« ÎnapoiContinuați »
has been and will ever be proven in its supreme test, than those of other peoples, hence are no less desirous to the same fundamental right. With best wishes, I am Sincerely yours,
(Signed) JUAN T. BAYSA, President.
PHILIPPINE COUNCIL OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
San Diego, Calif., November 18, 1944. COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Chief, Nationals Division, Washington, D. C.: DEAR MR. ADEVA: Received your telegram yesterday, and I inquired of some of the Filipinos who wish to be American citizens.
I enclose some of their signatures for your records. I could get some more, but I didn't have enough time to be in the mail to get there in time for the hearing on Wednesday. With best wishes,
JOE GUZMAN, President, Philippine Council of San Diego.
1. Barbara Norris
19. Dolmacio R. Garcia, 916 Eleventh 2. Paul R. Guerrero, 3627 East Thirty
Street. third Street
20. A. Frisco, 2088 Harriso Avenue. 3. Alfredo Guevara (CCK), Corpus 21. A. Baltonado, U. S. S. Lenowee (A.
Christi, Tex., Naval Air Station P. A. 195). 4. Felix Bamba (CST)
22. Hilanon C. Angel, U. S. S. Wyan5. Felix J. Tobias, civil-service em
dotte (AKA-92). ployee, United States Naval 23. Salvador P. Prado, 540 Forty-fifth Hospital
Avenue, San Diego, Calif. 6. Abraham C. Ramos, commissioned officers' mess
24. Paulino Pineda, 3012 Main Street, 7. Emigdio A. Lansangan
San Diego, Calif. 8. Victor B. Barcelona
25. Q. A. Antonio, 2665 L Street. 9. Federico Mascariñas
26. Marear Sola, United States Navy. 10. Leo R. Tabinga
27. Calalino Apdechan, 538 Fourth Ave11. Braulio R. Padna, civil-service em
nue, San Diego, Calif. ployee, United States Naval 28. Gene Cortądo, United States Navy. Hospital
29. B. J. Estares, 245 Eighteenth Street, 12. Millie C. Celestial 13. Egmidio E. Baradi, growers and ship- 30. M. S. Satelo, United States Navy.
San Diego, Calif. pers of produce. 14. Joe Gayman.
31. B. P. Alivio, steward, United States 15. J. A. Pepito, 1975 Newton Avenue.
Naval Reserve. 16. J. P. Estabello, 342 Seventeenth 32. Demetrio N. Cacal. Street.
33. Santo Barcena. 17. L. P. Gonzalo, United States Naval 34. Fermin B. Pagaling. Air Station.
35. Paulino M. de la Cruz. 18. A. Diador, United States Submarine 36. Albert C. Sabitona. Squadron 45.
37. S. Pinto.
EMIGRATION OF FILIPINOS
By Dr. D. M. Yap
The emigration of Filippinos to the United States, which is practically the only country to which they have gone, has been most recent. They are not distinguished in the reports of the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice. Some indication in their immigration, however, may be obtained from the census enumerations. In 1910, there were only 160 Filipinos in the United States; in 1920, 5,603; and in 1930, 45,208. This very rapid rate of increase is due almost solely to immigration and not to excess of births over deaths.
In 1930 there were 63,052 Filipinos in Hawaii where they comprised 17.1 percent of the total population. Two-thirds of the Filipinos in the United States are in California (30,470). The only other States which have as many às 1,000 Filipinos are Washington (3,480), Illinois (2,011), New York (1,982), and Oregon (1,066). Though the Filipinos are small in number and an insignificant percentage of the total population, they have created a serious problem, especially along the Pacific coast. As Bruno Lasker states in his comprehensive and impartial discussion of the subject, the Filipino upsets the social equilibrium by settling in a relatively limited area, by competing in a relatively limited choice of occupations, and by causing hostility through his unwillingness to look upon himself as racially inferior to the white mạn, or indeed as anything other than a white man.
