merchant, by reason of the terms of the treaty with China, was deemed to be admissible to the United States, but the wife of a citizen, not being referred to in the treaty in any way, was deemed to be subject to the provisions of section 5 of the act. While these cases were pending in court a considerable number of wives of merchants were necessarily admitted under bond and a number of wives of citizens were likewise admitted temporarily under bond. Since the Supreme Court decision in so far as the wives of the merchants are concerned have been cleared up, but we still have a limited number of wives of citizens who are here temporarily under bond. Mr. DYER. I have made three trips to China during my congressional service. I have been very much interested in China and the situation there as between that country and this country, particularly with reference to trade and commerce. I have noted that our trade has continued to increase right along. Last year shows that our trade with China exceeded that of Great Britain, which had led for many years. We now rank second in trade with China, Japan alone being first. Our trade during the last year, notwithstanding the disorders in China, has amounted to more than $350,000,000. We are shipping immense quantities of products of this country to China. In one year we shipped 30,000,000 boxes of oranges alone to Shanghai. We are sending great quantities of flour, cotton, lumber, and many other products. The Chinese are the best friends that the people of the United States have in the whole world, I believe. I have felt that a great injustice, especially to the American citizens of Chinese descent, was done by the enactment of the act of 1924. That injustice has fallen heavily upon many American citizens who served faithfully and honorably and were wounded and gassed in the World War. It is a great injustice, I believe, to say that they shall be set apart and not be permitted to bring into this country wives of their own race. I think that, in the name of justice and right, as well as in the interest of our own country and by way of fairness to the Chinese, that this amendment should be adopted and become part of the law. (The following statement was made by Mr. W. W. Husband, Assistant Secretary of Labor, in charge of immigration matters, before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Immigration, concerning Senate 2271, by Senator King, to permit the admission, as nonquota immigrants, of certain alien wives and children of United States citizens:) STATEMENT OF HON. W. W. HUSBAND, SECOND ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR Mr. HUSBAND. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the situation has been completely covered in the remarks that have already been made. The difficulty that we faced was this in the beginning. After the enactment of the act of 1924, it was assumed by the immigration authorities and the department that neither the wives of merchants who were exempt because of treaty, who were permitted to enter the United States because of provisions in the treaty, nor the wives of American citizens were admissible under this act by reason of the provisions of section 5. Two cases went through the courts to the Supreme Court, one concerning the wife of a merchant who himself was obviously admissible under the act, and the other the wife of a United States citizen. The Supreme Court, in deciding those cases, determined that because of the treaty provisions the wife of the merchant was permitted to come in and reside permanently in the United States, but the wife of the citizen could not be admitted. We had, as one of the witnesses has said, admitted temporarily under bond a number of women of both classes, the wives of citizens and the wives of merchants pending the outcome of the cases in court, and it was possible after the Supreme Court decision to legalize for permanent residence the wives of the merchants, but we still have some 30 wives of citizens who are here temporarily and who should not be compelled to go back because of the efforts that were being made in Congress to grant them the right of residence. It appeals to us as an unfair discrimination in favor of the wives of the aliens, and not only the alien merchant, but the professor, the minister of religious denominations, although an alien, may bring in his wife for permanent residence, but the United States citizen who is a citizen by reason of birth in this country is not granted the same privilege. I do not know that I can add anything. Senator KEYES. Do the other members of the committee desire to ask any questions? Senator BLEASE. No questions. Senator KEYES. Senator Gould? Senator GOULD. Nothing further. Senator KEYES. Mr. Husband, you think this is the right way to go about it? I mean you are in favor of passing legislation to admit more, rather than to enact restrictive legislation as against alien merchants? Mr. HUSBAND. Yes. If I were to restrict anyone, I think that of the two classes mentioned, I certainly would restrict the wife of the alien and admit the wife of the citizen. Senator KEYES. I understand from you that there are only about 30 cases at the present time. Mr. HUSBAND. There are 30 cases here temporarily. Of course the number would be more if they could have got here. A considerably larger number have not been able to come by reason of inability to secure consular documents to join their husbands. How many of those there are, I do not know. Senator KEYES. Have you any idea at all? Mr. HUSBAND. No, I have not; but I think either our records or the records of the State Department would indicate. I think a fair indication of the numbers involved would be the records showing the number of wives of citizens who have come in in previous years. We can give you that, I am sure, over a period of years, and I believe that you might reasonably take that as an indication of what would occur in the future. Senator KEYES. Will you let us have that? (The following letter from Mr. W. W. Husband, Second Assistant Secretary of Labor, was subsequently received showing the number of aliens of the Chinese race admitted as wives of United States citizens during the fiscal years 1906 to 1924.) DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OFFICE OF THE SECOND ASSISTANT SECRETARY, Hon. HENRY W. KEYES, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: I am inclosing a statement showing the number of aliens of the Chinese race admitted as wives of United States citizens during the fiscal years 1906 to 1924, as promised at yesterday's hearing before your subcommittee. You will note that no record is available for the years after 1924, the reason for this being that the act