The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 34 (2023)

Copyright © 2023 The Japanese Association for American Studies. All rights reserved.

Family Unity and “Noncitizen Citizenship”:
The Advocacy of the International Institutes
on Behalf of Separated Families
Yuki ODA*
This paper studies the advocacy for family reuniﬁcation rights in thelate 1920s by the International Institutes, one of the largest immigrant aid
organizations in the U.S. during this period. Prolonged family separation
forced by immigration law and the legal concept of permanent residency
were both products of the restrictive national origin quota acts enacted in
the 1920s, especially the Immigration Act of 1924. The late 1920s marked
both the end of mass migration to the U.S. and the transition to a new era ofrestricted immigration. The International Institutes considered family rights
as central to noncitizens’ rights and to construction of ideal citizenship in thisnew era. This study examines individual casework of the Institutes as wellas interorganizational and trans-Atlantic campaigns for the cause. It argues
that the Institutes played a crucial role in the Progressive reformers’ eﬀorts toground family uniﬁcation rights in the modern immigration regime.

“The great reduction in its numbers has caused immigration to be nolonger regarded as a national problem.” So wrote Edith Terry Bremer, ofthe International Institutes, a national social service agency, in the 1933
Social Work Yearbook. A decade after the passage of the Immigration Act
of 1924, legislation that imposed strict quotas on immigration from Europe(and banned nearly all Asian immigration), the principle of quantitative
immigration restriction was no longer contested. The controversial
national origins quota system set annual quotas for all European nationals
combined at approximately 150,000. The Great Depression curtailed annual
immigration further to a record-low 35,576 in 1932. Nonetheless, Bremer* Chuo University

89

90

YUKI ODA

contended that circumstances had “thrust the social problems of migrationand its consequences forward as never before.” She highlighted problems
such as families living across multiple countries, inflexible immigration
regulations, intolerance of foreigners, and the economic depression. In
particular, Bremer called attention to “the new questions of social principle
in regard to the treatment of aliens or non-citizens.”1
The issues Bremer raised concerned what legal scholar Linda Bosniak
terms “noncitizen citizenship,” the rights and status (or informal“citizenship”) of immigrants who are not legal citizens of the country
in which they live.2 At the outset of the post-1924 era of restrictive
immigration policy, noncitizen citizenship emerged as the key concernof immigrant advocates. As legal scholar Hiroshi Motomura argues,
quantitative immigration restriction newly created “the legal conceptof permanent residence.” Fundamental to the regime of numericalimmigration restriction was the legal distinction between an “immigrant”
and a “nonimmigrant”, in other words a clear delineation of foreigners withthe right of permanent residency and a path to citizenship from all otherforeigners without either.3 As “immigrant” became a numerically limited
and strictly defined legal status, reserved for the selected few, it raised newquestions about what specific rights permanent residency included. On
one level, this paper contributes to the field of citizenship studies througha historical inquiry into the late 1920s, when the regime of immigration
restriction took root. How did the new regime define the specific rightsof those admitted to the U.S., and in turn how did the legal claims andpersonal appeals these immigrants made influence the regime itself?
Specifically, this paper looks into advocacy for family rights by theInternational Institutes, a social service agency headquartered in New
York City at the Department of Immigration and Foreign Communitiesof the YWCA. With branches in over fifty cities, it was among the largest
immigrant aid organizations in the U.S. during the 1920s. Following several
reorganizations, the Institutes remain active today under the umbrellaorganization of U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants.4 Studies of
the International Institutes by historians Raymond A. Mohl, Neil Betten,
John F. McClyme, and Celeste DeRoche have focused on educational
activities such as English and civics classes for immigrants or cultural
festivals. They characterized the organization as cultural pluralists, an
oppositional force against assimilationists.5 This paper will shed light ona less-studied aspect of the organization’s role in the immigration andnaturalization reform movement in the late 1920s.

FAMILY UNITY AND “NONCITIZEN CITIZENSHIP”

91

By studying the Institutes, this paper engages in another field ofscholarship, that investigates what became of the Progressives after the
Progressive Era.6 This study also builds on a body of recent literature thathas reevaluated the 1924–1965 period, once a neglected era in immigration
history, as a founding period of contemporary migration.7 Early studiesof the Americanization movement suggested that both the pluralist liberalprogressives and the assimilationist 100 percent Americanizers lost theirinterest in immigrants altogether after the mid 1920s, as immigration was
sharply curtailed by both the quota act and the Great Depression.8 In fact,some of the immigrant advocacy groups survived from the pre-WorldWar I (WWI) era to the post-World War II (WWII) era, emerging as key
actors in the post-WWII immigration reform movement. Already in thelate 1920s, the authority of eugenicists, which had peaked with the 1924
Act, was increasingly challenged by liberals who joined forces and bid forrecognition as a new group of immigration experts. How did Progressive
immigrant advocates reset their agendas and redefine their role in the new
era of restricted immigration?
In the following sections, this paper first provides a brief history of theInternational Institutes in the pre-restriction years. The second section
discusses how the organization placed family rights in the context ofconstructive citizenship building. The third section examines how theInstitutes addressed family separation as a new social problem that resulted
from the quota law. Lastly, this paper explores the formation of an interorganizational and trans-Atlantic movement to alleviate the problem offamily separation and to more firmly ground family unification rights inimmigration law.
VOLUNTARY CITIZENSHIP AND CITIZENSHIP OUT OF FEAR
The blueprint for the International Institutes was drawn in 1909, when
the YWCA’s national board established a special committee to study
the situation of foreign-born women in New York City. The YWCA
had previously attempted to organize English classes for German andScandinavian immigrants, but immigrants from southern and eastern
Europe remained outside its reach. Based on the advice of Women’s Home
Mission Boards working on Ellis Island, the committee proposed to open afacility for English classes and an employment bureau, staffed with foreign
language speakers.9 Assigned to the task was Edith Terry Bremer, a recent
graduate of the University of Chicago. Bremer had worked at the University

