Speech #780106534

I do not think it was an injustice because everything we did was under and in line with a treaty to which they agreed. However. I do agree that since we reformed and reestablished our immigration policy In 1921 and 1924. and since by virtue of that law and that policy we have rendered obsolete the old statutes known as the Chinese exclusion acts. then there is no reason why we should not repeal them now. In fact I think we should do so. and I am enthusiastically in favor of passing a law to that effect. But to change our immigration policy as laid down in the laws of 1921 and 1924that is an entirely different proposition and I am opposed to it because it is not necessary to do that in order to do what we claim we are trying to do. I find that there are many people who are badly confused over certain very general terms that.are used with reference to immigration matters. Many of them fail to appreciate the importance of the term "eligible for citizenship." Likewise. they fail to understand just what a quota means. Let me develop these for just a minute. Section 303 of the present immigration laws is as follows: SEc. 303. The right to become a naturalized citizen under the provision ofthis act shall extend only to white persons. persons of African nativity or descent. and decendants of races indigenous to the Western Hemisphere. That section of the law was prepared carefully and it is as concise as it can possibly be made. Under this section it can clearly be seen that we do not extend the right of naturalization to anyone except white persons or persons of African descent and descendants of races indigenous to the Western Hemisphere. In this language we do not mention any nationality or any religion or any race. We do not mention England or Ireland or France or Sweden.