1. Resolution for an Investigation of the Official Conduct of Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor; James L. Houghteling, Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Labor; and Gerard D. Reilly, Solicitor, Department of Labor, to Determine Whether or Not They Have Been Guilty of Any High Crimes or Misdemeanors Which, in the Contemplation of the Constitution, Requires the Interposition of the Constitutional Powers of the House, H.R. 311 76th Cong. (1939).

2. Zolberg, Aristide R., A Nation by Design: Immigration Policy in the Fashioning of America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), 271–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. Tichenor, Daniel J., Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002), 158–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. Zucker, Bat-Ami, “Frances Perkins and the German-Jewish Refugees, 1933–1940,” American Jewish History 89, no. 1 (2001): 35–59 Google Scholar; Kraut, Alan M., Breitman, Richard, and Imhoof, Thomas W., “The State Department, the Labor Department, and German Jewish Immigration, 1930-1940,” Journal of American Ethnic History 3, no. 2 (April 1, 1984): 5–38 Google Scholar.

5. Stewart, Barbara MacDonald, United States Government Policy on Refugees from Nazism, 1933-1940 (New York: Garland Publishing, 1982), 568–69Google Scholar.

6. Zucker, “Frances Perkins and the German-Jewish Refugees, 1933–1940,” 37–38; Rebecca Brenner Graham, “No Refuge,” Contingent Magazine, August 23, 2019, https://contingentmagazine.org/2019/08/23/no-refuge/.

7. Ngai, Mae M., Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004), 82–86 Google Scholar; Pitkin, Thomas M., Keepers of the Gate: A History of Ellis Island (New York: New York University Press, 1975), 166 Google Scholar.

8. Ettinger, Patrick W., Imaginary Lines: Border Enforcement and the Origins of Undocumented Immigration, 1882-1930 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2009), 163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. Calavita, Kitty, Inside the State: The Bracero Program, Immigration, and the I.N.S. (New Orleans: Quid Pro, 2010), 1–2 Google Scholar.

10. Goodman, Adam, The Deportation Machine: America’s Long History of Expelling Immigrants (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2020), 37–39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. Hernandez, Kelly Lytle, Migra!: A History of the U.S. Border Patrol (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010), 54–55 Google Scholar.

12. Kang, S. Deborah, The INS on the Line: Making Immigration Law on the US-Mexico Border, 1917-1954 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 75–86 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. McCubbins, Mathew D., Noll, Roger G., and Weingast, Barry R., “Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control,” Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 3, no. 2 (1987): 243–77Google Scholar; McCubbins, Mathew, Noll, Roger, and Weingast, Barry, “Structure and Process, Politics and Policy: Administrative Arrangements and the Political Control of Agencies,” Virginia Law Review 75, no. 2 (January 1, 1989): 431–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14. Epstein, David and O’Halloran, Sharyn, Delegating Powers: A Transaction Cost Politics Approach to Policy Making under Separate Powers (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 7–8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Their model includes lawmakers combining legislation as having some aspects as vague and others as detailed.

15. McCubbins, Noll, and Weingast, “Structure and Process, Politics and Policy,” 444, 472.

16. Wood, B. Dan and Bohte, John, “Political Transaction Costs and the Politics of Administrative Design,” The Journal of Politics 66, no. 1 (February 1, 2004): 183–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17. Moe, Terry M., “The Politics of Bureaucratic Structure,” in Can the Government Govern? ed. Chubb, John E. and Peterson, Paul E. (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1989), 268 Google Scholar; Moe, Terry M., “The Politics of Structural Choice: Toward a Theory of Public Bureaucracy,” in Organization Theory: From Chester Barnard to the Present and Beyond, ed. Williamson, Oliver E. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 146–49.Google Scholar

18. Wood, B. Dan and Waterman, Richard W., “The Dynamics of Political Control of the Bureaucracy,” The American Political Science Review 85, no. 3 (1991): 821–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wood, B. Dan and Waterman, Richard W., “The Dynamics of Political-Bureaucratic Adaptation,” American Journal of Political Science 37, no. 2 (1993): 500–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nou, Jennifer, “Intra-Agency Coordination,” Harvard Law Review 129, no. 2 (2015): 489–90Google Scholar; Whitford, Andrew B., “Decentralization and Political Control of the Bureaucracy,” Journal of Theoretical Politics 14, no. 2 (2002): 186–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eisner, Marc Allen and Meier, Kenneth J., “Presidential Control versus Bureaucratic Power: Explaining the Reagan Revolution in Antitrust,” American Journal of Political Science 34, no. 1 (1990): 276–77, 282–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I consider these features part of the definition for structure provided by McCubbins et al., which is discussed later, because these features bear on resources and authority in public agencies.

