Section 8 of Whom We Shall Welcome. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Phyllis Vincelli. Whom We Shall Welcome. Report of the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization. Part 2, Chapter 3C. Rigid immigration law prevents meeting special needs. The foreign relations of the United States reflect not only our needs and desires, but also those of other nations. One of the most acute special needs of some key foreign countries today is for relief of overpopulation. At present, they cannot make constructive use of all their population. Serious overpopulation problems exist in two separate areas of the world. One, certain countries of Western Europe and two, southern and eastern Asia. However, the problems and needs of these areas differ widely. The needs of the overpopulated European countries are for migration as well as economic development. The needs of the overpopulated Asiatic countries, except perhaps Japan, are not for migration, but rather for economic development. Europe. Seven years after the end of hostilities in World War II, Western Europe is still beset with a serious problem of excess population. Concentrated principally in the Netherlands, West Germany, Italy, and Greece. Hugh Gibson, director of the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration, gave the commission an estimate of some 3,500,000 people, including refugees, who cannot be absorbed into the economies of the countries in which they find themselves. The Netherlands. The overpopulation of this country has become so serious that in September 1951, Queen Juliana wrote to the President of the United States to urge his initiative in finding international means to deal with the whole European overpopulation problem. With the highest birth rate in northwestern Europe, the Netherlands needs migration opportunities for its young people at least to the amount of 25,000 per year in addition to the current emigration program. West Germany. The overpopulation problem is indistinguishable from the refugee, expel-e, escapee, displaced persons problem. According to the Bonn government, some 1,350,000 of its people are potential emigrants. Italy. This nation's situation is the most acute of all in Europe. Its already overburdened population has been augmented by some 480,000 Italians repatriated from former colonies and other areas in the Mediterranean not presently open to Italian emigrants. Another 125,000 Italians fled to Italy from land ceded to Yugoslavia in the Peace Treaty. Italy's excess population is concentrated primarily in the agricultural southern part of the peninsula and in Sicily. It is in those areas that the neo-fascists have their greatest strength. In the same areas, the communists are currently making a strong bid for adherence. In the same areas, one finds also the most frequent and general expression of popular demand for emigration as the only hope for betterment. Prime Minister De Gasperi made a special plea to the United States government in 1951 for cooperation in providing migration opportunities for Italy. The failure of our immigration law to accord such cooperation has, in the judgment of competent and objective observers, weakened the pro-democratic forces in Italy. The critical nature of this matter can be seen from the reports of competent American observers in Italy to the effect that the population problem and its consequences may be crucial in elections to be held in the spring of 1953. Italy's geographic position in the Mediterranean makes it of the greatest importance to our security and to world peace. It is not without significance that the NATO conference in Lisbon, early in 1952, adopted a resolution concerning the importance of emigration particularly for Italy, but also for other countries. Nor is it an accident that the country with the most serious overpopulation problem, Italy, has the largest Communist Party in Western Europe. Overpopulation, in addition to its political effect of stimulating unrest and the search for radical remedies, has clear economic consequences, most of them stemming from unemployment. Our immigration restrictions work against our foreign policy in Italy. Unemployment in Italy has been high ever since the war and remains today at about two million totally unemployed. These people are a burden on the public economy since the state pays unemployment benefits which might otherwise be productively invested or used to build stronger military defenses. In addition to unemployment, under-employment in Italy is estimated in the neighborhood of two to two and a half million people. Under-employment constitutes an obstacle to the private economy and that an excess of hands reduces the impetus to raise farm and factory productivity. As long as the United States continues to support the Italian economy, a significant part of our effort will be nullified by these factors. Relief of the overpopulation and of the consequent under-employment and unemployment would permit more efficient and effective use of United States economic and military aid to Italy. A frequent issue in connection with Italian overpopulation is the mistaken belief that the country has an unduly high birth rate. Actually, Italy's birth rate is lower than that of the Netherlands. It is lower than that of France, the