Imagini ale paginilor

as well as 30,000 of the 40,000 separate ordnance items used by Great Britain. And in addition, 8,000,000 garments a month to clothe British and American, as well as Indian soldiers. In India, Indian labor has built nearly 2,000 miles of concrete runways for airport installations of the Allied forces.

All this has not been accomplished merely by the order of the Indian Government. Much of it has been done by the voluntary effort and the intelligent cooperation of individual Indians. Failure to extend to this people the same recognition we give to the Chinese is to work an injustice; a continued affront to the pride and self-respect of a valuable ally.

Admission of Indians on a quota basis acknowledges their partnership with us. We recognized the moral value of such an act in the case of Chima when we repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act. I think few Americans will fail to realize its equal justice with regard to India. It is seldom that a nation has the opportunity to obtain so great a profit at so little cost.

Indian good will, however, and our own moral satisfaction is not all we shall gain by the adoption of this resolution. Our position at the San Francisco Conference will be greatly strengthened in regard to discussing colonial policies of our allies. The criticism voiced frequently and widely in the United States against the colonial policies and imperialism of other nations has a certain degree of hypocrisy so long as, in our immigration laws, we ourselves refuse to treat all our allies on a basis of equality. We cannot successfully deplore a policy which we practice.

The practical aspect likewise should be taken into consideration. Next to Russia and China, India offers us the greatest potentiality for foreign trade during the rest of this century. During the war our troops, and in particular our technicians, have had opportunities to exhibit American products to young India. This rising generation of Indians has been greatly impressed by the efficiency of our railroad rolling stock, our automotive transport, and the speed with which we can establish ground facilities for aircraft.

Some headway has been made even toward overcoming the age-old prejudices of caste against modern medicine. All this predisposes ambitious young Indians toward a respect for, and interest in, American products and American production methods.

This goodwill could be, and should be made the foundation for a mutually profitable exchange of ideas and goods between the peoples of the United States and of India. It cannot develop so long as Indians are legally classed by us as undesirables.

For these reasons I introduced H. R. 1584 to permit immigration of native British Indians into the United States on a regular quota basis, and I wish to emphasize again the number so admitted will not be more than 75 Eastern Hemisphere Indians a year.

Mr. CELLER. May I call some witnesses?

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Celler some questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly, Mr. Allen.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Celler, how many Indians are there in India, about how many? Perhaps nobody knows exactly.

Mr. CELLER. About 390,000,000. Mr. ALLEN. About 390,000,000. How many are covered in your bill?

Mr. CELLER. Only the quota of 100 I mentioned is covered in my bill.

Mr. ALLEN. I know, but what I am trying to get at is this: The so-called Eastern Hemisphere Indians, does that embrace all Indians, or a national group?

Mr. CELLER. That means that from the East Indian group, could be taken each year some hundred. Now the preference up to 75 of the 100 is given to those who are living now in East India, and 25 would be allotted to those East Indians outside of India.

Mr. ALLEN. I do not believe you get my question. Are all of the Indians in India embraced in your term "East Indian"?

Mr. CELLER. Well, no. There are some people who are not East Indians technically or anthropologically who are now living in East India.

Mr. REES. What do you mean by East Indian, then?
Mr. CELLER. Well, I will be very glad to explain.
Mr. ALLEN. That is what I want to find out.
Mr. REES. As differentiated from Indians,
Mr. CELLER. Well, we have Indians in this country.
Mr. KEARNEY. Does your bill cover all the people from India?

Mr. CELLER. Covers all the people from India who are deemed East Indians according to the interpretation of the immigration authorities. That is a technical term. Mr. Shaughnessy is here, and he might answer it at this point from a technical viewpoint, if you care to have him do so.

Mr. ALLEN. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to have Mr. Edward J. Shaughnessy explain that at this point.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. EDWARD J. SHAUGHNESSY. This bill, Mr. Allen, covers the East Indians of India, the race from all over the world. In other words, if an East Indian was born in Mexico, for instance, instead of being a nonquota Indian because of being born in a nonquota country, he would be chargeable to the quota.