which went into effect on July 1 of that year eliminated such wives from the admissible classes. Sincerely yours, W. W. HUSBAND. Second Assistant Secretary. Aliens of the Chinese race admitted as wives of United States citizens, during NOTE. Similar figures not available for years prior to 1906 or after 1924. Mr. FUNG. May I make a statement in answer to your question? As to how many, of course, there is no basis of calculation, but between the years 1906 and 1924, there was a total of 2,800 alien wives of Chinese American citizens admitted. So if the law were amended, there would not be a great influx of these Chinese women at all. Mr. DYER. I will say, Mr. Chairman, that the reason for these Chinese citizens in the United States thinking it is discrimination and unjust is not because they are trying to get a lot of alien Chinese into the United States. Senator KEYES. I do not think that is so, but I was just wondering how many might be involved. Mr. HUSBAND. A good many of these cases were further complicated by the fact that the children of citizens, although born in China, are of course citizens of the United States. The children may come, but the children's mother may not come. Senator KEYES. If there is nothing further, the committee will stand adjourned. (Thereupon the committee adjourned.) A PLEA FOR RELIEF TOGETHER WITH A SUPPLEMENT CONTAINING SOME ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF [This pamphlet, prepared for submission to the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the House of Representatives (69th Cong., 1st sess.), is issued by the United Parlor, Native Sons of the Golden State, Chinese American Citizens Alliance, an organization composed of American citizens of the Chinese race, having for its object and purpose the fostering of patriotism and good citizenship. The head offices of the organization are at No. 1044 Stockton Street, San Francisco, Calif. Its subordinate lodges are scattered throughout the United States] This is a plea for relief from a hardship imposed upon a certain class of citizens of the United States by the immigration act of 1924. 1 The Supreme Court of the United States has recently decided that section 13 of the act excludes from admission to the United States the alien Chinese wives of American citizens. There are in the United States many American citizens of the Chinese race, who are married to alien Chinese women, resident in China. Under the decision of the Supreme Court, these American citizens are permanently separated from their wives, unless they abandon the country of their citizenship and take up their residence abroad in a country which will permit their wives to reside with them. The hardship of this situation is so apparent that it is felt that a mere statement of the case is all that is required to show the necessity for an amendment to the act which will permit the admission of these women. Until the passage of the act, alien Chinese wives of American citizens of the Chinese race were eligible to admission to the United States. The courts had repeatedly held that they were admissible, and the Immigration Department admitted them upon proof of their status. It is a well-known fact that the Chinese male population of this country far outnumbers the Chinese female population, and that the Chinese male resident here, desiring to marry, must in most cases go to China to seek a wife of his own race, the number of Chinese females resident here being too restricted to supply the demand. Such being the conditions obtaining, under the law as it now stands, most of our Chinese-American citizens must of necessity remain unmarried, or if electing to go to China, there to marry, must either give up their residence and virtually give up their citizenship here, or live separate and apart from their wives, who are debarred from admission to the United States under section 13 of the immigration act of 1924. The only solution of the problem, the immigration act remaining unamended, would be the marriage of the Chinese-American citizen resident here to a woman not of his own race, and this is not only undesirable and inadvisable from the viewpoint of both white and Chinese, but contrary to the laws of many of the States of the Union, the intermarriage of white persons with persons of the Mongolian race being prohibited in the States of Arizona, California, Idaho, Missouri, Utah, Wyoming, Mississippi, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas. and Virginia. 1 Chang Chan, Wong Hung Kay, Yee Sin Jung, et al., v. John D. Nagle, as Commissioner of Immigration for the port of San Francisco. No. 770, October term, 1924. The decision is printed in full in the appendix to this pamphlet. Marriage is an institution sanctioned, encouraged, and fostered by civilized society and by the State. Civilized society has always recognized the right of a man to marry, and when married, his right to the society and companionship of his wife. Civilized society recognizes the fact that "it is not good for man to be alone," and that marriage and the association of a man with his wife constitute the greatest safeguard of public morals. In all probability, when the immigration act of 1924 was being considered by Congress, the fact that section 13 of the act would prohibit the admission of the alien Chinese wives of American citizens was not called to its attention, and it is felt that, had it been, there would have been added to section 13 a proviso allowing their admission. It is not presumed that the unnatural condition in respect herein pointed out in which the American citizen of the Chinese race finds himself as a result of section 13 will be allowed to stand. The Supreme Court could only interpret the law as it was written by Congress. It could not disregard the literal and plain language of the law in an effort, by strained construction, to avoid its hardships upon a worthy class of American citizens, which has done its duty to its country both in time of peace and in time of war. Therefore it is from Congress that the relief must come, and it is to Congress that the American citizen of the Chinese race confidently looks for an amendment to section 13 which will give him that legal right to the companionship of his wife which is in consonance both with natural law and with the customs and usages of civilized society. It is not deemed necessary to argue the matter further, for as was intimated at the outset of these observations, a mere statement of the case is all that is believed necessary in the presentation of this matter. ALIEN CHINESE WIVES OF CHINESE MERCHANTS ADMISSIBLE It might not be out of the way, however, to call attention to the fact that while the immigration