traditional example of a country whose birth rate is alarmingly low. Surprisingly, but nevertheless true, the Italian birth rate is now lower than that of the United States. Italy's birth rate has been declining for several generations and if this decline continues for the next 15 years it will no longer exceed the death rate. Italy's population growth will then cease, but its overpopulation crisis is now. Italy needs migration opportunities for another 170,000 people a year as a supplement to the even greater additional number for whom resettlement opportunities are already in prospect. Greece has a triple problem of internal refugees uprooted during the recent Civil War, refugees from abroad, and native population growth. The Greek government believes that emigration opportunities must be provided for 30,000 of its surplus population a year. The situation in Western Europe has been described by Hugh Gibson, director of the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration as follows, While the refugee and surplus population problem faced by individual countries of Western Europe varies in its nature, the situation as a whole presents certain common features. For all the countries it is a problem which causes deep concern to the governments by reason of its damaging effect upon political, economic, and social conditions. The situation as a whole is one of the most serious obstacles to the stability of Western Europe in general. The refugee overpopulation situation in Western Europe has the following general characteristics. 1. Overpopulation exists in certain countries and causes unemployment and underemployment. 2. Unemployment provides a fertile field for extremist agitation of right and left. 3. It constitutes a drain on the economy of these countries in a variety of ways. 4. The objectives of American programs of aid to these countries, whether economic or military, are hampered by the consequent political and economic instability. 5. A small amount of emigration can have lasting and successful effect in resolving the difficulties that arise from overpopulation in all these European countries. Asia. Except for Japan, which resembles the European countries in this respect, the situation in Asia is completely different. The problem of refugees, where it exists, is predominantly internal and cannot be distinguished from the problems of overpopulation. The structure and birth rate of the Asian populations and the stage of economic development of their countries are all quite different from those of the European countries. Only in Japan, with its rapidly declining birth rate, can migration offer real relief for population pressures in the next few years. The best scientific and professional advice available to the Commission is to the effect that migration offers no solution to overpopulation on the Asiatic mainland. No conceivable migratory movement could provide substantial relief for present Asian surplus population, much less for the annual growth of some 10 million a year in non-communist Asia. For the Asian mainland, the need is for better use of resources and economic development where the people now live. On the other hand, for Western Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, and perhaps Japan, the need is different. Immigration can serve as a safety valve for transitory problems of critical population pressures. These countries have reached a stage of economic development and population structure at which both the need and desire for migration is most acute and where its result would be soon effective. This is not to say, of course, that economic development is not also equally important in these particular countries. However, a concerted international effort to deal with the burden of present overpopulation would serve to bring about a relatively manageable situation in which the natural population increase of such countries can be readily absorbed for productive use within their own economies. These countries need and can have substantial results from immediate international efforts to move some of their surplus population. All reliable scientific evidence indicates that effective international migration programs can and will have a lasting and successful effect for these countries. The contrary is true for the Asian mainland. The same general situation prevails as to refugees. In Europe, the problems of refugees, expellees, escapies, and displaced persons are now finite. With a coordinated international effort in which the United States would play its part, the end of these European refugee and related problems is in sight. