House Report 2405, part 4, Seventy-first Congress, third session

RESTRICTION OF IMMIGRATION

JANUARY 31, 1931.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. GIBSON, from the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, submitted the following

MINORITY VIEWS

[To accompany H. J. Res. 473]

While I recognize the need of relieving the present unemployment situation in the United States, I am unable to subscribe to some of the provisions of this resolution, especially to those of section 3 which propose to limit immigration from our insular possessions. The primary purpose of this section is the restriction of Philippine immigration.

The patriotism of those who oppose this feature is no less than that of those who would exclude a people to whom we have extended fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the protection of our flag, and the advantages of our democracy. The situation as to unemployment, however grave, does not justify us in taking any step that is unjust or un-American. And when it is so apparent that the Filipinos in our country do not constitute the menace they are claimed to be, such an act becomes the more questionable

It will be seen from a reading of the resolution as printed in the majority report that this section would restrict immigration from our insular possessions through a legal faction by declaring that persons who are citizens of the insular possessions and who are not citizens of the United States, so far as all our immigration acts are concerned, shall "be considered as if they were aliens"; and for such purposes "each insular possession shall be considered as if it were a separate country." Provision is made for the assignment of foreignservice officers to the possessions for the purposes of the enforcement of the laws, "during which assignment such officer shall be considered as stationed in a foreign country; but his powers and duties shall be confined to the performance of such official acts and notarial and other services which such officer might properly perform in respect of the administration of the immigration laws if assigned to a foreign

country as a consular officer, as may be authorized by the Secretary of State" and for the purposes of sections 18 and 20 of the act of 1917 the insular possessions shall "be considered to be foreign countries."

There is a doubt as to the necessity for this general legislation. In October 1930, the Department of State put into effect regulations that have accomplished under existing law the same results as are sought under the proposed resolution. By the use of greater care in the selection of aliens to whom visas are granted, immigration in the nonpreference classes has been reduced 87 per cent, and 78 per cent for total immigration. If we can accomplish results under the present law, what is the need of additional legislation?

Then, too, the resolution practically drops from the present law the human factor in that it puts the alien fathers and mothers of many American citizens back years on their quota lists. I fail to see the justice of such a step. Every law to be effective must be human in its provisions as to administration. This proposal does not come up to that standard.

Objections to section 3 of this resolution fall into three general classes:

I. Violation of promises made and implied.

II. Economic.

III. Legal.

I. To exclude the Filipinos even temporarily is

(a) To violate our promises of protection of the just rights and privileges and our professions of equal treatment of a people who owe, however unwillingly, allegiance to the American flag.

(b) To ignore the fundamental rights of an individual to move freely from one territory to another under the same flag.

(c) To impair the mutual friendship, mutual respect, and mutual cooperation which now exist between the Philippines and the United States.

(A) TO VIOLATE OUR PROMISES OF PROTECTION OF THE JUST RIGHT AND PRIVILEGES AND OUR PROFESSIONS OF EQUAL TREATMENT OF A PEOPLE WE HAVE BROUGHT UNDER ALLEGIANCE TO THE AMERICAN FLAG

More than 30 years ago the Filipinos came under the sovereignty of the United States, not by their own choice but by the power of our strength. For a period of nearly three years after we had occupied Manila, in 1898, the Filipinos resisted the implantation of that sovereignty. During that struggle and during the subsequent period of pacification we solemnly held out to the Filipinos that our occupation meant the end of a tyrannical rule and the dawn of a new day of liberty, of freedom, of justice, and of equality. Immediately after the Philippine Islands had been ceded to the United States by Spain President William McKinley, in laying down America's policy toward the Philippines, declared, in his letter of instructions to the First Philippine Commission, sent to the Philippines to establish civil government in the islands, dated January 20, 1899:

It is my desire that in all their relations with inhabitants of the islands the commissioners emphasize upon all occasions the just and beneficent intentions of the Government of the United States It is also my wish and expectation that

the commissioners may be received as bearers of good will, of the protection. and of the richest blessings of a liberating rather than a conquering nation.

