Again. in section 1. line 9. the Senate bill reads: "Who can not read or write." The House bill reads: "Who can not read and write." The difference is only in a word. but will anybody claim that. in the language of the rule. it is not substantial? The one excludes all who can not both read and write. the other excludes only those who can not read or those who can not write. In the immigration figures. that is. in effect. this will make a substantial difference of tens of thousands of persons. I can not. under a point of order. go into the merits of this bill. but I may be ~ermitted to say that I much prefer the Senate bill to the House il in this respect. and the reason I prefer it is that substantial difference. Were it substantially the same. I would dislike one as much as the other. but this is. as I have said. not the case. There are other important departures of the text of this bill from that of the House bill. the one applies to all persons over 16. the other to persons over 15 years of age. the one requires the immigrant who wants to bring with him or send for his illiterate parents to be over 21 years of age and capable of supporting them. the other contains no such limitation whatever. The purpose of the rule in question is to facilitate legislation. so that a Senate bill containing practically the same provisions as a House bill may be disposed of more expeditiously. But a brake has been provided in the words "substantially the same" to protect the House against the introduction of matter which is foreign to the bill considered by its committee and which might otherwise slip through without a full knowledge of the House.
Keywords matched
immigration immigrant