are not properly within the scope of a bill merely seeking temporarily to remedy the unemployment situation. Yet on the basis of these hasty comments, the maturely worked out resolution (H. J. Res. 439), framed after long hearings and careful consideration, is suddenly disregarded, the vote to report it is reversed, without any new hearing on this plan, and the number of nonlaboring near relatives of residents, wives and minor children, are to be admitted only within a maximum of 10 per cent of subsisting quotas, subject to further administrative curtailment.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Even as to general immigration, there is a strong feeling in business circles in this country that this bill will hurt the business of the United States far more than it can help it, by reason of the international bad feeling and other intangibles it will give rise to. The President's annual message to Congress pointed out, and is now reinforced by the State Department figures, that through recent administrative orders, promulgated under subsisting laws because of unemployment conditions, the monthly issuance of visas was reduced to almost nominal figures. In the face of these figures, it is very difficult to see why any new legislation should be enacted, as administrative action already in force under subsisting law seems quite adequate to deal with this phase of the unemployment situation. This would have the additional advantage of being much more flexible than legislation for a term of years is, and can be dropped automatically when the present emergency is over. The resolution now reported, on the other hand, is made effective until July 1, 1933, without any reasonable ground for supposing that the present emergency will last so long. In fact, such pronouncement by Congress would be tantamount to a declaration that the emergency is expected by it to continue so long, and would for that reason in itself have a detrimental effect in the present nervous and frightened condition of public opinion.

On

If the present bill were limited to a year, there would be no serious obstacle to extending its duration, if conditions a year from now would seem to make such action desirable. If this measure, stripped of oppressive clauses not related to the labor situation, would really answer a useful purpose in relieving our present economic situation, it should be supported unanimously, but that is not the case. the other hand, opponents of immigration make no secret of the fact that under cover of the emergency they propose to endeavor to make such legislation permanent, a course which would be impossible if the temporary economic distress could not be used as an excuse for new and ill-advised legislation.

EFFECT ON NEAR RELATIVES OF RESIDENTS

Turning, however, from opposition to the bill as a whole, serious questions arise, above indicated, that can and ought to be remedied by amendment. Limitation to one year has already been referred to as desirable. Much more oppressive and unjust, however, is the new provision contained in section 1, cutting down maximum quotas to one-tenth. Immediate relatives, such as wives and minor children of resident aliens born in some of the European countries involved, have been separated in shocking fashion for many years by the

brutalities of the quota laws, which have called practically unanimously for rectification, and pledge after pledge to remedy these evils has been given, but practically wholly disregarded by Congress. Such wives and minor children are not breadwinners and do not come over to seek employment, and their presence here would not aggravate the employment situation in any way. Even after some slight but really inadequate relief was furnished by the act of May 29, 1928, amending section 6 of the quota law of 1924, repeated pledges were given that adequate relief would be afforded to the countries with small quotas, whose citizen husbands and fathers had been coming over here in large number in late years.

PARTY PLEDGES DISREGARDED

The Republican national platform, adopted June 14, 1928 (a few weeks after this amendment of 1928), on which President Hoover and the present Republican Congressmen were elected, while favoring continued restrictions, expressly provided:

Where, however, the law works undue hardship, by depriving the immigrant of the comfort and society of those bound by close family ties, such modification should be adopted as will afford relief.

The Democratic national platform, adopted two weeks later, contained the following clause:

Laws which limit immigration must be preserved in full force and effect, but the provision contained in these laws that separate husbands from wives and parents from infant children are inhuman and not essential to the purposes or the efficacy of such laws.

DISREGARDING PRESIDENTIAL AND DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION

Although President Hoover has repeatedly declared himself as favoring such modifications, as did also his predecessors, and his Secretary of Labor and the Immigration Bureau again and again recommended such remedial legislation, Congress failed to carry out this pledge, and now is even asked to strike out practically ninetenths of the inadequate relief it granted in 1928. Its Committee on Immigration and Naturalization is proposing to do this, despite the recommendation of Secretary of Labor Davis, contained in his annual report dated November 1, 1930, reading:

I would exempt from this plan of control immigrants coming to join near relatives already in the United States. I have always advocated liberality in the matter of reuniting families, and my attitude has not changed in this respect.

