Well, I got to the Library of Congress this morning thinking that I still had four boxes of materials to look through in the Celler Papers. I've been working my way backwards through the collection (don't ask...it's what I usually do,) and thought that these last four would take me two days to get through. Now here I am about two hours after I started, and I'm finished. 2 of the boxes contained nothing but pamphelts from outside organizations, many of which I've already seen, and Congressional hearings, records, etc., which I've also already seen. The remaining two boxes contained general correspondence coming into Celler's office, but unlike a lot of the later records in the collection, don't seem to have any of his responses or outgoing letters.
I have to think that the disparity between earlier and later records has something to do with when the collections were donated to the Library. Celler donated all of his records through about 1956 in 1967, while he was still a Congressman. The remaider of the collection was donated in 1972 and 1977, at the end and after he left the House. Possibly once out of Congress he felt that he didn't need to hold on to quite as much?
Showing posts with label Emanuel Celler. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Emanuel Celler. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
The Importance of International Affairs in Immigration Policy, Part 2.
Continuing from my last post, today I’d like to talk about a series of documents prepared by Congressman Emanuel Celler’s office c.1954. Celler chaired the House Committee on the Judiciary, and these cases were prepared as part of testimony highlighting the extreme restrictiveness of the McCarran-Walter Act (Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952.) Celler led the fight to replace the Act, culminating in 1965 with the passage of the Hart-Celler Act (Immigration and Naturalization Act.)
Celler’s staff most probably picked this series of cases for their representativeness as the most innocent victims of the immigration system they could find, those excluded from the country because of minor crimes in their past. Here are two examples:
(1) Anneliese Else Hermine Neumann, a German girl, stole two bags of coal while working in a railway coal yard in Berlin in Jan. 1947. In 1951 she married a Sergeant Ware, and applied for an immigrant visa. Her application was denied on the grounds that she had committed a “crime involving moral turpitude.”
I find these cases extremely interesting. In both, the protagonists are wives of servicemen, whose husbands attempted to bring them over to the United States, only to find them excluded on a technicality. This admission of military brides had by this point already become a contentious topic in immigration policy, and I think it is telling that instead of using any other type of migrant (laborers, noncitizen military personnel, male immigrants from Europe, etc.,) Celler’s staff chose the spouses of servicemen. Whether this was simply to highlight the plight of “our boys overseas” who couldn’t bring in their wives, or whether it had more to do with the gendered nature of the migrants is unclear, but interesting nonetheless.
Each case references crimes committed in postwar West Germany, which seems to me to be as much of a criticism of the rule of law in West Germany (and the sorry state of its postwar society) as in the U.S. – i.e. although we refuse to allow these women in on technicalities, conditions in West Germany forced them to commit these petty crimes in the first place.
The case of Anneliese Neumann also states that Congress had to resort to a privately sponsored bill to admit her. The report implies that the McCarran-Walter Act not only discriminates unnecessarily, but also creates more work for Congress, since private bills are now required to correct its injustices.
Lastly, in the case of Edith Smith, the report goes out of its way to mention that the military had already approved the marriage, (which on policy they would do only if the spouse would be eligible to enter the U.S.,) while the consular officials, acting under the McCarran-Walter Act, denied them entry. This clash between military and civilian agencies, coming in the post-WWII and Korean War era seems to me a good way to draw on pro-military sentiment, especially overseas, to push for immigration reform. In this light this line of argument can be viewed as showing the superiority and inherent “rightness” of military authority over consular/legislative.
I’m not convinced, as Celler’s staff seemed to be, that these cases represent a failure of law rather than a failure in the interpretation of law, but the interplay between gender (military brides,) foreign diplomacy (U.S.-West German relations,) and the rule of law makes these cases an ideal window into the complexities of immigration policy after WWII, and an excellent find.
Celler’s staff most probably picked this series of cases for their representativeness as the most innocent victims of the immigration system they could find, those excluded from the country because of minor crimes in their past. Here are two examples:
(1) Anneliese Else Hermine Neumann, a German girl, stole two bags of coal while working in a railway coal yard in Berlin in Jan. 1947. In 1951 she married a Sergeant Ware, and applied for an immigrant visa. Her application was denied on the grounds that she had committed a “crime involving moral turpitude.”
“Sergeant Ware pleaded in behalf of his wife, stressing that in 1947, her father was still a British prisoner of war and her mother was incapacitated due to the fact that she had been wounded in both legs during the bombing of Berlin. There were at that time six younger children in the Neumann family, and the only reason Anneliese stole the coal was to keep the family warm.”
“There was no relief possible under the law, and Sergeant Ware had to resort to a private bill.”
