Speech #710181446

I did not want to delay the matter. but I propose to take a few minutes. Mr. President. when I came into the Senate I was assigned to the Committee on Immigration. A distinguished Senator from one of the New England States. Senator Dillingham. as I remember. was chairman of that committee. A distinguished Senator from Rhode Island. now deceased. Senator Colt. was an influential member of that committee. and subsequently became its chairman. During the time that -I was a member of that committee we had for consideration the question of a national immigration act. We were then under a temporary quota system. and I think I am able to appraise events and circumstances at their face value. I sat on that committee day by day. week by week. and even month after month- in an extensive hearing. which was the foundation of our present law. I was not a member of the committee when the 1924 act was reported.. but the fight in the committeeand that is the way to test this questionthe fight In the committee In 1922 was over the question of which census should be selected as the basis. The men In this country who were leading the fight against restrictive immigration knew very well that the time had come when there would be restrictive Immigration of some kind or another. They came before that committee fighting then. as they are fighting now. over which census should be selected as the basis 6n which the quotas should be fixed. I was a new Member of this body. with nothing else to distract my attention. and I sat there and listened to evidence and to arguments by the great Industrial groups of this country. who were opposed to any restrictive immigration. They came in and said. " Oh. what you need is selective immigration." I concede that. My good friend from Iowa Is right. If we could work out a sane and sensible immigration act. one which we could defend and maintain upon the basis of selective inmigration. there Is hardly anybody who would not support it. and by selective immigration I do not mean selecting immigrants from one country as against another. but selecting between immigrants of the same country. out of the same family. if you please. That is what I mean when I talk about selective immigration. The great Industrialists came here and said. " Oh. you need selective immigration. You do not need an immigration law which arbitrarily fixes the limit of the number of those who shall come into this country annually. But if you do. we want to select the census. because We dre interested in labor. labor of one kind and labor of another kind." The whole fight as it converged upon a point of contact was over the question of what census we would take. We struggled through that fight. Every man who opposed restrictive immigration was Insisting that we should take the 1910 or 1920 census. Every man who wanted the doors wide open was opposed to the 1890 census until he was driven away from his position. This is history. but In the light of the history of this legislation we can Interpret this present movement. So far as the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota is concerned. it would admit into the country a greater proportion of immigrants from the northern European countries than would come under the nationalorigins provision. I concede that. I do not dispute that. The sole point I make is that the moment we get away from the nationalorigins or some other defensible. logical scheme of fixing immigration. we then must choose between censuses. and the 1890 census favors the northern Europeans and the 1920 census favors the southern Europeans. and the 1930 census will favor the southern Europeans. I want to say to my friend from Iowa. and I want to say to him frankly. that I never favored the nationalorigins theory because it would cut down the number of immigrants by a fraction. I did not favor it because it would give greater representation to northern or southern or middle European nations. because I know that in a nation made up of peoples from all the lands of the earth we never can maintain steadily and undisturbed an immigration policy that is not based upon the principle of equality. The selection of the 1890 census Is an arbitrary selection. It in effect discriminates against certain of the nations. and while I frankly concede that personally I would select the 1890 census as against the 1920 census or the 1930 census or any other of the intervening censuses. while I would personally prefer it. while the 1890 census gives more northern European immigrants a chance to come in than even the national originswhile I freely concede those facts I face the fact that the selection of it is arbitrary. It In fact discriminates. and in the long run we can not maintain that sort of an immigration policy. It could be done if no one in this country did not want unrestricted immigration. but there are those who wish unrestricted immigration. I said in 1924 and I repeat now that I favored the nationalorigins theory. not because it was perfect. not because It was the most practical arrangement that could be made. because candidly it Is not. but if it is practical at all. if it can be worked out at all. I favored it because It was the basis upon which America could regulate her immigration. not without fear of criticism of other nations. but without affront to other nations. I fear no criticism of any other nation. I do not wrap the American flag around me and say "Let them criticise." That is not my kind of patriotism.