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RESIDENT ALIENS

The present bill arbitrarily treats wives and minor children of resident aliens quite differently than of citizens, section 4 (a) of the act of 1924 applicable to them not being modified in any way, though it is elementary that such residents ought to enjoy the same civil rights and family happiness as those already citizens. Separation of families is quite as inhumane, antisocial, and contrary to American interests in the case of the resident alien and prospective citizen as in the case of the man already naturalized.

Figures recently furnished by the State Department as to the number of applications of such near relatives of resident aliens registered at our consulates down to July 1, 1930, are striking as showing the number of persons involved, and how largely residents of southern and eastern Europe are discriminated against, because of the small quotas assigned to them.

Twenty-seven thousand seven hundred and thirty-five wives, children, and parents of residents born in southern and eastern European countries are registered as seeking admission, as compared with 1,566 from northern and western Europe, as also 23,404 fathers, mothers, and husbands of United States citizens from the former group of countries, as compared with 692 from northern and western Europe. It will take many years for many of the former group before these near relatives can come over under our oppressive quota laws, even without such new curtailment. Strong representations on this subject from all creeds and races, submitted to the State Department shortly after the Secretary of State was heard before the Senate committee, are heretofore annexed as part of this report, marked “Appendix A."

MILLIONS REMITTED ABROAD TO NEAR RELATIVES SEEKING TO COME OVER

As already pointed out, wives and minor children who are not breadwinners are involved, whose maintenance must be and is provided for by the husband and father resident in the United States.

Far from aggravating the employment situation in the United States, their presence here would keep hundreds of millions of dollars within our country to be spent here instead of being sent abroad for their maintenance there. Trade Information Bulletin No. 698, issued by the United States Department of Commerce for the year 1929, gives what it calls a conservative estimate of the amount of money sent that year by residents of the United States to their relatives abroad, namely, $247,000,000, exclusive of currency sent by mail. Figures kept by the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society as to remittances by residents of the United States to near relatives abroad through its bureau during 1929, compared with the first 11 months of 1930, show that despite the hard times the amount did not greatly fall off in 1930, it having been more than 79 per cent of the preceding year's totals, and figures from other sources indicate a still higher percentage than this for 1930. The total of $247,000,000 for all races and creeds, reported by the Department of Commerce for 1929, reduced to the same 79 per cent for 1930 amounts to over $195,000,000. It is thus obvious that far from injuring our economic condition, just and humane laws authorizing reunion of families would keep enormous sums here to be spent in our own country. Nay, more, the narrow and oppressive provision barring reunion of families, and consequently involving transmission of such enormous sums to relatives abroad for their maintenance there for years past, is itself a serious contributing cause to our present economic troubles. In fact, Jane Addams, who has no superior in familiarity with conditions among the foreign born, in her newly published work, The Second Twenty Years at Hull House, suggests that our quota law immigration policy is responsible for much of our present disturbed economic

condition in barring so many immigrants from our shores. She says (p. 278):

The economists, it seems to me, have never sufficiently stressed the fact that the great number of immigrants formerly arriving represented an enormous mass of consumers who needed food, clothing, and shelter on a constantly rising standard of living. We are told that in this country of ours every person, on the average, eats about 5 bushels of grain a year. How far is our annual plethora of foodstuffs due to the fact that we were long accustomed to having to have markets come to us, so that we are slow to learn how to overcome the difficulty in disposing of our products in foreign markets.

There is no need to point out the elementary fact that the family is the basis of our civilized life and that laws separating near members of families are brutal and inhuman. This applies equally to resident aliens admitted for permanent residence as to citizens. The United States Supreme Court, in Meyer v. Nebraska (262 U. S. 390), well pointed out that among the inalienable rights granted by the fourteenth amendment to all residents is the right "to marry, establish a home, and bring up children," and it is pure despotism to deny this right to domiciled aliens under cover of our immigration laws. Far from remedying this evil, in accordance with party pledges, this bill reduces present maximum quotas to 10 per cent, subject to much additional administrative curtailment.

THE FILIPINOS

Section 3 of the bill, making the embargo upon immigration applicable to citizens of the Philippine Islands and our other insular possessions not United States citizens, also raises serious questions of policy, as well as of justice. The Supreme Court of the United States, in Gonzales v. Williams (192 U. S. 1), before Porto Ricans become United States citizens, held that residents of our insular possessions are not "aliens," and inclusion of such inhabitants in an immigration bill marks a new era in our history, which would justifiably arouse bitter resentment in the Philippines and other islands, violate our solemn pledges to them, seriously complicate our relations with them, and injure American commerce permanently.

