Speech #890139726

I cannot see how anyone of reasonable intelligence can really blame the American people for wishing to maintain their cultural. ethnic. and political traditions in their historic context. My experience in traveling in the countries of the world has been that these people are not so naive or unsophisticated as to expect us to change the composition of this country to satisfy some criticism at this moment in history. In considering the charge that American immigration policy discriminates. it is only necessary to examine the policies of other nations to readily establish that they all show a strong preference for people culturally and racially similar to their own. Some nations exclude Immigrants strictly on the basis of race and religion. However. other than those nations which have these outright bans on certain groups. most countries empower a Cabinet officer. usually the Minister of Labor or Immigration. with total discretion in admitting immigrants. The laws of other countries are usually vague and the particular immigration official is guided only by considerations of labor supply. the health and character of the immigrant and the ability to become readily assimilated into the native population. It is this wide discretion which other nations use to maintain an unofficial national origins system. Persons of foreign races are always most difficult to assimilate and. therefore. constitute a moral basis for the Minister of Labor to exclude them. The 1952 Immigration Act of Canada. while not distinguishing specifically between races. empowers the Canadian officials with the right to exclude anyone who indicates a probable inability to become readily assimilated. or to assume the duties and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship within a reasonable time after their admission. The Scandanavian countries show a decided preference in their laws for their own kind. Germany and Austria have special arrangements governing the interchange of citizens. There are a number of countries in the world which have no immigration policy whatever. and this is due to the fact that they are overpopulated and have been primarily concerned with emigratiqn. I am not at all critical of the immigration policies of other countries because of the fact that they are similar to our own. I submit that they have a reasonable basis for showing a preference for their own and that no country can be expected to import problems approaching the insoluble. It is easily understandable to me why Britons prefer to chance the destruction of the Commonwealth rather than the destruction of the United Kingdom by passing by the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962. One need only look at the present IndiaPakistan war. or the secession of Singapore from Malaysia to appreciate the valid and legitimate reasons for making distinctions of race and religion in immigration policy. I would like to quote a short excerpt from Kenneth Rivetts book "Immigration: Control or Colour Bar." Melbourne. 1962. in which he discusses the 1952 Immigration Act of Canada. I have selected this reference material as indicative of most nations policy on immigration and naturalization. The quotation from this book is as follows: The 1952 Immigration Act (of Canada) did not distinguish specifically between European and Asian migrants. but left the government power to issue regulations governing the admission or exclusion of migrants (under art. 61) on grounds of: I. Nationality. citizenship. ethnic origin. occupation. class or geographical area of origin. II.