19. Shapiro, Stuart, “Structure and Process: Examining the Interaction between Bureaucratic Organization and Analytical Requirements,” Review of Policy Research 34, no. 5 (September 2017): 683–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20. Moe, Terry M. and Wilson, Scott A., “Presidents and the Politics of Structure,” Law and Contemporary Problems 57, no. 2 (1994): 15–19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21. Howell, William G. and Lewis, David E., “Agencies by Presidential Design,” The Journal of Politics 64, no. 4 (2002): 1111–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22. Lewis, David E., “The Adverse Consequences of the Politics of Agency Design for Presidential Management in the United States: The Relative Durability of Insulated Agencies,” British Journal of Political Science 34, no. 3 (2004): 400–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23. Neil V. Hernandez, “Immigration & Naturalization Policy Innovation through Bureaucratic Reorganization” (PhD diss., City University of New York Graduate Center, 2015).

24. The creation phase consists of four steps: crisis, policy making constraints, risks, and agency merger. Hernandez, “Immigration & Naturalization Policy Innovation,” 16.

25. Hernandez, “Immigration & Naturalization Policy Innovation,” 1–3, 16. In this paragraph and the prior one, I provide a definition of the liberal bureaucrat as making administrative decisions to loosen operational rules. In contrast, I see the restrictive bureaucrat as faithfully carrying out policies.

26. The reference to the years here, and subsequently for those references about data, is for the fiscal year running from July 1 of the prior year to June 30 of the noted year.

27. Marinari, Maddalena, Unwanted: Italian and Jewish Mobilization against Restrictive Laws, 1882-1965 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28. Stewart, United States Government Policy on Refugees from Nazism, 1933-1940, 17.

29. Zolberg, A Nation by Design, 291.

30. Ngai, Impossible Subjects, 84.

31. Immigration Act of 1924, Pub. L. No. 68-139, 43 Stat. 153 (1924).

32. Twenty-First Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1933 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1934), 46, 53. This report indicates that the number of admissions in 1831 includes visitors.

33. Franklin D. Roosevelt, “White House Statement Summarizing Executive Order 6166,” in The American Presidency Project (website), ed. Gerard Peters and John T. Woolley, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/white-house-statement-summarizing-executive-order-6166. In a manuscript of a speech she drafted in 1940, she noted that her department recommended the creation of the Service. Frances Perkins, “Memorandum of Accomplishments of the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Fiscal Years July 1933 to July 1940, Inclusive (with corrections),” July 1940, 8, box 52, Frances Perkins Papers, Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Columbia University in the City of New York (hereafter cited as FPP-RBMC). Also, she met with FDR in the Oval Office the day he made the announcement. “June 10th, 1933,” Franklin D. Roosevelt Day by Day: A Project of the Pare Lorentz Center at the FDR Presidential Library, http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/daybyday/daylog/june-10th-1933/.

34. Martin, George, Madam Secretary, Frances Perkins (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1976), 245 Google Scholar.

35. Frances Perkins, “Address before the Commonwealth Club of California: ‘Deportations of Aliens,’” 19 February 1940, 15–16, box 52, FPP-RBMC.

36. Frances Perkins, interview by Dean Albertson, Columbia University (1955): pt. 4, sess. 1, 254.

37. Twenty-Second Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1934 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1935), 47.

38. Moe, “The Politics of Bureaucratic Structure,” 281. Alternatively, Andrew Whitford contends that “decentralization of responsibility and authority over policy formulation and implementation involves a net loss of political control.” Whitford, “Decentralization and Political Control of the Bureaucracy,” 167.

39. To FDR, she described the commissioner as a resourceful doer: “Col. MacCormack is a man of ingenuity and extremely practical, as well as forceful in handling all administrative problems.” Frances Perkins to Franklin D. Roosevelt, 15 March 1933, 2, Official file box 1, Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum, Hyde Park (hereafter cited as FDRL).

40. “Daniel W. MacCormack,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, September 27, 2013, http://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history-24.

41. Frances Perkins to Franklin D. Roosevelt, 15 March 1933.

42. Perkins, “Address before the Commonwealth Club of California: ‘Deportations of Aliens,’” 16–17.

43. Nou, “Intra-Agency Coordination,” 422–24.

44. Twenty-Second Annual Report, 1934, 47.

45. Moe, “The Politics of Bureaucratic Structure,” 282–84.

46. Twenty-Second Annual Report, 1934, 47.

47. MacCormack, Daniel W., The Spirit of the Service (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1934), 1Google Scholar.

