Immigration: Red Tape Bars Our Border

In January of 1953, a Filipino girl studying social work under the exchange plan at a New England college, married an American citizen. The young bride applied for resident alien status, which usually accompanies marriage to a citizen. But in her case, it was not a matter of merely filling out forms; the girl, despite pregnancy, had to return to the Philippines at her own expense in order to qualify for residence. More simply, she had to go so she could stay.

The rationale behind this rigid administration of justice is Public Law 414--passed in the closing days of the 82d Congress, over President's Truman's veto--better known as the McCarran-Walter Immigration and Nationality Act. And, it was not narrow interpretation of a broad provision of the law, but explicit instruction that forced immigration officials to make the girl return to the Philippines.

McCarran Walter was written with the laudable object of codifying and unifying her hodgepodge of immigration laws that had existed in the United States since 1917. Equally laudable was the purported aim of clamping down on subversives entering under loopholes in the old statutes. But regardless, the law retains some of the most criticized aspects of former laws, and is accused of even expanding the objectionable provisions of the past through ambiguous, sometimes incomprehensible verbiage.

Quota Openings 'Mortgaged'

Take, for example, the National Origins system, keystone of the entire immigration program, which determines who can come here and who can stay. This archaic method for determining "quotas", the number of immigrants who are allowed here from any one country in any single year, was first devised 30 years ago. It is still based on the 1920 white population.

Its very formulation is unfair, for that populations figure was broken down into national categories, and the determining of these categories was done by surnames. This disregarded how many Janowicz' had become Joneses, or how many Schmidts had become Smiths, and, both Janowicz-Jones and Schmidt-Smiths were changed to the British total. Each nation was then given a percentage of the total quota--150,000--proportionate to the percentage of its "immigrants" than a part of the white population. This excludes the Orient, limited arbitrarily, and the western hemisphere, which has no quotas.

Thus England, whose annual U.S. immigration is about 30,000 was given 65,000 quota vacancies, while sources of heavy potential immigration such as Poland, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Austria, and eight other countries shared 24,000 spots. Neither were the 35,000 unused British vacancies redistributed. They were merely wasted, and have been year after year, with the result that while 3,000,000 immigrants have been theoretically admissible by quota, only 836,085, or about 27 percent actually entered.

Such basic difficulties with national origins were further aggravated, strangely enough by a liberal immigration law--the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, which allowed about 400,000 DPs to enter the U.S. In this law the totals from each country were computed, and 50 percent of the quota of each country which sent DPs here was ordered "mortgaged" each year until the total should be accounted for. As an example, only half of Latvia's quota of 235 is now admissable yearly--until the year 2274.

A more recent statute, the Refugee Relief Act, passed last fall, provides for admission of a potential 206,000 newly displaced persons outside of normal quota or "mortgage" provisions. But since then, while $671,000 has reportedly been spent on screening employees, only eight have been admitted, and but 50 visas have been issued.

There are numerous other objections toward McCarran-Walter, particularly in regard to students, foreign scholars as well as exchange "visitors"--who presumably do not wish to remain here. For example, to even obtain clearance to come here to study, the foreign student must pass all of the mental, physical and political requirements demanded of potential immigrants.

Once over this initial hurdle of red-tape, especially high because of frequent language difficulties, the student faces an almost identical barrier on his arrival here. Even after passing the original requirements imposed by the consulate in his country, he could be sent back if he doesn't also fulfill similar ones at the immigration agency in his port of entry.

Last fall, a Chinese national from Singapore ran into such difficulty. As a displaced Nationalist, he was traveling from Singapore on an English certificate of identity. By error, he was landed in Boston, rather than New York, and here immigration officials discovered that his travel document was good for only five months and six days after landing--24 days short of the required six months.

Girl Ordered Deported

Although the British consulate in New York readily granted the necessary extension, the student was deained incommunicado for almost three days, in the Boston detention center, and as a result was late for the opening of his classes at a large mid-western University.

Even once here, the student, both exchange and regular, is not free from worry. According to the law, he must successfully pursue a full course of study at a school approved by Attorney General. (This is no real handicap; for approval, a school must simply file reports of the arrival and departure of foreign students.

But most significantly, a foreign student cannot take employment without receiving explicit permission from his district immigration office. Officials are usually lenient in administering the no-work rule. Graduate students can take jobs, with permission, as research assistants in work relating directly to their major field. And, if foreign students establish need, they can be permitted to work, at least until such time when unemployment might spread.

But such permission is conditional, and in practice, there is no appeal from a denial of approval. Moreover, handicapped with tight budgets, immigration offices often take a long time to grant their essential permission, as illustrated by the case of a Chinese girl who was a trainee at a large local university. She applied for permission to work, but when she didn't hear from authorities after three months, she took private advice--wrong--that Chinese students did not need such permission, and took the job anyway.

