Upon what legal basis did Ayn Rand become a lawful permanent resident in the U.S.?

[The Laws of Biology]

The Ayn Rand Lexicon and Wikipedia provide the following information:

 

http://aynrandlexicon.com/about-ayn-rand/timeline.html 

1926:

• Departs Leningrad (January 17).
• Arrives in Manhattan (February 19).
• Hired as movie extra by Cecil B. DeMille (September)

1927:

• Hired by DeMille as junior screen writer (circa June 11)

 

1929:

• Marries Frank O’Connor (April 15).
• Hired by RKO wardrobe department

1931:

• Becomes U.S. citizen (March 13)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand 

“While working on The King of Kings, she met the aspiring actor Frank O'Connor; they married on April 15, 1929. She became a permanent American resident in July 1929 and an American citizen on March 3, 1931.[31][32][f]”

 

I have done some Googling, but so far have not been able to find any detailed information on my primary question, which is:

On what legal basis did Ayn Rand in 1929 obtain the status of a lawful permanent resident (“green card” holder) of the U.S.?

 

I assume that Ayn Rand was originally admitted to the U.S. as a tourist. I think I read that somewhere, but I’m not sure of it.  Maybe at some point she also obtained a temporary work visa.

 

A second question: Upon what legal basis was Ayn Rand able to be employed in the USA in the period from September 1926 to July 1929 (when she obtained her “green card”).

   

Edited June 8 by The Laws of Biology
To remove the excessive text in bold, which I never intended.

[Reidy]

Are you sure that the applicable laws were the same then as now?

[The Laws of Biology]

1. The Immigration Act of 1924 was “a federal law that prevented immigration from Asia and set quotas on the number of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe.” (Wikipedia). I get the impression from Wikipedia that this law’s quotas specifically applied to immigrants from Russia.
2. Also, Wikipedia says that the “permanent residence” status for non-citizens was part of the Immigration Act of 1924.

Edited June 8 by The Laws of Biology
Added paragraph numbers, for clarity.

[DavidOdden]

At the time, there were no “green cards” per se, there was simply the requirement for an immigration visa. Here is the applicable law. It allows a certain number of people to be admitted, so that 2,248 Russians could be admitted. The question of “legal basis” kind of begs the question of what is required to be admissible. I assume that she was not excludeable under any of the legal disabilities. The legal basis then reduces to “She was admitted”, meaning also that she was not the victim of whatever subjective exclusions could have been applied by consular officials.

[The Laws of Biology]

1. I have seen, on Wikipedia, detailed information about the immigration, from Scotland in 1930, of Mary Anne MacLeod, who became Donald Trump’s mother. She became a U.S. citizen in 1942, says Wikipedia, fourteen years after arriving the U.S, and six years after marrying Donald Trump’s father.
2. Here’s part of what Wikipedia provides regarding the immigration of Mary Anne MacLeod:
3. “She was issued immigration visa number 26698 at Glasgow on February 17, 1930. On May 2, MacLeod left Glasgow on board the RMS Transylvania arriving in New York City on May 11 (one day after her 18th birthday). She declared she intended to become a U.S. citizen and would be staying permanently in America.”
4. Given all the detailed information provided on Wikipedia regarding the immigration of Mary Anne MacLeod Trump, I assume that immigration documents must be available to the general public, at least for deceased persons.
5. Therefore, I wonder if the U.S. immigration documents of Ayn Rand have ever been obtained by any of her biographers.

[EC]

Why is this of any importance whatsoever? Is how every individual became a citizen in nearly 250 years of a nation and the colonial period before that (from the best of my knowledge my family on both sides lived here since that period, not counting the Native American DNA from both sides even) matter at all as long as it isn't mass groups of individuals immigrating here illegally? What is the purpose of knowing how someone exactly became a citizen nearly 100 years ago? It serves no purpose whatsoever and is completely irrelevant for any reason.

