Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T02:35:10.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Quota Provisions of the Immigration Act of 1924

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

A. Warner Parker
A. Warner Parker*
Affiliation:
Of the District of Columbia Bar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Immigration Act of 1924 is a novel piece of legislation in two respects.1 In it, for the first time, is a real attempt made to control immigration,measurably at least, at its source, and thus to reduce to a minimum the hardships and inhumanities that heretofore have prevailed to such an extent as almost to be regarded as a matter of course. And in it, for the first time also, are immigration and eligibility to citizenship recognized as related subjects, and ineligibility to become naturalized made a reason for the exclusion of aliens.2 While it is by far the most drastic immigration statute ever passed by the United States Congress,, it is in numerous respects the most humane measure yet devised.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , October 1924 , pp. 737 - 754
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1924

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The act is published in the Supplement to this issue of the Journal , pp. 208. Therefore it is usually possible, in the interest of brevity, to avoid quoting, and simply to refer to, its various provisions.

2 An article by the author with respeet to the provisions of the new law excluding aliens ineligible to citizenship, will appear in a future number of the Journal.

3 Approved May 19,1921, 42 Stat. L., 5; extended by Public Resolution No. 55 approved May 11,1922, 42 Stat. L. 540.

4 See H. Rep. 350, 68th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 12-14.

5 See H. Rep. 350, 68th Cong., 1st sess., p. 12, and Congressional Record, Vol. 65, Part 6, p.5465.

6 H. Rep. 350, 68th Cong., 1st sess., p. 12.

7 These when the House and Senate bills were finally merged and enacted into law were called “ visas,” not “ certificates.”

8 H. Rep. 350, 68th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 1 and 12.

9 Subd. (b), Sec. 11.

10 Congressional Record, Vol.65, Part 6, pp. 5460 et seq. See also id., Past 6, pp. 5942>-5945, and id., Part 7, p. 6457.

11 Subd. (a), Sec. 12.

12 H. Rep. 350, 68th Cong., lstfless., pp. 18-19.

13 Sections 2 and 6 in the original House bill (H. R. 6540) and also in the bill finally passed by the House (H. R. 7995).

14 Id., and H. Rep. 350, 68th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 10-11.

15 See Senator Reed's explanation of the differences between the two plans, Congressional Record, Vol. 65, Part 6, p. 5466.

16 Id.

17 Senator Reed's reply, when Senator Copeland asked the question “ Does it not place undue power in the hands of a consul?” can hardly satisfy those who know the extent to which the power of arbitrary decision has been abused in connection with the enforcement of the immigration and exclusion laws. His answer was that the matter would be “ practically” cared for because of the supervision exercised over the consuls by their superiors, abroad and in Washington (Congressional Record, Vol. 65, Part 6, p. 5466). But with no provision under which individual cases can reach those superiors, how can any alien who suffers an injustice secure that prompt redress to which, in all fairness, he is entitled?

18 Secs. 4 and 5.

19 Secs. 8 and 2 and subd. (g) of Sec. 11.

20 Subd. (b), Sec. 4.

21 Sec. 10.

22 Under the heading Alien Seamen.

23 H. Rep. 350, 68th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 2-5.

24 Subd. (a), Sec. 13.

25 Subd. (c), Sec. 13.

26 H. Rep. 350, 68th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 2, 3, 4; House debate, Congressional Record, Vol. 65, Part 6, pp. 5648,5661; id., Part 8, pp. 8228-8233; Senate debate-Congressional Record, Vol. 65, Part 6, pp. 5743, 5744, 5746; id., Part 6, pp. 6302, 6303, 6316.

27 Bureau of Immigration Circular of Instructions No. 55266, dated Aug. 7, 1924; Bureau of Immigration General Order No. 4, dated Aug. 7, 1924.

28 Id.

29 The treaty of 1880 with China is held by both the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Labor to be a commercial treaty within the meaning of the new law (Instructions of Aug. 7, 1924, supra), as obviously it is when considered in conjunction with the treaty of 1903 with China.

30 In re Ho, Chung Toy and Sin, Wong Choy , 42 Fed., 398, 399, cited with emphatic approval in United States v. Mrs. Gue Lim , 176 U. S., 459, 464.Google Scholar

31 Yee Won v. White, 256 U. S., 399, 400, 401. The application of this exemption to the cases of aliens coming from countries the nationals of which generally are excluded by the ineligible to citizenship provisions will be more fully discussed in the next article on this subject to appear in the Journal.