48. Van Vleck, William C., The Administrative Control of Aliens: A Study in Administrative Law and Procedure (New York: Da Capo Press, 1971), 54, 251Google Scholar.

49. Uhl, Byron H., Immigration Procedure at Seaports (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1934), 4Google Scholar.

50. MacCormack, The Spirit of the Service, 4.

51. Oppenheimer, Reuben and Wickersham, George W., Report on the Enforcement of the Deportation Laws of the United States (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1931), 177 Google Scholar.

52. Brown, W. W. and Charles, R. M., Warrant and Deportation Procedure (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1934), 3 Google Scholar.

53. MacCormack, The Spirit of the Service, 4.

54. Ngai, Impossible Subjects, 83.

55. Eisner and Meier, “Presidential Control versus Bureaucratic Power: Explaining the Reagan Revolution in Antitrust,” 271, 275–77, 282–84.

56. Immigration Laws: Immigration Rules and Regulations of January 1, 1930, as Amended up to and including December 31, 1936 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1937), 133.

57. Uhl, Immigration Procedure at Seaports, 5–6.

58. Twenty-Second Annual Report, 1934, 62; Twenty-Eighth Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1940 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1940), 107. In 1933 the data for those debarred due to the public charge clause was not in the annual report for the INS.

59. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1936 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1936), 96; Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1940 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1941), 108.

60. Moe and Wilson, “Presidents and the Politics of Structure,” 18–19.

61. Twenty-Second Annual Report, 1934, 54. German nationals in the United States were among the top ethnic groups becoming Americans. Of those issued citizenship papers from 1934 to 1940—a total of 1,125,006—the top five former nationalities were (with their numbers in parentheses) the British Empire (300,137), Italy (171,523), Germany (141,081), Poland (124,901), and the Soviet Union (69,052). Twenty-Eighth Annual Report, 1940, 115; Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1937 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1938), 103; Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1941 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1942), 115. The German nationals included Jews, whose share of immigration increased from 10.3 percent to 52.2 percent between 1933 and 1940. By way of comparison, Italians did not seem to stimulate immigration via naturalization. The percentage of Italians, as a share of total immigration, declined slightly from 7.9 percent to 7.8 percent from 1933 to 1940. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1935 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1935), 102; Statistical Abstract, 1941, 111. This data aligns with Marinari’s assertion that Italians resisted US citizenship. Marinari, Unwanted: Italian and Jewish Mobilization against Restrictive Laws, 1882-1965, 4–5.

62. Based on family ties, the laws allowed some immigrants to be exempt from the quota requirements or to avoid long waits for quota-visas. Immigration Laws and Rules of January 1, 1930, with Amendments from January 1, 1930 to May 24, 1934 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1935), 179. This regulation was an important option for those trying to flee the Reich.

63. In 1933, 10,254 immigrants received nonquota or preference visas through their citizen relatives. Twenty-First Annual Report, 1933, 63. Between 1934 and 1940 the average number of these individuals was 15,046. Twenty-Second Annual Report, 1934, 70; Twenty-Third Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1935 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1936), 94; Twenty-Fourth Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1936 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1936), 103; Twenty-Fifth Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1937 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1937), 93; Twenty-Sixth Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1938 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1938), 108–9; Twenty-Seventh Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1939 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1939), 106; Twenty-Eighth Annual Report, 1940, 117. The total number of immigrants from 1933 to 1940 was 395, 716. Statistical Abstract, 1941, 107.

64. W. G. Strench to James L. Houghteling, 22 December 1938, box 17W3, Records of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Record Group 85, National Archives Building, Washington, DC (hereafter cited as INS-NA).

65. Twenty-Second Annual Report, 1934, 59; Twenty-Eighth Annual Report, 1940, 103. In 1933 total immigration from Germany was 1,919. Statistical Abstract, 1936, 99. Between 1934 and 1940, the average annual number of admissions was 14,426. Statistical Abstract, 1936, 99; Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1938 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1939), 100; Statistical Abstract, 1941, 110. As far as Jews coming from the Reich, the INS had not provided their numbers in its annual report for 1933. For the period from 1934 to 1940, the growth is notable considering that only 45 German Jews had reportedly come to the United States in 1932. Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration to the Secretary of Labor, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1932 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1932), 84.

66. In December 1936, the State Department notified some of its “consulates that they had occasionally interpreted the LPC provision improperly.” “More liberal instructions” were issued in January 1937. Kraut, Breitman, and Imhoof, “The State Department, the Labor Department, and German Jewish Immigration, 1930-1940,” 18–19.

67. Immigration Laws: Immigration Rules and Regulations of January 1, 1930, as Amended up to and including December 31, 1936, 136–37.

