Speech #690008677

It is perhaps a general attribute of human nature that we are unable to see a discrimination when it is in our favor. while its removal looks like a discrimination against us. The loss of a special privilegewhen it Is one that we ourselves have enjoyedbecones the denial of a right. The suggestion that the "racial origins" plan of computing immigration quotas is discriminatory isinnocently. I am surethe exact opposite of the truth. The fact is that that method will end existing discriminations of which Germany is at present by far the greatest beneficiary. This will sufficiently appear. I believe. from a brief exanination of the recent progress of immigration legislation and consideration of some figures bearing on the subject. In 1921 we passed the socalled 3 per cent law. admitting to this country from any other country not to exceed 8 per cent of the number of people born in that country and resident in the United States by the census of 1910. This was by Its terms a temporary measure intended to limit totals. to establish the then new principle of numerical limitation. and to be the basis for a more scientific plan In the future. This law provided for admission under the quota (to which. however. there were many exceptions. including all countries of the Western Hemisphere) of some 855.000 Immigrants annually. This statute. though it did have the effect of limiting immigration and though It met with the approval of a great majority of the people of the United States. was subject to two principal objections: First. the total of admissions was too large. In the opinion of a majority of people. second. there was a very great preponderance of people from southern and eastern Europe. for the obvious reason that people from those count ies comprised a very large percentage of the more recent immigration and consequently a very large percentage of the base for measurement as fixed by the statute. Germany suffered under this law in common with England. France. and the Scandinavian countries. if their equites should be measured by their total contributions to the present blood of the United States. That theoretical standard has seemed the one to be aimed at. If immigration quotas are to be based on the number of people born in different coumtries who are residing in this country at a given time. it is obvious that the use of a late census will give a far greater quota to such countries as Italy. Greece. and Poland. that the use of a census. say. in the middle of the preceding half century would give a greater allowance to Scandinavia and Germany. and that the use of a very early census would practically limit immigration to the people of the British Isles. No apportionment based on the census of any given year would be entirely fair to all countries. Nevertheless. a census base is one capable of immediate application. and there is one. 1890. lying between the extremes above mentioned which does effect a proportionate equilibrium between two groups of countries. . The plan of basing immigration quotas upon the proportion of aliens from each country who had become naturalized. was suggested. and bills were introduced to carry it into effect. but very brief consideration showed that it would not give us a fair or desirable solution of the problem. The people who become naturalized most quickly are those who give up the least when they surrender their former allegiance. Those who become naturalized most slowly are. in the main. those whose mother. countries are most like our own. Tie Armenian. fleeing from the rule of the Sultan. is about the first to arrive at the bar of the nlturalization court. The Englishman is generally the last. Germans have varied a good deal at different times in our history. probably on account of changing political conditions in their own country. but they are by no means the first. I have yet to see any plan suggested which meets more general approval than that of basing the proportion of immigration from different countries upon the proportion of our total present blood which those countries have contributed. It is a plan of which no country can justly complain. It is a declaration to all countries. " We dont want the blood of the United States to be further changed. but we are willing to accept people from all of you at their face value on the basis of your aggregate past contribution to our present blood." Let those who are dissatisfied with this plan propose a fairer one. always bearing in mind that If they advocate a scheme which will favor themselves some other group will be working for something which will put the advantage in their own laps. Germany. for example. which in common with other northern and western countries was discriminated against by the application of the 1910 census. night find that as a result of Germans agitation for the retention of a census base which favors them. they would get a census base. indeed. but one which would discriminate against them more than the first one did. 1920 for example. That one has in its favor a good " talking point." namely. that it Is our last one. But it would leave Germany without any appreciable immigration at all. The history of the debates in Congress and the hearings before the Immigration Committees of the two Houses shows very strong advocacy of the 1920 census by powerful groups such as the Italians. Poles. and Hungarians. which are very aggressive. are led by capable men. are supported by a numerous press. and In their aggregate might present a much stronger numerical front than the Germans. The 1.890 census base was adopted in the 1924 act. to govern the first three years of its operation. in order to accomplish an apportionment between the countries of northern and western Europe on the one hand and the countries of southern and eastern Europe on the other hand. in accordanice with the total relative contribution of those countries. as two groups. to the present (1920) white population of the United States.