This is a subject that somewhat inspires eloquence. involving as it does these great movements of oppressed people out of darkness into light. I agree with all that has been said by the gentlemen on either hand in this regard. This bill is stated in the report which accompanies it to be a bill which encourages immigration. The gentleman from New York says that it is a bill to protect ourselves against the immigration of those who are "criminal. pauper. or imbecile ." to shield the immigrant when he comes here. and to do this without retarding or preventing the progressof immigration. The report accompanying the bill statesand so argues my friend from New Yorkthat this measure is made necessary by a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States preventing the operation of laws of the State of New York under which heretofore immigration has proceeded. Mr. Chairman. there is not a provision in the bill. with possibly one single exception. which is not contained in the statutes of the State of New York and which is not constitutional under those statutes. The State of New York may protect its borders against the intrusion of the "criminal.- the pauper. or the imbecile." In the decision to which the gentleman refers the Supreme Court of the United States declared the New York statutes in a single respect unconstitutional in this: that those statutes undertook to impose a tax of $2.50 a head on every immigrant. This provision the Supreme Court of the United States declared unconstitutional in a State law. because it was a tax upon immigration. because it was an attempt to regulate commerce by State legislation. No provision of that kind is in this bill. The only provision of the New York statutes pronounced to be unconstitutional is omitted in the bill.
Keywords matched
immigration immigrant