get through with all this piecemeal legislation-to cut out at least 60 percent and allow 40 percent to reunite families, and adopt liberal policies to reunite families in the country, and cut out new seed immigration. Nobody wants new seed immigration in the United States. I do not find anybody that does. Even aliens themselves, those who are not citizens of the United States, recognize the fact that it will be many decades before we will need any more new seed immigration in the United States. In fact, most men feel that we are unable to absorb the labor surplus that we have now, even with the most drastic steps we can take. It is doubtful if we can absorb the three or four million men walking the streets in the next 10 years. We are faced, just as England is, with a permanent labor surplus. Therefore I hope that the committee and the President will reach a definite determination to adopt a permanent policy that will put a stop to all this pressure that is constantly exerted upon this committee and Congress, one group wanting this bill and another that; whereas if we would face the situation courageously and cut out this new seed immigration, giving a sufficient quota over a reasonable length of time, with proper safeguards, that will reunite the families and relieve this tremendous pressure that is coming from citizens who want to bring their fathers and mothers, their brothers and their children to this country-then, when we have that sort of policy, and your Department is convinced that it is the determination of Congress, when you administer this law as to the quota that is left, limiting it, of course, to the reuniting of families, of course you can adopt more liberal policies in the construction and interpretation of the law. Mr. CARR. Oh, yes. But, you see, the Congress has given us- Mr. CARR. Congress has given us definite instructions in the 1924 act, and it has said that that 1924 act was merely superimposed on the 1917 act, and that although in the 1924 act they gave special encouragement to relatives they did not relieve the relatives from the provisions of the 1917 act. Mr. DIES. From the public-charge law? Mr. CARR. From the public-charge law; and so we are bound to enforce all those laws. Mr. DIES. But, underlying and back of all this, your policy is the determination of the people of this country not to admit any more aliens? Mr. CARR. Oh; yes, sir. Mr. DIES. And it is public sentiment that compels your department to be strict in the interpretation of this public-charge law? What I am saying is that the only relief that is going to come, if we can settle this question, will be in the manner that I have indicated; otherwise we will be disputing here for the next 5 or 6 years, just as we have been in the past 2 years, with all this piecemeal legislation and back of all of it is the pressure to get relatives into the United States. Mr. CARR. Yes. Mr. FоCHT. Mr. Carr, let me ask you this: Of those 30,0000 that have been rejected, generally speaking, what was the cause of the rejection; can you tell us? Was it disease, poverty, or what was it? Mr. CARR. Well, all sorts of causes. You have no segregation and analysis of that, have you, Mr. Hodgdon? Mr. HODGDON. No; we have only the total. Mr. CARR. I am sorry I have not that. Mr. HODGDON. May I read this, which is pertinent? Mr. CARR. Yes; I wish you would. Mr. HODGDON. Knowing the interest of the committee in the relative cases, and having testified before the committee in December 1931, towards the end of the month, at that time I told the committee that the Department had sent out an instruction on November 30, 1931, which instruction was read to the committee at the hearings on House Resolution 67. This instruction called to the attention of consuls that there were certain factors arising in the cases of near relatives which do not arise in the cases of new seed immigration. The burden of establishing admissibility, of course, is placed on all the aliens under section 23 of the act, and there is certain evidence which near relatives can present which new seed immigrants, not relatives, could not present, to wit, that the person they are coming to join in the United States probably has a job, evidence of which the alien can show. The new seed immigrant cannot establish that. There is also in most States a legal obligation of the father to support his minor child and his wife. The new seed immigrant could not show this, but the near relative frequently can. There is also a very close moral obligation for the near relative to support the alien coming over, whereas the new seed immigrant has nobody to take that moral obligation, or, if he has it is not so close as in the case of the near relative. So we pointed this out to the consuls and asked them to review all near relative cases that they had before them to determine whether they could present this evidence and qualify under the law as immigrants. In the last few days we have received reports from the field on the total number of aliens covered by approved petitions received by consuls in the field during the period between October 1, 1930, and March 31, 1933. That covers the period during which the likely-tobecome-a-public-charge clause has been interpreted in the light of unemployment in the United States. During that period, in the nonquota 4 (a) cases that is, the husband or wife of an American citizen and the minor children of American citizens-there were 