68. Rule 3(C) permitted issuance of the cards for border crossers to work in the United States. Immigration Laws and Rules of January 1, 1930, with Amendments from January 1, 1930 to May 24, 1934, 121, 130–30A. This rule was amended by immigration officials to preclude them and it was sustained by the Supreme Court. Karnuth v. United States, 279 U.S. 231 (1929). This case involved Canadians coming over the border to work.

69. Wilmoth, G. C., Mexican Border Procedure (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1934), 1–7 Google Scholar.

70. Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1944 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1944), 81. In 1935 the Labor Department ceased making this data public. Twenty-Third Annual Report, 1935. The numbers of migrant workers allowed to enter under Perkins’s watch was not apparently disclosed until the INS issued its 1944 report, well after she was no longer in charge of it.

71. Perkins, “Deportations of Aliens,” 53–54.

72. Frances Perkins, “The Relation of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Department of Labor,” 1939, 1, box 51, FPP-RBMC.

73. Twenty-First Annual Report, 1933, 19–20.

74. G. C. Haas, “Memorandum on the Business Situation,” 23 December 1935, 1–2, 4–5, Subject file box 118, FDRL. In the same year, INS reported that there were “increased opportunities for employment.” Twenty-Third Annual Report, 1935, 96. Then in 1936 it indicated that emigration from the United States “may be checked by the improvement of economic conditions.” Twenty-Fourth Annual Report, 1936, 89.

75. Ettinger, Imaginary Lines, 163–65.

76. Eisner and Meier, “Presidential Control versus Bureaucratic Power: Explaining the Reagan Revolution in Antitrust,” 269–71, 284.

77. Oppenheimer and Wickersham, Report on the Enforcement of the Deportation Laws of the United States, 178.

78. Kang, The INS on the Line, 76–77.

79. Perkins, “Deportations of Aliens,” 23–24.

80. Twenty-Second Annual Report, 1934, 50–51.

81. Pressman, Jeffrey L. and Wildavsky, Aaron B., Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland; or, Why It’s Amazing That Federal Programs Work At All, This Being a Saga of the Economic Development Administration as Told by Two Sympathetic Observers Who Seek to Build Morals on a Foundation of Ruined Hopes (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 69, 118Google Scholar.

82. Twenty-Second Annual Report, 1934, 50–51.

83. Twenty-First Annual Report, 1933, 53; Twenty-Eighth Annual Report, 1940, 107, 110.

84. Goodman, The Deportation Machine, 37–40.

85. Wood and Waterman, “The Dynamics of Political-Bureaucratic Adaptation,” 523–25.

86. Immigration Act of 1917, Pub. L. No. 64-301, 39 Stat. 874 (1917).

87. Report of the Activities of Section 24 Officers, 1930-1932, n.d., 2–5, box 84, FPP-RBMC.

88. Frances Perkins interview, pt. 4, sess. 1, 205, 207, 213.

89. Report of the Activities of Section 24 Officers, 1930-1932, 4–5. The effort in Detroit resulted in the removal of 15 individuals.

90. Frances Perkins interview, pt. 4, sess. 1, 214–15.

91. Frances Perkins, “Section 24 Telegrams,” 14 March 1933, box 4, FPP-RBMC. The secretary credited Robe Carl White, a Labor Department official, with the idea.

92. Twenty-Second Annual Report, 1934, 74.

93. The Head tax was collected from new arrivals and naturalization fees were paid by immigrants who filed applications to become US citizens. Twenty-First Annual Report, 1933, 64, 83.

94. Twenty-Second Annual Report, 1934, 47.

95. Memorandum by I. F. Wixon to the Chief Clerk, 16 March 1934, box 17W3, INS-NA.

96. The data for expenditures and employees in 1933 is combined from the bureaus of Immigration and Naturalization. Twenty-First Annual Report, 1933, 23, 25; Twenty-Second Annual Report, 1934, 32–34; Twenty-Third Annual Report, 1935, 48, 50; Twenty-Fourth Annual Report, 1936, 52, 55; Twenty-Fifth Annual Report, 1937, 42, 55; Twenty-Sixth Annual Report, 1938, 55, 75; Twenty-Seventh Annual Report, 1939, 47, 66; Twenty-Eighth Annual Report, 1940, 52, 75.

97. Statistical Abstract, 1941, 107–8.

98. McCubbins, Noll, and Weingast, “Structure and Process, Politics and Policy,” 431–32.

99. Twenty-Seventh Annual Report, 1939, 89.

100. Twenty-Second Annual Report, 1934, 72.

101. Pitkin, Keepers of the Gate, 160–61, 169.

102. Twenty-Fifth Annual Report, 1937, 85; Twenty-Sixth Annual Report, 1938, 96; Twenty-Seventh Annual Report, 1939, 90; Twenty-Eighth Annual Report, 1940, 103.