(2) “Edith Ruth Smith (nee Kunick) married Sergeant Smith of the US Army in Germany in 1952. Their marriage had the prior approval of the American military authorities, but when it came to issuing an immigration visa to Mrs. Smith, it was discovered that Mrs. Smith, while 18 years old, committed “a crime involving moral turpitude”. Here are the facts as reflected in officials reports.”
“During an outing in 1948 in Stuttgart, Germany, Edith’s sister, 16 years old, climbed a walnut tree and while shaking the nuts from the tree, fell and fractured both arms. She was subsequently notified to appear at police headquarters for questioning. Edith, although not summoned, accompanied her sister because of the latter’s injuries. At police headquarters, both of them were charged with stealing walnuts from a tree, which was the property of the city of Stuttgart. The two girls paid a fine (roughly equivalent to 10 cents) but Edith Kunick, now Mrs. Paul William Smith, has been refused a visa.”
I find these cases extremely interesting. In both, the protagonists are wives of servicemen, whose husbands attempted to bring them over to the United States, only to find them excluded on a technicality. This admission of military brides had by this point already become a contentious topic in immigration policy, and I think it is telling that instead of using any other type of migrant (laborers, noncitizen military personnel, male immigrants from Europe, etc.,) Celler’s staff chose the spouses of servicemen. Whether this was simply to highlight the plight of “our boys overseas” who couldn’t bring in their wives, or whether it had more to do with the gendered nature of the migrants is unclear, but interesting nonetheless.
Each case references crimes committed in postwar West Germany, which seems to me to be as much of a criticism of the rule of law in West Germany (and the sorry state of its postwar society) as in the U.S. – i.e. although we refuse to allow these women in on technicalities, conditions in West Germany forced them to commit these petty crimes in the first place.
The case of Anneliese Neumann also states that Congress had to resort to a privately sponsored bill to admit her. The report implies that the McCarran-Walter Act not only discriminates unnecessarily, but also creates more work for Congress, since private bills are now required to correct its injustices.
Lastly, in the case of Edith Smith, the report goes out of its way to mention that the military had already approved the marriage, (which on policy they would do only if the spouse would be eligible to enter the U.S.,) while the consular officials, acting under the McCarran-Walter Act, denied them entry. This clash between military and civilian agencies, coming in the post-WWII and Korean War era seems to me a good way to draw on pro-military sentiment, especially overseas, to push for immigration reform. In this light this line of argument can be viewed as showing the superiority and inherent “rightness” of military authority over consular/legislative.
I’m not convinced, as Celler’s staff seemed to be, that these cases represent a failure of law rather than a failure in the interpretation of law, but the interplay between gender (military brides,) foreign diplomacy (U.S.-West German relations,) and the rule of law makes these cases an ideal window into the complexities of immigration policy after WWII, and an excellent find.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Researching the Library of Congress
OK, so now for the substantive post about doing research at the Library of Congress (and a bit more on the National Archives at the bottom...)
After assorted computer and access issues (see below) I finally got to pend two good days in the Library of Congress Manuscript Division. The LOC itself is split into three buildings, and the MS division is in the Madison building, away from the main reading room. Unlike the National Archives, you store your stuff in lockers inside the Manuscript reading room (though before passing through security.) Each day you check in at the security desk, and they hand you a key for the lockers (also unlike NARA, where the lockers cost $.25.) Your locker number is more or less your ID number for the day, and every time you enter or leave the room, you give the guards your number, and they mark down time of entry and exit (presumably for security reasons...I'm guessing no one really cares how long I take to use the restroom...) The reading room itself is pretty large, and even during the middle of the summer, it seems as though it can hold probably four times as many people. In general it seems like the vibe is much more casual here - most people are wearing shorts, most seem like graduate students or young professors (i.e. much younger than NARA,) and there doesn't seem to be as many casual researchers. People flock to NARA to look through genealogical records, but the LOC collections are mainly personal papers and organizational records, so I would imagine most people have a more serious research interest. (Although I did see one girl watching a movie while going through her materials!)
The advantage to doing research in more clearly defined collections like personal papers is mainly in the organization of the collections. The papers of Congressman Emanuel Celler that I came to look at were donated in two batches, instead of over time like some of the Congressional or State Department Records in NARA. This means that the collections were organized and indexed in one period, so the finding aid is pretty well put together, and pretty comprehensive. Granted it's still a print-only finding aid, and the paper itself looks like a dog might have chewed on it at some point, but it's still all there, and easily accessible. There are something like 500 boxes in the collection, and the finding aid contains an annotated list of the boxes and their contents (i.e. Box 19: Immigration, Notes and Clippings through 1954.) After looking through the collection, I think I'll need to see about 24 boxes of materials.