25,735 persons covered by petitions. Of that number 23,516 actually came to consulates when they were invited to come in; some 2,000 did not come in at all. Mr. DIES. You mean they did not want to come after they had applied to come? Mr. HODGDON. Yes, apparently. When they were invited to come to the consulate, apparently they did not want to go. Mr. DIES. They changed their mind about the situation? Mr. HODGDON. Yes; some of them do. Of that total number of petitions there were but 542 refusals under the public-charge clause by consular action. In other words, based upon the number of nonquota 4 (a) aliens who actually applied for visas, but 2.3 percent were refused visas under the public-charge clause. In others words, 97.7 percent of all 4 (a) cases who applied for visas got them. Now, so long as you have in the law any clause which covers a person who is likely to become a public charge, or any other clause, you are bound to have some refusals; and it would seem that 2.3 percent is a pretty small percent. So it shows that the number of actual refusals in these near-relative cases-that is, of husbands or wives or minor children of American citizens-is very small. Now, we also have figures on the refusals in the first-preference cases the fathers and mothers of American citizens who are entitled to first preference, and husbands of American women where the marriage took place after June 30, 1932. During that same period, October 1, 1930, to March 31, 1933, which is the total period of the administration of the likely-to-become-a-public-charge clause in the light of present economic conditions in the United States, the total number of aliens covered by approved petitions forwarded to consuls, of the first-preference class, were 9,763. It is interesting to note there that the petitions filed by American citizens in behalf of relatives abroad under section 9 of the act of 1924 have dropped-the first year about 50 percent, and now they have dropped about 66 percent— showing that the relatives here seemed to realize that it is not a good time to bring people over. But that is their own action, you understand. If they file the petition, of course we would send it over. But I think that rather accounts for the very small number of firstpreference petitions filed during the period October 1, 1930, to March 31, 1933-only 9,763. Of that number, 9,227 actually received visas, whereas there were 1,514 who were refused visas under the public charge clause of the act. You might say that the 1,514 that were refused and the 9,227 that actually received visas represented a number greater than the number of petitions actually sent through during that period, and that is correct. The reason for that is this: For instance, in certain countries it takes an alien some time to procure a passport. In Italy, for instance, the issuance of passports to aliens is closely supervised by the Government, so that there were some petitions that had been sent in prior to October 30, 1930, and the immigrants came into the consulate after October 30, 1930, and were included. Mr. DIES. As I understand the idea of the proponents of this bill, it is this: Of course, there is no one who despises arbitrary and dictatorial action on the part of some little subordinate more than I do. One point that occurs to me is that it will help some lawyers to build up some sort of a system here in Washington by which they can handle these appeals and collect fees out of ignorant foreigners. Now, I do not see how the enactment of this bill will change the situation a particle, because the same people will hear the appeal on this side, and they will have the same policy. They will have the same ideas that they have today, under the present situation. You cannot make them reverse their decisions, because it is identically the same personnel. They will be the same subordinates handling it. You simply provide a little different method of procedure, but I do not see where you have any assurance that they will change their opinion. The CHAIRMAN. I think you are going off on a tangent about 100 miles from the point that is involved here. We have been talking about everything except the bill, it seems to me. In the first place, you have been discussing the general policy of immigration, which is not involved here at all. The administration has told us that he will send a message to Congress dealing with that subject, and that message will include his policy on immigration. Therefore, we cannot at this time take up any particular policy, because the administration might not approve of that. Mr. DIES. Do you have any assurance that the administration wants any of this legislation that we are now considering? