migrant, its constitutionality was sustained in the headmoney case decision because it created the immigrant fund and restricting its use to three specific purposes, viz.: 1. For the care of immigrants. 2. For the relief of such as are in distress. 3. For the purposes of carrying this act into effect. Any interpretation of the appropriation act purporting to establish authority. for abolishing the fund would be encouraging legislation at cross purposes, for which section 1 of the act of 1882 still unrepealed, with the decision affirming its constitutionality still unreversed, the proceeds of the head tax can not be diverted to the Treasury as ordinary revenue receipts. In the exact langugage of the Supreme Court, "The money thus raised, though paid into the Treasury, is appropriated in advance to the uses of the statute and does not go to the general purposes of Government." H. ROGER JONES of Connecticut. When does an immigrant cease to be an immigrant? Mrs. CLARK. If an immigrant remains in this country for an unlimited length of time and does not become an American citizen he is still an immigrant; if he leaves the country he is admitted again as an immigrant; there is no distinction as to length of time; he would still be an alien irrespective of the length of time he has been in this country. The CHAIRMAN. The following is from the New York Commercial of Tuesday, March 30, 1926: THE IMMIGRATION QUESTION There are said to be 68 bills in Congress designed in some form or manner to liberalize the present immigration laws of the United States. Outside of the one which would give American citizenship to those aliens who were in this country in 1917, enlisted in the American Army and went across to fight for the land where they expected to be adopted, none has merit. * * * The WadsworthPerlman bill is dangerous to a degree and would let down the bars in a way that would mean disaster to the United States. This country is suffering to-day from its laxity of the past in this matter of immigration. For many years we let every one come who could get passage money across. No attempt was made to ascertain whether their purposes of coming were legitimate or not. They were dumped on the United States, and the leading criminologists to-day are frank in saying the crime wave is due largely to this fact. It may be true that many of the younger element engaged in crime are of American birth, but we should go back of that to the ancestry. The bold actions of the communistic element in openly defying the constituted authority of city, State, and nation are due to the large and undesirable element of foreigners who are guiding such activities. Take the present "lesson in revolution" at Passaic. It is conducted by foreigners, many of them not American citizens. They are assuming a greater right and privilege in this country than those whose ancestors came here a couple of centuries ago. They are exhibiting contempt for the law enforcement officers. Strikers are instructed to separate the chief of police from his men. The foreigners are told by other foreigners that the strikers are greater in number than the law officers and so can best them in any battle. Men who are not even citizens of the United States threaten the impeachment of judges. The local and State officials are belittled. The President of the United States is maligned. The strikers are told that if an injunction is issued they are to disobey it. These men and women following the Communist leaders, little understanding what it is all about, are told this is a "rotten, capitalist government," and that by organizing they can take over the Government, can own the mills themselves. "When I came to this country in 1918 I thought it was a free country," said one agitator, who has not yet taken out his papers. It is free, altogether too free for just such men as this who should be taken by the nape of the neck and hurried back to the land from whence they came. The fact remains, sad as it is, that we have not absorbed a vast foreign population. These people are here with us but they are just as much foreign as the day they were born. They do not know what the Constitution means and don't want to know. You can talk all you wish about "Americanizing" them, it can't be done, because they are not capable of being “Americanized." can't by a few gentle words, turn a coyote into a pet poodle. You There is a foreign element that can be absorbed, that can be and is being Americanized. This group has been welcomed and will continue to be welcomed to this country for they appreciate what is offered them, and undertake to the best of their ability to respect the law of the country. They recognize what authority means and bow to that authority. But this is not the class that would come in under the Wadsworth-Perlman bill or any of the other 67 measures before Congress. One has but to note the character, nature and reputation of the organizations that have interested themselves in this measure to understand what it means to them. Prominent among such organizations we find the American Civil Liberties Union, which has given financial aid and support to all radicals, and speakers for which, in the Passaic "lesson in revolution," have urged the strikers to disregard all constituted authority and do what they can to bring the police officers, judges, and others into contempt. Indeed, if we mistake not, this is the organization that furnishes the bonds and legal advice for all who break the law, and has induced certain individuals to bring suit against policemen who have done their duty. This and all other measures which would let down the bars should be vigorously protested by every loyal American citizen. The CHAIRMAN. The following editorial is from the Saturday Evening Post of February 27, 1926: THE DEAREST WAY THE WORST WAY Testimony adduced at a recent hearing held by the House Committee on Immigration brought out in striking fashion the very limited ability of the Department of Labor to round up and send home aliens who have entered the country unlawfully, or whose criminal activities make their room better than their company. The precise number of immigrants who have fraudulently or illegally come into the United States since 1921 is not certainly known. Official estimates put the total somewhere between 250,000 and 275,000. New York alone is said to be harboring some two or three thousand deportable Chinese. The total number of foreigners unlawfully domiciled in the country is estimated by the Department of Labor as somewhere between a million and a million and a half. And yet conditions are such that very few of these smuggled-in