Speech #680107855

In other words. they are willing to trespass upon the jurisdiction of the President whenever it suits thdm to do so. but they regard it as a crime when they oppose the policy in the particular instance presented. But that is not of controlling importance. The important thing -is that this legislation recognizes the subject of immigration as proper to be determined by treaty. You have asked the President to negotiate a treaty with Japan abrogating the gentlemens agreement. Suppose Japan refuses to enter into such a treaty. or suppose the President changes his policy and refuses to act upon your suggestion? Three or four days ago he announced that he was for absolute exclusion. and that opinion prevailed until the California primary had happened. and instantly after the California primary we find him forcing into the Senatefor that is what happeneda provision postponing exclusion until March 1. 1925. and requesting him to negotiate a treaty with Japan respecting Japanese immigration into the United States. If you recognize that principle as applicable to Japan. you can not. without offense. contend for a: contrary principle with other nations interested in their nationals coming to the United States. and there is no reason why you should do it. If you are going to negotiate immigration treaties with Japan. you ought to negotiate them with nations whose nationals are of the white race. There is no reason in morals or In justice why Japan should receive preferential treatment. You may say that It is not a very Important matter to make immigration an international issue. but how jealous some of you have been on this subject! I remember with what unanimity and wrath a few days ago. led by the Senator from Massachusetts. Senators on the other side of the Chamber refused to tolerate for a moment a suggestion that Japan should be consulted in connection with this subject. and now they come with a proposal to recognize the right of Japan to participate in determining who shall be admitted to the United States. If we adopt that. you abandon the position that immigration is a domestic question.