Speech #680075766

The question is thus presented whether it is worth while thus to affront a friendly nation with whom we have established most cordial relations and what gain there would be fromn such action. Permit me to suggest that the legislation would seem to be quite unnecessary even for the purpose for which it is devised. It Is to be noted that If the provision of subdivision (b) of section 12 were eliminated and the quota provided in section 10 of the proposed measure were to be applied to Japan. there would be a total of only 246 Japanese immigrants entitled to enter under the quota as thus determined. That is to say. this would be the numberdequal to 2 per cent of the number of residents In the United States as determined by the census of 1890 plus 200. There would remain. of course. the nonquota immigrants. but if it could possibly be regarded that the provisions of section 4 would unduly enlarge the number admitted. these provisions could be modified without Involving a statutory discrimiiation aimed at the Japanese. We now have an understanding with the Japanese Government whereby Japan undertakes to prevent the Immigration of laborers from Japan to the United States except the parents. wives. and children of those already resident here. Furthermore. the Japanese Government. Incidentally to this undertaking. now regulates Immigration to territory cotiguos to the United States. with the object of preventing the departure from Japan of persons who are likely to obtain surreptitious entry into this country. If the provision of section 12 (b) were to be deleted and the provision in regard to certificates for immigrants to this country were to become applicable to Japan. we should with the present understanding with the Japanese Government be in a position to obtain active cooperation by the Japanese authorities in the granting of passports and immigration certificates. We could. in addition. be assured that the Japanese Government would give its assistance in scrtinizing and regulating Immigration from Japan to American territory contiguous to the United States. It Is believed that such an arrangement involving a double control over the Japanese quota of less than 250 a year would accomplish a much more effective regulation of unassimllable and undesirable classes of Japanese immigrants than It would be practicable for us. with our long land frontier lines on both north and south. to accomplish by attempting to establish a general bar against Japanese subjects to the loss of cooperation with the Japanese Government In controlling the movement of their people to the United States and adjacent territories. I am unable to perceive that the exclusion provision is necessary. and I must strongly urge upon you the advisability. in the interest of our International relations. of eliminating it. The Japanese Government has already brought the matter to the attention of the Department of State. and there is the deepest interest in the attitude of Congress with respect to this subject. Third. There remains the question of the adoption of the census of 1890 as the basis of quota restriction. This has evoked representations from European countries. and especially from Italy. which regards the choice of such a basis as a discrimination against her. On December 31. 1923. I communicated to you a memorandum presented to the Department of State by the Italian ambassador and. as I have no doubt that your committee will examine these representations attentively. I shall not attempt to add any further recital of facts. In appropriately providing for a restriction of immigration. the importance of which I fully recognize. I hope that it will be possible to find some basis which will be proof against the charge of discrimination. In addition to the questions considered above. permit me to direct your attention to the following: Section 4 (c) of the proposed measure does not appear to provide for immigrants from British Honduras and British. French. and Dutch Guiana. as they would seem not to be " countries of Central or South America within the meaning of the bill (see sec. 11 (a)). It is also not clear from the provisions of section 4 (c) that it would provide for Haiti. the Dominican Republic. the British.