In the absence of Federal statistics on Filipino immigration an excellent substitute is provided in the report of the Industrial Relations Department of California (summary of this report is also compiled by the writer). During the 10 years, 1920 to 1929, 31,092 Filipinos were admitted into the State of California through the ports of San Francisco and Los Angeles. This influx began in the year 1923, when 2,426 Filipinos were admitted into the State. The largest number of arrivals came during the year 1929, when 5,795 were admitted. The movement was stimulated by the quota laws restricting European immigration. Of the total number of Filipinos who arrived in California during the 10 years covered by the industrial relations report, 35 percent came from the Philippines, 56 percent came from Hawaii and 9 percent from other ports, principally in China and Japan. Since 1920 there has been a constant increase in the numbers and proportions coming to California directly from the Philippines. Of the total number who came to California during the 10 years, 93.3 percent were males and 6.7 percent females, a ratio of 1,932 males for every 100 females admitted. The Filipinos also show a great preponderance of young people, more so than any other immigration group, with 84.3 percent of the arrivals under 30 years of age. The females are much younger than the males, over half of them being 22 years of age. About 75 percent of the Filipinos coming to California are single. Among the female arrivals the proportion married is twice as great as among the males. Only about 12 percent of the married Filipinos bring their wives with them to California.
Among the early arrivals an appreciable proportion were students who came to the mainland directly from the Philippines to complete their training for professional careers, many of them with expectations of entering the Government service. At the end of the World War a different type commenced to appear on the mainland. These were men who had been enlisted in Manila for service in the Navy and who had managed to secure their discharge in continental ports, some of them taking service in the návy yards, others finding employment in the mercantile marine, and still other finding their way into a variety of occupations. The main influx of Filipinos, which began in 1923, has brought laborers who have found employment mainly in aricultgure, domestic and personal service, in the fish canneries, and in common labor. Among the hotel, restaurant, and domestic occupations in which the Filipinos find work in California are the fol. lowing: Bell boys, bus boys, cooks, dishwashers, doorboys, hall boys, house cleaners, janitors, kitchen helpers, and pantrymen. Many employers prefer Filipino to white workers because the former are considered steadier, more tractable, and more willing to put up with long hours, poor board, and worse lodging facilities. Filipinos are used extensively in agricultural occupations. A Filipino labor contractor acts as go-between for the employers and the laborers whom he hires. He also acts as intermediary between his laborers and the grocers and other tradesmen who extend credit on necessaries of life furnished by them to the laborers. Between five and six thousand Filipinos are employed in the harvesting of the California asparagus crop. In many occupations they are displacing native white workers. This is especially true in hotel, restaurant, and domestic occupations. In industries related to fruit and vegetable farming, such as box factories, the Filipinos are replacing white laborers to such an extent that in some cities they practically hold a monopoly on such type of labor.
In the past the displacing of white workers by Filipinos and the prevailing racial prejudice against them have led to anti-Filipino riots in California and Washington. The resentment years ago in the far West against Mexican and Filipino laborers who have met the expanding labor demands of intensive agriculture now has practically disappeared. The Filipinos, like all recent arrivals, begin with jobs at the bottom of the economic ladder, but later press into other fields. Already in the cities where Filipinos aspire to vocational choice which the social traditions of the community and a sharper competition for jobs refuse to grant them. Increased hostility to the presence of a group easily distinguishAPPENDIX
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, November 20, 1944. The Honorable SAMUEL DICKSTEIN, Chairman, Committee on Immigration and Naturalization,
House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. DICKSTEIN: The Department has ben importuned at various times to support legislation to make Filipinos eligible to naturalization in the United States. While I am not unmindful of the fact that the question whether the privilege of naturalization should be extended to members of any race not now eligible to naturalization is a matter involving legislative policy, I do not consider that I would be unwarranted in pointing out that the Filipino people have long shown their attachments to the ideals and principles of the United States; that they have a long and unbroken record of loyalty to the United States; that they have valiantly resisted the invaders of the Philippines and are continuing to do so; that Filipinos are now serving in the military forces of the United States, the maritime service, and the essential war industries in this country; and that Filipinos in the United States have always been held in high esteem by the American people. While I could cite many reasons why Filipinos should be made eligible to naturalization, I know of no reason why they should not be.
