The existing immigration law. in section 2. among other things. providesThat nothing in this act shall exclude. if otherwise admissible. persons convicted of an offense purely political. not involving moral turpitude. That is in the law at present. That provision has been on tme statute book for many years. and the administrative officers have again and again been obliged to exercise this function which the President describes as invidious. that is to say. the function of passing "judgmefit upon the laws and practices of a foreign Government." .The new clause.. to which the President objects. merely grants to religious refugees a special exemption analogous to that enjoyed hitherto by political refugees. Moreover. we have with 23 different nations treaties which by their terms forbid the extradition from American soil of any sojourner from a foreign land who. is pursued by his .own Government solely because of a political offense. In observing the provisions of these treaties as well as in the execution of our immigration laws. it has long been the duty of our administrative officers to exercise precisely this discrimination which alarms the President. What difference does it make to a foreign nation whether our administrative officers indict it and its people for religious oppression rather than for political oppression? For years every time we have admitted Irish and Prussian refugees to this country we have indicted foreign nations for political oppression. It has not led us to the verge of war. Why should we be alarmed if possibly at some time in the future our action might be construed into an indictment against an act of religious oppression?
Keywords matched
immigration refugees