103. Ellis Island Committee, Report of the Ellis Island Committee (New York: n.p., 1934), 14, 41–42, http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/4847871.

104. The program was ambitious, as it consisted of 59 buildings. Design and construction took place between 1930 and 1943. U.S. General Services Administration, U.S. Border Inspection Stations, July 2011 (Washington, DC: Public Buildings Service, Center for Historic Buildings), 3, 5. This report was provided courtesy of the U.S. General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, Center for Historic Buildings.

105. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Report on Standard Type of Customs-Immigration Inspection Buildings for Border Highways, March 13, 1928, 2–5. This report was provided courtesy of the U.S. General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, Center for Historic Buildings.

106. This number was the annual average of border crossers (who were “aliens”) between 1933 and 1940. The Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the Year Ended June 30, 1972 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1972), 72.

107. Twenty-Second Annual Report, 1934, 60–61.

108. There were 20 other buildings, but these were “ancillary:” They were garages, residences, and pump houses. U.S. General Services Administration, U.S. Border Inspection Stations MPS (Washington, DC: Public Buildings Service, Center for Historic Buildings, n.d.). This report was provided courtesy of the U.S. General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, Center for Historic Buildings.

109. Of the three types of designs, only property type number 3 had specific spaces for detention and hearing rooms. U.S. Border Inspection Stations MPS, 5–6, 9–11. The General Services Administration opines that in property type number 2 sites there may have been capacity for detention. U.S. Border Inspection Stations MPS, 24–25. Yet, in 1932 the Treasury Department rejected requests by immigration officials who tried to add spaces for imprisonment and inquiries. W. W. Husband to Treasury Secretary, 19 September 1932, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Immigration. The then labor secretary advised the immigration commissioner to comply with Treasury’s directive. “Communication of the Chief Clerk to the Commissioner General of Immigration,” 29 September 1932, U.S. Department of Labor. Both of these documents were provided courtesy of the U.S. General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, Center for Historic Buildings.

110. Meier, Kenneth J. and O’Toole, Laurence J., “Political Control versus Bureaucratic Values: Reframing the Debate,” Public Administration Review 66, no. 2 (2006): 177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

111. Wood and Waterman, “The Dynamics of Political Control of the Bureaucracy,” 822.

112. Statistical Abstract, 1941, 107.

113. Statistical Abstract, 1941, 108. Twenty-First Annual Report, 1933, 53; Twenty-Second Annual Report, 1934, 63, 65; Twenty-Third Annual Report, 1935, 90–91; Twenty-Fourth Annual Report, 1936, 99–100; Twenty-Fifth Annual Report, 1937, 90; Twenty-Sixth Annual Report, 1938, 100; Twenty-Seventh Annual Report, 1939, 95; Twenty-Eighth Annual Report, 1940, 107. Between 1936 and 1940, the numbers for repatriations, according to this report, does not include Filipinos. There was a specific law that provided for their return to the Philippines. Twenty-Fourth Annual Report, 1936, 103.

114. Zolberg, A Nation by Design, 7–8, 14–15, 21; Tichenor, Dividing Lines, 8–10, 34.

115. Marinari, Unwanted, 2, 6–7.

116. Wood and Waterman, “The Dynamics of Political-Bureaucratic Adaptation,” 507–8; Moe, “The Politics of Bureaucratic Structure,” 269–73.

117. Macey, Jonathan R., “Organizational Design and Political Control of Administrative Agencies,” Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 8, no. 1 (1992): 93–94, 108–9Google Scholar. Also, Jonathan Koppell claims that the structure of organizations can shape the preferences of lobbies, though he focuses on government-sponsored entities. Koppell, Jonathan G. S., “Hybrid Organizations and the Alignment of Interests: The Case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” Public Administration Review 61, no. 4 (2001): 472–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

118. Wyman, David S., Paper Walls: America and the Refugee Crisis 1938-1941 (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1968)Google Scholar. For instance, he found that this process caused cases to be delayed and, as a consequence, there was a backlog. Wyman, Paper Walls, 197.

119. Kraut, Breitman, and Imhoof, “The State Department, the Labor Department, and German Jewish Immigration, 1930-1940,” 6, 9, 13, 26.

120. Stewart, United States Government Policy on Refugees from Nazism, 1933-1940, 101. In 1933, Morgenthau was chairman of the Federal Farm Board. “Americans and the Holocaust: Henry Morgenthau Jr.,” United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/personal-story/henry-morgenthau-jr.