92

YUKI ODA

of Chicago Settlement House and the Union Settlement in New York City
before she was recruited by the YWCA, and the Institutes had strong ties
to the rising field of professional social work within the settlement house
movement.10
The first International Institute was established in 1911 in Greenwich
Village, New York. The organization soon developed into one of the few
immigrant aid organizations in the U.S. with multiple branches across thecountry.11 As part of the YWCA, the organization initially focused on firstand second-generation immigrant women. Based on the lists distributedby the immigration officials stationed at Ellis Island, the social workers
at the Institutes often engaged in “home-visiting” to inform newly arrived
immigrants of English classes and recreational and club activities, and to
aid them with housing and employment.12 To follow up with immigrants
who headed from New York to their final destinations, Bremer extended
the network to other cities. The existing YWCA branches facilitated the
expansion of the International Institutes to over twenty cities by 1918.13
World War I was crucial to the growth of the International Institutes
in several ways. First, during the war, the YWCA’s War Work Council
provided the Institutes with additional funds, which allowed theorganization to employ more social workers and expand their facilities. By
the mid 1920s, their network had extended to over fifty cities in eighteen
states.14 Additionally, disdain for the fervent wartime movement for “100percent Americanism,” which proposed such things as compulsory English
classes, registration of noncitizens, and banning of foreign languagepresses, induced the Institutes to reorganize their programs by reflecting
on the failures of the nationwide Americanization movement.15 The term“Americanization” was “often used to exploit that popular psychology offear,” Bremer wrote in 1919, opining “for the most part the term stood fora nationalistic and political effort to make Americanization a compulsory
thing.”16
Bremer questioned the assumption that native-born Americans knew
what was best for the immigrants. Since its founding, unlike mostsettlement houses, the Institutes were staffed with “nationality workers”
or college-educated social workers who were first-generation immigrants.
Although there certainly was a class difference between the nationality
workers and their clientele, nationality workers were expected to“understand the thought-language as well as tongue-language” of theimmigrants better than native-born social workers.17 Bremer saw mutual
benefit societies, churches, immigrant organizations, and foreign language

FAMILY UNITY AND “NONCITIZEN CITIZENSHIP”

93newspapers as the source of “the powerful consciousness of nationality[ethnicity] in common” that held immigrants people together in a newenvironment, and encouraged each Institute to form advisory panels
consisting of local ethnic community leaders.18 By the 1920s, in addition to
casework helping immigrants find employment, housing, or English classes,
the Institutes placed increasing emphasis on ethnic cultural programs
to develop “the self-expression of the community” and on encouraging“the formation and progress of nationality organizations” by opening its
facilities to existing immigrant organizations and mutual aid societies.19
Combined with their cultural pluralist approach, the International
Institutes established a principle that “a man’s or woman’s right to choose
citizenship should not be molested.”20 It rejected the dominant idea in theAmericanization movement that immigrants should naturalize as soon as
possible. For one, the organization acknowledged that many immigrants
initially considered the U.S. only as a place of temporary sojourn. At amore fundamental level, the Institutes reasoned that immigrants should
secure citizenship only after careful study and preparation. Importantly, intheir view, the five-year minimum residency requirement for naturalization
was less a period for the United States to test an immigrant’s fitness for
citizenship than for immigrant themselves to examine the U.S. “Down in
our hearts,” Bremer commented, “we really respect a person more whodoes want to get acquainted, does want to think things over, and does notquite so easily ‘renounce and abjure’ the country and the state in which he
was born.” Thus, the Institutes regarded the pre-naturalization years as a
critical period for immigrants to weigh all the factors involved in changing
nationality, free from any pressure.21
The quota acts, however, drove immigrants to apply for citizenship outof “fear,” which ran counter to the Institutes’ principles. When the numberof naturalization applications increased after the first quota act in 1921, theorganization did not necessarily view this trend favorably. Bremmer wrote:
In so far as an increased demand for citizenship is the result of a purely
voluntary choice … we consider it a very encouraging development.
Unfortunately, there are other factors which enter into the situation.… We
have no way of knowing the number of petitions traceable to dire fear.22
The gap between rights of citizens and those of noncitizens widened
further after 1924, and the question of noncitizen citizenship bore arenewed significance for the Institutes.

94

YUKI ODAFAMILY UNITY AND “COERCIVE CITIZENSHIP”
As the effects of the 1924 Act gradually unfolded, the International
Institutes observed that the new law “decreased the number of immigrants
but has increased the number of immigration problems and hardships.”
It not only made “admission into this country … a golden apple” but
imposed various difficulties on immigrants already in the U.S., particularly
noncitizens.23 Their offices were flooded with legal casework on
immigrants captured in a complex web of immigration and naturalization
regulations. For instance, a six-month absence from the U.S. without areentry permit stripped noncitizens of their immigration status. Reentry
to the U.S. required an entirely new immigrant visa, which was very
difficult to obtain for those from countries with small quotas. Therefore, theInstitutes had to “explain to them very carefully the danger of expatriation
if they stay abroad for an extended period of time.” Citizenship was
becoming “the only sure means of return to” or to remain in the U.S.24
As casework increased, legal obstacles to family unification cameparticularly to the attention of the Institutes. The most vulnerable people
were recent immigrants who were yet to obtain citizenship or were unable
to acquire citizenship for various reasons. Some were undecided about
making the irreversible choice of changing nationalities. Others had not met
the legal conditions such as the five-year minimum residency requirement.
Others had been living in the U.S. for more than five years but without
declaring their intention to naturalize (first paper), which had to be filed
at least three years before applying for citizenship. Still others lacked orwere unable to present evidence of formal admission to the U.S. Ethel
Bird, a national board member of the YWCA commented: “The familyof the declarant and the alien resident presents the most hopeless and by
far the gravest social problems of separation.”25 Albeit very narrowly, theImmigration Act of 1924 did take into account nuclear families of citizens
by classifying wives and unmarried children under eighteen of citizens
as non-quota immigrants, and allocating half of the quotas to husbands,
unmarried children between eighteen and twenty-one, and parents ofcitizens.26
However, by recognizing only nuclear families of U.S. citizens, the1924 Act in effect made naturalization a legal precondition to sending for
one’s family members, thereby tying citizenship to family migration in an
unprecedented manner. The International Institutes were confronted withnumerous cases of immigrants desperate to acquire citizenship in order toFAMILY UNITY AND “NONCITIZEN CITIZENSHIP”

