on the ground that he was in the United States in violation of the act of 1924, in that at the time of his last entry he was a quota immigrant who was not in possession of an unexpired immigration visa. It is further shown by our records that Mr. Suso arrived in the United States on March 18, 1924, and, upon the information that he had resided in this country from 1922 to January 21, 1924, he was admitted as a returning resident. However, at the time of his hearing in deportation proceedings he testified under oath that he left Spain in December 1922 for Cuba, where he remained until March 16, 1924; that he came to the United States from Cuba on March 18, 1924; and that he never had resided in the United States prior to March 18, 1924. Consequently, it is apparent that his entry on that date was not a legal entry. Mr. Suso further testified that he left the United States for Spain in March 1929 and returned to the United States on March 25, 1930, at the port of New York, on the S. S. Ile de France. At that time he was in possession of a reentry permit to which he was not entitled, not having had a legal entry in 1924. He was married to a legal resident of the United States in 1929, and has two American-born children. In considering his case under date of February 9, 1937, the Department directed that no action be taken, looking to his deportation at that time, but that his case be placed with other similar cases pending possible remedial legislation at that session of Congress. However, such legislation failed of enactment, and on August 22, 1939, the Department directed that he be required to depart from the United States to any country of his choice, without the entry of an order of deportation. The period within which he might depart has been extended from time to time, the last extension expiring on August 15, 1939. The principal difficulty in this case is the fact that the Spanish quota, to which Mr. Suso is chargeable, is oversubscribed for a period of approximately 2 years. In the circumstances, I will interpose no objection to favorable action being taken on the bill. Cordially yours, JAMES L. HOUGHTELING, Commissioner, Your committee, after carefully considering the facts and evidence in this case, recommend that the bill be favorably reported to the Senate and that the same as amended, do pass. О Mr. STEWART, from the Committee on Immigration, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 2964] The Committee on Immigration, to whom was referred the bill (S. 2964) for the relief of Joseph L. Lipsher and Esther Mila Lipsher, having considered the same, report it back to the Senate with amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. The amendment is as follows: On page 1, after line 12, start a new paragraph and insert the following: Upon the enactment of this Act the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper quota-control officer to deduct two numbers from the nonpreference category of the quota during the current quota year. PURPOSE OF THE BILL That, in the administration of the immigration and naturalization laws, Joseph L. Lipsher and his wife, Esther Mila Lipsher, of New Haven, Conn., shall be held and considered to have been legally admitted to the United States for permanent residence in 1927. The bill also authorizes and directs the Secretary of Labor to cancel any warrants of arrest or orders of deportation which may have been issued in the cases of the said Joseph L. Lipsher and Esther Mila Lipsher upon the ground of unlawful residence in the United States. GENERAL INFORMATION There is printed below report from the Secretary of Labor setting out in detail the facts in this case: Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL, JR., FEBRUARY 2, 1940. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR RUSSELL: I have your letter of August 5, 1939, addressed to the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, requesting the views of this Department on Senate bill No. 2964, introduced by Senator Maloney, for the relief of Joseph L. Lipsher and Esther Mila Lipsher. A review of the immigration file in this case shows that on February 4, 1936, warrants for the deportation to Poland of Mr. and Mrs. Lipsher were issued on the following grounds: In the case of Mr. Lipsher, "that he is in the United States in violation of the Immigration Act of 1924 in that at the time of his entry he was not in possession of a valid, unexpired immigration visa”; and in the case of Mrs. Lipsher, "that she is in the United States in violation of the act of 1924 in that she was a quota immigrant who was not in possession of an unexpired quota immigration visa, and that at the time of her entry she was not a nonquota immigrant as specified in her immigration visa.” Mr. and Mrs. Lipsher are natives and citizens of Poland, of the Hebrew race. The man last entered the United States at New York on January 5, 1926, under the name of Lejzor Bialolecki, and his wife entered the United States from Canada via Port Huron, Mich., on April 27, 1927, after having arrived at Quebec from Poland on the same date. The visa which Mr. Lipsher presented at the time of his arrival subsequently was found to be fraudulent and not regularly issued by the consul general at Warsaw. Mr. Lipsher testified that he left all matters relating to the procurement of this document to a steamship agent in Warsaw, and that he did not know that it was a fraudulent document. At the time of her entry Mrs. Lipsher was in possession of what purported to be a nonquota visa issued to her by the American consul at Warsaw, Poland, under the provisions of section 4 (a) of the Immigration Act of 1924, as the wife of an American citizen, it being alleged in the application for the visa that her husband, J. Lipsher, was in possession of a certificate of naturalization issued by the Superior Court at St. Louis, Mo., in November 1926. It later developed, however, that the certificate of naturalization referred to actually was issued to an entirely different person on a different date. The visa was spurious and fraudulently issued, but Mrs. Lipsher, like her husband, testified that all matters relating to its procurement were left in the hands of a steamship agent and denied that she at any time knew that the visa had been secured by fraud. These people have two children who were born in the United States. As in a number of similar cases, action looking to their deportation was withheld pending the outcome in Congress of proposed remedial legislation. Such legislation having failed of passage, the Department reconsidered the case of this man and his wife and withdrew the outstanding warrants of deportation. However, they were required to depart from the United States to any country of their choice in order that they might secure appropriate immigration visas with which to reenter legally. Some difficulty was experienced by them in securing travel documents for their voluntary departure, and while this matter was pending Senator Maloney introduced a private bill which would legalize their residence without the necessity for their departure. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Lipsher is entitled to a preferential status under the Polish quota, to which they are chargeable. This quota is oversubscribed, and consequently, even though they might succeed in effecting an entry to some other country under the outstanding departmental order, they would have to wait for a considerable period of time before it would be possible for them to secure the necessary quota immigration visas with which to return to this country for permanent residence. It is my recommendation that the bill receive favorable consideration. Very truly yours, FRANCES PERKINS. Your committee, after carefully considering the facts and evidence in this case, recommend that the bill be favorably reported to the Senate, and that the same as amended do pass. Mr. STEWART, from the Committee on Immigration, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 2768] The Committee on Immigration, to whom was referred the bill (S. 2768) authorizing the naturalization of Thomas A. Lambie, having considered the same, report it back to the Senate without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. PURPOSE OF THE BILL That notwithstanding any other provision of law, at any time within 1 year after the date of the enactment of S. 2768, Thomas A. Lambie, of Owings Mills, Md., may be naturalized as a citizen of the United States by taking the naturalization oath of allegiance before any court having jurisdiction of the naturalization of aliens. GENERAL INFORMATION There is printed below letter addressed to the chairman of the committee by the Secretary of Labor, explaining the facts in the case. Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL, Jr., DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Chairman, Committee on Immigration, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR RUSSELL: I have before me for consideration your letter of July 13, 1939, with its enclosure, bill S. 2768, authorizing the naturalization of Thomas A. Lambie. The records of this Department show that Thomas A. Lambie was born in Pittsburgh, Pa., on February 8, 1885. Apparently, he thereafter became a physician missionary in Ethiopia and claims to have been naturalized as a citizen 8. Repts., 76-3, vol. 2- -89 of Ethiopia for missionary purposes. He returned to the United States on February 8, 1937, when he was admitted into this country for permanent residence. On August 15, 1939, he filed declaration of intention to renew his American citizenship. Thereafter, he applied for the benefits of the fourth subdivision of section 4 of the act of June 29, 1906, as amended June 29, 1938, and his application was approved by this Department. This subdivision provides, among other things, that an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence who has resided in the United States for 1 year thereafter and who has made declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States, and who thereafter has proceeded abroad as an employee or representative of, or under contract with, an American institution of research recognized as such by the Secretary of Labor, may be naturalized notwithstanding absence from the United States in excess of 1 year if such alien shall, prior to the beginning of his absence or prior to the beginning of such employment, establish to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Labor that his absence for such period is to be for the purpose of carrying on scientific research, and if such alien later proves to the satisfaction of the court hearing his application for naturalization that his absence from the United States for such period has been for such purpose. It appears from the application of Mr. Lambie hereinafter last referred to that he contemplated being absent from the United States from October 29, 1939, to May 1, 1943, residence in Anglo-Egyptian Sudan for that period being necessitated in carrying on scientific research in behalf of the University of Pittsburgh. It is obvious that if Mr. Lambie is now abroad, he will not be able to comply with the terms of S. 2768, which provide that he shall take the naturalization oath of allegiance before any court having jurisdiction of the naturalization of aliens, for the reason there being no court in the Sudan which can act in that capacity. Furthermore, it would appear that Mr. Lambie will be able to become naturalized, assuming that he is now abroad, upon his return to the United States by complying with existing law in view of the fact that he is in possession of a declaration of intention, will have permanent residence in the United States, and, by virtue of his having secured the benefits of the act of June 29, 1938, will be in a position to establish the necessary 5 years' residence as required under the general provisions of law. In view of the foregoing, there would seem to be no necessity for any expression of opinion by the Department concerning bill S. 2768. If, however, Mr. Lambie did not go abroad but is now in a position to take the oath of allegiance, this Department knows of no reason why the bill should not receive legislative approval if Congress be inclined to look with favor upon the bill. Sincerely yours, FRANCES S. PERKINS. Your committee, after carefully considering the facts and evidence in this case, recommend that the bill be favorably reported to the Senate and that the same do pass. О |