aliens need fear being brought to book. This weeding-out process, which is an important function of the Department of Labor, each year places heavier and heavier burdens upon it. The number of deportations steadily increased from 2,762 in 1920 to'9,495 in 1925; and in the current fiscal year they are likely to be considerably in excess of 10,000. These figures do not include persons denied admittance. Deportation is now effected under the act of February 5, 1917. This law is a joke, and the laugh is on the people of the United States for having passed an act so toothless and so clawless as to make it exceedingly difficult for immigration authorities to carry out its essential purpose. Representative William P. Holaday, of Illinois, introduced in the Sixty-eighth Congress a substitute measure which was much more tightly framed. There was nothing in it, however, which gave the sob sisters much chance to uncork their tear bottles; and even had they done so, they would have had hard work bringing lumps into the throats of the sentimentalists by reciting the inconveniences which the bill might cause to the bootleggers, smugglers of aliens, white slavers, and drug peddlers who were the bull's-eye at which it was aimed. Mr. Holaday's bill passed the House, but was later buried in the legislative shuffle. This measure, reintroduced, was the subject of an important hearing held on January 12. Mr. Harry E. Hull, Commissioner General of Immigration, and Mr. Robe Carl White, Assistant Secretary of Labor, were the star witnesses. The disclosures made by them give a close-up view of the handicaps under which the department struggles in all its efforts to keep out or put out undesirable aliens. These witnesses clearly showed how the wording of the act of 1917 often plays into the hands of criminal aliens and makes their deportation impossible. The outstanding feature of the situation is that the country has been able to stomach it for nine years. According to the evidence, the average cost of deportations, of which there are now about 900 a month, is $87. When funds run low, the commissioner simply has to pass the word to his subordinates that they must keep an eye on their dwindling balances. He does not commonly forbid them to make further arrests and deportations. He merely reminds them that there is little or no money with which to carry on their work. In May, 1925, it was necessary to issue a definite order to cease deportation to prevent the service from ending the year with a deficit. Even at the present time deportations are seriously curtailed for lack of funds. A letter from the district director at Buffalo reveals a typical situation. On January 1, 1926, with half the fiscal year still ahead of him, the balance of his immigration allotment was only $697.87. Overhead alone would eat up double this amount, even, if there were no deportations. The director goes on to say: "There is only one way to meet this situation if additional funds can not be supplied, and that is to immediately release all the aliens we are now holding in jails, make no more arrests, and refuse to take into custody those aliens for whom we hold warrants and who are due for early release from penal institutions within the district. This program does not appeal to me, and, if put into actual operation, nothing short of absolute chaos would be the result." Returning to conditions in 1925, it was stated that had routine deportations not been curtailed there would have been a deficit of three or four hundred thousand dollars. Even had this extra expenditure been allowed, the authorities could have done no more than the work in plain sight. They could have skimmed the surface, but they could not have dredged up many of the million or more illicit visitors submerged in the depths of the so-called melting pot. The outlook for the fiscal year which will begin on July first next is by no means promising, for the budgetary allotment is $1,350,000 less than the amount asked for. This scissoring down of department estimates may or may not be sound economy. No doubt the director of the budget thought the reduction warranted. It is just possible that he erred, for the cheapest way to deal with an undesirable alien is to keep him out. The next cheapest is to put him out, and do it quickly. The most costly of all is to let him come in and stay in and turn him over to courts, jails, penitentiaries, insane asylums, and other institutions, to be cared for at the expense of taxpayers for the rest of his days. Costs of this sort are distributed among States, counties, and municipalities. They do not show on the books at Washington; but the taxpayer gets the bill and has to foot it. Of the three methods of handling undesirable aliens, immigration officials say the cheapest way is the best way, and the next cheapest is the next best. Forty years late, we have made a promising start at immigration reform. If the country wishes to see the job through, Mr. Holaday's bill ought to pass both houses and presently be laid on the main desk in the Exectuive Mansion. One by one and without needless delay, all our statutes affecting immigration and naturalization should be overhauled and strengthened in accordance with the expressed sentiments of our native majority. It is not likely that these laws will be neglected. Even now they are under the closest scrutiny; but some of the most earnest scrutinizers are looking for small holes they can enlarge and for weak spots in which to make new rents under a score of plausible pretexts. Immigration reform is still in its early stages. Nothing could be more fatuous than to regard it as an accomplished fact. The Johnson Act may look as strong and impregnable as some great dike or levee; but it is only by watching it and guarding it by day and by night, and by stopping each small seepage while it is still small, that we can save it from being washed away. DIFFICULTY IN EFFECTING DEPORTATIONS (By W. W. Brown, of the Law Division of the Immigration Service at Ellis Island) The CHAIRMAN. The following memorandum was prepared at a request of the committee during a previous series of hearings on deportation. Mr. Brown states that the inquiry made by the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization to Commissioner H. H. Curron has been submitted to me for a statement as to conditions which. cause delay in deportations to various countries. His report follows: SITUATION OF CERTAIN RUSSIAN IMMIGRANTS The United States has no diplomatic relations with Russia, but citizens of that country continue to come here and when they become from one cause or another under the immigration law