Mr. President. in view of the fact that we have an amendment pending repealing the nationalorigin clause of the immigration act of 1924. I want to say that. without intention on the part of the Senator from Pennsylvania . I am sure that his remarks may possibly by some people be construed as indicating that the amendment repealing the nationalorigin clause may be considered as an attack upon the underlying principle of the immigration act of 1924. I wish to state that the repeal of the nationalorigins clause does nothing of the kind. The question involved in the repeal of that clause has nothing to do with the increase or decrease of the number of immigrants who may come here from other countries. The question involved in the restriction of immigration is not involved in the question of the repeal of the nationalorigins clause. The bill to repeal that clause has been introduced simply for the purpose of preventing the basing of the immigration law of 1924 upon a foundation that can not be defended and which is nothing more than guesswork. The information gathered under the supervision of the experts has been found to be inaccurate and impracticable as reported by the three members of the Presidents Cabinet who had that work in hand. So I want the RECORD to show that the effort to repeal the nationalorigins clause of the immigration act of 1924 is not in any way intended to alter the policy of the Government of the United States established at that time on the question of immigration. That is an entirely different matter and should not be confused with the question of whether or not the Congress of the United States shall repeal the natiollorigins clause of that act. My bill to repeal the nationalorigins clause. instead of being an attack on our immigration policy. is rather a move to prevent that policy from becoming ridiculous. as it will be If the nationalorigins clause is made its foundation.
Keywords matched
immigration immigrants