Mr. LANZETTA. You would practically need several thousand laws to take care of those cases?

Mr. DIRKSEN. That inference does not follow, because you might have 2,000 that are clearly illegal entry cases, and 1,000 may come under the classification of disease. To say that we need 7,000 laws for 7,000 cases is obviously absurd.

Mr. WARREN. I grant, Congressman, that you can carry that statement to absurdities in either direction.

The CHAIRMAN. Right.

Mr. WARREN. There is some middle ground we have to find.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it not a fact that the aim of this whole law is aimed at the citizen's family in this country, where a hardship of the kind that you have described is created? It is not intended to relieve the criminal element; it is not intended to exempt persons who commit crime in this country or have no business here. It is intended solely to take care of a family tie where there is some technical violation which under the present law is mandatorily excludable and deportable. Is that not the point that you are making?

Mr. WARREN. So I believe.

The CHAIRMAN. And your whole summation?

Mr. WARREN. Furthermore, I also believe that the present administrative procedures of both the State Department through its consuls and the Secretary of Labor

The CHAIRMAN. No question about it.

Mr. WARREN. will prevent any exaggeration of the application of such discretionary powers as proposed.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

TESTIMONY OF MISS MARY E. DREIER, OF NEW YORK

The CHAIRMAN. What is your name, please?

Miss DREIER. Mary E. Dreier, 168 East Sixty-first, New York City.

Mr. COLMER. Whom are you representing?

Miss DREIER. I am a member of the Ellis Island committee.
The CHAIRMAN. What is your business outside of that?

Miss DREIER. I have no special business, but I am vice president of the Women's Trade Union League of New York, also the National Women's Trade Union League, and also a member of the National Board of the Y. W. C. A.

I would like to speak on the bill 9518, page 6, line 15, this paragraph regarding the children. I think that should be taken from where it is there and put up on the top line, after "Act."

The CHAIRMAN. Page 6, line what?

Miss DREIER. Line 15. I would like to take that paragraph and put it up on line 1, beginning with, "Provided that no alien who entered the United States when he was under 16 years of age, and has lived here continuously for a period of not less than 5 years, shall be deported."

My reason for this is that we feel that children who come to this country as young children, when they grow up are the product of their environment, and our environment in this country. Aside from that, however, there are children who are not criminals or do

not develop into criminals, but who are just normal human beings, and they also would be deportable unless we have some provision made for the protection of those children.

Commissioner MacCormack has one or two instances which are in his memorandum, which I need not go into, but which I would just like to mention: Two little girls who are to be deported to Canada, where they have nobody, where they would be put into an institution; and one or two other children here, a 12-year-old Syrian boy, and a little boy who came in as an infant, whose mother did not mention the fact that she had him, where he is to be deported also, while she may remain in this country. His father is to be deported to Rumania.

We feel very keenly that children should have the right to remain here, that this is their country, and to be deported to a strange country where they do not speak the language, where they do not know the customs, where they are aliens, really, in spirit and in environment, is very hurtful and unfair to a child and unfair to the country. But that probably makes no difference.

I want to mention also a case here of a man aged 31, who has been 30 years in this country. He is convicted of forgery and larceny, and forgery and petty larceny. All these offenses were from November 1932 to December 31, 1932. After all he came here when he was 1 year old. He is the product of this country. We do not know why he stole, what the situation is. He may have stolen a piece of bread, he may have stolen milk, anything; we do not know. But anyway, whatever it may have been, it seems to me that he is absolutely the product of this country, and it is our responsibility and not the responsibility of the country in which he was born. Mr. LANZETTA. Have you many of those cases?

Miss DREIER. Commissioner MacCormack has a whole list of them.

Mr. LANZETTA. I wanted to ask, in those cases, whether the children of those parents were criminals or whether they were lawabiding individuals?

Miss DREIER. I do not know.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Referring to that same section you discussed, it says that the Secretary of Labor may at his discretion allow an otherwise deportable alien to remain in the United States, first, if he is of good moral character, and second, if he does not preach the subversive doctrines; third, if he did not perform a crime or perpetrate a crime involving moral turpitude; and then there is a fourth provision, getting down to the one you discussed, if he entered the United States when he was under 16 years of age and has lived here continuously for a period of 5 years.

Miss DREIER. Yes.

Mr. DIRKSEN. There are a great many countries over on the other side of the water that have compulsory military service, are there

not?

Miss DREIER. They did; I do not know but what they do still. Mr. DIRKSEN. I expect they still do. It is quite often boys run away and go to sea rather than go into the army and learn the goose step. Let us suppose a boy jumps on a ship and ships out at Hamburg or any other port over there, and he comes over here and

lands, making an illegal entry, just 60 days before he is 16 years of age. He is deportable. He is here illegally. And he is at an age of discretion. They mature more quickly over there than they do here. When he has lived here 5 years the Secretary of Labor within his or her discretion can refuse or undertake not to deport. That is the other side of this story. You have tender children on one side, but you have older people on the other side, and if they come in and we give them all the rights that inure to citizenship, we are going to have some difficulties. We are going to let some of them in

Miss DREIER. We have some of them in now, you see.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Yes; but if we adopt that provision in the act, are we not going to throw it even wider open?

Mr. LANZETTA. In the case you have just recited, if this boy did the things you say he might do, it would mean that he had no relatives in the country at all.

Mr. DIRKSEN. He does not have to have.

Mr. LANZETTA. I do not think there is any provision in this law that gives the Secretary or the Commissioner General of Immigration the power to keep a boy here unless he has some immediate relatives.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Have you read page 6?

