Mr. Chairman. I favor the bill as reported by the Immigration Committee. The preceding speaker let the cat out of the bag. The speakers prior to his address indicated that if we would adopt the amendment which is to be offered by the gentleman from Ohio all the fathers and mothers over 60 would be taken care of under the quota and could join their sons and daughters in this country who are American citizens. Then comes along the third batter. the gentleman from Ohio . and he approaches his opposition to the bill as reported from a different premise. indicating that if the bill as reported were enacted into law there would be a flood of these fathers and mothers 60 years of age and over coming into this country. But. my Republican colleagues. I hope you will not follow the Republican members of the Immigration Committee who are now talking. bleeding. and dying in the name of preserving our immigration laws. You older Members will recollect that when a multimillionaire milk producer from the State of Connecticut could not bring his wife in here under the immigration law because she had been convicted of three criminal charges. the Republican members of the Immigration Committee. including some who are today crying to preserve the quota. reported a bill. a special privilege bill. if you please. and spoke in favor of it on the floor of the House. They asked for an amendment of the Immigration law so that this multimillionaire could bring in his wife. notwithstanding the fact that she was a criminal and had been convicted on three different occasions. I refer to the Ulrich bill . passed in the Seventyfirst Congress. If you gentlemen wanted to preserve the integrity of our immigration laws and the quota. you had an opportunity at that time. But now. my friends. let us look at the economic side of this question. The gentleman from Ohio is fearful that if this bill was enacted as reported by the committee. a multitude of fathers and mothers 60 years of age or over would come into this country and thereby destroy the principles of the immigration quotas. Now. just reason with yourselves. How many of those aged parents 60 years of age and over will compete with American workers should they be permitted to join their Americancitizen sons and daughters in this country? I am one of those who have supported a restrictive.nondiscriminatory immigration law in order to protect the workers of America from the unfair competition of cheap foreign labor. On an identical basis I have supported a protective tariff in order to protect the workers of America and the industries of America from the unfair competition of cheaply produced foreign importations. - What is the difference whether you repeal the immigration law and allow the many millions who are now knocking at our doors to come into this country and compete at low wages with the American workers. or whether you destroy the protective tariff. like some of our demagogic Democratic brethren attempt to do. and allow millions of workers on the farms and in the factories in foreign lands to send their products into America to compete with the products of American labor and American industries without proper tariff protection? We know that the sons and daughters who are citizens of this country will support their aged parents. whether they are here or in foreign lands. For the best interests of our workers and our people and our surplus. would it not be better to permit those Americancitizen sons and daughters to bring their fathers and mothers over 60 years of age into this country and support them here. consuming the products of the American farms and American industries. rather than to permit good. hard cash to go from these sons and daughters to foreign lands in order to support their parents abroad?
Keywords matched
Immigration immigration