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the refugee situation in Asia where the dislocations of World War II have been equaled if not exceeded by the dislocations of the post-war period. Apart from the Arab refugee situation in the Near East, the refugee problem in Asia is not distinct from the general problem of overpopulation in those areas. For example, the partition of India set in motion 18 million refugees and exchange of Hindu and Muslim. This occurred principally in the Punjab and in Bengal. However, the acute political, social, and economic problem in India is not in the Punjab but in South India, especially Madras, where there is no refugee problem. The problems of overpopulation and refugees in Asia are of vital importance to world peace. Their solution, however, cannot, as it can in Europe, find major relief through migration. The Remedy No one has suggested that emigration is the only or whole solution of these population problems, nor has anyone suggested that the United States alone should try to meet them. They are international problems. However, the Commission is convinced that the inflexibility of our present immigration law prevents the United States from making any special contribution to the solution of these issues. Anything which has the effect of weakening our partners, as overpopulation certainly does, has also the effect of weakening the security of the United States. Since our foreign, economic, and military policies are devoted in large measure to building the strength of these very countries, failure to help them solve the problem of overpopulation quickly works against their strength and our safety. Each of the four European countries mentioned is part of NATO, or involved in plans for Western defense, and therefore is essential to our own security protection, and Japan occupies a critical role in Asian problems. The Secretary of State advised the Commission, quote, A special effort to reduce the overpopulation problem to manageable proportions would be a most effective step toward our foreign policy goals, end quote. In a joint declaration of May 1950, the foreign ministers of France and the United Kingdom and our Secretary of State said, quote, In the course of their discussions, the foreign ministers have recognized that the excess of population from which several countries in Western Europe are suffering is one of the most important elements in the difficulties and disequilibrium of the world, end quote. In a special statement to the Commission, Hugh Gibson, Director, Intergovernmental Committee on European Migration, wrote, quote, The establishment of the committee as a result of American initiative based on broad mindedness and imagination was the first attempt to approach on an international basis, a problem which has been one of the most serious causes of insecurity and conflict in Europe for some years past, and has driven certain countries for lack of international understanding to seek purely national solutions and to adopt policies, the international implications of which were highly dangerous. International cooperation and the solutions to this problem thereby made possible are essential for mutual understanding between the members of the Atlantic community as well as between the members of the European community. In that connection, the refugee problem, while it has economic, demographic and social aspects, is obviously related to the defenses of freedom and therefore highly political in character, end quote. Three facts are obvious in this situation, one, the United States alone cannot solve the problem of European overpopulation, two, the problem is one of international concern in whose settlement the United States is deeply involved, and three, the present United States immigration law impedes our participation in international migration efforts and thus prevents us from exercising the kind of leadership that would encourage other countries to admit a larger number of European immigrants. Many applicants for visas desire to visit the United States for only a short time. They may be students, teachers, writers, scholars, businessmen, lecturers, concert musicians, tourists or other visitors. They may plan to visit for a day or so, for example in the case of a scientist to address a meeting, or stay a few weeks or as much as a year, or even just to pass through the United States on the way to a destination in Canada, Mexico or another country. In any event, they must have a visa from a United States consular officer abroad before leaving on their trip. And even if they are to be in the United States only for several hours, they must satisfy substantially all the health, financial, security and other requirements that apply to permanent immigrants. In recent years, an increasing number of visitors have been subjected to denials, difficulties and delays in getting visas. In practically every case, the problem is one of security clearance. The process of security investigation has become more rigorous and time-consuming. And even where the visa is finally issued, the nature of the process may diminish international goodwill toward the United States. From testimony before the commission, it would appear that the greatest number of current cases involve foreign scientists, although businessmen, journalists, technical assistants, team members, artists and writers have also been affected. It should be remembered that, as to foreign authorities in the arts and sciences, many of the applications for visas are prompted by urgent invitations from distinguished American institutions. The number of people involved in the problem is probably small, although no definite statistics have been made available to the commission. The international repercussions, however, are disproportionate to the number for the simple reason that the persons affected generally occupy prominent places in the social, commercial or intellectual life of their countries. Their opinions carry more than