Speech #630386037

It was said by one of the commissioners who filed a dissenting report that Ie did not even have -an oppotinnity to prepare his report in such form as he desired. because of the short time allotted for that purpose. I do not make these statements by way of criticism. but merely in explanation. and for the purpose of showing how minds fair and free from bias may. starting with the same data. arrive at conclusions which seem to be entirely at war with each other. The conclusion which the Immigration Commission urged. after amaking this study. was that there should be such a selection fiom among the immigrants to this country as would eliminate the undesirables. So far as that conclusion is concerned. there can be no two views. We are all opposed to the admission into this country of those who are undesirable. Our immigration laws now in force. and which have been carefully framed. contain adequate provisions for the exclusion of undesirables. There is no doubt that it is within the constitutional power of Congress to enact a law which will exclude immigrants altogether. not only those who come in the steerage. but also those who sail inthe first and second cabins of an ocean liner. Thcre is no doubt but that It is within the competency of Congress to builda Chinese wall around our country. to make of us an isolated and parochial people. in the narrowest sense of the term. Thus far. however. there has been no general tendency manifest in favor of the enactment of exclusion laws. except in the case of the Chinese. Even now there is no direct attempt to bring about the total exclusion of Immigrants. There is no doubt that Congress possesses plenary power to regulate Immigration in any way that it sees fit and to provide safeguards against the admission ofthose whose presence here would be injurious to the country. It is on that theory that our present laws exclude those who are apt to become public charges. those who are of bad character. immoral. or of criminal antecedents. those who are insane. those who are physically unfit. those who are opposed to organized -government. It is now sought to amend the immigration law so as to exclude militant suffragists. As to whether or not such an amendment is necessary. I express no opinion. We now reach a point in the process of our national legislation when It is sought to exclude another large class of Intending immigrants--thoe who are illiterate. those who are unable to read in some language or dialect the m.stical 25 words which may be submitted for their confusion by the inspector who meets them at Ellis Island orat any of the other of our ports of entry. If they are unable to satisfy the critical ear or the discriminating judgment of the philological inspector they will be compelled to return whence they came. they are deported from what were once hospitable shores. and the gate of opportunity is slammed in their very faces. However honest. industrious. and worthy they may be. they are transformed into undesirables. and their feet must not touch. the soil of the land of the free and the home of the brave. There has just been passed in the House of Representatives what is known as House bill No. 6060. introduced by Congressman BURNETT. of Alabama.. a State where but few immigrants have settled. It is intended by this bill to regulate generally the subject of immigration. It is important. for our present consideration. only from the fact that it adopts literacy as the supreme test to determine the desirability of an immigrant. Hence it becomes important to consider whether or not it is right. just. and proper. and In accordance with the best traditions of our Government or consonant with the welfare of our people and 6f humanity that such a piece of legislation shall be permitted to find- a place upon our statute book. This is not the first attempt in that direction. In 1897 a similar restrictive measure was passed by Congress and President Cleveland in the last days of his second term. on March 2. 1897. vetoed that bill. because he was opposed to it In principle. and because he deemed it contrary to the noble concepts upon which our Government was founded. one of which was toafford an asylum to all lawabiding men and women who choose to come here to take tip their abode. desious of observing our laws. and eager to become useful members of society. That was the last heard of such legislation until 1906. when it was again agitated. On that occasion the bill which contemplated a literacy test was amended so as to provide for the appointment of the Immigration Commission to whiidh I have already referred. for the purpose of investigating the entire subject in all of its numerous phases. Nothing further was done in relation to such legislation until after the Immigration Commission had reported and had � recommended as one of the possible methods of regulating immigration the adoption of a literacy test. Accordingly there was Introduced in both Houses of Congress in 1912 what is known as the DillinghamBurnett bill. which advocated the literacy test. formulated in practically the same terms as those employed in the bill which bad been vetoed by President Cleveland in 1897. That bill passed both Houses and came before President Taft..likewise in the. last days of his term. so that one of his last official acts was the consideration of this proposed law. After careful examination and study. after hearing elaborate arguments pro and con. he vetoed the bill upon practically the same grounds as those vhich had been urged against the same measurd by President Cleveland. basing his message largely upon a report made to him by Secretary Nagel. then at the head of the Department of Commerce and Labor. himself an immigrant and the son of an immigrant. who demonstrated the fallacy of the contemplated legislation. The bill was then again voted upon in Congress and the Presidents veto was sustained. Now we are in the early days of a new administration. A ain we are confronted by this same specter. and At would seem as though the time had come when it should effectually be laid away and a finality reached with respect to this kind of legislation: It must either be adopted and become a component part of our governmental machinery. a principle. in our national life. or it should be so frowned upon that it will not again appear- as a cause of vexation and as a menace to the humanitarian ideals which have made of us the great moral influence of the world. No good portent to the country can be seen in the constant agitation of a subject which involves racial distinctions and which tends to arouse the evil spirits of selfishness and intolerance. What are the arguments that are adduced in favor of the literacy test? The burden of proof certainly rests upon those who ask for the adoption of such a test to establish its necessity. It is not for those 3who are opposed to it to show cause why it should not be adopted. Our whole past history indicates. that up to the present time we have favored and encouraged immigration. The Declaration of Independence gave as one of the grievances of the American Colonies against the English Government that the latter was seeking to prevent immigration Into the Colonies. After we became independent the immigrant was t invited here. was encouraged to come. and so he has been encouraged ever since. We were but. a handful of people at the beginning of the 1791! 