The archivists at LOC are incredibly helpful and friendly, and seemed very eager to try and help me with my research. Unlike NARA there are no "pull times" for materials, so you just fill out a call slip and they bring you your boxes about five minutes later. They only let you take out four boxes at a time, but again, since you can request materials at any time, it's really not a problem. (The one interesting quirk I found is that they make you fill out a new call slip every day, even if you've placed boxes on hold already. One of the archivists told me that the only real advantage of placing things on hold here is that the carts are left at the front of the stacks, instead of filed away, so you save a minute or two.)
Other advantages of researching in the Library of Congress is that they have free wifi (really helpful for googling names, acronyms, etc. that you come across while researching,) and that the desks themselves are really spacious, and don't have dividers (only two people per desk, though because of the amount of space, no one seemed to be doubled up.) The major disadvantage I've found is that while the room is pretty bright, it's not particularly well lit for taking photos. The images I'm getting from the LOC are much poorer in quality than those from NARA. Oh well...I'll need to spend much more time here before I can get a better sense of the collections, but so far what I've found has been really useful.
On a separate note, it seems like I'm starting to run out of materials at NARA I. I've looked at a lot of the materials from the 1950s, and am trying now to access some of the stuff from the 1940s, but it seems as thought the records from the 1960s are much harder to get at. For one thing, there is a blanket 50 year rule on records containing personal information, so at the very least I'd have to wait another two years before seeing the records (and up to another 10, considering my project goes through 1968.) Congress is also exempt from FOIA, so I can't exactly press for their release. There might be a workaround or two, but I think after this coming week I'll be spending the majority of my time left here at NARA II and the LOC.
After assorted computer and access issues (see below) I finally got to pend two good days in the Library of Congress Manuscript Division. The LOC itself is split into three buildings, and the MS division is in the Madison building, away from the main reading room. Unlike the National Archives, you store your stuff in lockers inside the Manuscript reading room (though before passing through security.) Each day you check in at the security desk, and they hand you a key for the lockers (also unlike NARA, where the lockers cost $.25.) Your locker number is more or less your ID number for the day, and every time you enter or leave the room, you give the guards your number, and they mark down time of entry and exit (presumably for security reasons...I'm guessing no one really cares how long I take to use the restroom...) The reading room itself is pretty large, and even during the middle of the summer, it seems as though it can hold probably four times as many people. In general it seems like the vibe is much more casual here - most people are wearing shorts, most seem like graduate students or young professors (i.e. much younger than NARA,) and there doesn't seem to be as many casual researchers. People flock to NARA to look through genealogical records, but the LOC collections are mainly personal papers and organizational records, so I would imagine most people have a more serious research interest. (Although I did see one girl watching a movie while going through her materials!)
The advantage to doing research in more clearly defined collections like personal papers is mainly in the organization of the collections. The papers of Congressman Emanuel Celler that I came to look at were donated in two batches, instead of over time like some of the Congressional or State Department Records in NARA. This means that the collections were organized and indexed in one period, so the finding aid is pretty well put together, and pretty comprehensive. Granted it's still a print-only finding aid, and the paper itself looks like a dog might have chewed on it at some point, but it's still all there, and easily accessible. There are something like 500 boxes in the collection, and the finding aid contains an annotated list of the boxes and their contents (i.e. Box 19: Immigration, Notes and Clippings through 1954.) After looking through the collection, I think I'll need to see about 24 boxes of materials.
The archivists at LOC are incredibly helpful and friendly, and seemed very eager to try and help me with my research. Unlike NARA there are no "pull times" for materials, so you just fill out a call slip and they bring you your boxes about five minutes later. They only let you take out four boxes at a time, but again, since you can request materials at any time, it's really not a problem. (The one interesting quirk I found is that they make you fill out a new call slip every day, even if you've placed boxes on hold already. One of the archivists told me that the only real advantage of placing things on hold here is that the carts are left at the front of the stacks, instead of filed away, so you save a minute or two.)
Other advantages of researching in the Library of Congress is that they have free wifi (really helpful for googling names, acronyms, etc. that you come across while researching,) and that the desks themselves are really spacious, and don't have dividers (only two people per desk, though because of the amount of space, no one seemed to be doubled up.) The major disadvantage I've found is that while the room is pretty bright, it's not particularly well lit for taking photos. The images I'm getting from the LOC are much poorer in quality than those from NARA. Oh well...I'll need to spend much more time here before I can get a better sense of the collections, but so far what I've found has been really useful.
On a separate note, it seems like I'm starting to run out of materials at NARA I. I've looked at a lot of the materials from the 1950s, and am trying now to access some of the stuff from the 1940s, but it seems as thought the records from the 1960s are much harder to get at. For one thing, there is a blanket 50 year rule on records containing personal information, so at the very least I'd have to wait another two years before seeing the records (and up to another 10, considering my project goes through 1968.) Congress is also exempt from FOIA, so I can't exactly press for their release. There might be a workaround or two, but I think after this coming week I'll be spending the majority of my time left here at NARA II and the LOC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)