Mr. ALLEN. Are all Indians, East Indians?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. We use the term East Indians to distinguish them from the Western Hemisphere Indians. Your American Indian is a Western Hemisphere Indian, and the person indigenous to India is the East Indian.

Mr. ALLEN. His bill embraces everybody born in India, in Asia?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. His bill embraces all persons of the East Indian race born anywhere in the world.

There may be Indians residing in Canada, there may be Indians residing in Mexico now. They would also be eligible, but only a hundred could come in in toto.

Mr. ALLEN. You differentiate only from American Indians?
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. That is right.
Mr. MILLER. Or Western Hemisphere Indians.

Mr. CELLER. I will call Dr. Walter W. Van Kirk, executive secretary of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America. Dr. Van Kirk.

The CHAIRMAN. How much time do you want, Doctor?

Dr. WALTER W. VAN KIRK. I shall present my statement in about 5 minutes.

Tha CHAIRMAN. That is good enough.



Dr. VAN KIRK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appear before the committee this morning under the authority of a resolution approved by the executive committee of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America. This committee is comprised of the officially appointed representatives of 25 of the larger and more influential denominations of the country. The Federal Council holds to the view that insofar as our immigration and naturalization laws affecting East Indians are based on discrimination on account of race, the Congress should take immediate steps to modify these laws to the end that natives of all friendly countries, otherwise admissible, may be permitted to enter this country under the quota system and become citizens on the same terms as immigrants from nonoriental countries. It is the belief of the Federal Council of the Churches that such racial discrimination as is here referred to does violence to the Christian view of one humanity under God, is contrary to the democratic principles upon which this country was founded, and to proved scientific facts.

As I understand the bill before the committee, it is not proposed that East Indians shall be accorded any special favors but only that the stigma of racial discrimination, insofar as those people are concerned, shall be removed from our immigration and naturalization laws. This is an action dictated by the ethical precepts of the Christian religion and by the concern of the American people that the principles of democracy and fair play shall become operative throughout the world.

The Federal Council does not ask that our immigration restrictions against people of other countries be relaxed. It asks only that under such restrictions as may now be in force, and within the framework of a quota system, East Indians be not discriminated against for reasons of color. Since the number of Indians who would be affected by this legislation is so small, the action here proposed could be taken without any risk whatever to our economic, political, and cultural patterns of living.

Resolutions in support of the legislation recommended in the bill have been approved by the following religious bodies:

The Methodist Church. The Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.

The board of managers, the American Baptist Foreign Mission Society. American Board of Commissionesr for Foreign Missions, CongregationalChristian.

Foreign Board of Missions, the United Lutheran Church in America.
Board of trustees of the United Missionary Movement, Disciples of Christ.
The United Council of Church Women.

I also have expressions of personal opinion supporting this legislation from the executive officers of the following organizations:

Women's American Baptist Foreign Missionary Society.
Woman's Missionary Society, United Lutheran Church in America.
Board of International Missions, Evangelical and Reformed Church.
Board of Foreign Missions, United Presbyterian Church.
General Board of Foreign Missions, Reformed Church in America.
Woman's Foreign Board of Missions, Reformed Church in America.


[ocr errors]

Woman's Union Missionary Society of America.
Christian Missionary Alliance.
Women's Missionary Federation, American Lutheran Church.
Foreign Missionary Department, Church of God (Holiness).
General Missions Board, Church of the Brethren,

Board of Foreign Missions of the Conference of the Menonite Bretheren Church of North America.

General Missionary Board of the Free Methodist Church of North America.
The Friends Foreign Missionary Society.
Worlds Sunday School Association.
Foreign Division of the Young Women's Christian Association.
The International Missionary Council.
American Section, Missionary Medical College for Women, Vellore
International Committee, Young Men's Christian Association.

