and for that reason all are compelled to remain in China.

Mr. Fung. Mr. Shaughnessy, in answering a question asked by the chairman, said it had been the custom for a Chinese to leave his wife in China. That is changing, and on account of that, there has been a great deal of pressure to reopen this question. The number of alien wives of American citizens is increasing. There is a demand for them to come here, because China, as you know, is in a very unsettled condition. Why should these citizens of the United States of the Chinese race be compelled to send money to China to support them there? They might as well bring them here. If

« ÎnapoiContinuați »