95

be joined by their families. For example, Stanislawa Volkazaz had madevarious attempts to bring her son to the U.S. before she sought help fromthe Yonkers International Institute. When Volkazaz first arrived from Poland
in 1912, she had left her son Joseph in the care of her mother. When the
grandmother become elderly, Joseph was put into the custody of his uncle
and aunt. With the quota law in effect, the only way for mother and son
to be reunited in the U.S. was for Volkazak to become a U.S. citizen andsecure a non-quota visa for her son. Vokazak successfully filed her “first
papers” (or declaration of intent to become a U.S. citizen). However, she
faced obstacles to completing the naturalization process because she lacked
her arrival record as a result of her not being able to identify the exact nameof the ship upon which she traveled to the U.S. or remember the exact
date of her arrival. Volkazaz was trapped in legal limbo between declarantstatus and citizen status, while time was running out as her son approachedadulthood.27
Such problems were compounded by the 1924 Act’s narrow definitionof family, even for citizens. The International Institutes maintained that at
the very least an “immediate family” should include one’s spouse, children,
parents, and minor dependent unmarried siblings.28 In the decade before
the quota acts were enforced, approximately half of immigrants answeredat their ports of entry that they were joining their “relatives” in the U.S.,
which included much wider relations than the nuclear family. The 1924
Act cut into family ties that extended beyond “fireside relatives” to the“compound family” (a family consisting of three or more spouses and theirchildren) which had been a source of “extraordinary power of successful
adjustment to alien environment.”29
Observers on both sides of the political spectrum knew that a significant
number of post-1924 naturalization applications were motivated by thedesire to receive family reunification privileges. Hence, ardent immigration
restrictionists insisted on minimizing the privileges of citizens to bring theirfamilies into the U.S. Others sought to prevent naturalization altogether
to prevent recent immigrants from exercising family reunification
privileges. For example, Raymond Christ, the U.S. Commissioner Generalof Naturalization, notoriously ordered naturalization examiners to rejectapplications from immigrants whose family were still in Europe, thereby
putting them in an untenable catch-22.30
For the International Institutes, the problem extended beyond various
obstacles to naturalization. It was not just a matter of whether an immigrant
could eventually become a U.S. citizen or not. The organization saw

96

YUKI ODA

naturalization as too high a price to pay for family reunification, imposing
upon immigrants the risk of making the irreversible decision of changing
one’s nationality, even before their family had ever lived in the U.S.
Moreover, the International Institutes voiced fundamental opposition totying family unification rights to citizenship status, as it would amountto indirect coercion of naturalization. According to Bremer, how the U.S.
treated immigrants in the pre-naturalization years determined their depthof attachment to their new country and whether newcomers would become“thoughtful, responsible and fervent citizens” in the long run.31 In otherwords, the rights endowed in pre-citizen years, or noncitizen citizenship,
would strongly influence how immigrants exercised their citizenshipafter they became formal citizens. The Institutes’ approach represented
what legal scholar Hiroshi Motomura conceptualizes as an “immigration
as transition” model of citizenship, which views a newcomer as being intransition to becoming a citizen, or as a future citizen, and offers a quasicitizen treatment during their initial years in the U.S.32
For instance, while the International Institutes found it reasonable toreserve certain rights such as suffrage to formal citizens, in other domains it
opposed creating wide disparities between the rights and benefits of citizens
and those of noncitizens. Above all, to make escape from alienage “the only
way for the securing of certain ordinary human protection” was what theInstitutes called “coercive citizenship.”33 In this context, the organization
denounced coupling citizenship status and family rights as the worst
form of coercive citizenship. Deprivation of family life from noncitizens
destroyed “the positive forces on which good citizenship can be built.”34
The Institutes envisioned citizenship based on a feeling of attachment to the
U.S., and not by the desire to overcome the tangible divide between formal
citizen status and noncitizen status.
APPROACHING A “NEW SOCIAL PROBLEM”
The Institutes understood the legal obstruction to family reunification
created by the quota acts as a “new social problem … very serious and very
far-reaching in its social and economic consequences.”35 The problem wassocial in two aspects. First, it was created by the American society throughthe Immigration Act of 1924. “The situation created by the immigration
law,” the Institutes argued, should be “set right by amending the law.”
Obstructions to family migration that came out of the quota law werethus both social and legal. Second, it not only destroyed the “life of theFAMILY UNITY AND “NONCITIZEN CITIZENSHIP”

97

immigrant” but “the most sacred institution of society,” namely the family.
Hence, the American society was both the cause of and imperiled by family
separation.36
The organization worried about the dire consequences that prolonged
separation could have on family relationships. Even before the enforcementof the 1924 Act, social service agencies had been concerned about desertionand nonsupport by husbands who preceded their families to the U.S. The
Institutes had assisted numerous women who learned upon arriving in the
U.S. that their husbands no longer wished to continue marital relations.37
The problem of desertion became more pressing after the 1924 Act tookeffect because the new law did not allow prospective immigrants to apply
for a family visa, unless their citizen relative who preceded them first
filed a petition on their behalf. The family members’ ability to immigrate
depended entirely on the actions of the preceding relative.38
Sometimes even citizens who filed petitions on behalf of their family
members to immigrate were denied the ability to sponsor their relatives.
For instance, the International Institute of New York City reported how an
Italian man had revealed to them “with tears in his eyes” that although hehad been supporting his wife in Italy and trying to bring her to the U.S.,
he was giving up his efforts altogether. He came to believe that both the
Italian government and the U.S. government were hindering his efforts,
with Italy profiting from his remittances and the “United States … in league
with the European Countries.”39 Forced separation by immigration law orimmigration authorities, the Institutes observed, could eventually destroy
the very will to strive to live together.
Legal obstructions to family migration were also socially detrimental,
the Institutes feared, because they hindered integration of immigrants
into American society. For instance, the organization found little meritin a system that essentially obliged children to remain in Europe until
the preceding parent became a naturalized U.S. citizen. The organization
pointed out that younger children adjusted to new environments andacquired English proficiency faster than those who came to the U.S. at anolder age. If the children were eventually to immigrate to the U.S., whymake them wait for a minimum of five years instead of taking a moreconstructive approach of welcoming them as early as possible?
The time factor could be crucial in cases involving children, as “child”
was defined by age as well as by relations. In the worst-case scenario,
children who reached majority before their parents became a U.S. citizen
were no longer eligible for immigration as a non-quota family member

