Mr. Chairman. one of the most important discussions that we have had oii the floor of tile House--and it has been repeated several tineswas on the consideration of the immigration bill. I need not describe how intense the feeling and sharp the contest on those occasions. Some of us were heartily in favor of making the immigration laws more stringent. Others thought that the present laws were adequate. Now. in this case it seems to me that those who were in favor of the immigration bill as well as those who most bitterly opposed it ought certainly to be in favor of giving the Immigration Service all the means whereby the present laws can be rigidly enforced. The amount here appropriated is not suflicient. A most casual reading of the hearing will convince anyone of its utter inadequacy. The Immigration Department estimates ask for $200.000 more tham is provided for in this bill. The amount desired by the department and which is covered in the estinmate is the anount that was granted by Congress two years ago. It was the amount that has heretofore been carried. and last year was the first time that the Committee on Appropriations reduced the amount. Aside from the increased immigration on the Canadian. Pacific. and southern boundaries. which demand this estimated increase. there are many important functions that the Immigration Department is now called upon to perform. I recall that in ily city last year the immigration inspector was laid off twice. furloughed. as they call it. without pay. That Is injust and should be remedied. It seems to me that if other employees in the Federal service. and that obtains in practically all the departments of the Government. are laid off with pay and given 30 (lays and 15 days leave of absence with pay. it is an unjust discrimination to exact of the employees of the Immigration Service the hardship not only of not being granted any leave of absence. but to be laid off without pay.
Keywords matched
Immigration immigration