I have ascertained that there are now pending before Congress a number of bills to authorize the naturalization of Filipinos. One such bill, H. R. 4826, which was introduced in the House of Representatives on May 18, 1944, by Representative McGehee and which was referred to your committee, comes nearest to meeting the views of the Department. Its enactment would make Filipino persons or persons of Filipino descent eligible to naturalization in the United States. The Department believes, however, that a proviso should be added to section 1 of the bill reading somewhat along the following lines :
“Provided, That no certificate of arrival shall be required of any Filipino person or person of Filipino descent who is now a citizen of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, and who entered the United States prior to May 1, 1934, and has since continuously resided in the United States.”
Prior to May 1, 1934, Filipino persons or persons of Filipino descent who owed allegiance to the United States generally were not considered aliens for immigration purposes and no record could have been made of their entry into the United States as aliens upon which a certificate of arrival could be issued. Since May 21, 1934, records have been made of the admission to the United States of all such persons as aliens. It would seem inequitable for a Filipino person or a person of Filipino descent who is now a citizen of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and who entered the United States prior to May 1, 1934, and has since continuously resided herein to be unable to become naturalized because of his inability to obtain a certificate of arrival. For this reason a proviso such as that suggested would seem desirable and just.
I should be pleased if the Congress in its wisdom should approve H. R. 4826 with the amendment above suggested or any similar bill having the same purpose.
The Department has been informed by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the transmission of such report as the State Department may deem appropriate after considering the suggestions made by the Attorney General in his letter dated October 17, 1944, of which a copy is enclosed, together with a copy of the letter of transmittal from the Bureau of the Budget. Sincerely yours,
E. R. STETTINIUS, Jr.,
Acting Secretary. Enclosures : Copy of letter from Attorney General; copy of letter from Bureau of the Budget.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,
Washington, D. C., November 18, 1944. The Honorable, the SECRETARY OF STATE.
MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: This will acknowledge the receipt of your letter of September 27, 1944, transmitting two copies of your proposed report to the chairman of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, relative to H. R. 4826, a bill to authorize the naturalization of Filipinos.
By reason of the interest of the Department of Justice in the subject matter of this proposal its views were requested, and there is transmitted herewith a copy of the Attorney General's letter, dated October 17, 1944, in which he favors the general objective of the bill but questions the necessity of the proviso which the State Department suggests be added to section 1 with respect to certificates of arrival and also suggests an amendment to section 1 with respect to the naturalization of persons who have been citizens of the United States but lost their citizenship prior to September 22, 1922.
One copy of your proposed report is returned herewith, and I am authorized by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to advise you that, subject to your consideration of the suggestions made by the Attorney General, there would be no objection to the Department submitting a report favorable to the enactment of the proposed legislation.
This office has advised the Attorney General that there would be no objection to his submission of a report to the committee setting forth the views expressed in his letter of October 17, 1944, addressed to this office: Very truly yours,
F. J. BAILEY,
Assistant Director, Legislative Reference. Enclosures :. Copy of proposed report, copy of letter from Justice, dated October 17, 1944.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Washington, D. C., June 20, 1944. Hon. SAMUEL DICKSTEIN, Chairman, Committee on Immigration and Naturalization,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for my views concerning several bills (H. R. 2012, H. R. 3633, H. R. 4003, and H. R. 4229) to repeal in part the statutory bar based on racial grounds against the naturalization of Filipinos.
H. R. 2012 would repeal the bar as to those Filipinos who are native citizens of the Philippine Islands and who are permanent residents of the United States.
H. R. 3633 would repeal the bar as to native-born Filipinos who served in the armed forces of the United States between April 5, 1917, and November 12, 1918, and who were honorably discharged. This bill would also exempt this group from the requirements of the naturalization laws in respect to declarations of intention and certificates of arrival.