98

YUKI ODA

and consequently lost the chance to join their family. A case from the
Milwaukee International Institute illustrates such problems. After WorldWar I, M. Metridis, a Greek American war veteran, arranged to bring his
wife and three daughters to the U.S. However, before the family was able
to join him, the 1924 Act took effect. Although his wife and his two minor
daughters were eligible for a non-quota visa, his 19-year-old daughter
Anastacia was disqualified because she was older than 18. The quota for
Greece was a mere one hundred, and in such countries with years-longwaiting lists for quota visas, the 1924 Act’s age restrictions resulted inseparation of older siblings from their younger siblings.40
Concerns about immigrant families prompted the International Institutes
to reorganize its activities in several ways. For one, their clientele expanded
to include more men, since the majority of family reunification cases
involved men with families in Europe. Second, it placed more emphasison training staff to develop expertise in immigration and naturalization
laws. In some cities, the Institutes had staff specializing in naturalization
applications, who would accompany applicants to court to ensure theirapplications proceeded smoothly. Legal expertise, the Institutes maintained,
was not only beneficial for clients; it was essential for the organization
to gain recognition as specialists in immigration matters and in “shaping
American attitudes toward new citizens and would-be citizens.”41
Naturalization casework underscored the numerous difficulties ofacquiring U.S. citizenship. Besides the minimum residency requirement,
naturalization was by no means an easy process. Often, the citizenship test
was an insurmountable barrier for immigrants with little education. Julio
Gilano, an Italian immigrant with five children who came to the U.S. before
the 1924 Act, sought help from the Baltimore International Institute. He
came to the U.S. alone, and after several years, he first sent for his wife andthe younger three of his children. Since he did not yet have enough savings
to bring all the family at the same time, the two older sons, aged 12 and 13,
remained in Italy in the care of their aunt. However, while the Gilano family
was still saving travel funds for the older sons, Congress enacted the 1924
quota law. Since Congress only accorded a quota of 3,645 for Italy, it was
virtually impossible for the two boys to join the family unless their father
became a U.S. citizen. But Julio had received little education in Italy, muchless could he read English, and there was little chance for him to pass thecitizenship test.42
As a result of working with separated families, the Institutes reinforced
its network with overseas agencies, since the problem by definition

FAMILY UNITY AND “NONCITIZEN CITIZENSHIP”

99crossed national boundaries. Moreover, the new visa system enhanced theimportance of reaching out to potential immigrants while they were stillin Europe. After the 1924 Act went into effect, decisions regarding whomto admit into the U.S. were made for the most part by the consulates thatissued visas, and immigration officials at the ports of entry receded to asecondary role.43 Hence, in acquiring the names of arriving immigrants,
the Institutes came to rely less on immigration officials on Ellis Island thanon overseas agencies. In assisting separated families, the Institutes worked
particularly closely with the Geneva-based International Migration Service(“IMS”), which was established by the World YWCA in 1920. Although
the IMS became an independent agency in 1924, Bremer continued to serveon its board. The Institutes viewed the IMS network in eight countries tobe particularly valuable in approaching families of U.S. residents.44 Yet,the gravity and scale of the problem went far beyond the individual casebased efforts of private agencies. A more comprehensive solution required
legislative reform.
BUILDING AN ALLIANCE FOR FAMILIES
It took courage for members of the International Institutes to begin thework of engaging and lobbying legislators and other policymakers, a field
in which it had no previous experience. At their 1925 annual conference,various speakers voiced the need to move beyond casework for individual
immigrants and cultural and educational programs in ethnic communities,
and proposed to take collective action to influence legislators directly.45
A speech at the conference made by Aghavnie Yeghenian, an Armenian
American Institutes member who had fled from Turkey, illustrates how theorganization had come to view the regime of immigration restriction andhad redefined its role in the new era. Yeghenian first discussed redrawing
the line between restrictionism and anti-restrictionism. Whereas the dividein the pre-World War I years concerned the desirability of numericalrestriction itself, liberals after the 1920s came to terms with numericalrestriction in principle, notwithstanding their opposition to the quotas
system. Yeghenian argued: “The human mind is a very strangely flexible
thing. When the country first began to talk about restriction … the idea ofrestriction was somewhat ridiculous … Many of us were anti-restrictionists
at the time.” She continued, when “the quota law of 1921 [a predecessor
to the 1924 Act] came.… we adjusted our minds to it.”46 As historianGary Gerstle put it, many liberals did not “specifically endorse a racist

100

YUKI ODA

restrictionist act” in the early 1920s, but nonetheless “tolerated” it.47
At the same time, however, while the Institutes reconciled itself to theend of a normatively open immigration policy, it did not agree that the
restriction of entry into the U.S. should translate into restriction of rights
of immigrants already in the U.S. The Institutes argued that reuniting
immigrants with their family members abroad who wanted to join themwas essentially about rights of U.S. residents. “If we decide to take a stand,we will have to do it with the full realization that it is not going to be aneasy position,” she encouraged the audience. “I know that there is fear of
influencing legislation in this country among groups. And yet … what is theuse of democracy if one is not going to influence legislation?”48
Even more so than in individual casework, coordination with othersocial work agencies and immigrant advocacy groups was essential for
legislative reform. Among the various meetings and conferences thatmembers of the International Institutes attended, the National Conference ofSocial Work, with annual participation of some 2,000 social workers, wasparticularly important. The Institutes was one of the founding members of
the conference’s Division of Immigrants, established in 1917. The Institutes
saw the conference as their “kindred group,” where it could measure
the quality of its activities and work against those of other prominentorganizations engaged in similar fields, such as the Immigrants’ Protective
League of Chicago and the National Council of Jewish Woman. At the 1925
National Conference of Social Work, various organizations echoed concerns
about family separation of their clients. The conference also provided aplatform for building political alliances.49
The campaign for family unification was transatlantic. In 1926, fortyone organizations from ten countries, including the International Institutes,
gathered in Geneva at the International Conference of Private Organisations
for the Protection of Migrants. The International Conference classified
separation of immigrant families into “personal causes” and “causes which
do not depend on the migrants themselves.” The former included seasonal
migration wherein immigrants sent remittances to their families, which
was personal and “voluntary separation.” Family separation precipitatedby illness and lack of sufficient travel funds constituted personal but“involuntary separation.” “External” causes of separation included war,
political persecution of ethnic and religious minorities, and importantly “theapplication of legislative measure.” The International Conference reported
that “it is the American Law of 1924 which, by its characteristics, has moststruck the Associations and public opinion in this matter.”50 To support U.S.

