RESTRICTION OF IMMIGRATION HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SIXTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H. R. 5, H. R. 101, H. R. 561, H. R. 6540 JANUARY 14, 19, 21, 22, 28, AND 29, FEBRUARY 12, 1924 RESTRICTION OF IMMIGRATION. COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Albert Johnson (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. We have present this morning two gentlemen from the Bureau of the Census, namely, Dr. J. A. Hill, assistant to the director, and Mr. William C. Hunt, chief statistician for populations. The immigration restriction bill, as it is being revised by the committee, provides for the admission of immigrants to the number of 2 per cent, based on the 1890 census. The present quota law is based on the 1910 census, and tables are available giving quotas admissible from various European countries per annum on that census basis. What the committee wants to know is if you think it is possible to make such an estimate and prepare a table within a comparatively short time based on the 1890 census basis. I mean by that, could it be done just as well under the 1890 census as it can be done on the basis of the 1910 census? Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir. There would be some trouble. Mr. HUNT. Determining the boundaries of the different countries. Mr. HUNT. Not the total number. Take, for instance, 1890. The present immigration law does not apply to Canada, Newfoundland, Cuba, Mexico, Central and South America, or to China, Japan, and India; and if the proposed law contains the same provision, the number of foreign born in 1890, to which the quota would apply, would be reduced from 9,249,000 (the total number enumerated) to about 8,000,000 persons. The quota on the 8,000,000 basis would be about 160,000. Mr. BACON. The work with respect to the changed boundaries has all been done, has it not-with respect to the census of 1910? In other words, you would use the same basis? Mr. HUNT. We would have to have a little different basis. The boundaries even have been affected in this last 1924 quota basis, on account of recent changes. The CHAIRMAN. That is, to keep up with the changing boundaries? Mr. HUNT. To keep up with the boundaries as recognized by the Secretary of State, The CHAIRMAN. The setting of a particular date would make no difference in total numbers, would it? Mr. HUNT. No, sir. 915 The CHAIRMAN. That is, if you find those numbers on one census, then you would make your distribution for another census by the same method as you did the 1910 quota? Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Now, then, for the purpose of this committee, would you be able to take the countries as named in the present quota list and figure for us a quota table based on the 1890 census? Doctor HILL. We would have to do it in cooperation with the representatives of the Department of Justice and the Department of State. The CHAIRMAN. What I mean to say is this: Are the census statistics such that you can take a table, using the names of the 40-odd countries as they appear in the present quota tables, and make an approximate distribution by the same method of distribution as 1910, and have the table ready for us within a short time? Doctor HILL. Under the law that committee would have to determine the quotas. Mr. RAKER. We want to know whether you can mechanically do it or not. Doctor HILL. Not mechanically. We have to confer the State Department representatives have to determine many boundaries involved that probably have not been determined. The CHAIRMAN. Here is the quota list for the years past, defining the countries, Czechoslovakia, etc. Can you make a table showing the number that might be admitted on the basis of the 1890 census distribution, by percentages? Mr. DICKSTEIN. Would that not be more or less guesswork? Mr. HUNT. It would be guesswork unless we stop at the boundaries of the countries where they were changed, because there are some of those countries where the boundary changed that are not now in existence-probably there would be no difference in the 1890 boundary and the 1910 boundary. Mr. McREYNOLDS. You would have to do that as to the 1910 census, would you not? Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir. We had to do it, but we had to have a good many conferences in order to do it. Mr. DICKSTEIN. Russia has had quite a change since by the treaty of Versailles. Mr. HUNT. We have to make some allowance for those indefinite boundaries. Mr. DICKSTEIN. How do you do it? Mr. HUNT. Through consultation with the representatives of the Department of State and of the Department of Labor. Mr. DICKSTEIN. That would be more or less guesswork. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but the law permits that allowance to be made. Mr. HUNT. We have a number of countries now in existence that did not exist in 1910 or 1890, and we have a number of people here who came from those countries at that time, or from that territory at that time. That all has to be considered in connection with where your immigration comes from. There is no use in taking into consideration that population of Russia which sends no immigrants here, so it is work that can only be done by representatives of the Department of Labor, which administers the immigration law, and the Department of State, which has to do with diplomatic questions. Mr. RAKER. You had to do that in fixing the estimated number under the census of 1910 that is now in operation. You take the same basis in fixing the basis of 1890, do you not? Doctor HILL. There are possible complications in there, which may make the boundaries more difficult to determine than last year. Mr. RAKER. In fixing the quota for each of these countries can we in the same method Mr. HUNT. Oh, yes; we do it by the same method. Mr. RAKER. I say, in fixing the quota for each of these countries we use the same method on the 1890 census basis as was used on the 1910 census basis, do we not? Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. So there would be no more difficulty in the one than there would be in the other? Mr. HUNT. Not a bit. Mr. DICKSTEIN. But the method used at first would not be accurate and neither would this be accurate? Mr. HUNT. No, sir. Mr. DICKSTEIN. Both would be more or less a matter of opinion? Doctor HILL. Estimates, from information we could get. Mr. RAKER. Even to-day, taking any method, you would have to estimate some of it, would you not? Doctor HILL. Oh, yes. It is not exactly the same proposition, however, for 1890 that it was for 1910. Mr. McREYNOLDS. There are not a great many changes, are there, Mr. Hill, since the other estimate was made? Doctor HILL. I do not think so. I do not keep up with all those matters myself. Mr. HUNT. It is a matter for the State Department to say which ones have been recognized since that time. We have to confer with them and they are supposed to look out for that. Mr. WILSON. How long would it take to have this new estimate prepared? Doctor HILL. We had a series of meetings the last time-five or six of them, and it took about five or six weeks, I suppose, for us to get it ready. It ought to be easier this time than before. Mr. McREYNOLDS. It should be easier than it was before, should it not? Doctor HILL. Yes, sir. Mr. McREYNOLDS. You would not have to go over all that work again, would you? Doctor HILL. No, sir. Mr. McREYNOLDS. The map of Europe had changed before and it has not changed very much since then, has it? Mr. HUNT. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you about the application of it. In the present quota law the section reads (Section 11 (a)): For the purposes of this act, nationality shall be determined by country of birth, treating as separate countries the colonies or dependencies for which separate enumeration was made in the United States census of 1890; except that the nationality of a minor child, etc. And it is proposed now to change 1910 to 1890. Doctor HILL. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Can you say as to whether any colonies or dependencies received any such separate enumeration since 1890? |