1014.. nineteenth century We had a country which needed development and which could not get along without Immigrants. In fact all the people who resided In the original States were either immigrants or the children of immigrants not many generations removed. And that has been the story of our country from that time to this. Take this audience. I have never seen it before today. but I venture to assert that a large proportion of those present are immigrants or the sons or daughters of immigrants. and that we will not be required to go back more than one or two generations to find that the ancestors of the representative Americans whom I am now addressing came hither from some European country. What is illustrated by those here assembled can be- duplicated in almost every one of our great cities among those In every walk of lifeyes. even In the Halls of Congrelss. We are a cosmopolitan Nation and have absorbed the best of the pioneer spirit that the brave men and noble women who came here from abroad brought with them. Our country has certainly not suffered in consequence of the adoption of a liberal Immigration policy. Are we materially. morally. and intellectually worse off than we would have been if we had confined the privileges of this blessed country to those who were here at tile end of the Revolutionary War and to their descendants? Would this country be more prosperous if its inhabitants consisted merely of the sons and daughters of the Revolution? I think you will agree with me that we would not in that contingency have materially Srogressed to where we are today. Our country would not have been eveloped as it has been. There would not have been that hum of the wheels of industry in our cities. our railroads would not have stretched from sea to sea. the farms of the Mdiddle West would not have been cultivated. the mines In the Rocky Mountains would not have been opened . the coal and the liron in our various States would not have been developed. our population would be not onethirdno. not onefourthof what it is today. and we would not have become the world power. the intellectual. the civilizing influence that we now are. if the Immigrant had not been freely admitted as a part of our population. It seems unnecessary to discuss this phase of the subject with any degree of detail . the statistics gathered by the Immigration Commission render further proof useless. The facts are so apparent to one and all of us that it is axiomatic that whatever we have accomplished materially in this country has only been rendered possible by the influx of immigration. Now. how is it In civics? Has this country deteriorated on account of the immigrant? Have we a diminished sense of public obligation? Did the immigrant during the Civil War stay at home? Did he deny himself to the country of his adoption even before he had become a citizen? I remember that whenI was a child. In the city -of Syracuse. the One hundred and fortyninth Regiment of New York Volunteers was enlisted. and Company A consisted entirely of immigrants. They fought for their new country with as much zest as they could had they been born here and had tleir ancestorsfor generatinons before been born here. In fact. those who have had occasion to study the Immigrant find that he Is apt to become Chauvinistic in his devotion to the country. They are often more Bourbon than the Bourbons. more royalist than the king. They are much more demonstrative In their attachment for the country and its Institutions than are the sons and daughters of those whose ancestors came at an early day. When you come to consider the manner In which the right of suffrage is exercised by them you will .find that. in proportion. fewer naturalized citizens neglect the duties of citizenship than nativeborn citizens. This is especially observed lI some of our older communities where immigrants are not encouraged and where a comparatively small portion of the voters actually exercise the elective franchise. I also assert that you will find less corrul)tlon among the voters who have recently migrated to this country. who are naturalized citizens. than you will In some of the homogeneous communities where practically all of the citizens are native born. I have only to call your attention to the recent disclosures in Adams County. Ohio. where practically no immigrants reside. where there are few If any naturalized citizens. and where. nevcrtheless. nearly twothirds of the nativeborn voters were disfranchised by judicial decision because they habitually sold their votes at elections. The same phenomena have been observed in Pennsylvania and in other regions where Immigrants are not welcome. The reason why these immigrants are faithful to the sacred trust of citizenship Is that they know what it is to be free. what It is to live in a land of liberty. They appreciate that great gift of freedom which is vouchsafed to them when they are permitted to land here and to become citizens. On the other hand. many of the elder inhabitants. of the elder generations* do not evince that zeal. that enthusiasm that zest in the exercise of the freemans franchise as do those who know from bitter experience what it: is not to possess those privileges. and what it means to be oppressed and to be trodden under the foot of despotism. But it is suggested by our opponents that they are not seeking to keep out intelligent Immigrantsmen who possess all these fine qualities. They say: " We admit that if everybody who came to this country were a Carl Schurz. or men of his type. then. of course. each of them would be a great asset. but the average man is not like Carl Schurz. He does not possess these. ideal qualities. He is apt to be ignorant . he is illiterate . he Is undesirable." Well. now. this argument of undesirableness is an old one. If you will read the records of Congress from 1820 on you will find that almost every class and every generation of immigrants to the United States was by some considered undesirable. If you refer to Niles Register for 1821. and other similar publications. which I had the honor of presenting to a congressional committee several years ago. you will find a rather amusing collation of material Illustrative of the idea that all who came years ago were desirable and all who come now are undesirable. It is there declared with much vehemence that the Irish is an undesirable immig rant. for lie possesses this bad quality and that bad quality. that the erman is undesirable. for lie is clannish and does not assimilate . that the French Canadian is objectionable for reasons best known to the objectors.