one to care for him, from his viewpoint, and in actual fact, has been banished, not deported. He knows nothing of that country. He has been brought up here to speak our language and frequently does not speak the language of the country to which he is being sent. His friends are all here and his parents are here. America is his country. So that when we send a child abroad we are not deporting him but banishing him, and we cannot get away from that fact.

Here is the case of a newsboy. He is 9 years of age. His father died in Syria. His mother, on the death of her husband, took this child to Mexico and lived there. She became dangerously ill and sent to her brother, who is a legal resident of the United States, to come down and take care of the child. The brother came and took the child with him back to his home in a midwestern city. He stayed there with this man. He was not legally admitted, however. The brother introduced him illegally into this country.

The mother in the course of time recovered and still later married an American citizen, and was herself admitted legally to the country. She came to the same city as this boy, taking her child, of course. They have lived there together happily for a long time.

But we found out, in one way or another, that this boy had been illegally introduced into the United States, and at once, as provided in the law, instituted deportation proceedings to send that child back to Syria.

He left Syria as a baby. We are sending him back there, where he does not know the language, where he has no one to care for him, leaving his mother in the United States.

The minute that this action on our part became known there was a storm of protest from all over the United States-editorials, halfpage stories in the newspapers-but there is nothing we can do about it under the law. We have to deport the child.

Mr. WEIDEMAN. You get your information from someone who acts through jealousy or some such motive?

Mr. MACCORMACK. Yes, sir.

Mr. WEIDEMAN. It might be a good thing to release the name of your informer, do you not think, where they are doing something of that sort?

Mr. MACCORMACK. No, sir; I do not think so, although no one hates more than I the system by which we have to get our information.

Mr. WEIDEMAN. That has brought upon the agents of your Department disrepute, has it not?

Mr. MACCORMACK. Yes, sir.

Mr. WEIDEMAN. These people place the blame on the agent.
Mr. MACCORMACK. We are blamed for it.

Mr. WEIDEMAN. Yes, sir; you are blamed for it.

Mr. MACCORMACK. But the actual fact is that I suppose in more than 50 percent of the cases we deport, which we do not pick up at the borders, the information has come to us in an anonymous communication from someone who has had a quarrel with the alien concerned, or has tried to blackmail him and failed to do so. That is a very common occurrence.

A surprising number come from wives who have a quarrel with their husbands and write a letter, and then they come around with tears in their eyes and on their knees beg to have us forget that we have received the letter, but we cannot.

It has been urged upon me that we refuse to act upon anonymous communications. I have declined, and I hate to take that position, but I have declined to approve those recommendations. That is because I feel that a public officer must use any information he gets without respect to its source, or without respect to the motive of the sender. So that we act upon anonoymous communications just as we do upon sworn affidavits. We are very careful, however, to see that the facts are as stated.

Mr. LANZETTA. Commisioner, may I ask you a question? Do you know if it is the general practice for these aliens to be blackmailed? Mr. MACCORMACK. Very general.

Mr. LANZETTA. Very general?

Mr. MACCORMACK. Yes, sir. We are conducting an investigation into that matter at the present time and finding great difficulty in getting the facts.

I wish to give you a statement now as to the effect of the deportations, to try to point out to you what we, as a country, gain by deporting these people, how little, in truth, we gain by the deportation.

We have analyzed the cases arising between March 4 and December 31, 1933. During that period deportation was stayed in 660 cases. It has continued at the rate of somewhere between 75 and 125 cases a month up to the present. But during the period between the change in administration and December 31 there were 660. Of those 660, upon further examination we decided that we would not be likely to recommend the exercise of discretionary power in more

than 465.

These 465 cases cover 546 individuals, because there are whole families deported in certain cases.

Now, if these 546 individuals were deported, there would still remain in the United States 987 American citizens, or legally resident aliens, members of those families. So you deport 546 people and you leave behind them 987.

These are not selected cases, but every case in which we are inclined to exercise discretion. Nearly 2 for 1 citizens and legally resident aliens will be left here when we deport those 546.

