Speech #830100508

Speaker. the measure before us. H. R. 6481. would authorize the entry into our country on a permanent basis of 240.000 European immigrants. such entries to be completed in 1956. These immigrants would be in addition to the approximate 200.000 that can be admitted yearly under our basic immigration law. the McCarranWalter Act. For the period during which this House resolution would be operative it would be a radical change in the McCarranWalter Immigration Act insofar as the number of immigrants allowed to come to this country yearly is concerned. naturally the most important section of that legislation. Before attempting to answer the question as to whether this radical departure from the terms of the McCarranWalter Act is a wise one. let us look at the history of immigration in our country. We had what amounted to unrestricted immigration into the United States until 1924. Anyone who reached our shores was admitted. A very intensive study had been under way for several years prior to that time for the purpose of establishing a basic immpigration law. this study finally culminating in the 1924 enactment. The 1924 act remained the immigration law of this country with the exception of the addition of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 until the passage of the McCarranWalter Act in 1952. Let us consider then. for a moment. our present McCarranWalter immigration law. especially as it relates to whether we would be justified so early after its enactment in relegating it to the scrap heap by raising its quota of admissions by about 50 percent for the period of the next 3 years. Hearings on the McCarranWalter Act started early in 1948. These hearings continued for almost 5 years. Every expert. every claimed expert. every Government official. all racial groups. every interested citizen. in fact. every group and every individual who wanted to be heard had his say on what should go into our basic immigration law and especially as to how many immigrants should be admitted yearly under the law. a major point of controversy in the extended hearings before the passage of that act. On every point at issue. the hearings were more than full. They were in the greatest detail.