FAMILY UNITY AND “NONCITIZEN CITIZENSHIP”

101

organizations in their efforts to shape American public opinion in responseto the 1924 law, the International Conference undertook a transatlantic
study on family separation, gathering reports from sixteen countries
including Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France,
Hungary, and Italy.51
By late 1925, separation of immigrant families caught the attentionof policy makers including President Calvin Coolidge. Senator JamesW. Wadsworth and Representative Nathan D. Perlman of New York
introduced a family reunification bill to Congress. For the first time since
its founding, the International Institutes sent a delegate to a Congressional
hearing. A social worker stationed at Ellis Island testified before the Senate
immigration committee about various cases that the Institutes handled.52
The Wadsworth-Perlman bill had been expected to run up against a hostof obstacles, and the Institutes were willing to support any measures thatwould facilitate family reunification. But the bill failed to pass despite
numerous amendments.53
Debate on the Wadsworth-Perlman bill revealed wide divides between
reformers and their opponents. The most fundamental difference lay intheir ideas about racial hierarchy. The Institutes discredited the notion of
racial difference among European immigrants and embraced cultural andenvironmental explanations of differences, explaining that “whole racetheories may be built … without the slightest biological foundation forthem.”54 Deep antagonism towards the family reunification bill derived
from the fact that the primary beneficiaries were eastern and southern
European immigrants, the very targets of the quota system. Familyspecific provisions mattered little for immigrants from northern European
countries with large quotas, because visas were readily available without
any special consideration.55 Therefore, Anglo-Saxon supremacists such as
the Allied Patriotic Societies conceived the issue as a “struggle between the
Anglo-Saxon stock and the new immigration for control of our country.”56
Hence, a major concern of the restrictionists was chain migration offamily members from southern and eastern Europe. Based on visa
application information from American consulates, Secretary of State Frank
Kellogg estimated that the bill would allow some 570,000 immigrants toimmediately enter the U.S. Surprised by the estimate, Representative Albert
Johnson, one of the primary authors of the 1924 Act, raised an alarm that“the minute we begin to look with sympathy on the first line we are met
with appeals for the next line, and it runs right along in an endless chain.”57
Another deep split occurred in the framing of family reunification, which

102

YUKI ODA

concerned both a right of newcomers already within the U.S. territoryand simultaneously admission of new immigrants. Restrictionists such as
Johnson stressed the latter aspect pertaining to new admissions and argued
that family migration, especially outside the quotas, would undermine thevery foundation of numerical restriction. By contrast, the Institutes framedfamily reunification primarily as a right of U.S. citizens and permanent
residents and insisted that the issue was distinct from general admission of
immigrants.
Narrower but still significant gaps existed among those who were
sympathetic to the plight of separate families. For example, they disagreed
about which types of family relationships mattered. There also remained
a question of whether formal citizenship status or commencement of thenaturalization process should be a prerequisite to obtaining the benefitsof family reunification. Hurry E. Hull, the Commissioner General of
Immigration, for instance, recommended amending the law to give moreconsideration to families of citizens, but not those of permanent resident
aliens. Other policymakers who agreed about providing some relief at
least to immigrants already residing in the U.S. were uncertain about theappropriate method of doing so.58
As a product of the Progressive Era, the Institutes valued social-scientificresearch as a basis for social reform. While Congress discussed various
bills on family reunification, the Institutes launched an extensive survey
through their local branches. It published announcements in local foreign
language newspapers and gathered some 520 cases from forty branches infourteen states. Importantly, the published report called attention to muchwider familial relations than those given consideration under the 1924
Act, including stepchildren, adopted children, parents, and siblings.59 The
study by the Institutes prompted the National Conference of Social Work’s
Division of Immigrants to conduct a more wide-reaching survey in 140
cities. From the European side, the Geneva-based International Associationof Organizations for the Protection of Migrants prepared reports. Informed
discussion based on social surveys would shape public opinion, thereformers believed.60
Concurrent with individual casework and the nationwide survey, theInstitutes developed a legislative strategy. At the 1927 Annual Conferenceof Social Work held in Des Moines, Iowa, the Division of Immigrants
discussed family separation extensively. Cecilia Razovsky of the
National Council of Jewish Women spoke about humanitarian effects ofimmigration law, and how the 1924 Act separated families striking “soFAMILY UNITY AND “NONCITIZEN CITIZENSHIP”

103

palpably at relationships growing out of fundamental human need.”61
Adena Miller Rich of the Immigrants Protective League of Chicago
introduced the agency’s study on one hundred Italian American families
in Chicago.62 After the official close of the conference, delegates fromvarious organizations continued to discuss strategies for legal reform.63
In the course of their campaigns for uniting families, the Institutes alliedwith other New York-based organizations such as the Foreign Language
Information Service as well as with national organizations such as the
National Catholic Welfare Conference, National Council of Catholic Men,
National Council of Catholic Women, National Council of Jewish Women,
and the National Women’s Trade Union League.64
The Institutes’ New York connections proved helpful in obtaining
legal counsel for their legislative work. Bremer brought the Des Moines
proposal to a drafting committee at Columbia University. The bill was thenintroduced by Representative Clarence MacGregor of New York. In orderto gain support of organizations that were more committed to restriction but
still sympathetic to separated families, as was the case with the American
Federation of Labor, the reformers sought to expedite family reunification
without appearing to destroy “the principle of the restriction law.” The bestsolution, they concluded, was to suspend admission of immigrants withoutfamily in the U.S. until family members of immigrants already in the U.S.
were able to apply for admission. Specifically, the bill proposed to reserve
half of the total quotas and distribute them on a need basis to overseas
family members regardless of their countries of origins for a period ofseveral years. Pressing for its passage, Bremer testified before the House
Immigration Committee how the quota act disrupted the lives of thousandsof families and emphasized the immediate need for remedial legislation. To
give special priority to families was not a matter of debasing the principleof selective admission, but a matter of justice for immigrants already livingin the U.S., she argued.65
After numerous revisions to the bill, Congress amended the Immigration
Act of 1924 on May 29, 1928. For the Institutes, the new law was far froma total victory but still a significant achievement. The 1928 amendments
added citizens’ children between eighteen and twenty-one to thoseeligible for admission, raising the age limit by three years. Additionally,
the amendments added husbands of citizens married prior to 1928 to thenon-quota category, narrowing the gender gap in that category. They alsoenabled permanent residents to send for their wives and their children
under eighteen, albeit only by means of getting a preference within existing