121. Breitman, Richard and Lichtman, Allan J., FDR and the Jews (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2013), 3 Google Scholar.

122. Marinari, Unwanted, 2.

123. Report of the Ellis Island Committee, iii, 41–43.

124. FDR even advised Americans to pursue the Rule 25(A) tactic. He told Kostaq Ziu to marry his fiancée, Urania Shandro, from Albania to bring her to the United States. The president noted that “the Albanian quota [was] mortgaged for several years.” Franklin D. Roosevelt to Kostaq Ziu (correspondence summary), 13 March 1940, Official files 15F-15L, box 8, FDRL.

125. Marinari, Unwanted, 5.

126. Downey notes that Perkins allowed Jews from Germany to enter the United States as “visitors” with temporary tourist visas and that some of them managed to disappear within the United States. Downey, Kirstin, The Woman Behind the New Deal: The Life and Legacy of Frances Perkins, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and the Minimum Wage (New York: Anchor Books, 2010), 194–95Google Scholar. Because the expulsion process was diminished, they were safer during her tenure.

127. Downey, The Woman Behind the New Deal, 286–87. All this work by Perkins also supported the president; Breitman and Lichtman note that he “preferred to handle any adjustment of immigration policy behind closed doors” in the early part of his presidency. Breitman and Lichtman, FDR and the Jews, 83. In one example, regarding a deportation, the president directed the State Department to temporarily halt the deportation of J. F. Normano. FDR’s reasoning was that “the sole problem seems to be [the] advisability of submitting a Jew to German jurisdiction.” Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Radio Message from Franklin D. Roosevelt to William Phillips (correspondence summary),” 23 June 1933, Official files 76 and 76c, box 4, FDRL. In this case, he was lobbied by B’nai B’rith. Alfred M. Cohen, “B’nai B’rith to Franklin D. Roosevelt (correspondence summary),” 7 July 1933, Official files 76 and 76c, box 4, FDRL.

128. The idea of using workers from Mexico and Canada was not new to the Labor Department or President Roosevelt. When he was the assistant Navy secretary during World War I, he was part of the National War Labor Policies Board, which planned for the “importation of agricultural and other labor for temporary periods, incident to keeping up production of farm products, particularly in the West and Southwest.” Also, the Immigration Bureau was supposed to bring “skilled men for the manufacture of munitions and other war materials, in cooperation with the Canadian Department of Immigration and Colonization.” “Work of the Department of Labor,” n.d., box 77, FPP-RBMC.

129. Zolberg, A Nation by Design, 269; Tichenor, Dividing Lines, 150–51.

130. Theodore G. Holcombe, “Immigration Restriction League to Samuel Dickstein,” 10 March 1934, box 235, Records of the United States House of Representatives, Record Group 233, National Archives Building, Washington, DC (hereafter cited as HR-NA).

131. Thompson, John H. and Randall, Stephen J., Canada and the United States: Ambivalent Allies, 4th ed. (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2008), 123 Google Scholar.

132. Interstate Migration: Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the Interstate Migration of Destitute Citizens, H.R. Rep. No. 369, at 114, 123, 375–76, 379 (1941).

133. Frances Perkins interview, pt. 4, sess. 1, 404, 411. The Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) enlarged its membership by bringing farmhands into the fold. In 1939, it denounced the “extreme exploitation and discrimination” of Mexicanos at the hands of “industry and agriculture.” At its convention, the CIO unanimously welcomed “them into the ranks of organized labor.” “Daily Proceedings of the Second Constitutional Convention,” Congress of Industrial Organizations, 12 October 1939, 37, box 3, FPP-RBMC.

134. In 1933 immigration from Mexico was 1,936 and for 1940 it was 2,313; expulsions to Mexico from 1933 to 1940 were 7,750 and 3,902, respectively. Statistical Abstract, 1935, 99; Statistical Abstract, 1941, 110; Twenty-Fifth Annual Report, 1937, 89; Twenty-Eighth Annual Report, 1940, 108.

135. This number is for the period between 1935 and 1940. Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1944, 81. As explained more fully below in these notes, the data for border crossers in 1933 and 1934 is not disaggregated to calculate the number of Mexicans working in the United States.

136. One of them, the Titanium Alloy Manufacturing Company, depended on its experienced staff to handle “a great amount of detail work.” R. S. Talor, “Titanium Ally Manufacturing Company to Samuel Dickstein,” 11 April 1934, box 73, HR-NA. Another one, the Spirella Company Inc., had a “considerable number of employees valuable on account of their long period of service.” Edwin Williams to Samuel Dickstein, 12 April 1934, box 73, HR-NA.

