question of the general public view that there should be selective immigration, whereas, as a matter of fact, the purpose of your organization is just to notify these people of our laws in the foreign countries? Mr. GOTTLIEB. In addition to that, I believe in selection. Mr. RAKER. Tell me what you mean by selection. Mr. GOTTLIEB. To properly answer this from your viewpoint, I would first like an opportunity to study the bill. You have mentioned in your bill "selection" and if you will tell me what you mean by "selection," I will tell you what I believe. I will tell you whether I believe you are right. The CHAIRMAN. You organized your society last summer? Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. And you called it the Selective Immigrant Aid Society? Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. You must have had a reason for using the word "selective"?.. Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. What did you mean? Mr. GOTTLIEB. We meant this: To determine the qualifications for admission under our laws of the immigrant on the other side before he comes to this country; select him in such a way that he will be an asset rather than a liability; select him so that he should not become a public charge; select him so that he can be assimilated with us and select him to make sure that he is not physically defective; that he is not afflicted with any contageous disease. That is what we mean by selection, so that when they come in here and settle down, we would not be ashamed to be with them and remain with them and they with us. The CHAIRMAN. Would you object to looking into his history in that country a little bit? Are you willing to know who his parents are? Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. You want to do that? Mr. GOTTLIEB. Absolutely. The CHAIRMAN. You want to know if there is any insanity in his family? Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Are you willing to have his photograph taken and put on his application? Mr. GOTTLIEB. Well, that goes with it, of course. The CHAIRMAN. Thumb prints, also? Mr. GOTTLIEB. I do not think that is necessary. I think the photograph is sufficient. The CHAIRMAN. You are willing to have his military record put down is writing? Mr. GOTTLIEB. I do not know whether that would be essential. The CHAIRMAN. Would you be willing to have his prison record in writing? Mr. GOTTLIEB. I do not know what the form of the application is, but so long as it would not conflict with his own views these things could be done. The CHAIRMAN. You are willing that all records pertaining to the man who proposes to come to the United States shall be taken down in writing? Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Then we agree on that? Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You would not object to registering him the date he arrives, would you? Mr. GOTTLIEB. That is a matter I want to discuss with our organization. I was with the Secretary of Labor last week in New York. He appeared before a group of foreign-language newspaper editors. He told them at that time that he would be glad to present to them a copy of his bill which calls for registration, and of course what I know is just simply hearsay. If the registration would help the alien to become Americanized and to obtain his naturalization certificate without any red tape, I think it is a good idea. But, on the other hand, if it would refer to some other matters, I would ask you gentlemen of the committee to give us an opportunity to present our brief on the subject. Mr. RAKER. Let me put this question to you and see if this is not what you mean by selective immigration: The only thing you mean by selective immigration is that if the applicant, after he is advised what the law is relative to admission to the United States, does not come under any of the prohibitions, then you would let him in? Mr. GOTTLIEB. If he is otherwise admissible. Mr. RAKER. All you mean by selective immigration is that if the immigrant meets the present provisions of the present law, you would admit him, no matter who he was? Mr. GOTTLIEB. If the present law permits him to enter, it is our function, if he is admissible, to assist him. Mr. RAKER. In other words, if the immigrant has none of the elements which prohibit a man entering the United States, you would let him enter, irrespective of who he is? Mr. GOTTLIEB. Oh, yes. That is, if he is admissible. What do you mean by who he is? Let us assume who he is. Mr. RAKER. Here is the immigration law that says that certain people can not be admitted, namely, if they are in excess of the quota, if they are criminals, if they believe in sabotage, or any and all of the other objectionable features of admitting a man. If he has none of those against him, would you admit him irrespective of who he is? Mr. GOTTLIEB. You mean race or creed? Mr. RAKER. Anybody, anywhere, from any place. Mr. GOTTLIEB. It would not be up to us to admit him. We would simply tell him whether he could be admitted. It is up to the immigration authorities if they would admit him. Mr. RAKER. Are you in favor individually of admitting him? Mr. GOTTLIEB. If a man satisfactorily fulfills the requirements and qualifications for admission, I would. Mr. RAKER. That is what you mean by selective immigration? Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. And nothing else? Mr. GOTTLIEB. I would select just the very man who meets these qualifications properly. Mr. RAKER. Suppose there was a man, his wife, and 7 children. One of the children was feeble-minded and another one was crippled beyond any hope of being resuscitated. What would you do with that family? Would you admit the whole family? Mr. GOTTLIEB. No; I would tell the whole family not to start; just tell them to stay on the other side and write to their relatives here: instead of sending them the money to come over to this country, rather let them furnish them with a little amount of money every month or year and keep them right where they are. That is the very thing that I would examine. I would see whether the child is feeble-minded or whether any of the children are crippled. Mr. RAKER. If you found anyone in the family who was in any way prohibited from entering Mr. GOTTLIEB (interposing). I would urge him not to come. Mr. RAKER. You got a little ahead of me there. You would not let the rest in, but you would exclude them all because one is afflicted? Mr. GOTTLIEB. Pardon me. Here is where I try to avoid the breaking up of the family. I would suggest to the father or to the mother, "Here you have got two children who are mandatorily excluded, who can not be admitted into the United States. If you have some place where you can leave your child or your children, to be taken care of and attended to properly, and if you and your wife and the rest of the children who are admissible under our laws would like to separate yourselves from these children here, you may go to this country, and I believe that you would be admitted." The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you: Have you not been down to the Department of Labor hundreds of times to make appeals to bring in feeble