104

YUKI ODA

national origin quotas.66 Soon after the passage of the 1928 amendments,
local offices of the International Institutes were filled with affidavits forfamily visas.67
Regarding permanent residents’ right to be joined by one’s family,
the International Institutes considered their achievements to be mixed.
From a short-term perspective, the Institutes were disappointed that
preference within the quotas for families of permanent residents would not
immediately relieve eastern and southern European immigrant families,
since their quotas were too small. But from a long-term perspective, the
new law helped resident aliens in a lasting way by acknowledging that theirfamilies deserved special consideration and recognizing their family unity
as part of their noncitizen citizenship.68 Families of permanent residents
would come to constitute a significant portion of future migration to theU.S.
The Institutes were encouraged by the fact that their campaign playeda significant role in realizing legislative reform. The Institutes decided to
devote more efforts to grassroots lobbying, such as letter writing campaigns
to members of Congress, meeting the immigration committee members inWashington D.C., and training specialists who had “an understanding of
Washington and of how Congress works.”69
The onset of the Great Depression exacerbated the vulnerability of
noncitizens. Often, citizenship status or first papers were required for public
assistance and welfare, and even for private employment. To make mattersworse, Congress raised the bar to naturalization in 1929 by raising the fee
from five dollars to twenty dollars. The Hoover administration ordered
American consulates to reject many visa applications on the grounds thatthe applicant was “Liable to Become a Public Charge,” leaving most of thequotas unfilled. Such administrative restrictions seemed to erase many of
the achievements of the 1928 family reunification amendment.70
During the Depression, the organizational character of the Institutes
changed both at the local level and at the national level. Local Institutes
diverted their limited resources from cultural programs such as folk
festivals to concentrate on immigration and naturalization problems. As
naturalization applications came to comprise majority of their casework,
the organization gradually transformed into an agency offering technicaland legal assistance to clients about immigration and naturalization
matters.71 Transformation at the local level translated into reorganization
at the national level. While their clientele was no longer limited to
women, unlike in its founding years, the organization still observed that

FAMILY UNITY AND “NONCITIZEN CITIZENSHIP”

105

a significant number of male immigrants expressed hesitation about
joining the organization, saying they did not “want to belong to a women’sorganization.” Local Institutes also suggested the possibility of reachingout to a broader community by becoming a non-sectarian agency. In
1933, the International Institutes resolved to become a stand-alone agency
entirely independent of the YWCA.72 Concurrently, it strengthened
interorganizational cooperation with other prominent immigrant aid
organizations with different constituencies. The loose coalition thatorganized for family reunification in the late 1920s, developed into the
Joint Committee of Immigration Legislation in 1930, and then into Joint
Conference on Alien Legislation in 1939, taking a more “coordinated actionof legislative questions affecting the foreign-born.”73
Throughout the 1930s, the International Institutes continued to campaign
for family unification. While it claimed that their goal was not new
admission of immigrants but equity for immigrants already in the U.S.,
in fact, it was at the forefront of the fight against further immigration
restrictions. As administrative restriction by the State Department
continued, consulates generally granted visas to applications with family
in the U.S., but denied them to applicants without. The foremost criteria
in differentiating family migration from general immigration was whether
the relation was legally recognized as family under immigration law.
Thus, legal developments in the late 1920s became the foundation forliberal advocates and immigrants to make claims on behalf of their family
members, providing the last line in the defense of immigration.74
EPILOGUE
The New Deal would lead to the International Institutes building a
new relationship with the federal government. The Institutes welcomed
the appointment of Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins, the first female
Cabinet Secretary and the first Labor Secretary trained in the field ofsocial work.75 In 1934, Perkins appointed a civilian advisory panel,including several leaders of the International Institutes, to advise her on
immigration matters. The so-called Ellis Island Committee submitted areport proposing administrative reform first of the federal immigration andnaturalization bureau and then of agencies within the Department of Labor,
and also legislative reform of broader immigration policy. Specifically,
with millions unemployed, the committee found “no reason for substantial
amendment” to “the present policy of restriction.” But it insisted that

106

YUKI ODA

rights of immigrants within the national territory belonged to a separate
sphere from restriction of new immigration, and urged Congress to remedy
family separation, an “evil ever since the first quota law was passed in
1921.” The underlying principles of the committee echoed the views of
the International Institutes that the hard boundary of U.S. society should
be drawn at the territorial border, and not within the U.S. based on legal
citizenship: “In most discussion touching naturalization and the alien too
much importance … is attached to the alien’s naturalization as comparedwith his admission to the United States. When we admit an immigrant forpermanent residence, we are accepting him, in effect as a member of our
American Society.”76 This emphasis on permanent residence, a new legal
concept of membership in American society that came into being under
the regime of immigration restriction, characterized the new overarchingframework of noncitizen citizenship.
NOTE
1
Edith Terry Bremer, “Immigrants and Foreign Communities,” in Social Work Year Book
1933 (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1933) edited by Fred S. Hall, 244.
2
Linda Bosniak, Citizen and the Alien: Dilemmas of Contemporary Membership(Princeton: Princeton UP, 2006), 3.
3
Hiroshi Motomura, Americans in Waiting: The Lost Story of Immigration andCitizenship in the United States (New York: Oxford UP, 2006), 6–7, 9–11.
4
The International Institutes broke away from the YWCA in 1933 to form the National
Institute of Immigrant Welfare, which later became American Federation of International
Institutes. In 1958, it merged with the Common Council for American Unity to create theAmerican Council for Nationalities Service. American Council for Nationalities Service
became Immigration and Refugee Service of America in 1994.
U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants. “History.” https://refugees.org/history/
Accessed 1 March, 2023.
5
Raymond A. Mohl and Neil Betten, “Paternalism and Pluralism: Immigrants and Social
Welfare in Gary Indiana, 1906–1940,” American Studies 15 (Spring 1974); 5–30. RaymondA. Mohl and Neil Betten, “Ethnic Adjustment in the Industrial City: The International
Institute of Gary, 1919–1940,” International Migration Review 6 no. 4 (1972); 361–376;
John F. McClymer, “Gender and the ‘American Way of Life’: Women in the Americanization
Movement.” Journal of American Ethnic History 10, no. 3 (1991): 3–20; Celeste DeRoche,“Cultural Pluralism and American Identity 1910–1954,” (PhD Diss, University ofMaine, 2000).
6
See for example, Alan Dawley, Changing the World: American Progressives in War andRevolution (Princeton: Princeton UP, 2003), chapter 9.
7
A landmark work in this literature is Mae Ngai, Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens andthe Making of Modern America (Princeton: Princeton UP, 2004); For a recent anthology,
see Maddalena Marinari, Madeleine Hsu, and Maria Cristina Garcia eds., A Nation of
Immigrants Reconsidered: U.S. Society in an Age of Restriction, 1924–1965 (Champaign:
University of Illinois Press, 2019).