ordinary weight, and their prejudices are likely to be more widely reflected in the views of the country's press and official documents. If it becomes known that any of them has been denied a visa to visit the United States, the fact makes the headlines in both the communist and non-communist press. If the individual concerned believes the denial to be mistaken or unjust and chooses to complain about it, he wields a good deal of influence on the attitudes of his friends and associates. In the light of our desire to exercise leadership among free nations, it is especially important to the United States that the favorable impression these people have of America be not unnecessarily diminished and that they be not subjected to petty annoyances, irritations, and embarrassment. Among scientific groups abroad, particularly in the United Kingdom and France, comparisons have been voiced between the Soviet iron curtain and the American, quote, uranium curtain, end quote. This reaction is reflected to a certain extent in some of the most influential foreign newspapers. The Manchester Guardian of England in particular has commented on at least two occasions, concluding one editorial with the statement that, quote, This visa business is doing the United States incalculable harm and is undoing all the lavish propaganda about its noble leadership of the free world, end quote. Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber, an influential French journalist who is usually friendly toward this country, last September wrote that the new immigration law, quote, is stupid, inefficacious, and does more harm to United States prestige than all the Soviet propaganda, end quote. Another consequence is that international scientific congresses are beginning to avoid the United States. The International Congress of Psychology, for example, was originally scheduled to meet in this country in 1954. It has been shifted to Montreal, Canada, specifically in order to avoid embarrassment to members who might be denied visas to this country or whose visas might be delayed until months after the meeting was over. Similar reasons governed the decision of the International Congress of Genetics to meet in Italy in 1953 and probably in Canada the following year rather than in the United States. The International Astronomical Union declined an invitation to hold its next meeting in this country because of the visa situation. Although the International Federation of Documentation and the International Physiological Congress gave other reasons for declining invitations to meet here, it is understood, the commission was told, that similar considerations figured in their decisions. A third consequence, more important for national security than foreign relations, but not unrelated to the strength of the western world, flows from the denial of visas to foreign scientific visitors. For example, Enrico Fermi, the refugee Italian scientist who played a crucial role in the development of atomic energy during the war, would probably have great difficulty entering this country today. Some of America's most distinguished scientists warned the commission that such intellectual strangulation was dangerous for our own national security. Dr. Vannevar Bush, president of the Carnegie Institution of Washington and former director of the wartime office of scientific research and development, testified as follows, My principal criticism of our law in regard to immigration and naturalization, as far as the scientist is concerned, is that the shoe has always seemed to be on the wrong foot. Instead of placing our emphasis on the desirability of attracting the right individuals, most of our emphasis has been on the problem of keeping the wrong ones out. I am quite sure that this has given a bad impression throughout the world of our attitude in this country toward scientists, generally. Even where there has been no exclusion, the impression has been very bad indeed." Dr. Alan T. Waterman, director of the National Science Foundation, advised the commission as follows, I would like, Mr. Chairman, to submit for the record the written statements on this subject by the Department of Defense, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Department of Agriculture. Upon the basis of information available to the foundation through these channels, it is clear that the provisions of the present immigration laws governing the temporary admission of aliens to this country and the administration of these laws have created a problem. If the solution to this problem is long delayed, a seriously detrimental effect on the strength of science in this country may be expected. Any such handicap to our progress in science will in turn unquestionably react adversely on our welfare and security in the years ahead. A further consequence would be a weakening of cooperative relationships with friendly countries in an important component of our common defense, namely scientific research and development. The statement from the Atomic Energy Commission read in part as follows, The commission has always encouraged visits by foreign scientists to the United States when such visits would make a constructive contribution to the Atomic Energy program insofar as they were consistent with security requirements. We are particularly