Speech #690008677

The Bureau of the Census has not yet completed its calculations. The foregoing figures are derived from previous census publications .and. of course. involve estimates. but they are believed to be approximately correct. If -ermany has contributed. first and last. 14.67 per cent of the present blood of the United States. she is now receiving more than twice her Just share of the total immigration allowance. If Great Britain and Ireland have given us 60.74 per cent of our blood. those Islands are now receiving only about onehalf of their equitable Immigration allowance. But our friends of the Steuben Society assert that the nationalorigins plan is unfair and discriminatory because it willenforce as a standard for fixing quotas the relative numbers- of such elements in this country as early as 1790. thereby giving British subjects an undue preference over all other races. regardless of merit. Are we to understand that we should embark upon a policy of considering the merits of different races in fixing immigration quotas? There is much to be said in favor of it. if matter of opinion could be readily reduced to matter of fact in an applicable form. But. as already stated. we rejected that plan in the interest of an absolutely nondiscriminatory law. Personally. I am thoroughly convinced that an attempt to weigh the relative merits of different racial elements of our population would stir up endless antagonisms and bitterness. could not possibly accomplish a beneficial result. and would be bound to be decided. not on its merits. phychological. physical. or economic. but by majorities regardless of merit. In fact. the Steuben Society itself recognizes the undesirability of such a discussion when it saysI can not conceive on what reasoningthat the result of the application of the racial origins method will beto classify members of those races (the later arrivals). now citizens of this country both by birth and naturalization. as of inferior stock and thus accentuate race differences in this country. with the evils resulting therefrom. What. I respectfully Inquire. could more accentuate those differences than an attempt to apportion immigration on the basis of th- assumed superior merit of one group over another group? What would less accentuate them than an apportionment based on numbers only? Our population of German descent. concededly a very valuable element. would In my opinion be making a grave mistake to raise such an Issue. At all events. this method of fixing Immigration quotas has been definitely rejected by Congress. But they say In their circulars that the racial origins amendment was a "joker" that was passed unnoticed during the session when the Japanese exclusion act occupied the attentibu LXVII59 of Congress. Japanese exclusion and the nationalorigins plan were not. as this statement would imply. the subjects of separate acts of Congress. They were parts of the same act . and. without stopping to make a calculation of the number of pages say that the latter was discussed much more than the former.