When this was discovered, she was ordered deported, but has been allowed to remain here awaiting the outcome of a private Congressional bill--a recourse open only to a small percentage of deportable aliens.

But presume a student does get here and obtains part-time work if necessary, while pursuing a "full course of study." Then, say he wants to remain in the United States for good.

On this point, McCarran-Walter is at once good and bad. Previous to the 1952 law, such immigrants had to go across the border and re-enter from Canada, under a procedure known as "pre-examination." Now, such change of status is possible without leaving the country under section 245 of McCarran-Walter.

In characteristically complex language, the section provides that "the status of an alien who was lawfully admitted to the United States a bona fide nonimmigrant...may be adjusted by the Attorney General...to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence as a quota immigrant or as a nonquota immigrant...if the alien makes application for adjustment (and if) a quota or nonquota visa is immediately available to him at the time of his application for adjustment (and if such a visa) is immediately available to him at the time his application is approved...Any alien who shall file an application for adjustment of his status under this section shall thereby terminate his non-immigrant status."

So, with luck, the student-turned-prospective-immigrant, takes what is often a double gamble. A quota spot may be available to him when he applies--this much can be determined. But the applicant cannot know when his application will be acted upon, much less hope to predict if a quota space will be open. If there is no, the student is immediately deportable, for he has lost his temporary student status simply by applying. Moreover, the exchange visitor is not even eligible for adjustment under section 245: he must return to his homeland before being allowed to apply for immigrant status. Thus, the Filipino girl mentioned, had to return to the islands in order to be allowed to come here.

This strictness in dealing with the exchange students is often justifiable. Such "visitors" are legalized by the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act, whose purpose is to offer American training to people from war-ravaged or backward countries, almost as part of Point Four. Thus, as Professor Paul Chalmers, assistant dean of admissions at MIT points out, we have a bi-national responsibility--to say, France, which wants its bright young scholars to return to France to work, rather than to remain in the U.S.

There is often difficulty for regular foreign students (not on exchange plans), however. In the case of one European student, officials asked a routine question: why was he coming to the United States. The Student maintains he replied: "to study" but the immigration officials took him to say: "to stay." As a result, the student had to post $500 bond against remaining here.

But after studying here, the student was offered a teaching post in a leading University, and to accept it, he now must readjust to immigrant status, so he can remain. By re-adjusting under section 245, however, he would be "violating" the contract of his bond, and would thus forfeit the $500. If he returns to Europe and reapplies, he would keep his bond, but would run the risk of not getting back in time for the next academic year, and thus lose his University appointment.

III Student Penalized

This raises the point that in many cases, the law, strict as it may be, is often ever more strictly administered by the Immigration Service. In one case, a Polish DP student falsely stated at a hearing that he did not have a job. About a year later, he voluntarily admitted at another hearing that he had lied. Officials regarded the falsehood as an example of "moral turpitude" despite the fact that student made the admission without any pressure. He was ordered deported and now remains here only because of a private bill introduced on his behalf.

In many immigration offices, particularly in Boston, such extremely strict interpretation is rare, and usually great personal consideration is given, according to Captain C. H. J. Keppler, counsellor to foreign students in the University. He cites the case of a foreign student who was not able to carry a "full course of study" because of weak eyes; local immigration

officials permitted him to distribute his academic load as his doctor suggested.

But on the other hand, in Chicago, a student lost status and was forced to leave the country, because he dropped from school after suffering a stomach disorder.

In the case of non-immigrants such as students who seek to adjust their status in order to remain in the U.S., immigration officers often advise applicants to wait before applying, so as to retain present status until they stand a better chance of getting approval when a quota opening would be likely.

But if, through chance, the necessary quota spot is not open when the application is approved, even the immigration authorities have no choice but to offer voluntary departure, and then begin deportation Proceedings. O. S. Remington, assistant director of the Boston U. S. Immigrant and Naturalization service points out that "there is no way to take care of such people under law." And yet, these people may be of the caliber urgently needed here. Charles P. Schwartz, teaching fellow at the Law School, after comprehensive study of immigration laws, points out that "The United States needs the services of students who have special abilities. Yet under the present law, a foreign scholar, even a nuclear physicist, may be denied permission to stay here because of the irrelevancy that he was born in a low quota country. Regardless of his high aptitude, he 'chose' the wrong antecedents."

Thus, the law has been rapped for taking away too much discretion from officials who have personal contact with various cases. But McCarran-Walter has also suffered criticism for leaving too much authority in the hands of underlings. For instance, aides in consulates can turn down all applicants for entry to the U.S., without appeal. Immigration, boards have the same authority, with the difference that once here, as immigrant has limited appeal.

Such lack of review of visa denials has been embarrassing as well as costly to the United States. In his recent book, The Golden Door, a castigation of the McCarran-Walter act, J. Campbell Bruce reviews the story of Michael Polyani, and "eminent British chemist and social philosopher, long recognized as Britain's foremost anti-Communist scholar," Polyani was elected a chair of Social Philosophy at the University of Chicago for the academic year 1951-52. In January of 1951, he applied to the U.S. Consulate in Liverpool for an immigrant visa, and completed forms which included such questions as: "Where have you lived since birth? Give exact addresses (including street name and house number) and exact dates since age of 14."