Before the arrival of the commission to the Philippines, however, hostilities between the American and the Filipino forces under Aguinaldo had started, and in pacifying the inhabitants of the Philippines, the commission issued a proclamation on April 4, 1899, holding out to the insurgent people the just, unselfish, and altruistic purposes of America as follows:

The United States, striving earnestly for the welfare and advancement of the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands, there can be no real conflict between American sovereignty and the rights and liberties of the Philippine people. For, just as the United States stands ready to furnish armies, navies, and all the infinite resources of a great and powerful Nation to maintain and support its rightful supremacy over the Philippine Islands, so it is even more solicitous to spread peace and happiness among the Philippine people; to guarantee them a rightful freedom; to protect them in their just privileges and immunities; to accustom them to free self-government in an everincreasing measure; and to encourage them in those democratic aspirations, sentiments, and ideals which are the promise and potency of a fruitful national development.

Naturally distrustful at first of our promises of protection and of just and equal treatment, the Filipinos continued their resistance to our arms but, little by little, they became persuaded to cast their lot with America. In the words of the commission, in its report in 1900—

Many of these people came, either wholly distrustful or half doubting the professions made on paper, and desirous of seeing whether they would be borne out in personal interviews. Most of them, we believe, went away with a changed idea of America's purposes. Many of them were brought to a realization of the folly of resisting such purposes and of spurning the evident great advantages of American sovereignty and friendship, and many of them eventually became the commission's strongest friends and supporters in the islands.

The President's letter of instructions to the commission and the commission's proclamation were regarded by the Filipinos as a solemn pledge and became the basis of understanding that brought the Filipino people to our fold. They have since constituted the foundation stone of the relationship between the two peoples. In the course of such relationship, which has extended for more than 30 years, we have always rigidly observed the pledges that we wrote in these documents. From that eventful period to this time, every succeeding administration, Republican or Democratic, has reiterated our avowals of protection of their privileges and of equal and just treatment. As Americans, we are proud that we have always lived up to these pledges. The conduct that we have pursued has earned for us the gratitude of the Filipino people, and the praise of experts in colonial administration throughout the world.

Thus to exclude or to limit the entry of Filipinos to the United States, as proposed in this resolution, would be an act of discrimination against a people we have forced into owing allegiance to our flag and to persuade whom to accept our sovereignty, we made these commitments. It would be to reverse the time-honored policy which President McKinley outlined for us.

To exclude or restrict the Filipinos is an act which even the most selfish colonizing powers known in history dared not commit. If this bill becomes a law, it will be the first time in the history of mankind that a mother country forbids the entry into the homeland of the people of the colony, and if it is considered that we are the first nation in all history to adopt altruism and benevolence as our form

of conduct in our treatment of our colonies, such an act becomes the more questionable.

Present-day colonizing powers, such as England, France, and Japan, have never adopted exclusion laws against their colonies. Economic depression and unemployment are as acute, if not more so, in these countries as in our own, but so far as is known, they are not contemplating adopting exclusion measures against their colonies even temporarily. And yet these powers have made no open professions of altruism, benevolence, and equal treatment, protection of the just rights and privileges of their colonists as we have.

(B) TO IGNORE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO MOVE FREELY FROM ONE TERRITORY TO ANOTHER UNDER THE SAME FLAG

It appears from the foregoing that to include the Filipinos among the peoples that are to be temporarily excluded is to reverse our traditional policy toward the Filipinos, and to shake their faith in our sense of justice and fairness.

But how would such an act be regarded in the light of our own institutions, our own Constitution, and our democracy, irrespective of its effect upon other peoples? It is one of the advantages of our system of Government that our Constitution guarantees to every individual the fundamental right to move freely from one State or Territory to another under our flag. Whether that indivudual be an American citizen or a Filipino national, that right is as inherent to the one as it is to the other because each owe allegiance to the same flag. When we took over the Philippines we extended to their inhabitants rights and privileges which the American flag guarantees to all those that come under it. Among those rights and privileges is the freedom to travel from one place to another under the flag.

