Immigrants Required by Law to State Race, Secretary Davis Explains

The question raised by the Central Verein der Deutschen Juden as to whether or not German Jews coming to the United States are required by law to declare themselves of the “Hebrew race” on the immigration entry blanks or are permitted to describe themselves of the German race has aroused considerable interest in the United States.

The “Jewish Daily Bulletin” directed an inquiry to the secretary of Labor, asking for a statement on the matter. In reply Secretary Davis stated that the information requested is contained in section 2(a) and section 7 (b) of the Immigration Act of 1924.

Section 2 (a) of the Immigration Act of 1924 states that a consular officer, upon the application of any immigrant, may issue to such immigrant an immigration visa which shall consist of one copy of the application provided for in Section 7 of the Act. Section 2 (a) requires that the visa issued by the Consular office shall specify the nationality of the immigrant.

Section 7 (b) provides:

“In the application the immigrant shall state (1) the immigrant’s full and true name; age, sex and race; the date and place of birth; places of residence for the five years immediately preceding his application; whether married or single, and the names and places of residence of wife or husband and minor children, if any; calling or occupation; personal description (including height complexion, color of hair and eyes, and marks of identification); ability to speak, read, and write; names and addresses of parents, and if neither parent is living, then the name and address of his nearest relative in the country from which he comes; port of entry into the United States; final destination, if any, beyond the port of entry; whether he has a ticket through to such final destination; if any, beyond the port of entry; whether he has a ticket through to such final destination; whether going to join a relative or friend, and if so, what relative or friend and his name and complete address; the purpose for which he is going to the United States; the length of time he intends to remain in the United States; whether or not he intends to abide in the United States permanently; whether ever in prison or almhouse; whether he or either of his parents has ever been in an institution or hospital for the care and treatment of the insane; (2) if he claims to be a non-quota immigrant, the facts on which he bases his claim; and (3) such additional information necessary to the proper enforcement of the immigration laws and the naturalization laws, as may be by regulations prescribed.”

Considerable light on the subject, which has been a matter of discussion in the past, is shed in a communication to the “Jewish Daily Bulletin” by Max J. Kohler, prominent New York attorney and an authority on immigration questions. In his letter. Mr. Kohler states:

MR. KOHLER’S LETTER

“I have read with much interest the articles printed in your issues of Feb. 28th and March 2nd regarding unwillingness of the ‘Central Verein der Deutschen Juden’ to comply with the supposed instructions of the North German Lloyd Steamship Co. to have German Jewish immigrants bound for the United States describe themselves as ‘Hebrews’, instead of ‘Germans’ in the question blanks furnished by the United States Government. The subject is one which has interested me very much for years, as will further appear hereinafter. Both the ‘Central Verein’ and the steamship company are under an erroneous understanding of the United States law, if your reports are correct. The fact is that a German Jew is required by our American laws and the immigration regulations to describe himself as a ‘German’ by nationality and a ‘Hebrew’ by race, and no question of alternative classification is involved in fact, and the steamship company has no discretion in the matter. Sections 12 and 13 of the Immigration Law of 1917 now in force, in line with earlier acts, require the steamship companies to deliver sworn descriptions of the passengers aboard the vessel, called ‘manifests’, which description must include, besides the name, age, sex, etc., a statement as to the passenger’s ‘nationality’, ‘country of birth’, ‘race’ and ‘country of last permanent residence’ on form prescribed by the Government, which require not merely ‘nationality’ but ‘race’ to be specified, and the Government classification requires ‘Hebrews’, to be described as of that ‘race’, as also in the case of German Jews, as of the ‘German’ nationality.

“It is thus obvious that persons describing themselves as ‘Hebrews’ by race in no way negative the further express description of themselves as ‘German by nationality’. Were the contrary the case, my sympathies would be entirely with the ‘Central Verein’, and I would take active steps to endeavor to have the United States laws changed.

“A number of years ago, the late Simon Wolf, as Chairman of the Board of Delegates on Civil Rights of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, objected vehemently to our Government’s classifying Hebrew immigrants as such, in as much as persons of other religious views were not classified as to their religion, and in 1903 he gathered the views of a number of prominent American Jews on the general question, which symposium was printed at the time, and reprinted in his ‘The Presidents I have Known from 1860 to 1918’ (pp. 238-264). Among those who expressed themselves there were Judge Sulzberger, M. Jaastrow, Leo N. Levi, Cyrus Adler, Emil G. Hirsch, B. Felsenthal, G. Deutsch, Dr. K. Kohler and Solomon Schechter. The Government declined to change its course, and Mr. Wolf renewed his efforts in an argument before the U. S. Immigration Commission in 1909 (Vol. 41 of the Commission’s Reports, pp. 265-293), and Judge Julian W. Mack supported his contention, and a similar separate memorandum of mine in opposition to the classification was also there printed. Subsequently, Judge Abram I. Elkus and I attacked the classification in the United States District Court in an important test case, but the matter was not passed upon by the Court, as our clients were all admitted into the United States on other grounds, though our brief was reprinted in full, including this classification section, in the volume cited (ID. pp. 176-181). In his last annual report to the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Mr. Wolf renewed the attack in 1922 (See reprint in the recently published “Selected Addresses and Papers of Simon Wolf, pp. 296-8), but largely upon my own recommendation, a committee of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, to which this very report had been referred in 1923, decided not to approve of Mr. Wolf’s recommendation that the objection should be pressed. Judge Mack had meantime become an ardent Zionist, and had changed his own views, too.

EXPLAINS CHANGE OF ATTITUDE

“The reason for my own change of attitude is that the classification is of considerable practical use to the Jewish immigrant, and, as above pointed out expressly relates to race only, and recognizes nationality to be German, in the case put, so that no question of principle is involged for consistent Reform Jews, like myself. In most cases, the Hebrew immigrant has been coming from Eastern Europe, and his classification as ‘Hebrew’ at once conveniently indicates to the immigration officials that a ‘Yiddish’ interpreter is requisite. Where the immigrant is a fugitive from religious persecution, it is often a convenient suggestion to the same authorities that he may be exempt because of his Jewish faith from the literacy test, as was the fact recently in my Waldman case in the U. S. Supreme Court. It is furthermore a convenient catchphrase to enlist the interest of Jewish immigrant aid societies in their particular prospective proteges. It subsequently becomes the basis of the Government’s and private statistical information regarding Jews in this country. Thus viewed, it is obviously not a denial of the Jew’s unqualified citizenship in the country of his domicile. Nor is it, strictly speaking, even a discriminatory religious classification, as it attempts to deal with race only, and not with religion. Were it a religious classification, it would be unconstitutional, as Congress is forbidden by the first amendment to the Federal Constitution from passing any law regarding religion, and under a similar provision, our New York Court of Appeals, some years ago, in Brink vs. Stratton, 176 N. Y., 150, held it to be a violation of the State constitutional safeguard of religious liberty to ask a witness what his religious faith is. This case, and similar precedents, may be found cited in ‘Selected Addresses and Papers of Simon Wolf (pp. 154-192, 316-324, 329-334; 109 etseq.),” Mr. Kohler concludes.

The “Jewish Daily Bulletin” directed an inquiry to the New York office of the Norddeutscher Lloyd, whose instructions to its agents caused the protest of the Central Verein der Deutscher Juden. It was learned that the New York office has been instructed by the Berlin headquarters of the company to take up this issue with the United States immigration authorities and that action on the matter will he taken by the company.