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly, Mr. Dies, I would not have called a meeting of the committee for this hearing if the administration were not favorably inclined toward the purposes we have in view here. Mr. DIES. But here is a spokesman of the administration opposing it. The CHAIRMAN. Aside from all of that, what you are talking about now is denying the right of appeal to these people, or such a right as you would give to any ordinary drunkard who might feel that an injustice had been done him. You would give him the right of appeal. The appeal allowed under the present law is absolutely futile. As a matter of fact, there is no appeal at all. The consul starts with it, and he is the whole works. No matter how arbitrary he is in his actions, there is really no appeal. I have followed your questioning of Mr. Carr very closely, and you said a moment ago, in your discussion with him, that these aliens have no rights. Now, you are absolutely wrong about that, and so is Mr. Carr when he says they have no rights, because under section 4 of the Immigration Act of 1924, if the wife of an American citizen is denied a visa or the child of an American citizen is denied a visa, and the consul wants to be arbitrary, bringing about that separation of the family, certainly they have some rights. That involves a separation of families. Mr. DIES. You do not get the point at all. I do not think you would contend for a moment that we owe any rights to an alien who is seeking admission to our country. You do not get my viewpoint. Of course, we should administer the law correctly, and we should administer it according to the spirit of the law, regardless of who is favored, but, so far as the question of right is concerned, I have never understood that an alien seeking admission to this country has any such rights. The CHAIRMAN. I hope the gentleman will get away from that point. I am not interested in the alien here, but I am interested in the citizen who is seeking Mr. DIES (interposing). That is different. The CHAIRMAN. I am interested in the American citizen who has a child, mother, or father, or close blood relative seeking admission. Where the consul refuses to grant a visa in such a case, there should be a right of appeal. What I am trying to do is to give the American citizen whose relatives are involved, and not the alien, the right to file a request with the State Department that those records of the consular officer, on which he bases his refusal, be submitted to the Department, so that the citizen can go there and present such facts as have been adduced, and have the matter reviewed. Let them show the reason why this wife or this child should not be united with their families. Now, when I say, "Rights under the law," I mean that these people have the rights that have been given them in the immigration law. Mr. DIES. Suppose this bill should go into effect, do you think you could get a different decision from the same personnel? The same men would be administering it that are administering it now. How could you hope for a different decision? The CHAIRMAN. The original bill, if you recall, placed the review in the Department of Labor. Then the State Department came here raising objection about that, and in order to be courteous and agreeable, we changed the bill, and said to them, "All right; you handle it over there; you look at the record, and if you find from the record that they are justified in the denial of the applications, that is final.” Now, that is what this bill says on page 2, in lines 9 to 13. Under that, the affirmative decision of the State Department is practically final. There is no such thing as a mandamus proceeding here. You can not show that there has ever been any proceeding in the courts, or in any of the courts of this country, where the State Department was subject to mandamus in this kind of case, or you will not find where any such case as that has been sustained. The Oelrich case is one of them. Mr. CARR. Yes; but we would not win under this provision. If you have a board of review, and anybody undertook to mandamus the Secretary of State The CHAIRMAN. (interposing). We are not setting up a board here. If you will read the bill, you will see that we are giving you the right to review, as a superior officer, the actions of your inferior subordi nates. Mr. CARR. That is what we do. We have that right. The CHAIRMAN. I want to be fair with the Department, and, of course, you want to do the right thing: Now, you tell the committee how many reversals there have been of actions by the consuls, and how many appeals were taken by relatives under this law. Mr. CARR. I cannot tell you off-hand how many there have been, but I can tell you that a considerable part of my time, every day in the week, is occupied in reviewing cases, calling for reports and issuing orders, and determining whether consuls have done their duty under the law, and whether they have been considerate and have acted fairly in cases involving relatives in this country who want their cases reviewed. We consider the evidence which they submit as to their ability to support the alien, if the alien should come over here. We are doing that all the time. The CHAIRMAN. I am not quarreling with you or with the State Department. I have the highest regard for your Department, but my quarrel is based upon a survey that I personally made of at least 8 or 9 consular offices. There are some very bad reports. Mr. CARR. Have you submitted them to us? Have you submitted the facts to us? The CHAIRMAN. No; I have not had time to go down there and sit down and give you reports, but I have called them to the attention of the Department during the last 3 or 4 months. Mr. CARR. I give you my word that the Department will review any man's case that comes before it. The CHAIRMAN. And that is the end of it. Mr. CARR. No; it is not the end of it. If we find that a consul is not doing what he should do, we take it up with him. Mr. LANZETTA. I think there should be a discussion here that will bring out all the facts. I want to ask Mr. Carr this question: Is it a fact that, when complaint is made of the unfairness of a consul in such |