REVIEW OF REFUSALS OF VISAS BY CONSULAR OFFICERS THURSDAY, MAY 18, 1933 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, Washington, D.C. The committee, being in session for the consideration of several bills in public hearings and on the conclusion of the hearings of other bills under consideration The CHAIRMAN. The committee will now take up for consideration the bill H.R. 5630, to provide for review of the action of consular officers in refusing immigration visas. This is a measure similar to a bill that was reported from the committee during the Seventy-second Congress. There are several persons here who are from out of town and we will try to hear them first. The text of this bill, H.R. 5630 will be printed in the record at this point. [H.R. 5630] A BILL To provide for review of the action of consular officers in refusing immigration visas Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 2 of the Immigration Act of 1924 (43 Stat. 153), as amended (U.S.C., title 8, sec. 202), is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subdivision: "(j) Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, in any case where an alien has been refused an immigration visa, an appeal may be taken from the action of the consular officer to the Secretary of State, by the alien or by any relative of the alien residing in the United States. "(1) The consular officer shall, if such appeal is requested, submit to the Secretary of State the grounds of his refusal, together with a statement of the evidence produced before him and any documents or written data upon which he has based his refusal to issue the visa. "(2) The Secretary of State shall consider the appeal upon the evidence so submitted by the consular officer and upon any additional evidence submitted by the appellant. "(3) The decision of the Secretary of State shall be transmitted to the consular officer. If the action of the consular officer is thereby affirmed, the case shall be considered as closed unless thereafter reopened upon the presentation of new evidence; if the action of the consular officer is reversed, the Secretary of State shall authorize and direct the issuance of an immigration visa in accordance with law, and such visa shall thereupon be issued. "Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to affect the application of subdivision (g) of this section to any immigrant to whom an immigration visa has been issued." Mr. Kohler, I believe you asked to be heard first so that you may take a train back to New York. STATEMENT OF MAX J. KOHLER, NEW YORK CITY Mr. KOHLER. I represent the American Jewish Committee, and the B'Nai Brith, both national Jewish organizations, and I am here to urge the approval by this committee of H.R. 5630. While I am 177211-33-2 (1) speaking here on behalf particularly of the two Jewish organizations I named, I want to call attention to the fact that there are representatives here who desire to be heard representing Protestant and Catholic immigrant aid societies and nondenominational immigrant aid societies, representatives of all stocks. This bill we deem of great importance in order to cure some very serious occasional cases of injustice and arbitrary refusal of visas due to peculiar conditions prevailing now. I ought to say at the start that an identical bill was reported favorably by the Senate committee at the last session of Congress and I am going to ask leave to file quotations from the report (H.R. 504) that was made at that time. There was also a similar report rendered by this committee by Congressman Dickstein last session, report no. 1193. The clerk of the committee has already distributed some hearings held before this committee a little over a year ago in aid of a somewhat similar measure. Under the Now, the situation at the present is a peculiar one. present law section 2 (f) of the act of 1924, title II, section 203, the consular officer is to refuse a visa if he believes or has reason to believe the applicant is not admissible. Without his visa no alien may come here, and it is even a criminal offense to attempt thus to enter, and the result is we have a very peculiar situation involving gross hardship in occasional cases. Even the right to give a bond is abolished in practice by this, which becomes so important in these days of economic distress that we have, because the consul cannot take any bond. Only the authorities here can do it. As applied to Germany, for instance, that is a very serious situation today. The German Government, while it has been allowing passports to be issued since the 15th of April, does not allow a person to withdraw more than 200 marks per month from Germany. A millionaire might have great difficulty in coming from Germany to satisfy the consul he is not likely to become a public charge. You have to take into consideration the ability and desire of the relatives. and friends here to look after that man, and a very serious situation has developed in consequence of recent conditions. I am not here, neither is any of us, to challenge the propriety of the so-called "Executive order of 1930," which has practically checked the immigration of people who are laborers, as they are likely to compete with laborers of this country. I think that is a salutary and desirable thing, in view of the situation we have confronting us, but our plea is on behalf of nonlaborers and some exceptional persons, whose admission ought to be passed on by somebody else than by the hapazard action of the consuls abroad, who are not familiar with the very important conditions here, as regards the economic ability of the person to get along, and as bear upon whether he will be in competition with people who are here. The courts have held that under the present law there is no right of anyone to review the action of a consular officer in refusing a visa. It was so held in 30 Federal Reporter (2), 984 Court of Appeals, of the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court refused a certiorari in 279 U.S. 868. As I say, the important evidence is to be found here the question of what the man or woman is likely to encounter upon arriving here as regards economic conditions here, and the ability of relatives and friends to look after them, and what effect his admission will have on people engaged in similar lines here. The consul abroad cannot do that. It is mere guesswork on the part of untrained officials abroad to attempt to pass on that. I will not take up your time to point out that we are all members of immigrant-aid societies, and we have compared notes in a lot of cases we have handled and it is remarkable how uneven and discriminatory the different decisions of consuls at different places are. It would really be presumptuous on my part to mention that further, because the chairman of this committee has been abroad and made a special study of those things a year or so ago. Our own examination shows that there are quite a few cases of gross injustice by separating families, wanting to come over here, who through stupid rulings abroad are unable to come here, and who are not breadwinners at all. The formal procedure before this act of 1924 was passed was that a person applied on entry, and if a board of special inquiry decided against him, he had a right of appeal to the Secretary, and the Secretary could order the taking of additional evidence, and he passed on the case. That has been absolutely abolished in practice by this present procedure, unless we can have some kind of review. Mr. DIES. I have heard it said that they will review those cases. I asked for a review myself in one matter and they wrote to the consul in reference to it. Have you had any experience in trying to get a review yourself under the present law? Mr. KOHLER. Under the present law there is no authority to review. Occasionally, very rarely, the State Department officials will ask the consul abroad for an explanation of his action. Very rarely, practically never, will they make a recommendation. Mr. DIES. Have you ever known of their reversing the ruling of the consul? Mr. KOHLER. The bill proposes to allow an appeal to the Secretary of State. The CHAIRMAN. Did you ever hear of the Department of State reversing the consul's decision? Mr. KOHLER. Practically never. The number of cases is so small, they have not the evidence before them, in the first place, and they have no authority to do it in the second place. Mr. DIRKSEN. They have authority to make a recommendation. A recommendation can go from the State Department here to the consul abroad to review a case, but the State Department cannot arbitrarily order them to change their decision. Mr. KOHLER. They cannot; and even in the other cases, it is so seldom that it is practically negligible that they will even make a recommendation. Mr. DIRKSEN. And in addition thereto, it would not be good policy for the State Department to embroil itself and say "We believe you should reverse your decision." Mr. KOHLER. Yes; it would be an attempt on the part of a third party to interfere. But this bill would cure that, by putting the power in the hands of the Secretary of State or people whom he calls in to review the matter. The situation is absolutely anomalous. I was assistant United States attorney in New York in 1898. I have appeared repeatedly before this committee. I can recall to mind no |