We must emphasize the fact that since the American public-school system was established in the Philippines almost coincidently with the implantation of American sovereignty, we taught the Filipino children the wonders of the motherland and encouraged them to come to our country. We have told these people that one of the great privileges that American sovereignty brought them is to come to America and share in the glories, in the advantages, in the opportunities the mother country offers.

The Filipincs have apparently accepted these overtures in good faith. They have come, and the great majority of them are not permanent colonists but young men between 18 and 30 years of age who attend our schools and, like the enterprising American boys, work their way, and when they finish return to their homeland. There is only a small number of Filipinos who are in this country permanently; not more than a number equal to one-tenth of the population of the District of Columbia-not more than one-half of the people in northeast Washington at the very door of our Capitol Building.

As to the exodus of Filipinos to Hawaii, from which a large proportion of Filipinos now in the United States have come, it is pertinent to state that this movement originated and was fostered in the face of opposition of Filipino public sentiment. It will thus be noted that despite their inherent right to go from the Philippines to Hawaii, the Filipino leaders counseled their countrymen not to take advantage of that privilege.

Former Governor General Forbes, in his book the Philippine Islands, describes as follows the initiation of the movement of Philippine labor to Hawaii. This was the first step toward the introduction in considerable number of Filipino laborers into the United States. After describing the efforts made by American Hawaiian sugar planters to secure labor from various sources, Governor Forbes says:

* * * Finally, in March, 1906, Mr. Albert F. Judd, later senator in Hawaii, was sent by the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association to the Philippine Islands to see if he could secure some Filipinos. He entered into an agreement with the Philippine Government.

This movement was sharply criticized by the Filipinos and a variety of devices were employed to defeat the efforts of Mr. Judd and his successor, Mr. Pikham. In spite of all Filipino opposition many hundreds of families moved to Hawaii. Those who returned gave such glowing accounts of the conditions under which they labored there that many more were sent, until January, 1926, there were 26,283 Filipinos among a total of 49,155 laborers employed on plantations in the Hawaiian Islands, the Filipinos being 70 per cent of the field force.

Some Filipino politicians and the employers of labor went so far as to excoriate the government for permitting these laborers to go forth and earn their living where they desired, and the government was asked to prevent forcibly, or at least to restrict, the movement. These critics failed to appreciate the fact that any. such opposition on the part of the government would be an unwarranted infringement of the individual Filipino to go where he pleased and earn what he could.

Governor Forbes in footnotes refers to contemporary documents in verification of the accuracy of every statement made.

It is obvious that if this matter had been left to Filipinos, the migration of Filipinos or the conditions of the movement would have been made so restrictive that but few Filipinos would have taken advantage of it and these would be of a class that could readily find their way back to the islands and not become competitors to American laborers. It will thus be noted the Filipino people are not to blame for the presence in this country of the bulk of Filipinos coming from Hawaii.

(c) TO IMPAIR THE MUTUAL FRIENDSHIP, MUTUAL RESPECT, AND

MUTUAL COOPERATION WHICH NOW EXIST BETWEEN THE PHILIPPINES AND THE UNITED STATES

For many years in the past, American and the Philippines have worked together in mutual freindship, respect, confidence, and cooperation. I fear that the enactment of this measure will disturb that mutuality of sentiment. It is natural that the Filipinos would feel the sting of such an act, no matter how justified it may be from the point of view of this country. You can not say to a people "although you live under our flag, you can not come to our country because you are undesirable," and not insult them.

The advocates of this resolution have asserted that they mean no insult to the Filipinos in proposing to exclude them and that they are merely protecting, temporarily, during this period of acute depression, the interests of their own countrymen. But to the Filipinos, is there any consideration that is sufficiently justifiable to warrant even only their temporary exclusion for the reason that, being a part of America, they should not be made the object of even an emergency measure? The Filipino representatives in Congress state they have accepted in its full value the assertion that there is no intention to offend, but, just the same, they can not but feel hurt, for, after all,