line on the other side waiting, waiting for the opportunity to come in, hoping against hope; and they have been told, of course, or rumors have run around that their numbers will be called at a certain time, and they do not know very much about the theory of the immigration quotas or the basis of the quota. So they stand waiting. I speak of it theoretically when I say "standing," they are on a list. Senator COPELAND. And that feeling extends, of course, into our own country? Commissioner HULL. Oh, yes; of course, among the relatives especially, and a change in the quota law creates confusion unquestionably. I am not concerned as to the number of people that come in. That is a matter for Congress to decide, not for us who administer the law. It is purely a question for Congress to determine. But I have expressed myself on numerous occasions as opposed to any change in the quota law. Senator COPELAND. The existing quota, law? Commissioner HULL. The quota law existing to-day. I overemphasized the fact that we have à quota law and it is very satisfactory. But the matter of changing the quota law is purely a matter for Congress. Senator COPELAND. Mr. Hull, you have distinguished company in your opinion, as there were two candidates for the Presidency, Mr. Hoover and Mr. Smith, who took the same view. Mr. HULL. I have understood so. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions you desire to propound to Commissioner Hull? (After a pause.) Now, gentleman, what is your pleasure in respect to this matter? Senator REED. I have just been handed by Mr. Boggs a tabulation which he made up to show the immigration quotas and the number of demands for places within that quota. I would like to ask that it be inserted in the record along with the map which has already gone in. The CHAIRMAN. That will be done. (Thereupon, at 12 o'clock the committee proceeded to the consideration of executive business, and at the conclusion thereof adjourned to meet Wednesday, February 6, 1929, at 10 o'clock a. m.) NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1929 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m., in the room of the Committee on Military Affairs, Capitol, Hon. Hiram W. Johnson (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. We have met this morning pursuant to the determination of the committee for hearings upon the national-origins provision of the immigration law of 1924. The secretary of the committee has advised all of the organizations and the individuals who have requested hearings of this meeting and of the opportunities that will be accorded them to present their views. We have replies from a considerable number of those who are interested, and I have a list of those to whom notification has been sent. That list embraces some hundreds of individuals and organizations. So that I assume we ought to conclude these hearings by the 1st of July next, at least. We are ready to proceed, and the first in order, I take it, because of the mention of that fact by Senator Reed when the motion prevailed the other day, will be the American Legion, and we will now hear the representative of the American Legion upon that subject. Senator REED. They tell me they have been called to another meeting, Mr. Chairman, and will be here within an hour. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Have you a suggestion to make as to what witness shall be first called, Senator? Senator REED. I should think those who want the law changed ought to be heard first, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Just as you and Senator Nye desire. Nye? Senator Senator NYE. I think the only two who indicated an intent to be asked to be heard this morning, Doctor Friedenwald or Mr. McGilbry, expected to be here by 10.30 or 11 o'clock. The CHAIRMAN. Is there anybody here this morning who desires to be heard upon the question of the national-origins provision of the immigration law? If so, we are ready to hear them. STATEMENT OF DEMAREST LLOYD, REPRESENTING DELEGATION OF PATRIOTIC SOCIETIES, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. LLOYD. My name is Demarest Lloyd. I appear here with a delegation of patriotic societies who are interested in this question and who want to speak in opposition to the Nye resolution, and for the sake of convenience they have asked me to act as spokesman. 35885-29-3 29 The CHAIRMAN. I suggest, then, Mr. Lloyd, that you proceed. Mr. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the immigration act of 1924 was widely regarded as America's second declaration of independence. But the Nation has not yet been able to obtain the great benefits which were intended. The nationalorigins provision, that vital and fundamental portion which settles the vexed question of quota apportionment, settles it in a way which is fair to every nation, and therefore bids fair to be permanent, has twice been postponed. As we see it, those postponements have not been because therewas anything the matter with national origins or because Congress was opposed to it. We feel and we believe, we can show, that those postponements have been due to a widespread misunderstanding which had its origin and inspiration, or, rather, were caused by directly and indirectly