32 H. Rep. 350, 68th Cong., 1st sess., p. 1. “ Wives” here, of course, in view of the terms of the Cable Act (42 Stat. L., 1021), means all alien women married to citizens; but “ children,” in view of the fact that all children born abroad to American fathers are, under Sec. 1993, R. S., themselves citizens, means only children of naturalized citizen fathers, born abroad while the fathers were still aliens; it not being possible for such children to acquire citizenship until they commence “ to reside permanently in the United States.” (Sec. 5, Expatriation Act, 34 Stat. L., 1228; Zartarian v. Billings, 204 U. S., 170.)

33 Under the heading “ Preferences within the quotas.”

34 See further comment hereinafter, under the heading “ Preferences within the quotas.”

35 Form 633.

36 Entitled: “ Issuance of Immigration Visas to Relatives; Instructions for executing Form 633.”

37 United States ex rel Gottlieb v. Commissioner of Immigration, 285 Fed., 295.

38 Commissioner of Immigration v. Gottlieb, U. S. Sup. Ct. Adv. Ops., 1923-24, No. 16, p. 588.

39 Sec. 5.

40 Form 634, entitled “ Instructions for executing application for permit to reenter United States.” The blank form of application is designated Form 631.

41 Subd. (b), Sec. 13.

42 This peculiar exemption is found in subds. (d) and (e), Sec. 13.

43 Subd. (a), Sec. 13.

44 Bureau of Immigration General Order No. 30, June 6,1924, caption “ Bond Provisions.”

45 16 Subd. (a), Sec. 4, discussed under “ Classes exempted.”

46 Department regulation entitled “ Issuance of Immigration Visas to Relatives.”

47 Congressional Record, Vol. 65, Part 7, pp.6522-6528 and 6549-6551.

48 Subd. (c), Sec. 4.

49 34 Stat. L., 898.

50 Sec. 8.

51 Clause (5), Sec. 3.

52 Sec. 3, opening clause.

53 Bureau of Immigration General Order No. 38, dated Sept. 10, 1924.

54 Id., subd. 6, par. (c).

55 See Committee print of H. R. 101, 68th Cong., 1st sess.; Hearings before Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, 68th Cong., 1st sess., on H. R. 5, H. R. 101, H. R. 561, H. R. 6540, Serial 2-A, pp. 1107-1148; and id., on H. R. 5, H. R. 101, and H. R. 561, Serial 1-A, pp. 152-180.

56 References just given.

57 Hearings before the Committee on Immigration, United States Senate, 68th Cong., 1st sess., on S. 2365 and S. 2576, pp. 198-203.

58 38 Stat. L., 1164.

59 Congressional Record, Vol. 65, Part 6, p. 5830; id., Part 9, p.8577, pp. 8824-8825.

60 United States ex rel Lum Young v. Stump, 292 Fed., 354, and United States ex rel Ho Chung v. Tod, therein described, id., p. 360.

61 Sections 31 to 36.

62 United States ex rel Lum Young v. Stump, 292 Fed., 354, and United States ex rel Ho Chung v. Tod, therein described, id., p. 360.

63 Edwards v. Wabash Ry. Co., 264 Fed., 610, 618, C. C. A., 2d Cir. See also Latimer v. United States, 223 U. S. 501; United States v. Cerecedo Hermanos y Compania, 209 U. S. 337; Heald v. District of Columbia, 254 U. S., 20; Yon Bremen, McMonnies and Co. v. United States, 168 Fed., 889, C. C. A.; United States v. G. Falk and Bros., 204 U. S., 143

64 Compare Sec. 20 of the new law with Sec. 32 of the old, and note that the word “ negligent” no longer appears in modification of the word “ failure” ; and see The Nanking, 290 Fed., 769.

65 Subd. (b), Sec. 20.

66 H. Rep. 716, 68th Cong., 1st sess.

67 Congressional Record, Vol. 65, Part 9, p. 8577.

68 Bureau of Immigration General Order No. 38, dated Sept. 10, 1924.

69 Subd. 4 (a), General Order No. 38.

70 Subd. 4 (b), General Order No. 38.

71 Subd. (a), Sec. 20.

72 H. Rep. 350, 68th Cong., 1st sess.

73 United States ex rel Castro v. Williams, 203 Fed., 155.

74 Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration for 1919, p. 290.