aware that the development of Atomic Energy is based in large part on discoveries which took place in foreign laboratories and we still have need for the many fundamental contributions which foreign science can make. Nuclear physics and chemistry, for example, are fields where more basic knowledge is urgently needed and where the traditionally free exchange of basic scientific information is essential to maximum progress. Foreign science can and does make really significant contributions to these fields. It is important, therefore, that this source of help not be denied the United States. Certainly, any legislation which denies to the United States the free exchange of basic scientific information may impede the research and development programs of the commission and its contractors. Howard A. Meyerhoff, representing the American Association for the Advancement of Science, advised the commission, I have no wish to leave with the commission the impression that scientists have a distorted perspective on the visa question. The colleagues who have supplied me with information have mentioned as many cases in which foreign scientists have entered this country without trouble or delay as they have cases where unwarranted difficulty or outright refusal was experienced. They are rightly concerned, however, with the imperfections of the law and its administration, because these imperfections are creating ill will that is being reflected in the increasing number of decisions on the part of international scientific bodies not to schedule meetings in the United States. If this trend continues, American science faces the threat not merely of becoming provincial, but also of becoming atrophied to the point where the national welfare and national security will suffer. Security and welfare are founded on knowledge, only part of which originates within the confines of the United States. The Federation of Atomic Scientists made similar representation to the commission in several of its hearings. Professor Edward A. Shills of the University of Chicago, who edited a special edition of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists for October 1952, devoted to visa policy, testified that the subject had, quote, very great import for the United States and America's foreign relations, end quote. He said of our present visa policy, quote, Now this is not only injurious to American science and injurious, therefore, to American development and welfare and to American intellectual achievement. It is injurious to the achievement of the ends of foreign policy.  Of course, communists believe what they believe, and we can't do much about that, but there are a large number of people in Europe who are not communists, who are pro-American and want to be, and they find it difficult to defend the American policy when America behaves in this way, end quote. The situation is broader than the admission of scientists. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences took formal action through its counsel as follows in part, quote, The American Academy of Arts and Sciences is gravely concerned by the formidable barriers which now exist to the entry of our foreign colleagues in the arts and sciences into this country. These barriers are a serious threat to the progress of American science and learning. The present restrictions on the entry of foreign scholars to this country are actually dangerous, even from the point of view of national security. Moreover, the obstacles to the admission of distinguished foreign visitors to this country have results that are often extremely damaging to American prestige abroad. They diminish among some of our best friends in foreign countries the trust and respect in which we are held, and thereby tend to nullify some of the major aims of our foreign policy, end quote. This same embarrassment to our foreign relations was called to the commission's attention by Dudley T. Esby, Secretary of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Dr. Henry Allen Moe, Secretary of the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, and Professor Sydney Painter, Director of the American Council of Learned Societies, among others. Conclusions. The commission is convinced that our present immigration law has a detrimental effect upon our foreign relations in a variety of ways. Discriminatory racial and national restrictions in immigration law have made enemies for the United States in the past and will continue to lose us friends as long as they remain in the law. In this respect, our immigration law conflicts with American propaganda abroad, an important arm of our foreign policy, which emphasizes equality and mutual interests among the free nations. Present immigration law causes large areas of the world of greatest importance to our own national security and welfare to resent us and view us with growing distrust. The immigration laws of the United States frustrate our foreign policy by hindering our efforts in friendly and allied countries to encourage their political stability and unity, rebuild their economies, and strengthen their military power. Rigidity in the national origins quota system prevents the United States from acting quickly and effectively and helping to relieve refugee and overpopulation problems when and where