But months passed with no action, despite intercession by two U.S. Senators. Eleven months later-six weeks after the Chicago appointment was to begin, Polyani was forced to withdraw his acceptance, but was fortunately able to remain at the University of Manchester. Chicago accordingly changed its offer to a temporary chair, and Polyani revised his application to ask for a nonimmigrant or temporary visa.

Religious Opposition

Finally, fully a year after his original application, the Liverpool consul summoned him for an interview. During the questioning, he was asked about an appearance before the Free German League of Culture. According to Bruce: "'During the conversation on this subject,' the professor says, 'the vice-consul expressed uneasiness when I said that, while I had no idea that the (League) was a Communist organization, I would still have addressed them if I had known it. It appears that in his view, trying to convert them would have been a subversive activity!'" Polyani's speech before the group was severely censured by its secretary as a vicious "attack on Soviet scientists."

Then, in June, 1952, 18 months after application, Polyani was turned down flat, because, the consul said, of "certain political beliefs or activities; and membership in, or affiliation with, certain organizations." And the McCarran-Walter act gave Polyani no right to appeal from this decision.

To be sure, there has been agitation against the inequities of the law since it was passed over the Truman veto. President Eisenhower has described the bill as "a glaring example of failure of our national leadership to live up to high ideals." Religious and social groups have actively opposed the act, while trying to help the people admitted under it.

The Most Reverend Richard J. Cushing, Archibishop of Boston, told a presidential commission studying immigration problems in 1952, that: "The...discrimination and undemocratic features of the McCarran-Walter law, are to my mind a grave potential threat to our domestic development and our international leadership."

Mrs. Pauline Gardescu, executive director of the International Institute of Boston has asked for a more positive, encouraging attitude toward immigration. There now seems to be, she notes, "a premium on being harsh...we should get together in the intention of building international goodwill."

Lekman's Solution

Such criticism of the spirit as well as the letter of the law is seconded by Miss Nanette Dreshfield, the Boston executive secretary of the National Council of Jewish Women, another agency which does a considerable amount of immigrant counseling. If no revision of the law is possible, she recommends changes in the act, which would re-establish the test year of national origins, as say 1948, or 50.

An official of the Massachusetts Division of Immigration and Americanization--a counseling group not connected with the federal immigration service--advocates several specific recommendations for students: clarify the implications of exchange status to "visitors"; make it easier for regular foreign students to readjust under the quota system. Indeed, according to Oscar Handlin, associate professor of History, the "whole quota system is unreasonable." Such requirements as the double quota need of section 245 "impose needless hardship on students," he feels.

Most of these objections, and a good deal more complicated ones have been solved and resolved into a new bill, S. 2585, known as the "Immigration and Citizenship Act of 1953," sponsored by Senator Herbert H. Lehman (D-N.Y.). Briefly, the proposed bill, the first alternate to an existing immigration law in U.S. history, would recodify and unify the immigration statutes, and thus become the omnibus which McCarran-Walter purports to be.

It is, in part, based on the finding of the President's Commission, and includes provisions for a United Quota system, were really needed (e.g. to countries with skilled men who would be useful to the United States), and would allow reassignment of unused quotas. Senator Lehman's bill would also consolidate the overlapping duties of the State (consulates) department and Justice (immigration service) departments, by creating a single commission. The proposed bill which would assign quotas where they also clarifies much of the ambiguity of McCarran-Walter, as well as providing for appeal, and now almost non-existent statutes of limitation, etc., would be clarified and expanded.

If such an act were adopted, students would have an easier time of it here. They would be considered here "principally" to study, not "solely," as under the present law, thus making it easier to obtain work on a part-time basis; the clause referring to a student's foreign residence "which he has no intention of abandoning" would be eliminated, thus easing the problem of adjusting status. Students who apply for adjustment would not automatically lose their original status by applying.

It is doubtful whether the Lehman bill will pass, at least in the present Congress. One immigrant guidance leader noted that there is at present an atmosphere of fear that support of such a bill might be considered 'subversive.' Nevertheless, the red-tape curtain around our borders is still as exclusive as it was a year and a half ago, when John H. Van Vleck, Hollis Professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy told the American Physical Society: "We have spent billions on the Marshall Plan, and then alienate much of the resulting good will by an unsympathetically and woodenly administered visa policy. This situation reminds one of the railroad that lavishes a mint of money on new streamliners and then lets the conductor insult the passengers..."Shown above is part of the East Boston Detention Station for Immigrants, where new arrivals are held for questioning, if necessary, and deportees are kept pending their removal from the country. Main offices of the Immigration service are in downtime Boston.