That statement was in line with the wholepolicy that has characterized the advocates of this measure from the inception of nhis proposed legislation. The House adopted thepreceding conference report (which was afterwards nonconcuredin by the Senate) notwithstanding the fact that the report. as submitted. tore Msunder families. separated husbands and wives. arents and chileren. And now we find that this measure. which involves a Sweepbichange in the immigration laws oo te United States. is to be rushed through this Htouse under a motion for the previous question. which chokes off adequate debate and prevents the opponents of this legislation from pointing out in detail its manif old faults and absurdities. The bill as now framed ftilfills practically none of the conditions for which its framers profess to have labored. With a single exception it does not exclude anyone whom the great body of American citizens desire to exclude. There is unquestionably a sentiment in this country in favor of better and closer safeguards in the administration of our immigration laws. and though American labor is interested in this question. it is not interested in this bill: The vast majority of American wage earners are liberal. broadminded. sympathetic men. and they have no desire to close the doors against those who come from Old World oppression with clean mind and healthy body and sturdy patriotism to cast in their lot with this new Republic of the West. Those whom it is the universal sentiment to exclude are the paupers. imbeciles. criminals. and other off scourings of Europe. together with alienqontract laborers. and the "birds of passage." who. retaining domicile and citizenship in other lands. fatten on the substance of our own. But whom does this law exclude?
Identified stereotypes
Generalizing immigrants as paupers, imbeciles, criminals, and offscourings of Europe.