they arise. Population pressure gives rise to economic and political instability and thus augments the very conditions which foreign aid programs of the United States are designed to ameliorate. Moreover, the inability of the United States to deal flexibly with refugee and overpopulation pressure reduces the influence this country might exert on other countries to help solve these problems. Our present national origins quota system prevents the United States from giving asylum to escapees from the iron curtain countries. Besides being contrary to American traditions, this barrier tends to disillusion the escapees and denies us the value of their help in organizing effective pro-democratic appeals. The present immigration law is inconsistent with the aim of our foreign policy to uphold the values of freedom in contrast to the chains of communist dictatorship. The effect is to blunt one of our most important psychological weapons in the Cold War. Our immigration law and procedures have had the effect, in some instances, of keeping out temporary visitors who should be welcomed to this country. The testimony has shown that important circles in friendly foreign countries are growing resentful of American immigration policy and are losing confidence in the sincerity of American professions of devotion to democracy. The Commission's study of the effect of the present immigration laws upon our foreign relations leads to this conclusion. In order to advance our national interests, strengthen our security, and contribute to the achievement of our foreign aims, American immigration policy should be free from discrimination on the basis of nationality, race, creed, or color, and should be flexible enough to permit the United States to engage fully in such special migration efforts as may be important to the security of the free world. End of Section 8 Section 9 of Whom We Shall Welcome This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Whom We Shall Welcome Report of the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization Part 3. A Unified Quota System Chapter 4. The Annual Immigration Quota Until 1921 there was no numerical limitation of immigration into this country. The first national census in 1790 recorded a population of slightly under four million. Immigration continued to mount gradually. Some have estimated that between 1790 and 1820 approximately one quarter of a million immigrants entered the United States. From 1841 through 1920 immigration into the United States averaged some 411,000 persons per year. The largest annual number of immigrants to enter the United States was 1,285,349 in 1907. The 1921 Act placed the first maximum ceiling upon immigration. It limited the number to 357,800 a year, of which 198,000 were to come from northern and western Europe and 156,000 from southern and eastern Europe. Each country's quota was limited to three percent of the number of people born in that country who were reported in the United States Census of 1910. The 1924 Act further restricted the number of immigrants and had two separate formulas. The first and temporary formula authorized the admission of 165,000 a year. Of this number 141,000 a year were to be from northern and western Europe, 20,000 from southern and eastern Europe, and 4,000 were non-Europeans. In this formula the three percent of the 1921 Act was reduced to two percent and the 1910 Census was changed to the 1890 Census. The second formula of the 1924 Act became effective in 1929 and with slight changes continues to the present time. This authorized the admission of 153,714 immigrants based on a total of 150,000 plus minimum quotas of 100 for all countries. By 1952 this figure had become 154,277 by virtue of minor changes. The total approximated one-sixth of one percent of the white population in the 1920 Census, the last available at the time the 1924 Act was passed. Ever since the Act of 1924 became effective, immigration for permanent residents in this country has been divided into two classes, quota and non-quota. Quota immigration is that which under existing law is limited by the total number assigned annually to each nationality, area or country. The practice in such cases is to admit an alien by assigning a number to him from the quota allotted to his nationality, area or country, and no quota visa is issued unless a number is available. In addition to the quotas both the 1924 and 1952 acts authorized the admission without numerical limitation of non-quota immigrants for permanent residents. These principally include alien spouses and children of American citizens and natives of the independent nations of the Western Hemisphere. Under the Immigration Act of 1924 ministers and teachers were also permitted to immigrate to the United States as non-quota immigrants. However under the 1952 Act teachers are required to obtain a quota number and to wait until that number is reached. The most recent step in the legislative declaration of a maximum quota was in the Act of 1952 which set a maximum authorization of 154,657. This figure was based on a flat one-sixth of one percent of the white population in the 1920 census, excluding Negroes, American Indians, and other non-white persons in the population. A comparison of the quotas allotted to individual countries under the four different versions of the quota system is indicated in the following table. Table 3. Annual immigration quotas by country under successive immigration laws 1921 to 1952. 