children? Mr. GOTTLIEB. Mr. Chairman, I want to be put on record in this case that I have never appeared before the Labor Department in a feeble-minded case. The CHAIRMAN. Never? Mr. GOTTLIEB. I have never appeared before the Labor Department in a case where the applicant was absolutely mandatorily excluded. The records can bear me out, and you can ask the Secretary of Labor and anyone connected with the department. The CHAIRMAN. You leave that work to the Congressmen and Senators. Mr. GOTTLIEB. If those gentlemen can do it; I personally did not appear for them and did not urge their admission. The CHAIRMAN. Did the Hebrew Sheltering Aid Society make any representations in behalf of Sammy Goldman, for instance, in Syracuse? Mr. GOTTLIEB. Mr. Chairman, I would rather not answer that question. Mr. WATKINS. Why? Mr. GOTTLIEB. Because I am no longer with that society. They are here. You can subpoena them and ask them that question. I can say for myself, as long as I represented them, the moment that I learned that the case was a feeble-minded case or a case of mandatory exclusion, I simply withdrew from the case. Mr. CABLE. Who took care of it then? Mr. GOTTLIEB. I ceased my connection with the case. Mr. RAKER. Let us get back to my question about the family. You then would advise this husband and wife with their five children to come and leave the other two abroad? Mr. GOTTLIEB. I would say that there were two ways. Mr. RAKER. What would be your judgment as a man of experience in these matters? I want it in the record, if you will give it to us. What would be your advice? Here is a father and a mother and five children who are admissible with two children who are inadmissible. What would you advise them to do? Mr. GOTTLIEB. I will tell you what my advice would be. I would look at the circumstances of the case in the part of the country where the man lives. If the man can not make a living, if it is a hardship on him to remain on the other side and he has better opportunities here in this country, and if his children would have a better opportunity to educate themselves and become better men than they are over there, I would tell him frankly, "Here is the only thing you can do. You may be admitted to the United States if you come there with your wife and five healthy children. You can not be admitted to the United States if you bring with you those two children, who will be excluded mandatorily. The best thing for you to do is either to remain here and write to your relatives to help you along here and remain in this country, or separate yourselves and put your two children in some place where they can be taken care of and you can go to the United States." Mr. RAKER. Would you be in favor of separation under any circumstances? Mr. GOTTLIEB. Personally, I would not. I would not separate my family, if I had an afflicted child. be The CHAIRMAN. The committee is serious in asking you this, cause we have before us Canadian immigration laws with some new provisions by which Canada reserves the right to reject people that might not fit into the Canadian situation. They, I understand, are rejecting families where certain members are left behind, because of not fitting into the situation, through disease or insanity or something like that. Mr. GOTTLIEB. You mean they reject the whole family? Mr. GOTTLIEB. If they come with an afflicted child? The CHAIRMAN. No; they reserve the right to reject any and all, on the belief that the person arriving might not fit into the Canadian scheme of things. They are rejecting parts of families on the ground that the parts of families that arrive will beg thereafter to bring the remaining members-the decrepit members of the family. Mr. RAKER. I should like to ask two questions. As a lawyer you have looked this question up, and are you of the opinion that Congress has the power to pass an act like this, fixing the quota for 1890 or 1910, whichever one it wants? Mr. GOTTLIEB. I think Congress has that right. Mr. RAKER. You think it has that right? Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes. Mr. RAKER. So we could fix it at 1880 or 1890 or 1910, whichever we wanted to? Mr. GOTTLIEB. I think the power is vested in Congress in that respect. Mr. RAKER. You have had considerable knowledge of who represents these various immigrants that appeal from the board's decision at the port of New York. I am advised that 19,000 immigrants whom the board turned down as afflicted with disease and other defects which should have excluded them, appealed and these 19,000 inadmissibles have been admitted within the last year. Can you tell us now who represents these people and who has been anxious to get them in ? Mr. GOTTLIEB. Judge Raker, I do not think that the figures are accurate. I think that the Department of Labor for the last two years has been very, very careful in admitting any case where a feeble-minded person was involved or one with any contageous disease. Mr. RAKER. You got the purport of my question, did you not? Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes; I have. Mr. RAKER. I say 19,000; it may be less, it may be more. They were turned down by the board, by the doctors that made the examination, as not admissible. They appealed their cases and they have all been admitted. Now, whether my number is too high or not high enough, the fact remains that a considerable number were admitted. Who and what organizations have been representing these people, trying to get them in, if you know? Mr. GOTTLIEB. All I can tell you, Judge, is that I did not represent them. Mr. WATKINS. Do you know who did? Mr. GOTTLIEB. I can not tell. I know of many immigration cases where a society appears and then immediately thereafter some other representative, Members of Congress, or Senators, or other people appear there. They come there and look out for their constituents. I want to say this: I doubt very much, Judge, if you will get the records from the Department of Labor, that you will find 50 persons admitted who are afflicted. Mr. RAKER. I do not care what the number is. Mr. GOTTLIEB. You want to know who appeared for them. I can not tell you. I know I did not. I met you once, Judge, in the Department of Labor. You came down to look up something for one of your constituents, a Greek in California. I know you would not appear for the man unless you knew he was admissible. Mr. RAKER. You know I appeared for a man? Mr. GOTTLIEB. I met you. Mr. RAKER. That is not the question. Mr. GOTTLIEB. I believe you came down there for your constituent. Mr. RAKER. You should not be too long on presumptions. You think it is a good law, that Members of Congress and the officials of the House and Senate should not represent aliens? Mr. GOTTLIEB. I do not want to go on record on that question. I leave that to you gentlemen, who have better judgment than I have. The CHAIRMAN. You have had a great deal of experience. Has there been much fraud on the relatives of aliens in the preparation of appeals? Mr. GOTTLIEB. I can not tell that, Mr. Chairman, because in my capacity the briefs came to me fully completed and I never had a chance to see or examine any of the relatives. |