H. R. 4003 would remove the bar as to all native-born Filipinos who prior to May 1, 1934, were admitted for permanent residence to the United States. The bill would also exempt them from the requirement of the naturalization laws in respect to certificates of arrival.
H. R. 4229 would remove the bar as to all native-born Filipinos who are permanent residents of the United States and all Filipinos and persons of Filipino descent who served in the armed forces of the United States between April 5, 1917, and November 12, 1918, and were honorably discharged. In addition, the bill would exempt them from the requirements of the naturalization laws in respect to declarations of intention and certificates of arrival.
Whether the privilege of naturalization should be extended to Filipinos is a question of legislative policy concerning which I prefer not to offer any suggestions.
According to the records of this Department, under the Alien Registration Act of 1940 the total number of aliens registered who were natives of the Philippine Islands was 83,677, of whom 78,587 were males and 5,090 were females. A
large percentage of Filipinos residing in the United States are found in Hawaii.
Referring to H. R. 2012, it is not clear whether this bill is intended to be limited only to those Filipinos who would be permanent residents of the United States on the date of approval of the act or whether it would be equally applicable to Filipinos who might thereafter become permanent residents of the United States. If this bill is to receive favorable consideration, it is suggested that as a matter of phraseology it should be modified so as to constitute an amendment to section 303 of the Nationality Code (U. S. C., title 8, sec. 703), which relates to racial bars to naturalization.
If H. R. 3633, which is limited to Filipino World War veterans, is to receive favorable consideration, I suggest for consideration the question whether the bill should not be broadened so as to include all veterans of the First World War instead of being restricted to Filipino veterans of that war.
Referring to H. R. 4003, which is directed to native-born Filipinos who were lawfully admitted to permanent residence to the United States prior to May 1, 1934, it is not clear why the date of May 1, 1934, was selected. In addition, the comments made in reference to H. R. 2012 are equally applicable to this bill.
H. R. 4229 is a combination of H. R. 2012 and H. R. 3633, as it relates to Filipinos who are permanent residents of the United States as well as to Filipino veterans of the First World War. The comments heretofore made in regard to H. R. 2012 and H. R. 3633 are equally applicable to this bill.
I have been advised by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours,
FRANCIS M. BIDDLE.
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR,
Washington, D. C., June 13, 1944. Hon. SAMUEL DICKSTEIN, Chairman, Committee on Immigration and Naturalization,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. DICKSTEIN: You have requested a report from this Department on H. R. 4229, a bill to authorize the naturalization of native-born Filipinos who are permanent residents of the United States and Filipinos who served in the military or naval forces of the United States during World War I.
If this bill is revised to accord with the principles and recommendations stated in this report, I am in favor of its enactment.
H. R. 4229 would extend the privilege of naturalization to two classes of Filipinos :
(1) Any native-born Filipino who is a permanent resident of the United States.
(2) Any Filipino or person of Filipino descent who served in the armed forces of the United States during the First World War.
Both classes would be required to comply with the usual requirements of the naturalization laws, such as 5 years' residence in the United States, except that they need not make a declaration of intention or obtain a certificate of arrival.
I am in favor of the principle that if a person is entitled to live permanently in the United States, he should be given the privilege of naturalization. In the case of Philippine citizens particularly, this is desirable. There is a special need to remedy the situation of divided family citizenship in the United States which has resulted from marriages between Philippine citizens and citizens of the United States.
If the privilege of naturalization is extended to Filipinos, however, I believe that, as a matter of general policy, they should be required to comply with all the requirements of the naturalization laws. Accordingly, I believe that the provision in this bill waiving the declaration of intention and certificate of arrival should be made applicable only to Filipinos already permanently residing in this country and not to future arrivals. Most of the former probably have now the 5 years of residence requisite for naturalization and there would seem to be no particular reason for further delaying their admission to citizenship by the time period involved in filing a declaration of intention. The same considerations do not apply to future arrivals.
As to the provisions of this bill concerning Filipino veterans, however, I see no particular purpose to be served by them if naturalization is to be extended