In addition to these religious bodies, I have been authorized to support the proposed legislation by the following city and State councils of churches:

Council of Churches of Buffalo and Erie County,
Church Federation of Greater Chicago.
Council of Churches of Greater Cincinnatti.
The Erie Council of Churches, Pennsylvania.
Kansas City Council of Churches.
The Federation of Churches of Rochester and Vicinity.
Portland Council of Churches, Oregon.
The United Churches of Scranton and Lackawanna County, Pa.
Wichita Council of Churches.
St. Paul Ministers Association, St. Paul, Minn.
Protestant Council of New York City.
Maine Council of Churches.
New England Council of Churches.
Missouri Council of Churches.
The Oklahoma Council of Churches.
Wisconsin Council of Churches.
Georgia Sunday School Association.

Moreover, I have received from the editors of many religious publications letters supporting the proposed legislation and authorizing me to appear before the committee on their behalf.

It is the desire of these many religious bodies and publications that the Congress shall act now to bring the practice of the American Government, insofar as the East Indian people are concerned, into accordance with its declared purpose to establish amongst the nations a new world order of justice and of human brotherhood.

If the members of this committee will endorse the provisions of these bills I am convinced their action will be supported by the overwhelming majority of the people of our Protestant churches. The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?

Mr. REES. Yes; I would like to ask a question with reference to the last statement there, that this bill would help, as you say, to bring about world Christian brotherhood.

Dr. Van KIRK. The Christian Church, and all religious bodies, as a matter of fact, would be justified in believing that action pointed in that direction-in removing the principle of discrimination from the statute-is the important matter, and the fact of numbers would not impinge so directly or immediately upon the Christian concern as to the removal of the principle of discrimination.

Mr. REES. So as you view it, it does not make much difference whether we admit only a hundred under this act, as long as the principle of discrimination is removed?

Dr. Van KIRK. That is the primary Christian concern in this matter, as I see it.

Mr. REES. You do not feel that the number is as important as the removal of discrimination?

Dr. VAN KIRK. No. If all peoples are treated alike with regard to the basis upon which they are admitted into the United States, then I would say the number is of secondary importance from the standpoint of religion, of ethical concepts.

Mr. DOLLIVER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. DOLLIVER. Are there other oriental peoples who are likewise discriminated against by the laws of the United States regarding immigration? Do you know?

Dr. Van KIRK. All orientals are discriminated against under the basic statutes of this country.

Mr. CELLER. Except Chinese.

Dr. VAN KIRK. Except Chinese, and that act was rescinded by the last Congress. With the exception of Chinese, all orientals are deemed ineligible.

Mr. DOLLIVER. Do you know what the attitude of your organization that you represent would be with respect to the other oriental nations now discriminated against?

Dr. VAN KIRK. I should say, insofar as they are countries with which this Nation is at peace, the principle would be supported by these organizations, under the quotas that have been specified.

Mr. DOLLIVER. Do you know what attitude has been taken, for instance, in this respect by our allies, Australia and Canada and Great Britain, with regard to the immigration of East Indians?

Dr. VAN KIRK. I am not sufficiently competent to answer that question in the sense that I would want my reply to be put in the record. I would rather expect, however, that the action which we are contemplating taking this morning might conceivably be said to be in advance of that which has thus far been taken by certain nations.

The CHAIRMAN. At this point may I call my colleague's attention to the fact that Canada is a nonquota country and that Australia has a quota of 100?

Mr. ALLEN. Are you through, sir?
Mr. REES. I am through.

Mr. ALLEN. Doctor, your position is that you would wipe out the statute entirely as to the discrimination against Asiatics?

Dr. Van Kirk. Those with whom our country is at peace.

Mr. ALLEN. In other words, the present law bars Asiatics, and that was revised last year with reference to the Chinese?

Dr. Van KIRK. Yes.

Mr. ALLEN. Now, you would go the balance of the way and break down the barriers entirely against all Asiatics?

Dr. VAN KIRK. That is right.
Mr. ALLEN. You include in that the Japanese?

Dr. VAN KIRK. I am speaking now about those nations with which our country is at peace.

Mr. ALLEN. Well, I know; but you just said you wanted to break down the barriers as to all Asiatics.

« ÎnapoiContinuați »