Chairman. I wish to speak in opposition to the amendment. The amendment suggested by the gentleman from Oklahoma puts a great deal more discretion in the power of tie immigration inspector than the clause which he seeks to supersede. The amendment which he offers is substantially that which was presented to the committee by Mr. Marshall. president of the American Jewish Society. except In one respect. The amendment of Mr. MURRAY of Oklahoma nakes no provision for political refugees. whereas the amendmelut offered by Mr. Marshall. president of the American Jewish Society. included them. What does the gentleman from Oklahomna propose? He proposes that if an immigrant can prove to the Secretary of Labor or to the proper immigration officerlook at the discretion therethat he is coming here to avoid religious persecution of any kind. then he shall be admitted. Furthermore. the immigrant inspector is bound to regard alleged overt acts as well as alleged discriminatory or alleged oppressive laws or regulations as religious persecution. Now. who is to determine whether the immigrant who is seeking to conic in here had an overt act of persecution committed against him or not? Obviously the immigrant inspector. to whom the alien tells his story of that overt act. Why it seems to me that. instead of lessening his discretionary powers. you are putting unlimited discretion into the hands of the immigrant inspector. Under the proposed amendment he must determine not only whether laws are. in fact. discriminatory or whether. in fact. oppressive. but also whether the acts complained of by the alien seeking admission into this country were. indeed. overt acts of oppression for religious reasons. Now.
Keywords matched
immigration immigrant refugees