I say that for this reason: As far as my knowledge extends. there is not a single country that in modern times has boldly started upon a policy of religious persecution. They have not said. "We are attacking these inhabitants of our country because of their religion." That has been the real cause. undoubtedly. but always the governmental authorities have assigned some other cause. So when an immigrant is required to show that he is fleeing to escape religious persecution. if he is limited to strict and technical proof. he can not make it. If you do not adopt this amendment. you ought bravel& and. frankly to strike out the language of the bill itself and not pretend to be granting asylum to those who seek to escape religious persecution. well knowing at the time that probably not a sin_gle man can prove himself absolutely within that exemption. What man in the Senate can point to a single instance in modern times when any Government has by law persecuted any class of people for religions sake?
Keywords matched
immigrant