The principle so ably set forth by Theodore Roosevelt in his famous presidential message of 1906 should be heeded:

We must treat with justice and good will all immigrants who come here under the law. Whether they are Catholic or Protestant, Jew or Gentile; whether they come from England or Germany, Russia, Japan, or Italy, matters nothing. we have a right to question is the man's conduct. If he is honest and upright in his dealings with his neighbor and with the State, then he is entitled to respect and good treatment.

This measure does not deserve to pass, particularly not in its present form.

JANUARY 28, 1931.

SAMUEL DICKSTEIN.

EXHIBIT A

Hon. HENRY L. STIMSON,

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: The members and constituents of the undersigned national organizations feel deeply about certain aspects of the proposed suspension o immigration and the suggestions which you recently made in that conRectio before the Senate Immigration Committee. It is announced that efforts

are being made to bring about an agreement on this subject between the State and Labor Departments and the Immigration Committees of the Senate and the House. We wish, consequently, to lay before you certain considerations which seem to us of great importance and which we hope you will feel you can embody in your own recommendations.

We believe that no legislation suspending or limiting immigration should be adopted which raises any additional barrier to the admission and reunion of the families of citizens or aliens already resident in the United States. The integrity of the family and the sanctity of the home are principles basic to American life. Separation of families is quite as inhumane, antisocial, and contrary to American interests in the case of the naturalized citizen and resident alien as in the case of our native-born people. Such separation of husband and wife, of parents and children, causes an amount of human suffering beyond estimation. You have only to remember, especially in this holiday period, the instinct we all share, to be with those most dear to us, to realize what such enforced separation means. It is a sacrifice which immigrant parents are ready to make for what they feel is for the ultimate advantage and greater opportunity of their children. But why should the United States make it a more severe sacrifice or interpose additional barriers, when these families are able to meet the economic, physical, and moral requirements of our immigration laws?

We believe, indeed, that it is against our own self-interest as a nation to interpose such barriers. The resident alien who has his family here has a greater stake in the country. Such reunion serves to promote his assimilation, social stability, loyalty and attachment to the United States. His children, who will come here eventually, will receive a greater part of their training and education in American schools. Further, these wives and minor children will not be competitors to any serious extent in our labor market. They are being admitted only if they are not likely to become public charges. If they are not admitted, millions of dollars will be sent out of the country for their support, which might better be spent here as an aid to business revival.

For these reasons we can not too strongly urge that no additional barrier be raised to the admission and reunion of the close relatives of citizens and resident aliens. We assume that your suggestion that quotas be cut 90 per cent would not apply to relatives now entitled to a nonquota status. We believe that relatives of citizens or resident aliens now entitled to preference status should also be excepted up to the limits of the present quotas.

At a hearing before the Senate Immigration Committee it was suggested that the exemption of relatives from any suspension of immigration might alter the ratio fixed by the "national origins" law between different European countries. Such ratio has never applied to nonquota immigrants. We believe it should apply only to new immigration, not to the families of men and women already resident in the United States. It would indeed seem to us shocking if such a discrimination were allowed to overweigh the humanitarian and practical considerations which we have set forth.

We would further urge the reuniting of separated families as an act of good faith. The Republican national platform, adopted June 14, 1928, while favoring continued restriction, expressly provided:

"Where, however, the law works undue hardship, by depriving the immigrant of the comfort and society of those bound by close family ties, such modification should be adopted as will afford relief."

The Democratic national platform, adopted two weeks later, contained & similar provision:

"Laws which limit immigration must be preserved in full force and effect, but the provisions contained in these laws that separate husbands from wives and parents from infant children, are inhuman and not essential to the purposes or the efficacy of such laws."

President Hoover and the Department of Labor have repeatedly declared in favor of such modifications. It is now proposed to disregard these pledges in order, it is stated, to aid the unemployed. But practically the only persons involved-wives, minor children, and elderly parents-would not be competitors in our labor market. Furthermore, under your own administration of our general immigration laws, they can not be admitted if they are "likely to be a public charge." We can not, therefore, see that their exclusion will aid the unemployed. We would urge not only that no additional bar be made to the entry of relatives now entitled to nonquota or preference status, but that if any suspension or limitation of immigration is adopted, discretion should be given to the Department of State to grant a limited number of immigration visas, say 200 a month,