Hungrian Democratic Party Definitely Split over Anti-semitism

(Jewish Telegraphic Agency)

The Hungarian Democratic party, which included several leading Jewish deputies, is now definitely split over the issue of the attitude to be taken toward anti-Semitism in government and society.

The friction caused by the recent debate in the House on the anti-Jewish student riots led to a definite split in the organization of the party. 1 Deputies Russay, Saudor and Baracs advocate a moderate form of opposition, while the seceding group led by Deputies Fabian, Pakots and Gal have decared their determination to carry on “a mercilous, radical fight against anti-Semitic reaction.”

Sir:

Harry E. Hull, United States Commissioner General of Immigration, made the statement that there are about three million people illegally in the United States. These figures are not based upon any scientific study. This number has been referred to by some of our Commissioners of Immigration as well as by Honorable Albert Johnson, Chairman of the Committee on Immigration of the House of Representatives, of which I am a members. I have been unable to make them back up these figures by any tangible evidence.

Propaganda of this kind serves no good result, as there are certain classes of natives who are prejudiced against immigrants and feel they are a menace to the country. Most of the illegal entries, as I have them, come from the border-line of Mexico, which under the present law is enjoying exemption from the quota, as well as from Canada, which is enjoying the same privilege.

These illegal entries, who have been here more than five years, cannot be deported under our present law. There is no way we can get them out. The least we can do is find out who are the desirable persons and give them some standing in the community in which they live so that they will be burdened with the same responsibilities as our other taxpayers who are presently overburdened.

Our whole immigration system is wrong, and there seems to be a tendency amongst many in Congress to open the door for many undesirables, but keep away the decent, lawabiding alien and make it hard for him to unite his family by bringing in his wife and children, just because of certain technicalities which have been followed by the administration in its policy of immigration.

The majority of the citizens of the United States do not realize the hardships which are imposed upon our alien residents in the United States. If one percent of these hardships were imposed upon Americans abroad, the whole world would hear of it. It seems that we are not working on the basis of fairness and justice but have been discriminating unjustly against certain classes of people from Southern and Eastern Europe, which has a preferred status. Statistics prove that the majority of the latter never became citizens of the United States and are not inclined to renounce allegiance to the King of Great Britain. On the other hand, we find the persecuted people of Southern and Eastern Europe, willing to renounce their allegiance to their country immediately upon landing in the United States and adopting this country instead, and helping us develop our resources and eventually become great assets to our population.

I have always been opposed to the present form of immigration because it does not bring about the desired result which this country should adopt. One would imagine we are dealing with cattle, when we say they should not come from this or that country, in a number not more than one hundred. If there should be one hundred and one, that last one must stay out, even though he be a man of high culture and good standing and could give us great ideas and theories, or be a desirable addition to our population.

Who can say that the father or mother of an American citizen should be deprived from entering this country? They would not interfere with anyone, yet the present law prohibits them from coming in except within a preference, which means nothing, since it only means that where such a parent is a native of a preferred country like Great Britain, he may come in within two or three months, but where such parent happens to be a native of a country such as Turkey, he cannot come in for ten years or more, even though his son is a citizen of the United States, may be a World War veteran or may have in other ways served his adopted country well. The reason I am mentioning this instance is because only recently a pathetic case of this type has come to my official attention. I know of many more cases where such a situation prevails and has for many years.

True that by a recent amendment passed by Congress, residents of the United States have the right to bring in their wives and children within a preference, but that preference, as has been pointed out above, is but an empty gesture, since it means that where such a situation applies to a Britisher, he may be admitted, but members of Southern and Eastern; Europe cannot obtain this boon. Nevertheless, the number of immigrants who may fall in this class, that is, the number of immigrants who have not yet become citizens, will draw from the total quota of their nationality all the “new blood” which may come in under the present laws even though, as has been repeatedly said, new applicants for admission to the United States may have waited patiently four or five years to obtain a quota number which would entitle them to admission to the United States, even though such prospective immigrants may have had former numbers assigned to them by the particular American Consul.

The very thing Mr. Hull speaks about–the legalization of illegal entries–I fought for long ago. I commend him for that stand, as there are very few officials who will come out with the real facts. I commend him for the stand he takes that we should legalize those technically illegally here and we will have less enemies in this country and less bolshevism and communism.

I note that Mr. Hull suggests that we allow the legalization of entries who were here prior to the quota law. I think we should go further than that, namely, that we ought to unite families who were here prior to July 1, 1924, when we adopted our permanent policy on immigration, and we ought to make some disposition of those who are undesirables and those who have become habitual criminals.

I, as well as some of my colleagues, have no love for the resident aliens who become habitual criminals, and the sooner we get rid of them, the better. I am also inclined to feel that we ought to close our back doors to the undesirable and open our front door wider to the decent people who want to come here.

At any rate, I believe our present immigration policy should be deemed to have commenced as of July 1, 1924, so that those who have come to our country prior to that day should not be burdened with the present laws, which were passed by Congress long after their admission.

Yours very truly.

SAMUEL DICKSTEIN. New York, Nov. 5, 1928.