Speech #710023688

Mr. President. it is not often. indeed. it is seldom. that I find myself in agreement with and working to the same end as that being sought by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. But the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. upon hearing the report and recommendations of its committee on immigration some weeks ago. a committee which had given several years of study to this immigration question. adopted a resolution violently opposing the nationalorigins theory of immigration quotas. and I want to read that resolution: The provisions of the immigration law of 1924 which apply the quotalimit system to the countries of Europe. Asia. Africa. and Australasia. on the 1890 census basis of foreign born. have been in operation now for nearly five years. These provisions have become an accepted part of our national policy. Our Industrial and sociological life. our citizens. and our foreignborn residents. as well as foreigners abroad who are contemplating coming to this country for permanent residence. have largely adjusted themselves to this policy. During this period the socalled nationalorigins provision of the 1924 immigration law. which originally was intended to replace on July 1. 1927. the quotalimit system based on the 1810 census. referred to above. has not been In operation. This provision purposes to limit immigration from Old World countries to about 150.000. as compared with the 164.667 at present admissibleThat ought to be 153.000 or 154.000 instead of 150.000and to allow an annual quota to any nationality equal to a number which bears the same ratio to 150.000 as the number of people living here in 1920 having that nationality bears to the total number of our inhabitants. This provision has been twice postponed by Congress in the face of problems. as yet unsolved. connected with the development of a satisfactory plan for the accurate determination of the racial content of the country. It would be a mistake. in our opinion. to disrupt the adjustments which have been made under the actual operation of the law to date. and by changing the basis of present quotas unnecessarily to stir up racial antagonisms. We. therefore. recommend the repeal of the nationalorigins provision of the immigration law of 1924. and urge the continuance of the quotalimit system now in operation. based upon 2 per cent of foreignborn living in 1890. The junior Senator from Missouri showed me this afternoon a very interesting letter from a member of the immigration committee of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. a letter which I am sure he means to offer during this debate. bringing out in very clear and concise manner splendid points which ought to be voiced against this nationalorigins theory of immigration quotas. Mr. President. so much for those who have voiced their opposition to national origins. One could go along indefinitely reciting the names. and the things which the people bearing those names have had to say about the inaccuracy and the unfairness of the nationalorigins clause. and it would not be necessary either to resort to the use of one name that wascarried by a man or a woman who could fairly be accused of entertaining hyphenated American sympathies. It has been said that the percentage of accuracy in arriving at the basis of immigration quotas under the nationalorigins clause is great. But Mr. Boggs. one of the experts who has been at work on the building of nationalorigins quotas. when before the committee. told the committee that oneseventh of the population of Europe which was involved in immigration quotas found itself in territory which was different from the territory in which that element lived prior to the late war. It is a repeated contention that. because of the change in areas of countries following the late war. it has been exceedingly difficult to work out a fair basis of immigration quotas under the present and prevailing 1890 plan. But Mr. Boggs told us that only oneseventh of the population that was concerned in our immigration quotas at all was thus affected. The Senator from Pennsylvania at the time this point was brought out. immediately asked. "Are you including Russia in that?" Mr. Boggs said. " Yes. sir." The Senator from Pennsylvania then said. "And Russia is an area that has not changed sovereignty?" The point being that Mr.