Mr. LANZETTA. I think the whole intent of this bill

Mr. DIRKSEN. It is not a question of intent. It is clearly set out on the page what the Secretary can do. While you are talking of children of 2 or 3, let us talk about these boys who come over here on board a vessel, who now come in, on whom we confer these benefits.

MISS DREIER. Suppose you make the age a little lower; instead of making it 16, make it 12.

Mr. DIRKSEN. That, you know, will probably diminish the number, but it does not affect the principle that is involved.

Mr. LANZETTA. Let me clear this point-just a minute. It says, "He may, in his discretion, allow an otherwise deportable alien "if this boy comes here all alone and has no relatives in this country, I am sure that the Commissioner General of Immigration would not permit that boy

Mr. DIRKSEN. How can you be sure?

Mr. LANZETTA. Because I have reason to believe that the Commissioner General of Immigration would administer the law in accordance with the intentions of the Members of Congress who have passed it.

Mr. TRAEGER. A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The answer to that is that during the Republican administration everything and everybody was discretionary with the Department. When we come down to putting some little discretion into somebody here, and the administration is willing to assume responsibility, you raise all these points that have no bearing in this hearing at all.

Mr. DIRKSEN. I do not know what they did prior to this administration.

The CHAIRMAN. I have been here long enough to tell you some things that would make your hair stand further up.

Mr. DIRKSEN. We do not want to be bound by the previous administration.

The CHAIRMAN. We can discuss that in the committee.

anything else you want to say?

Is there

Miss DREIER. Yes. I would like to say on this H. R. 9364, on page 2, number 1, "has resided in the United States continuously for a period of 10 years or more immediately prior to the filing of his application", I know that our committee discussed this very thoroughly, and we came to the conclusion that 5 years was a very good time instead of 10 years.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a matter for the committee to decide.

TESTIMONY OF MRS. VINCENT ASTOR, OF NEW YORK, N. Y.

The CHAIRMAN. You are a member of the Ellis Island Committee? Mrs. ASTOR. I am, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you make a brief statement in the way you want to make it?

Mrs. ASTOR. I have a very brief statement, merely that I joined this committee partly because of my interest in the small organization for American citizenship in New York, and my especial interest-the ground has already been covered, but just to explain myself-in the breaking up of families and the many tragic instances I have seen in connection with my work with my own little organization. I am sure any of you gentlemen would all feel the same way, if you came up against the same cases I saw.

The CHAIRMAN. They are dealing solely with family ties?

Mrs. ASTOR. Yes; mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, and children.

The CHAIRMAN. They do not deal with the general run of aliens who come here by being smuggled in, or that sort of thing?

Mrs. ASTOR. No. We have a lot of cases up there that are on your bulletin. There is no special reason to go into them now. But we are up against that question all the time, and I wish that you would see fit to draw that portion of the law so that they could be brought in, whether they are on the quota or not on the quota.

The CHAIRMAN. You are dealing just with the human element, with family ties?

Mrs. ASTOR. Exactly, whether it be immigration or deportation. The CHAIRMAN. All right; thank you very much.

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS F. MULHOLLAND

The CHAIRMAN. You are a member of the Ellis Island Committee? Mr. MULHOLLAND. I am a consultant of the Ellis Island Committee. The CHAIRMAN. What is your business?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. I am connected with the National Catholic Welfare Conference, but I am appearing in my personal capacity, inasmuch as the National Catholic Welfare Conference has had no opportunity of taking official cognizance with regard to these bills. However, the National Catholic Welfare Conference is in hearty support of any measure that will tend toward the reunion of families, and also in support of the registration bill date being raised to July 1,

1924, in order that that undigestible mass, shall I say, of people who have entered before July 1, 1924, and who are not deportable, may proceed first to registration and afterwards to citizenship.

The CHAIRMAN. You believe that the functions of your organization have been concerned solely with family relations?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. Family relations; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You are not interested in any other persons, to protect any others, criminals, or aliens who have been smuggled into this country, or who try to stay here beyond their time?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. No. My work for the last 13 years has been on Ellis Island, in connection with welfare work.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Are you familiar with the provisions of this bill? Mr. MULHOLLAND. Yes.

Mr. DIRKSEN. You do not necessarily endorse, then, everything that is in that bill? You are thinking only in terms of the family? Mr. MULHOLLAND. I am thinking in terms of the family; yes. Mr. DIRKSEN. And in proportion as it rehabilitates the family? Mr. MULHOLLAND. And in proportion as it prevents the break-up of a family.

I am in favor-and this is my personal feeling that the discretionary power should be given in order to meet certain cases, because, as has been pointed out already, and I reiterate, most of the cases may be covered by general statements of law; but inasmuch as the immigration law deals with the most varying phases of human relationships, you cannot possibly, and I do not believe that there is anyone who will sit down and go over the records and see the difficulties presented in them, that will unhesitatingly say that person must be deported. There are cases that are border-line cases in which the greatest suffering is entailed to American citizens, wives, and American children.

The CHAIRMAN. And this proposed act would simply deal with your changes of it only?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. Exactly.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Do you favor the relaxation of the so-called "mandatory" or the "affirmative " provisions in the existing law?

Mr. MULHOLLAND. Frankly, there are not any mandatory cases. At the present time I think that there must be such problem cases with difficulties as must be held up and considered, whether the full application of the law-keeping to the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law is one of the hardest things possible-I mean for the administrators thereof. I think there should be some leeway. Granting the mandatory situation in general, I say that there are exceptions that, if given considerations, must be taken, cannot be lost sight of.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Let us take a clear case of somebody who is deportable, where the family considerations may not particularly enter in. Would you be willing to maintain the existing condition of the law where it says they shall be deported, or would you prefer to have the language so changed that they shall be subject to deportation within, say, the discretion of some administrative official in the service.