Speech #680086234

There is nothing in that argument. it is begging the question. We have prohibitory laws against liquors being brought in here. but I should like to know whether the Senator from Georgia or any of those who are trying to secure the adoption of this amendment would say that a little liquor doesnot come in occasionally. So occasionally there is liable to be a smuggling in of immigrants through Mexico. through Cuba. or through any other country. but so far as the question of such smuggling and the illegal entry into this country are concerned. there would be some of that. of course. if we should have total exclusion. for immigrants would then be more zealous to get in in that way because .one -of them could come in under the quota system. We started out dealing with the question of immigration on account of the fear of a great influx of undesirable European immigration into this country following the World War. and I have been one of those who have stood for limiting and restricting to the minimum the immigration from European countries which would likely flood our country following that Great War. I supported a proposition to restrict the number to the 1 per cent quota on the 1890 census. I even supported a proposition for total exclusion for a period of three years when we previously had the question before us. but I see no necessity now when dealing with the greater problem. the big. problem. one that needs some remedy. to become alarmed and to go into hysteria about the question of 4.000 or 5.000 immigrants coming in from South American countries and a few from Cuba. There is no necessity for this proposed amendment. There is no demand for and there is no American sentiment of any consequence favorable to the idea of absolutely changing our law and our friendly relations with our neighbors in nearby countries.