137. The agency pointed out that there was a demand for French-Canadian woodsmen, some of whom entered illegally, as their “competence is unquestioned.” Twenty-Third Annual Report, 1935, 96.

138. In 1933 immigration from Canada was 6,187 and for 1940 it was 10,806; expulsions to Canada from 1933 to 1940 were 7,750 and 3,902, respectively. Statistical Abstract, 1935, 99; Statistical Abstract, 1941, 110; Twenty-Fifth Annual Report, 1937, 89; Twenty-Eighth Annual Report, 1940, 108.

139. This number is for the period between 1935 and 1940. Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1944, 81. As mentioned above, these data are not available in disaggregated form for 1933 and 1934 to report on the numbers of Canadians who crossed the border to work in the United States.

140. Twenty-Second Annual Report, 1934, 48; Twenty-Fourth Annual Report, 1936, 89.

141. John B. Trevor to Franklin D. Roosevelt, 23 January 1935, 1, 3, box 109, Records of the United States Senate, Record Group 46, National Archives Building, Washington, DC. The Coalition was technically correct about legal interpretation because bonds were posted for the children through an informal agreement among the Labor and State departments and the German-Jewish Children’s Aid. Memorandum by James L. Houghteling for the Second Assistant Labor Secretary, 20 October 1939, 1–2, box 17W3, INS-NA. This arrangement was unofficially endorsed by Congress. Kraut, Breitman, and Imhoof, “The State Department, the Labor Department, and German Jewish Immigration, 1930-1940,” 14.

142. Perkins, Frances, The Roosevelt I Knew (New York: Viking Press, 1946), 316–19Google Scholar.

143. Downey, The Woman Behind the New Deal, 273–77.

144. Daniel W. MacCormack, “General Order No. 230,” 16 January 1936, box 17W3, INS-NA; Immigration Laws and Rules of January 1, 1930, with Amendments from January 1, 1930 to May 24, 1934, 188; Immigration Laws: Immigration Rules and Regulations of January 1, 1930, as Amended up to and including December 31, 1936, 197–98. To get around the requirement of witnessing newcomers who entered without permission, officers would “put a man in transit.” They would force the newcomer to leave his “shelter” to claim the newcomer continued to be engaged in an unlawful entry. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Secretary of Labor’s Committee on Administrative Procedure, (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1940), 73–76, https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=7bulmwEhhLwC&pg=GBS.PP4&hl=en.

145. Unlike debarments for which admissions are directly related, deportations are more difficult to analyze in relation to changes in the undocumented population. In 1935, the agency estimated that there were 3.5 to 10 million people who entered the United States without permission and, thus, were subject to deportation. Twenty-Third Annual Report, 1935, 78. However, the range of this estimate is broad. Therefore, I use the net immigration numbers, that is, the difference between immigrants and nonimmigrants who entered and departed the United States. As noted in this section of the article, the agency closely monitored net immigration. Also, I estimate that such numbers were more likely to trigger deportation activities depending on changes to the numbers.

146. Hernandez, Migra! 64, 67. It should be noted that the internal review of the INS, which was commissioned by Perkins (and discussed in the next section), considered border patrol officers to be excellent to the extent that some transferred to work as immigration inspectors. Also, this report indicates that one reason these officers stood out was because “the Patrol has a recruiting and training program possibly unexcelled in the Federal Government. It gets good men and trains them thoroughly.” The Immigration and Naturalization Service, 147–48. In sharp contrast, Hernandez has the opposite opinion regarding the Border Patrol’s training program between 1934 and 1937. Hernandez, Migra! 67.

147. Kang notes that in 1940, based on the internal review mentioned immediately before, there were tensions between “central office” and “field office procedure” regarding the deportations of the undocumented. This issue was due, in part, to the lack of an administrative manual, as policies and procedures were not centralized in one repository, nor were they updated. Kang, The INS on the Line, 82–86. This situation was apparently exacerbated by Perkins, who sent staff mixed messages. On one hand, she curbed deportations of the undocumented earlier in the period. On the other hand, the Service took the extraofficial action of issuing border-crossing cards to Mexicans and Canadians, who did not obtain visas, to work in the United States.

148. The process to permit a voluntary departure necessitated departmental approval according to the report prepared for Perkins of the internal review she initiated in 1938. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, 34. Thus, the processing of voluntary departures was not completely informal.

