The amendment apparently is very. very strange to many of my colleagues. If the baneful results suggested by the Senator from Mississippi . the Senator from Alabama . and others who have spoken. might flow from this amendment. then. of course. the amendment ought to be defeated. If this amendment will bring the flood of immigration that has been suggested. if it will drive. through this bill. the wedge that has been here adverted to. I grant you that the amendment ought to be defeated. and had I thought that it would do any of those things I can assure you I never would have offered it at all. I offered the amendment because we have not by this bill departed from our immigration policy of the past. By this bill we do not seek to build a wall around the United States. nor do we endeavor by this bill to prevent immigration entirely. for .an indefinite or for a temporary period. By this bill. admittedly. very many immigrants will be permitted to come in. and the only difference between our immigration policy under this bill and the immigration policy which we have followed in the past is a mere matter of degree. I repeat. if this amendment would have the effect that has been suggested it ought to be defeated. But follow with me just a moment to see whether that is the fact. I want to say. as I said last night. that had we had an immigration bill such as the Senator from Mississippi and myself voted for in the committee. the original Johnson bill. which came from the House. I would not have attempted at all to present this amendment and preserve what is a very dear and perhaps a sentimental policy to me. But inasmuch as we did not do that thing and inasmuch as we are here with our old immigration policy. I ask that we continue the policy that has been ours in respect to those persecuted religiously and politically in other climes. Our friends on the other side say that millions will come in undr this amendment if we adopt it.
Keywords matched
immigration immigrants