Now–editorial Notes

The Ellis Island Committee appointed by Secretary of Labor Perkins has presented the official report of its findings and recommendations. The Committee is composed of a “non-partisan group of men and women” invited by the Secretary of Labor, “to inquire impartially into conditions at Ellis Island and the welfare of immigrants generally and to make recommendations for the guidance of the Department.”

The opening paragraph of the official report that outlines the Committee’s attitude toward the problem of immigration:

“Our immigration laws have met the challenge of the depression. They have permitted the most drastic reduction in immigration and yet have retained a flexibility adapted to changing conditions. The Committee gets no reason for substantial amendment. It believes that the present policy of restriction should be continued, that the vigorous enforcement of our immigration laws will not only protect the best interests of the United States but in most cases serve ## welfare of the would-be immigrant. It is unthinkable that with millions still unemployed, we should open our doors to aliens who would be leaving a refuge in their own country to seek work here.”

That is a very clear statement endorsing restriction of immigration. Whether this policy is really wise and beneficial to the United States is open to question. The fact remains that America’s periods of greatest development and prosperity were those during which America pursued a liberal policy of immigration. The immigrants from various lands came here not only because America at that time offered them greater opportunities for work, but also because it offered them a greater measure of freedom in addition to equal opportunity. The immigrants came here to build new homes for themselves because they sought escape not only from material depression but also from racial, religious or political oppression in their native lands. They found work here they built their life anew here, and they also helped to develop and enrich this country both materially and culturally.

It is explained in the Committee’s official report that “in August, 1930, because of unemployment and economic conditions, President Hoover asked the Department of State how immigration could be reduced to a minimum under existing laws. As a result it was decided to enforce with the utmost stringency the clause excluding ‘persons ## to become a public charge’ ## Consular officers were ## that because of the difficulty an immigrant would have in finding employment after arrival, it would be a violation of law to issue an immigration visa to an applicant who did not have sufficient resources to maintain himself for an indefinite period without employment, or else satisfactory assurances of support which would make it unlikely that he would become a public charge. The result of this interpretation of law has been a drastic reduction of immigration from both quota and non-quota countries. For the first six years after the 1924 Act went into effect the excess of immigrants over emigrants averaged more than 200,000 a year. In 1931 it fell to 35,257. In 1932 departures exceeded arrivals by 67,719 and in 1933 by 57,013.”

And the Committee, commenting on these figures, adds:

“It is apparent that in one sense at least we have no ‘immigration problem’ today. While in the future immigration is likely again to exceed emigration, restriction seems firmly established as the foundation of our American immigration policy.”

Thus the Committee, appointed by Secretary of Labor Perkins, practically approves of the so-called “Hoover Executive Order” with regard to immigration restriction during the period of depression.

But there is one constructive recommendation which the Committee now makes concerning a problem that did not exist until Hitler came to power in Germany last year and instituted a ruthless policy of religious, political and racial discrimination and persecution.

The Committee, referring to the “group of aliens deserving special consideration at this time.” says:

“Asylum for those who flee from religious, racial and political persecution, is one of the oldest and most valued of American traditions. From the time of the Pilgrims, this country has been built up by immigrants who came here to escape oppression and to enjoy liberty. Our share of this unfortunate group can be taken care of within the present quotas and without amendment to the law. By doing so, we can meet their need, uphold our own traditions and fulfill the moral obligation that rests upon us.”

This recommendation is typical of the finest spirit and traditions of America, and should carry all the more weight because it is offered by a Committee of eminent Americans who believe that “restriction seems firmly established as the foundation of our American immigration policy.”

The least that our Government can do is to liberalize the interpretation of the immigration laws with regard to visa applicants who are seeking asylum from religious, racial and political persecution, without amending the immigration laws, for the unfortunate refugees can be taken care of within the present quotas.

The moral effect of such a return to one of America’s noblest traditions would not only save some of the victims of religious and racial persecution. It would also strengthen America???s moral leadership among the nations.