FAMILY UNITY AND “NONCITIZEN CITIZENSHIP”

107

8
John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860–1925 (1955;
repr., New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1983) is a classic example. See also Rivka
Shpak Lissak, Pluralism and Progressives: Hull House and the Immigrants, 1890–1919(Chicago: U of Chicago Press, 1989), 157; Noah Pickus, True Faith and Allegiance:
Immigration and American Civic Nationalism (Princeton: Princeton UP, 2005), 112–117.
9“The Y.W.C.A. and the Foreign-born Women,” Woman’s Press 21 no. 11 (Nov 1927):
754–756.
10
Bremer served as the national leader of the Institutes until 1954. Raymond A. Mohl,“The International Institutes and Immigrant Education, 1910–1940,” in American Educationand the European Immigrant, ed. Bernard J. Weiss (Urbana: U of Illinois Press, 1982),
118–119; Elizabeth W. Clark, “Including the Foreign-Born,” Association Monthly 14 no.
7 (July 1920): 344; Robert H. Bremner, American Philanthropy (Chicago: U of Chicago
Press, 1960), 106–107, 112–113; For professionalization of social work, see Kathleen
McCarthy, Noblesse Oblige: Charity and Cultural Philanthropy in Chicago, 1849–1929(Chicago: U of Chicago Press, 1982), 106.
11
Marian Schibsby, “Private Agencies Aiding the Foreign-Born,” Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Sciences 223 (1942): 189.
12
Edith Terry Bremer, The International Institutes in Foreign Community Work: Their
Program and Philosophy, (New York: Woman’s Press, 1923), 4; Elizabeth Clark, “Thosein the International Institute,” Woman’s Press 17 (Sep. 1923): 564; Mohl and Betten,“Paternalism and Pluralism,” 5–30.
13
N. E. Niewiadomsky, “Social Care of Newly Arrived Immigrants,” (paper, annual
conference of International Institutes, 1928), reel 100 : 6, YWCA USA Records, Sophia
Smith Collection, Northampton, Massachusetts (Hereafter, YWCA Records).
14
Edith Terry Bremer, “Development of Private Social Work with the Foreign Born,”
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 262 (March 1949): 145;
Mohl, “The International Institutes and Immigrant Education,” 118–122; YWCA Department
of Immigration and Foreign Communities, National Oﬃce Newsletter (Jan 1928): 8.
15
Bremer, The International Institutes in Foreign Community Work, 11.
16
Edith Terry Bremer, “Americanization,” Association Monthly 13 no. 6 (June 1919):
259–260.
17
Edith Terry Bremer, “The Field of International Institute and Its Place in Social Work,”(paper, annual conference of International Institutes, 1925), 13, reel 100 : 6, YWCA Records;
Elizabeth Russell Hendee, “Leadership in Twenty-Seven Languages,” Woman’s Press 21(February 1927): 112–113; Deroche, “Cultural Pluralism and American Identity, 35.
18
Mohl and Betten, “Paternalism and Pluralism,” 26; Edith Terry Bremer, “The Field
of International Institute and Its Place in Social Work,” 11 (paper, annual conference ofInternational Institutes, 1925), reel 100 : 6, YWCA Records.
19
Mohl and Betten, “Ethnic Adjustment in the Industrial City,” 370.
20
Bremer, The International Institutes in Foreign Community Work, 11.
21
Edith Terry Bremer, “How is it with the Non-Citizens?” Women’s Press 24 no. 12(Dec 1930): 847.
22
Bremer, The International Institutes in Foreign Community Work, 11.
23
Ludmila K. Foxlee, “At the Gateway,” Woman’s Press 19 no. 9 (September 1925): 622.
24
Florence C. Cassidy, “The Increasing Importance of Naturalization: Its Legal and
Educational Signiﬁcance,” (paper, annual conference of International Institutes, 1925),
11–12, reel 100 : 6, YWCA Records.
25“Declarant” refers to immigrants who had ﬁled their “declaration of intention tonaturalization.” Ethel Bird, Separated Families and the Immigration Law (New York:YWCA, 1927), 3–4, reel 100, YWCA Records; For family provisions in the 1921 Act

108

YUKI ODA

and the 1924 Act, Oda, “Family Unity in U.S. Immigration Policy,” (PhD Diss, Columbia
University, 2014), chapter 1.
26
Section 4a, Immigration Act of 1924, 43 Stat. 154.
27
Case no. 43, in International Institutes, “The Family of the Foreign-Born under
Restrictive Immigration: A Study of One Hundred Separated Families from the Records ofInternational Institutes,” (1927), 28, Box 288, folder 5, reel 195, Immigration and Refugee
Services of America, 1918–1985 (Woodbridge, CT: Primary Source Microﬁlm).
28
International Institutes, “The Family of the Foreign-Born under Restrictive
Immigration,” (1927), 3.
29
Bird, Separated Families, 3.
30“Citizenship Discouraged,” Interpreter Release 3 no. 6 (June 1924): 3–6.
31
Bremer, The International Institutes in Foreign Community Work, 11.
32
Motomura identiﬁes three models of immigration: immigration as contract, immigration
as aﬃliation, and immigration as transition. The “immigration as contract” model placesemphasis on the initial conditions of admission and permits an immigrant to live in the U.S.
only in so far as one observes the initial terms. By contrast, the concept of “immigration
as aﬃliation” values the length of period an immigrant has lived in the U.S. The longer anoncitizen lives in the U.S., the stronger his relationship with the country and his right to livein the U.S. become. Motomura, Americans in Waiting, 6–7, 9–11.
33
Bremer, The International Institutes in Foreign Community Work, 11.
34International Institutes, “The Family of the Foreign-Born under Restrictive
Immigration,” 2.
35
Yeghenian, “Present Immigration Legislation,” 42.
36International Institutes, “The Family of the Foreign-Born under Restrictive
Immigration,” 1–2.
37
Niewiadomsky, “Social Care of Newly Arrived Immigrants,” V-11, V-12.
38
Bird, Separated Families, 6.
39Case No. 93, in “The Family of the Foreign-Born under Restrictive Immigration,” 52.
40
Case no. 1 in “The Family of the Foreign-Born under Restrictive Immigration,” 7; Forage factor in immigration, Yuki Oda, “A Day Too Late”: Age, Immigration Quotas, andRacial Exclusion” in 166–186 Corrine T. Field and Nicholas L. Syrett eds., Age in America:
The Colonial Era to the Present (New York: New York University Press, 2015).
41
Cassidy, “The Increasing Importance of Naturalization,” 16; Bremer, The International
Institutes in Foreign Community Work, 4.
42Case no. 52 in “The Family of the Foreign-Born under Restrictive Immigration,” 32.
43
Aristide R. Zolberg, A Nation by Design: Immigration Policy in the Fashioning ofAmerica (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2006), 264–265.
44
The plan of an international agency specializing in assistance of migrants was originallyproposed in 1914 at a World YWCA conference in Stockholm attended by delegates from
YWCAs in seventeen countries. In 1920, the World’s Committee of the YWCA conducted asurvey on overseas migration in ten countries and established the new agency’s headquarters
in London, which later moved to Geneva. IMS separated from the YWCA, partly because ina number of European countries, YWCAs were small sectarian organizations not equipped
for technical programs and also because aﬃliation with a Protestant organization added
diﬃculties in gathering support from the government and the public in Catholic countries.
World’s YWCA, International Migration Service: June 1920 to June 1922 (London:
World’s YWCA, 1922); International Migration Service, Migrants (Geneva: International
Migration Service, 1927); International Migration Service, Migrants: New Standards ofInternational Practice (Geneva: International Migration Service, 1930).
45
Elizabeth Russell Hendee, “Niagara Falls Conference of International Institutes,”FAMILY UNITY AND “NONCITIZEN CITIZENSHIP”

