Present Status of Jewish Refugees Reviewed Before American Jewish Committee

Phases of Jewish Immigration Problem Less Acute Since 1926, Reports Mr. Marshall

the various phases of the Jewish immigration problem passed out of the acute stage during 1926. This statement was made before the American Jewish Committee by Louis Marshall in his report before the 20th annual meeting of the that body last week.

Reviewing the situation of the Jewish refugees who are still strande3d in various European ports and the immigration problem in the United States. Mr. Marshall’s report declared:

“The various phases of the immigration problem with which the Executive Committee has been dealing for some time, passed out of the acute stage during 1926. The distress of those intending immigrants who were stranded at various European ports because of the drastic reduction of the quotas of the countries from which they had emigrated, was greatly relieved during the past year, thanks to the activity of the Emergency Committee for Jewish Refugees organized in 1924 and the Evacuation Committee formed in the summer of 1925 in conjunction with several European bodies. In a number of cases, the stranded emigrants were permitted to remain in the countries of their temporary sojourn; some were repatriated, several thousand were admitted to Canada; 5,000 have been established in Cuba, others in Mexico and in South America and a small number were helped to enter Palestine. The relief of the small remainder is a task which has been assumed by the Joint Distribution Committee.

“Several important cases involving the interpretation of the immigration tows, which were pending at the time of the last annual meeting, were decided during the year. On April 19, 1926, the Supreme Court of the United States denied the application of the government for a writ of certiorari in the case of Rabbi Duner, involving the legality of the admission of the families of ministers of religion who arrived here prior to the coming into force of the immigration law of 1924 which contains a provision for the admission of the families of ministers of religion absent in the law previously in effect. The lower courts had ruled that the government’s contention that this provision does not apply to Rabbis who arrived before July 1, 1924 is untenable. In its application to the Supreme Court for a review of the case, the government urged strongly that the courts below had erred but asked for review only in the event that the Supreme Court differed with the lower courts on the merits of the case. The challenge was accepted and denying this application, the Supreme Court has indicated that it is in agreement with the lower courts.

“A situation demanding relief is that of those immigrants whose wives and minor children are still abroad but who cannot join them before the lapse of many years due to the quota law. With regard to those immigrants who came here after the enactment of the Law of 1924, it has been argued that they should have been prepared for this difficulty, but most of those who came prior to that time could not have known that after they had saved enough from their earnings to do so, their wives and minor children. During the past session of Congress a bill was introduced in the Senate by the Honorable James W. Wadsworth, and in the House of Representatives by the Honorable Nathan D. Perlman providing for the admission, outside of the quota, of the wives and minor children of aliens legally admitted to the United States prior to July 1, 1924, for permanent residence, and who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States. So violent was the anti-alien sentiment in Congress, however, that this proposal character and the acceptance of which cannot but be beneficial to the country, was pigeon-holed by committees, even though its sponsors were willing to insert a provision limiting the number of wives and children to the so admitted to 35,000. Scant regard was paid to the recommendation of the President in his message to Congress last December that if the law deprives our own inhabitants ‘of the comfort and society of those bound to them by close family ties, such modifications should be adopted as will afford relief.’ The Wadsworth-Perlman bill is still pending in Congress, and all thoughtful citizens of the United States who are not blinded by unreasoning prejudice should favor its passage.”