Of this 987, there are 838 United States citizen children and adults and 149 legally domiciled alien children and adults. Far in excess of the number we deport are left behind. The deportations in these cases would, therefore, affect almost 2 for 1 citizens and legally domiciled aliens to each alien deported.

There is another serious aspect to this matter. Of the group of 987 citizens and legally domiciled aliens to be left here if deportation is carried out in these cases, 665 are dependent upon those to be deported and would, in all probability, become charges upon the State. So again look at it. Five hundred and forty-six people deported, 665 left here to become public charges who would not otherwise be public charges.

Now, perhaps the most striking proof of the futility, entirely aside from the injustice and hardship involved in the deportation of many of these people, is indicated by the fact that of the 546 now subject to deportation, 439, or 80 percent, of the total would immediately be eligible for return to the United States

The CHAIRMAN. If they were sent out?

Mr. MACCORMACK. If they were sent out. They have all been granted authority to depart voluntarily. The minute they leave the United States, their near relatives here, if they are in a position to do so, will apply for a preference visa for them, and they will be eligible to return immediately.

The CHAIRMAN. It is just a matter of spending a lot of money with the steamship companies?

Mr. MACCORMACK. It is not only a matter of great expense, Mr. Dickstein, to us in their deportation, but it is a matter frequently of breaking up their families. These are the breadwinners, for the most part, mind you, who are being sent out.

If they have savings, they have to take them in order for them to subsist themselves abroad and to pay their fare back to this country. It is a ghastly hardship and utterly and totally unnecessary, and utterly and totally useless if we are considering deportation as a means of sending people out of the United States to stay out, because under the existing law 80 percent of this group, in whose cases we would exercise discretionary power, could immediately return.

To sum up: We deport 546 aliens. They leave behind them 987 members of their families who are American citizens or aliens legally resident here. Of this 987, 665 are dependent upon the deportees and practically certain to become public charges. Finally, of the 546 deportable aliens, 439 or 80 percent are eligible for immediate return to the United States. The futility, I might even say the stupidity, of any such proceeding is self-evident.

Fears have been expressed here as to the dangers of the abuse of discretionary power. That danger, of course, always exists where the use of discretion is permitted. However, as Mr. Quinn so ably pointed out yesterday, one of the cardinal principles of the law in all civilized countries is that there shall be the possibility of an appeal to some court or official higher than the one rendering the original decision, and that for every offense, no matter how serious, there shall be vested in someone the power to pardon or to mitigate punishment. That is a cardinal principle of our law and it is a cardinal principle in every civilized community.

The judges of municipal and state courts are, in many instances, permitted the use of discretion with reference to the punishments they impose. The Governors of the States or State boards, and the President of the United States exercise the right to pardon offenders against State and Federal statutes, respectively, even the most hardened criminals.

The immigration laws are practically the only laws under which no discretion is permitted.

That should be clearly borne in mind. There are practically no laws under which no discretion is permitted.

When even the lowest courts are permitted discretion in the punishments they impose; when parole boards are permitted to set offenders at liberty on probation; when higher courts are permitted to review and reverse punitive findings of lower courts; when the Governors of States or State boards and the President of the United States are permitted to grant pardons for all other offenses, it is submitted that there should be no departure from this equitable princi. ple in the case of the immigration laws.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to interpose a short statement just here in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

TESTIMONY OF EVERETT M. DIRKSEN, MEMBER OF CONGRESS

The number of bills that have been introduced and considered by this committee on immigration and naturalization matters, the number of hearings which have been held, the high character of the witnesses who have appeared from time to time, witnesses who have come long distances at their own expense, the fact that there are according to the American Federation of Labor at the present time nearly 11 million unemployed, the dearth of facts and figures with respect to immigration from border countries and non-quota countries, the ironclad restrictions being imposed upon immigration to other nations, and the persistent attitude of the membership of the House in demanding a comprehensive immigration code to protect our own labor, is evidence that problems affecting immigration and naturalization are assuming a new importance in our economic life and demand clear thinking and comprehensive treatment.

I have listened with genuine interest to the reports of the many witnesses on the instant bills and believe I express the sentiment of every member of the committee when I say that the membership is interested in and is desirous of bringing relief to the many pathetic cases that have been recited by witnesses.