109

Woman’s Press 19 no. 8 (Aug 1925): 573.
46
Aghavnie Yeghenian, “Present Immigration Legislation and What Attitude the InstituteShould Take,” (paper, annual conference of International Institutes, 1925), 41; reel 100 : 6,
YWCA Records.
47
Gary Gerstle, “The Protean Character of American Liberalism,” American Historical
Review 99 no. 4 (1994): 1059.
48
Yeghenian, “Present Immigration Legislation,” 41, 45.
49
Elizabeth W. Clark, “Conference on International Institute Work,” Woman’s Press 17
no. 8 (Aug. 1923): 186; Edith Terry Bremer, “The National Conference of Social Work: An
Interpretation,” Woman’s Press 23 no. 10 (Oct. 1929): 682; Cecilia Razovsky, “The Visa andQuota Laws as They Aﬀect the Clients of Social Agencies,” in National Conference of Social
Work, Proceedings 1925 (Chicago: U of Chicago Press, 1925), 599–607.
50International Conference of Private Organisations for the Protection of Migrants,
Separation of Families of Migrants: Reports and Resolutions (Geneva, 1926), 6–7, 10; Ruth
Larned, International Social Service: A History, 1924–1955 (Geneva: International Social
Service, 1956), 38.
51
Separation of Families of Migrants, 33.
52
Senate Committee of Immigration, Admission of Certain Relatives. 69th Cong., 1st sess.,
1926, 34–36.
53
Minutes of the National Board of the YWCA, Jan 12, 1927, reel 3, YWCA Records.
54“And Who Is My Neighbor?” Woman’s Press 18 no. 11 (Nov. 1924): 503–504.
55
Oda, “Family Unity in U.S. Immigration Policy,” 51–54.
56“Oppose Any Change in Immigration Law,” New York Times, April 8, 1926.
57“Proposed Alien Bill Would Admit 577450,” New York Times, Feb 25, 1926; House
Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, Admission of Certain Relatives. 69th Cong.,
1st sess., 1926, 7, 62.
58
U.S. Department of Labor, Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration
1925 (Washington DC: GPO, 1925), 28; U.S. Department of Labor, Annual Report of theCommissioner General of Immigration 1926 (Washington DC: GPO, 1926), 23; Neuringer,
American Jewry, 190–198.
59“The Family of the Foreign-Born under Restrictive Immigration: A Study of One
Hundred Separated Families from the Records of International Institutes,” (1927).
60
Cecilia Razovsky, “Humanitarian Eﬀects of the Immigration Law,” in National
Conference of Social Work, Proceedings 1927 (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1927), 520.
61
Razovsky, “Humanitarian Eﬀects of the Immigration Law,” 520.
62
Adena Miller Rich, “Separated Families,” in Proceedings of the National Conference ofSocial Work, 1927, 530–547.
63“Legislative Bulletin no. 4,” Interpreter Releases, May 3, 1928.
64
Bird, Separated Families, 6; Elizabeth R. Hendee, “Informal Report on Legislative
Work for Reuniting Families,” (paper, annual conference of International Institutes, 1928),
reel 100: 6, YWCA Records; Minutes of the National Board of the YWCA, Jan 18, 1928,
reel 3, YWCA Records; Marian Schibsby, “Pending Immigration Legislation,” in National
Conference of Social Work, Proceedings 1928 (Chicago: U of Chicago Press, 1928),
498; “Is the Quota More Sacred than the Family?” Interpreter 6 no. 8 (Oct. 1927): 4–7;
YWCA Department of Immigration and Foreign Communities, National Oﬃce Newsletter(Jan 1928); 1.
65
House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, Amendments to Immigration Act
of 1924: Nonquota and Preference Provisions, 69th Cong., 1st sess., 1928, 4–5.
66
Act of May 28, 1928, 45 stat 654.

110
67

474.

YUKI ODA
Hazel G. Omsbee, “Jenkins Says Reunite,” Women’s Press 23 no. 7 (July 1929): 473–

68
Elizabeth Eastman, “The Capital Letter,” Woman’s Press 24 no. 5 (May 1930): 343;
Mary McDowell, “The Quota Law and the Family,” in National Conference of Social Work,
Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work, 1930 (Chicago: U of Chicago
Press, 1930), 478.
69
Edith Terry Bremer, “How the Congress Made up Its Mind,” Women’s Press 22 no. 8(Aug. 1928): 527–529.
70
In the ﬁrst ﬁve months after the order, consulates denied 96,883 visas on this ground.
Zolberg, A Nation by Design, 268–269.
71
Mohl, “Cultural Pluralism in Immigrant Education,” 46, 52; Mohl and Betten, “Ethnic
Adjustment in Industrial City,” 374–375.
72
General Discussion “A New Era in Foreign Community Work,” (paper, annual
conference of International Institutes, 1933), reel 100 : 6, YWCA Records.
73
Other members included American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress,
Federal Council of Churches, Foreign Language Information Service, Immigrant’s Protective
League, League for American Citizenship, National Association of Travelers Aid Societies,
National Catholic Welfare Council, National Council of Jewish Women, National Council
on Naturalization and Citizenship, Protestant Episcopal Church. Daniel Erwin Weinberg,“The Foreign Language Information Service and the Foreign Born: A Case Study of Cultural
Assimilation Viewed as a Problem in Social Technology” (PhD diss., U of Minnesota, 1973):
233–234.
74
Senate Committee of Immigration, Suspension for Two Years of General Immigration
into the U.S. 71st Cong., 3rd sess., 1930, 15–18; “Fight Proposed Ban on All Immigration,”
New York Times, Dec. 16, 1930.
75
Foreword to Proceedings of the 1933 Annual Conference of International Institutes(1933), 6, YWCA Records.
76“Committee Named on Ellis Island,” New York Times, June 23, 1933; Ellis Island
Committee, Report of Ellis Island Committee (New York, 1934), 5, 122.