[The Laws of Biology]

1. Aristotle: “All men by nature desire to know.” (Metaphysics, book by Aristotle)
2. Furthermore, given Ayn Rand's importance as a philosopher, I think every word she ever wrote is of interest.
3. When she filled out U.S. government immigration forms, in order to enter the U.S. (1926), and in order to become a lawful permanent resident (1929), and finally in order to become a U.S. citizen (1931), she would have had to write or type answers to questions such as: "What is the purpose of your entry into the U.S.?" and "What is your occupation?"
4. I think many people would find it interesting to see what Ayn Rand wrote in response to those and other questions on those forms.
5. Also, it would be interesting to see if Ayn Rand faced any difficulties with the severe limitations established on the number of Russian immigrants allowed by the 1924 Immigration Act.
6. Ayn Rand is world historic figure. Everything about her is of interest, I think. How she went from being a citizen of Russia and the USSR to becoming an American citizen is perhaps a little story in and of itself, and I think it could be interesting. 
7. But I would agree that the most important thing is for people to study the philosophy of reason and then strive to live a reasonable life.

Edited June 9 by The Laws of Biology
Clarification added

[Reidy]

BB notes that Rand got an entry visa at the US embassy in Riga, Latvia, in part by stating (falsely) that she was engaged to a man in the USSR and planned to come home and marry him after a short visit the US.

[EC]

1 hour ago, The Laws of Biology said:

1. Aristotle: “All men by nature desire to know.” (Metaphysics, book by Aristotle)
2. Furthermore, given Ayn Rand's importance as a philosopher, I think every word she ever wrote is of interest.
3. When she filled out U.S. government immigration forms, in order to enter the U.S. (1926), and in order to become a lawful permanent resident (1929), and finally in order to become a U.S. citizen (1931), she would have had to write or type answers to questions such as: "What is the purpose of your entry into the U.S.?" and "What is your occupation?"
4. I think many people would find it interesting to see what Ayn Rand wrote in response to those and other questions on those forms.
5. Also, it would be interesting to see if Ayn Rand faced any difficulties with the severe limitations established on the number of Russian immigrants allowed by the 1924 Immigration Act.
6. Ayn Rand is world historic figure. Everything about her is of interest, I think. How she went from being a citizen of Russia and the USSR to becoming an American citizen is perhaps a little story in and of itself, and I think it could be interesting. 
7. But I would agree that the most important thing is for people to study the philosophy of reason and then strive to live a reasonable life.

Was just afraid this was leading down an anti-immigration road but as general interest in her full life there is definitely value.

[DavidOdden]

The Ayn Rand bio actually gives you the answer. As it says there, she had relatives in Chicago meaning that she was a non-quota immigrant (refer to the previous response for the law at that time).

There is no reason to believe that “in order to enter the U.S. (1926), and in order to become a lawful permanent resident (1929), and finally in order to become a U.S. citizen (1931), she would have had to write or type answers to questions such as: ‘What is the purpose of your entry into the U.S.?’ and ‘What is your occupation?’”. Any such questions on contemporary immigration forms cannot be assumed to also have existed when the visa system was first instituted – feel free to find evidence that there were such questions required for non-quota immigrants. There is an unsupported accusation that she falsely stated an intent to return to her supposed fiance in Russia, however as the more official and supported bio indicates, that statement was given to the Soviet rulers in order to allow her to leave her captivity (I think no discussion is needed regarding the propriety of that move). The only source cited in that article which incidentally has been re-cited recently (you know how internet lies spread like wildfire), the book by Mimi Gladstein makes no such accusation. Shoshana Milgram in her biographical article on Rand in A companion to Ayn Rand indicates that she traveled to the US via Riga, Berlin and Paris, increasing the number of possible embassy contact points.

The burning desire to know if fine, but fabrication and knowledge are not the same thing. In light of the available (gossamer-thin) evidence, the answer is “we do not know, we can only conjecture”.