1921 Act. 3% of the 1910 census. Total 357,803. Asia 492. Africa and Oceania 359. Europe 356,952. Northern and Western Europe. Belgium 1563. Denmark 5,619. France 5,729. Germany 67,607. Great Britain and Northern Ireland 77,342. Irish Free State none. Netherlands 3,607. Norway 12,202. Sweden 20,042. Switzerland 3,752. Total Northern and Western Europe 197,630. Southern and Eastern Europe. Austria 7,342. Czechoslovakia 14,357. Greece 3,063. Hungary 5,747. Italy 4,057. Poland 30,977. Portugal 2,465. Romania 7,419. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 24,405. Turkey 2,654. Yugoslavia 6,426. Total Southern and Eastern Europe 155,585. 1924 Act. 2% of 1890 Census. Total 164,667. Asia 1,424. Africa and Oceania 1,821. Europe 161,422. Northern and Western Europe. Belgium 512. Denmark 2,789. France 3,954. Germany 51,227. Great Britain and Northern Ireland 34,007. Irish Free State 28,567. Netherlands 1,648. Norway 6,453. Sweden 9,561. Switzerland 2,081. Total Northern and Western Europe 140,999. Southern and Eastern Europe. Austria 785. Czechoslovakia 3073. Greece 100. Hungary 473. Italy 3,845. Poland 5,982. Portugal 503. Romania 603. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 2,248. Turkey 100. Yugoslavia 671. Total Southern and Eastern Europe 20,423. 1929 National Origins. Total 153,714. Asia 1,423. Africa and Oceania 1,800. Europe 150,491. Northern and Western Europe. Belgium 1,304. Denmark 1,181. France 3086. Germany 25,957. Great Britain and Northern Ireland 65,721. Irish Free State 17,853. Netherlands 3,153. Norway 2,377. Sweden 3,314. Switzerland 1,707. Total Northern and Western Europe 127,266. Southern and Eastern Europe. Austria 1,413. Czechoslovakia 2,874. Greece 307. Hungary 869. Italy 5,802. Poland 6,524. Portugal 440. Romania 295. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 2,784. Turkey 226. Yugoslavia 845. Total Southern and Eastern Europe 23,235. 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act. Total 154,657. Asia 2,990. Africa and Oceania 2,000. Europe 149,667. Northern and Western Europe. Belgium 1,297. Denmark 1,175. France 3,069. Germany 25,814. Great Britain and Northern Ireland 65,361. Irish Free State 17,756. Netherlands 3,136. Norway 2,364. Sweden 3,295. Switzerland 1,698. Total Northern and Western Europe 126,131. Southern and Eastern Europe. Austria 1,405. Czechoslovakia 2,859. Greece 308. Hungary 865. Italy 5,645. Poland 6,488. Portugal 438. Romania 289. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 2,697. Turkey 225. Yugoslavia 933. Total Southern and Eastern Europe 23,536. The Commission's Recommendations. The Commission believes that there should be a maximum ceiling on the number of quota immigrants who should be admitted into the United States each year. The Commission recommends continuation of use on a nondiscriminatory and current basis of the formula in the 1952 Act. The maximum quota to be authorized for admission into the United States in any year thus would be one-sixth of one percent of the total population in the last available census. Specifically, this means for the present the use of the 1950 census instead of the 1920 census. And it means that the population base to which the one-sixth of one percent ratio is applied shall include Negroes, American Indians, and other non-white peoples. The last total population of the United States and its distribution by white and non-white is shown in Table 4. 1950 Enumerated Population of the United States by Race. All races, 150,697,361. White, 134,941,622. Negro, 15,042,692. American Indian, 343,410. Other, Asiatics, 369,637. One-sixth of one percent of the total 1950 population of the United States is 251,162. Since the proposed percentage indicates a relationship between an annual maximum volume of immigration and the population of the United States, that percentage should apply to the latest available population data. The House Judiciary Committee in 1952 stated that it recognized the fact that revision of immigration quotas might be necessary on the basis of a later census and requested the United States Bureau of the Census to undertake the necessary studies. A fixed volume of immigration each year means a constantly declining ratio of immigrants to the total population because of the natural increase in the population. On the other hand, if the immigration quota is a fixed percentage of the population, then the amount of immigration would increase proportionate with the growth of the total population. The Commission finds no justification for the elimination of Negro's American Indians and other non-white residents from the population base to which the one-sixth of one percent is to be applied. It is a discriminatory and unwarranted provision which should be eliminated from the law. The Commission recommends that the population base include the total number of people in the United States without regard to color, race, or national origin. The United States can absorb 250,000 quota immigrants annually. The capacity of the United States to absorb and profit by substantial migration is discussed in Chapter 2. Many expert witnesses addressed