149. Twenty-Sixth Annual Report, 1938, 100, 102.

150. Perkins, The Roosevelt I Knew, 360–61.

151. Although the driving force for system redesign was national security, there were other important considerations. For one, liberal lawmakers appreciated the urgency of the Jewish plight after Kristallnacht in 1938. They advanced bills to save individuals and families. Relief of Sundry Aliens, H.R. 548 76th Cong. (1939), 2–4; Ernst Gottlieb, Wife Margot, and Daughter Mary, H.R. 2972 76th Cong. (1940), 1–2; Robert H. Jackson, Attorney General, to Samuel Dickstein, U.S. Representative, New York, 20 September 1940, 1, box 114, HR-NA. Also, in 1936 Congress pressed Perkins about the large numbers of migrant workers who crossed state lines; legislators were concerned about their social and economic needs. Study, Survey, and Investigation of Migratory Workers, S. Rep. 74-2396, at 1 (1936). Subsequently, she reported on notable social conditions that the migrant workers faced, including state officials not encouraging children to attend schools. Frances Perkins, “Press Release (Text of Letter to the Senate),” 4 July 1937, 2, 4–5, box 49, FPP-RBMC.

152. Moe, “The Politics of Bureaucratic Structure,” 284–85; Moe, “The Politics of Structural Choice: Toward a Theory of Public Bureaucracy,” 146.

153. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, 64–66.

154. Perkins, “Memorandum of Accomplishments of the Immigration and Naturalization Service,” 34–37.

155. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, 17–18, 62–66, 139–43.

156. MacCormack passed away on January 1, 1937. He was succeeded by Houghteling. “Daniel W. MacCormack: Commissioner General of Immigration-April 27, 1933–Aug. 9, 1933; Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization-August 10, 1933–Jan. 1, 1937,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/commissioners-and-directors/daniel-w-maccormack; “James L. Houghteling: Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, August 26, 1937–July 31, 1940,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/commissioners-and-directors/james-l-houghteling.

157. Stewart, United States Government Policy on Refugees from Nazism, 1933-1940, 411–12.

158. Investigation of Un-American Activities and Propaganda: Report of the Special Committee on Un-American Activities, H.R. Rep. No. 282, at 120 (1939).

159. Resolution for an Investigation of the Official Conduct of Frances Perkins, 5–10.

160. Perkins, The Roosevelt I Knew, 319.

161. Resolution for an Investigation of the Official Conduct of Frances Perkins, 11.

162. Sumner Welles to Franklin D. Roosevelt, 18 May 1940, Official files 15F-15L, box 8, FDRL. Welles also argued for the elimination of “the exemption of certain categories of aliens from … undergoing consular examination and of obtaining a visa.” This point seems to take issue with the granting of Rule 25(A) passes, as discussed in the Reconfiguration of Labor’s Immigration Functions and the Balancing Act of Interests sections of this article.

163. Downey, The Woman Behind the New Deal, 294–96; Perkins, The Roosevelt I Knew, 360–61; “Reorganization Plan No. V of 1940,” U.S. House of Representatives Office of the Law Revision Counsel United States Code, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5a-node84-leaf90&num=0&edition=prelim.

164. “Reorganization Plan No. V of 1940.”

165. Twenty-Seventh Annual Report, 1939, 214; Perkins, The Roosevelt I Knew, 319; 84 Cong. Rec. H3743–3745 (April 3, 1939) (statement of Secretary Perkins [February 8, 1939]).

166. Burnier, DeLysa, “Frances Perkins’ Disappearance from American Public Administration: A Genealogy of Marginalization,” Administrative Theory & Praxis 30, no. 4 (2008): 417–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

167. Tichenor, Dividing Lines, 151.

168. Whitford, Andrew B., “The Pursuit of Political Control by Multiple Principals,” The Journal of Politics 67, no. 1 (2005): 44–46 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

169. Koppell asserts that the government-sponsored enterprises, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, can manipulate interest groups. It should be noted that these organizations are hybrids—both public and private—and have power to influence these groups via private sector characteristics. For instance, he says these enterprises can devote money to political activities such as advertising. Jonathan G. S. Koppell, “Hybrid Organizations,” 469–71.

170. Wyman, Paper Walls, 112–13; Breitman and Lichtman, FDR and the Jews, 129–30.

171. Hernandez, Migra! 54–55.

172. Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1944, 81. The agency reports for 1933 and 1934 indicate that 174,049 Mexicans and Canadians crossed the borders to the United States with border crossing/identification cards, but these data are not disaggregated like the numbers provided between 1935 and 1940, which include those who crossed for employment, school attendance, and business or pleasure. Twenty-First Annual Report, 1933, 49; Twenty-Second Annual Report, 1934, 62.

173. This number is for those on the mainland. Statistical Abstract, 1940, 2.

174. Moe, Terry M., “Delegation, Control, and the Study of Public Bureaucracy,” The Forum 10, no. 2 (2012): 39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.