subject to deportation, deportation can not be effected by reason of the fact that passports can not be secured for them, and countries in which they were formerly domiciled refuse to accept them. For instance, Russians domiciled in Poland, Rumania, Latvia, and Lithuania, desiring to come to the United States, receive "certificates of identity" from the countries named, and even though they may have been born therein, can not be deported to those countries, even to the place of their birth on the documents issued by such countries in lieu of passports. At a conservative estimate, there are now in public institutions in the State of New York 400 natives of Russia who have become public charges and who have been ordered deported but can not be returned to the countries whence they came. RUSSIANS ENTER AS VISITORS-REFUSE TO RETURN As to natives of Russia, even in the case of many of those who come here ostensibly for a temporary period for business or pleasure, it has developed that once being admitted to the United States they have no intention of returning, and in a large number of cases come here for no other purpose than to spread the Soviet doctrine. Unless they voluntarily return we have no means of enforcing such return. PASSPORTS VALID FOR TRAVEL TO UNITED STATES In the case of Russians domiciled in France, for instance, France will issue to such aliens a passport with the notation "Citizen of Russia-valid for travel to the United States," but in the event that an alien who receives such a document from the French Government becomes the subject of deportation proceedings after entry into the United States, he can not be returned to France. LATVIAN AND LITHUANIAN SITUATION In the case of alien natives of Latvia and Lithuania, who have become subject to deportation from the United States, they can not be returned to those countries even though born there unless they declared their citizenship in such countries prior to September, 1922. This is by reason of the fact that Latvia and Lithuania prior to the close of the war were Russian territory. PROCEDURE WITH REFERENCE TO POLAND In the case of citizens of Poland by birth, who become public charges by reason of insanity in the United States, through an agreement between the Polish Government and our State Department, passports will not be issued to such aliens by the Polish consuls until they have been referred to their home government in order that hospitalization may be provided for before the return of such aliens to their native country. Such procedure usually requires from six months to one year and frequently as long as two and a half years before the necessary passport is issued, even though there be indisputable evidence of the deportable alien's Polish citizenship. DELAY IN CERTAIN CASES OF GERMAN ALIENS In the case of natives and citizens of Germany, who have been in the United States for a year or more and whose passports issued by the German Government have expired, even though in some instances such passports have expired but a few days before deportation proceedings were instituted, the German consuls are not permitted to extend such passports or issue new passports without the case being referred to their home government through our Department of State. This frequently takes from 4 to 10 months' time, during which period the alien continues to be a charge on the public here. ARMENIANS CAN NOT BE DEPORTED TO TURKEY Armenians coming to the United States from Turkey or other countries on French or interallied passports, are considered enemies of Turkey and in the event after securing entry into the United States are found to be deportable, they can not be deported to Turkey. 91781-26- -11 DIFFICULTIES IN SECURING PASSPORTS FOR DEPORTED ALIENS Hon. ALBERT JOHNSON, STATE INSTITUTIONS FORT STEILACOOM, WASH., March 4, 1926. Chairman Commitiée on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. JOHNSON: Under the passport system, before we can deport or repatriate an alien to another country, we must first obtain a passport from the representative of that country. The issuing of a passport by the consul is not mandatory. I have known of cases where the Department of Labor has issued a warrant of deportation, but on account of failure to obtain a passport the alien could not be deported. In the cases that I have for repatriation; that is, those aliens who have been in the United States over five years, I find, since the enactment of the qouta law, that it is almost impossible to obtain a passport from the consuls of foreign countries. Some countries, such as Sweden and Norway, have issued orders to their consuls in the United States to issue no passports for any of their subjects who have been committed to an insane hospital in this country, but that in all such cases the application for passport must be taken up 'directly with the foreign office. Latvia refuses to recognize as its nationals those who are in other countries who have not registered as Latvians. Other countries use every kind of device to avoid taking back their criminals and defectives. It would appear to me in the event the time limit for deportation is taken off by the provisions of the new bill, that in order to make the bill effective, the Department of Labor should ask the cooperation of the Secretary of State in securing some treaty agreement with other countries that will permit the return to their countries of citizenship, all aliens now in or who may hereafter be in public institutions who may have relatives in that country. With kind personal regards, I beg to remain Very truly yours, FRANK C. MORSE, The CHAIRMAN. The American Defense Society, the Immigration Restriction League, the Allied Patriotic Societies of New York, and numerous other organizations have sent in telegrams, letters and resolutions advocating more deportations, and favoring enactment of additional deportation legislation. I do not have these in the letter files, for the reason that when resolutions are received from large organizations, they are usually placed in these piles on these two tables, so that members of the committee may read them if they desire. Here is one: THE AMERICAN DEFENSE SOCIETY (INC.), Hon. ALBERT JOHNSON, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We are inclosing herewith resolution passed by the American Defense Society (Inc.) and a copy of the telegram sent you this day. We requested in this matter the cooperation of the Government Club, the Military Order of the World War, and the New York Credit Men's Association, which have agreed to support you in this move. Very truly yours, THE AMERICAN DEFENSE SOCIETY (INC.), |