act of 1924 prohibits the admission of the alien Chinese wife of an American citizen, the Supreme Court of the United States has recently held that the act permits the admission of the alien Chinese wife of an alien Chinese merchant, who is resident in the United States. In other words. the act gives greater r ghts to the alien Chinese resident here than it accords to our own citizens of the Chinese race. It is submitted that an American citizen in his own country should certainly be accorded rights at least equal to those given to an alien resident here. THE AMENDMENT SUGGESTED Subdivision (c) of section 13 of the immigration act of 1924 reads as follows: "(c) No alien inel gible to citizenship shall be admitted to the United States unless such an alien (1) is admissible as a nonquota immigrant under the provisions of subdivision (b), (d), or (e) of sect.on 4, or (2) is the wife, or the unmarried child under 18 years of age, of an immigrant admissible under such subdivision (d), and is accompanying or following to join him, or (3) is not an immigrant as defined in section 3." It is requested that there be added by amendment a fourth clause to subdivision (c), to read substantially as follows: "or (4) is the wife of a citizen of the United States." 2 Such an amendment would give to the American citizen of the Chinese race the same right to the admission to this country of his wife which he always enjoyed and to which he was entitled prior to the passage of the immigration act of 1924, which right was taken away from him by that act. SUPPLEMENT There are now pending in Congress two bills-one, S. 2358, and the other, H. R. 6544, identical in language, amendatory of the immigration act of 1924, designed to relieve the situation of hardship referred to in the foregoing “Plea for relief." Under this proposed amendatory legislation the alien wives ineli. gible to citizenship of citizens of the United States would have restored to them 2 Senate bill No. 2358 and H. R. No. 6544, now pending in Congress, accomplish the same object as the suggested amendment. The text of these bills is found on p. 570 of this pamphlet. the right of admission to the United States. This right of admission existed until July 1, 1924, and was recognized under the so-called Chinese exclusion laws. The humane aspect of this proposed amendment to the immigration law can not, we assume, be questioned, for the unnatural hardship of the permanent separation of an American citizen from his wife is so apparent as not to require discussion. The home is the basis of the life of the Nation, and without a wife and mother a home can hardly exist. A law permanently separating a husband from his wife is an unnatural law, contrary to common humanity and the institutions of civilized society, and indefensible from the standpoint of morality, and it is submitted that such a law has no place upon the statute books of any civilized country. In his recent message to Congress, President Coolidge, referring to the immigration act of 1924, said: "While not enough time has elapsed to afford a conclusive demonstration, such results as have been secured indicate that our immigration law is on the whole beneficial. It is undoubtedly a protection to the wage earners of this country. The situation, should, however, be carefully surveyed, in order to ascertain whether it is working a needless hardship upon our own inhabitants. If it deprives them of the comfort and society of those bound to them by close family ties, such modifications should be adopted as will afford relief, always in accordance with the principle that our Government owes its first duty to our own people and that no alien, inhabitant of another country, has any legal rights whatever under our Constitution and laws. It is only through treaty or through residence here that such rights accrue. But we should not, however, be forgetful of the obligations of a common humanity." Having the words of the President in mind let us ask the question, "Are we not forgetful of the obligations of a common humanity' in depriving those citizens of our country whose wives are of a race ineligible to citizenship of the comfort and society of their wives-in forgetting the family tie and decreeing by law that the wives of such citizens shall be debarred from admission to the country to which their husbands owe and render allegiance and in which their husbands reside?" And again we ask, "Do not 'the obligations of a common humanity' call for such a modification of the law as will afford relief?" The relief called for is found in the proposed amendatory legislation embodied in S. 2358 and H. R. 6544. 66 This brings us to the consideration, whether any valid reason exists why the relief afforded in the proposed amendment should not be granted in view of the admitted principle that our Government owes its first duty to our own people and that no alien, inhabitant of another country, has any legal rights whatever under our Constitution and laws." The Government's first duty is to our own citizens, but it is to our own citizens that the relief accruing under these bills is to be afforded. Those of our citizens who have wives of the class referred to are as much citizens of our country as those whose wives are of the Caucasian race, and shall we deny to them the companionship of their wives and the comforts of a home, and to their children, who by law are American citizens, the fostering care of a mother's love? ASSIMILABILITY It has been suggested that in allowing these alien wives, ineligible to citizenship, a home with their husbands in this country, we are permitting a multiplication in this country of orientals not assimilable with Americans, as are other races. Is this true? This brings us to the question of assimilability. Does the child of the Chinese race, born and reared in this country, assimilate American thoughts and customs and ideas? In other words, does he become and is he a real American, speaking our language, following our customs, living as we live, and, thinking as we think, and true to his duty as an American citizen? The mere answering of these questions abstractly in the affirmative—and the facts of the case not only admit of, but require such an answer-can hardly convey to those who have not come in contact with the American-born child of Chinese parentage as true and clear an impression of the situation as a few concrete typical illustrations would afford. Therefore, there are submitted in the pages which follow, a few cuts, showing typical groups of Chinese American families, that is, families whose alien Chinese parents emigrated to this country from China, and have here given birth to and here reared their families. These |