The question before the committee is not whether relief should be administered in such cases, but rather by what means it should be effected. It is a question of how far we should proceed. It is a question of conferring general discretionary authority on the Department of Labor to bring about remedial measures in such cases or of definitely writing provisions for relief in the law.

Congress is, in the final analysis, responsible for whatever policy of immigration is shaped. It must bear the blame for any mistakes that might be made.

With reference to H. R. 9518, under consideration in the instant hearings, it is my observation that the law with respect to deportable offenses should be revised and deportable offenses clearly set forth. This would be but simple justice to any alien, would strengthen the authority of the Department of Labor, and relieve the Department and its officials of any undue pressure that might be exercised in behalf of deportable aliens. It eliminates all guesswork and the exercise of discretionary power in clearly deportable cases.

As for those border-line cases, where undue severity or hardship might result, I believe a short bill drawn along the lines as herein suggested would serve to accomplish the result so much desired by the Ellis Island committee and other witnesses without relaxing the mandatory provisions of existing law and with a retention of supervisory power in Congress.

A BILL To authorize the continued residence in the United States of certain aliens Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in the case of an alien, subject to deportation under the provisions of section 19 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917 (39 Stat. 889; U. S. C. title 8, sec. 155) and section 14 of the Immigration Act of May 26, 1924 (43 Stat. 162; U. S. C. title 8, sec. 214) if the Secretary of Labor upon investigation shall find that such alien has been

a person of good moral character and that deportation would result in extreme and/or extraordinary hardship or in such alien's permanent separation from an American-citizen wife, husband, child, or parent, he may in his discretion suspend execution of the order or warrant of deportation. As to each such suspended order or warrant of deportation, the Secretary of Labor shall on the date December 31 next following, report the facts to the Congress together with his recommendation in respect of the ultimate disposition appropriately to be made of the particular case, which recommendation shall be carried out as a final order in the matter unless Congress, within 6 months after the submission of such report and recommendation, shall by act or resolution otherwise direct. If the final order in the case of any such alien is a cancelation or recission of the order and warrant of deportation, the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization may accept any headtax theretofore due and unpaid, may amend nunc pro tunc, the entry record of the alien so as to establish lawful admission for permanent residence, and may issue, upon receipt of the fee therefore required by law, a certificate of arrival. The promulgation by the Secretary of Labor or regulations appropriate or necessary to the administration of this act is hereby authorized.

Such a bill will provide relief for every case that was submitted to this committee in the course of these hearings. It confers some discretionary power but leaves ultimate disposition with the Congress. It preserves the mandatory features of the law. It disposes of the question of registry in all such cases and would be a safe and sane provision under which to operate in the future.

Such a bill, if implemented with additional legislation dealing with deportations of undesirable offenders, would achieve every purpose and still preserve a restrictive policy which is so necessary at this time in view of continued wide-spread unemployment.

The CHAIRMAN. Are your through, Mr. MacCormack?

Mr. MACCORMACK, I have one short statement to make, and then I am through.

The recommendations of the Ellis Island committee and of the technicians of the Immigration and Naturalization Service have not been inspired by mawkish sentimentality, but by a desire to provide for a better and more effective enforcement of the immigration laws. The solutions suggested are such as calculated to bring these statutes into consonance with our American ideals of justice. The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Commissioner, I want to take this opportunity at the conclusion of this enlightenment which you have given us, first to thank the Ellis Island committee for its exhaustive study of this human problem which has been confronting the American people and which has been very troublesome to our internal life and existence. I think that they have rendered a fair, honest, and careful study, unbiased, and unprejudiced. I think that they have rendered a great service to the American people.

And on behalf of the committee, I want to thank them sincerely as Americans. I want to thank you, Mr. Commissioner MacCormack, for the very enlightened and very intelligent presentation of the views of the Department and the observations which you have given this committee, which I hope this committee will take under advisement when this matter will shortly be considered.

I want to call attention to and thank Mrs. Cohut, whom I am advised has done a great service, aided in the enlightenment which has been given this committee.