Speech #590088973

Mr. Chairman. in the limited time remaining for general debate I will not have the opportunity to discuss as fully as I would wish the questions involved in the bill now before us. Whatever legislation may be necessary to safeguard our country against the commission of fraud in the naturalization of aliens ought to be enacted. To legislation that will tend to improve our naturalization laws. wherever within reason and fairness improvement can be made. there will be no objection. Every American citizen. whether native or foreign born. who desires to preserve in all their strength and greatness our American institutions would. of course. seek to keep up the excellent grade and quality of our citizenship and bring within its folds those who. being of good moral character. come to our shores with a bona fide intent to permanently dwell amongst us and to assimilate with the American people. While I congratulate the able and distinguished chairman of the committee. the gentleman from Colorado. who reports this bill. upon the arduous labor he has done and the able efforts and earnestness he has displayed in formulating the bill. I want to say that in my judgment there are several provisions in the pending measure that ought to be very much amended. Looking at -section 9 we find a provision that no alien shall hereafter be naturalized or admitted as a citizen of the United States who can not write in his own language or in the English language. and who can not read. speak. and understand the English language. In other words. it is proposed by the gentleman from Colorado that not only must the applicant be intelligent enough to read and write in some of the recognized languages. but he mist be able to read. to speak. and to understand the English language too. The distinguished chairman of the committee is always guided by such a sense of fairness and impartiality that were he upon the bench of a court having power to naturalize he probably would give to the proposed educationaltest clause a liberal interpretation. But all judges are not alikethey do not think alikeand in the construction of laws and In the administration of them their views frequently differ widely. Now. Mr. Chairman. there is no standard provided In the bill by which the judge who may be called upon to naturalize may determine the extent of the understanding of the English required of the applicant or of the applicants English speaking and reading ability or capacity. As this bill is now framed. we are asked to confer. in connection with the proposed educational qualification. a power that the judge may exercise harshly or arbitrarily. Those of this House who have among their constituencies many foreign born can. I am sure. readily conceive of cases where applicants for naturalization can speak the English to an extent sufficient to having his meaninig comprehended by his Englishspeaking neighbors. yet in such a case. though the applicant be ever so learned in his own language. the judge could say to him: You do not speak the English as well. you do not read It as readily nor understand it as fully and clearly as I judge the law requires you should. In districts where foreigners are not looked on with favor. in parts of the country where the spirit of true and fair liberality toward the foreign born has not yet found an abiding place. I can readily conceive of just such decisions being made by judges however honestly inclined. There might be as many different views upon the questions I have mooted as there are jurisdictions and tribunals for naturalization. Do you not see the difficulty that can arise upon the clause which has been called the educational qualification clause. By what standard do you say the judge shall be controlled?