what we call "hyphenated propaganda." I I use that word advisably. It is a hard word. I use it advisedly. We are prepared to show photostatic copies of documents of secret organizations with alien purposes which a long time ago began to agitate on this question. What we want is the law as it stands. We are not asking for any change. What we have got now under this great law is only a temporary, makeshift arrangement. We do not like it because of itsarbitrary and discriminatory features. Senator REED. You refer to the 1890 basis? Mr. LLOYD. I refer to the 1890 foreign-born basis, which is now temporarily in operation. It is not a thing that looks as if it would stand up, because, being discriminatory, it is open to violent attacks. We feel it will not constitute a settlement of the question, and that this great and important subject will be a bone of contention, with danger to the cause of restriction and danger to the whole country for many years to come. The CHAIRMAN. Why? Mr. LLOYD. Sir, if the 1890 basis is discriminatory, it will be open to the charge of discrimination, and I believe that that is more of a load than any restriction law can carry. Any law to restrict immigration into this country has to stand up against terrific pressure, and a law which is discriminatory will have the added disadvantage of being open to the accusation of being unfair and, therefore, it will have two kinds of opponents: It will have the out-andout sort of alien-minded antirestrictionists, and it will also have individualistic and fair-minded people who will say this thing is quite wrong as it discriminates against this European nation in favor of that one; and the whole cause of restriction will be weakened thereby. Senator REED. It has already been attacked on that ground. Mr. LLOYD. Yes, sir. I have a statement, which I would like to come back later and make, if I might. But at any rate I have speeches made in the last campaign in which the present 1890 basis was violently attacked before a meeting of Italians because, as the speaker said, that census was picked out "because it discriminated against you people." And the same thing can be said about other nations; and we feel that there is more of a strain than the immigration laws can stand, to be up against--the alien pressure for antirestriction plus an accusation of unfairness. The CHAIRMAN. Do you not think that our immigration law at present has been generally acquiesced in? Mr. LLOYD. I do not think, sir, this question has been at all understood. I think there are a great many people who are opposed to the national-origins basis, who are temporarily rendering the lip service to the 1890 basis; but in a great many instances those people have the objective of breaking down restriction, and as soon as you get the national origins out of the way then those people who are rendering lip service to the 1890 basis will turn and attack it on those grounds I have mentioned. Senator NYE. Do you feel, Mr. Lloyd, that the 1790 census is not subject to any attack? Mr. LLOYD. I should say it is beyond any serious attack. I do not think that anything very much in this world is perfect. I should be guided by the expert opinion in cases of that kind, and, as I say, I do not think anything is perfect. The CHAIRMAN. Just what is the defect in the law at present that is being administered? Mr. LLOYD. Defect? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. The Mr. LLOYD. Well, it is discriminatory in a great many ways. quota figures, of course, you gentlemen are familiar with. I do not think there is any basis, any rhyme or reason for a basis of quotas which gives to Germany one and a half times as much as England, Scotland, Wales, and north Ireland. I do not think there is any rhyme or reason or basis or justice in quotas which give the Irish Free State, with a population of less than the State of New York, almost as much as Great Britain. I believe it is fair to say that in this restrictive law the idea was to secure assimilable immigration, and it would seem that the most assimilable kind, unless you are going to select and be highly discriminatory the other way, would be to have your incoming quotas substantially of the same composition, same kind of elements, and same proportions as found in the populations. I do not think anybody in their senses would argue that this country is one and a half times as much German as British or Irish as it is British; and as long as we are going to have immigration we might just as well have the kind that will blend in harmoniously with our existing population. The CHAIRMAN. Do you believe in any immigration at all? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. LLOYD. Well, sir, I had not made up my mind on that question. I do not think that is a practical question. I think that rather than have improper immigration, unassimilable immigration, it would be better to have exclusion, but I do not think that that is a question to be talked about or, from my point of view, considered. I try not to waste my time. The CHAIRMAN. I have no doubt you would not waste your time under any circumstances, Mr. Lloyd. But the question was asked and is entitled to an answer. Mr. LLOYD. I have not made up my mind. |