Speech #680075766

February 8. 19.4. Mxy Dkit )[it. JOHNSON: I have received your letter of.January 28. inclosing coldls of "Committee print No. 1. selective Immigration act." requesling any recommendations the Department of State may Iesire to sulmit with respect to this measure. I hare also received a copy of I. R. C540. introduced by you on February 1. 1024. fnd my comnasullts will be made with respect to it. I fully appreciate the importance of removing present hardships by the issue of immigration certificates to those who would normally come under immigration laws. I indorse ihis policy. Assuming that treaties were not violated and immigration certificates Nere demanded of those who normally would be classed as immigrants. .1 AP RL 8 should not object to the giving of authority to consular officers to issue immigration certificates. provided. of course. that consular offices were properly equipped with the requisite staff to carry out the provisions of the law. It seems to me that the granting of such Immigration certificates might be treated as so analogous to the granting of visds as properly to come within a broad description of consular functions.. In the absence of the violation of any treaty. I assume that the admission of Immigrants to this country could be conditioned upon their receiving an immigration certificate In the manner required by our laws. although. of course. If independent machinery through special immigration officials were sought to be set up In foreigii countries such officials would have to be properly accredited to the foreign governments and could not function without the consent of the foreign state in whose territory they would act. It is hardly necessary for me to say that I am in favor of suitable restrictions upon immigration. The questions which especially concern the Department of State in relation to the international effects of the proposed measure are these: (1) The question of treaty obligations. (2) the provLion excluding Japanese. (3) the establishment of the quotas upon the basis of the census of 1890. First. Treaties: According to the terms of the proposed measure immigrant" Is defined (sec. 8) as "any alien departing from any place outside the United States destined for the United States. except (1) a government official. his family. attendants. servants. and employees . (2) an alien visiting the United States as a tourist or temporarily for business or pleasure. (3) an alien in continuous transit through the United States. (4) an alien lawfully admitted to the United States. who later goes in transit from one part of the United States to another through foreign contiguous territory. and (5) a bona fide alien seaman serving :s such on a vessel arriving at a port of the United States and seeking to enter temporarily the United States solely In the pursuit of his calling as a seaman." The result is that under this definition of "Immigrant " all aliens are subject to the restrictions of the proposed measure unless they fall within the stated exceptions. The question at once arises whether there would be aliens. not falling within these exceptions. who would be entitled to be admitted under our treaties. Article I of the treaty between the United States and Japan. concluded in 1911. provides. " The citizens or subjects of each of the high contracting parties shall have liberty to enter. travel. and reside in the territories of the other. to carry on trade. wholesale and retail. to own or lease and occupy houses. manufactories. warehouses. and shops. to employ agents of their choice. to lease land for residential and commercial purposes. and generally to do anything incident to or necessary for trade upon the same terms as native citizens or subjects. submitting themselves to the laws and regulations there established." There appears to be no such exception in the proposed measure as that contained in subdivision (5) of paragraph (a) of section 2 of the quota act of 1921. and hence the proposed restrictions would apply to Japan. not simply in relation to laborers or other classes falling outside of our treaty but with respect to those who come directly within the provisions of our treaty as above set forth. Reference may also be made to our treaties with Great Britain of 1815. with Denmark of 1826. with Norway of 1827. with Italy of 1871. and with Spain of 1902. (See Malloys treaties. conventions. etc.) In view of the provisions of section 4 (c) I have omitted reference to clauses. similar to that above quoted. in our treaties with LatinAmerican countries. In my opinion the restrictions of the proposed measure. in view of their application under the definition of "immigrant." are in conflict with treaty provisions. The exception in subdivision (2) of section 3 with respect to aliens visiting the United States " temporarily for business or pleasure " would not meet the treaty requirements to which I have referred. for this phrase would seem to indicate a stay more temporary than that permitted by these provisions anl the right established by a treaty can not be cut down without a violation of the treaty so long as It is maintained in force. Accordingly. I take the liberty of suggesting that there be included in section 3 of the proposed measure an additional exception. to read as follows: "An alien entitled to enter the United States under the provisions of a treaty." I should add that the persons entitled to enter and reside here under the terms of our treaties for the purposes of trade and commerce are not those against whom imnmigration restrictions are deemed to be necessary. Second. Section 12 (b) provides as follows: "No alien ineligible to citizenship shall be admitted to the United States unless such alien (1) Is admissible as a honquota immigrant under the provisions of subdivisions (b). (d). or (gi of section 4. or (2) is the wife or unmarried child under 18 years of age of an immigrant admissible under such subdivision (d). and is accompanying or following to join him. or (3) is not an immigrant as defined in section 3." In determining the effect of this provision it should be noted that subdivision (b) of section 4 relates to " an Immigrant previously lawfully admitted to the United States who is returning from a temporary visit abroad." Subdivision (d) of the same section relates to immigrants who seek to enter the United States solely to carry on "the vocation of minister of any religious denomination. or professor of a college. academy. seminary. or university." And subdivision (g) of the same section relates to immigrants who are bona fide students seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of study at an accredited college. academy. seminary. or university approved by the Secretary of Labor. It is apparent that section 12. subdivision (b). taken in connection with sections 3 and 4 of the proposed measure. operates to exclude Japanese. This is Inconsistent with the provision of the treaty of 1911. above mentioned. and. with respect to those defined as immigrants who do not come within the treaty. it establishes a statutory exclusion. So far as the latter class is concerned. the question presented is one of policy. There can be no question that such a statutory exclusion will be deeply resented by the Japanese people. It would be idle to insist that the provision is not aimed at the Japanese. for the proposed measure (see. 25) continues in force the existing legislation regulating Chinese immigration and the barredzone provisions of our immigration laws. which prohibit immigration from certalv other portions of Asia. The practical effect of section 12 (b) is to single out Japanese immigrants for exclusion. The Japanese are a sensitive people. and unquestionably would regard such a legislative enactment as fixing a stigma upon them. I regret to be compelled to say that I believe such legislative action would largely undo the work of the Washington Conference on Limitation of Armament. which so greatly improved our relations with Japan.