themselves to the question of the number of immigrants the country can safely receive. The Secretary of Labor in his testimony before the Commission stated, We could safely absorb substantially more than the 155,000 quota immigrants that are authorized by Public Law 414. The peak immigration in recent years was approximately 250,000 in 1950. I am not aware that it caused any economic or social dislocations or that American workers were adversely affected. Subsequent to the Commission's hearing, the Secretary of Labor stated in a public speech, Our experts in the Department of Labor have tried to estimate the effects on our population of a larger number of immigrants in the years immediately ahead. I want you to know that their figures and their analysis show this nation could absorb several hundred thousand every year under present conditions, adding only the most negligible percentage to our population and placing no burden on our economy. The Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, testifying for the United States Department of Agriculture, noted that the Department had supported legislation which would admit 100,000 persons a year for three years in addition to the normal 154,000 allowed under the quotas. He informed the Commission that benefits would result from such additional immigrants to our country as a whole and to agriculture in particular. Some of the leading population experts of this country testified before the Commission. The Director of the Office of Population Research of Princeton University, Professor Frank Wallace Notestine, advised the Commission as follows, Within the scope of a reasonably small migration, one of the general order of five million within ten years, it is possible that a program might be designed that would work to our own advantage as well as to the advantage of selected regions of origin. He stated that there was no proof that it would do the slightest harm to our economy. The former Acting Director of the Bureau of the Census, Professor Philip Hauser of the University of Chicago, testified, The present numerical limitation is absurdly low and is unrelated to the needs of the United States. This figure of 250,000 by no means represents the upper limit of immigrants which we could safely absorb. Organized labor testified before the Commission in its various hearings around the country. Labor's views are especially significant in this regard, not only because of its obvious desire to protect the interests of American labor, but because of its historical attitude of opposition to liberal immigration legislation, but its views are different now. Philip Murray, late President of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, submitted his views to the Commission. After pointing out that until 1924 immigration amounted to one percent of the current population, he stated, I do not believe that any evidence has ever been adduced that immigration on that scale adversely affected wage scales in this country or the economy of the country. If anything, the evidence seems to be directly to the contrary. Hence it appears that this country could, without danger to its wage scales or economy, absorb each year a substantial number of immigrants. The American Federation of Labor also testified before the Commission. It pointed to its earlier espousal of legislation which would have increased the total authorized quota and special immigration to over 250,000 a year for three years, and then stated, At best we can only say that under the prevailing economic conditions, a total annual rate of normal as well as emergency immigration of between 200,000 and 250,000 a year would not be excessive or lead to serious dislocations. Professor Arnold C. Harberger, staff member for the President's Materials Policy Commission, testified that an authorized immigration of even 400,000 a year could easily be absorbed without any lowering of our standard of living. Dr. Harold G. Moulton, retired president of the Brookings Institution, published in 1949 a book entitled Controlling Factors in Economic Development, in which he reached the conclusion that so far as natural resources and productive capacity are concerned, the United States could double its population within the next 100 years, and that we could enjoy a standard of living eight times as high as that prevailing in 1949. Of particular interest in the Commission's hearings was the unanimous view of the major religious faiths of America, Protestant, Jewish, and Catholic, that the United States could safely absorb some 250,000 immigrants a year. These church groups had vigorously supported the now terminated Displaced Persons Program, with its authorization of some 100,000 persons annually for four years over and above the regular immigration quota of 154,000. Some of these church groups testified that a 250,000 annual ceiling was a desirable one for permanent legislation. Others testified that at least for the next three years, if not permanently, an annual rate of 250,000 should be established by law. For example, Dr. Walter W. Van Kirk, testifying on behalf of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America, recommended an annual admission rate of approximately 250,000 immigrants a year for the next three years, including regular immigrants and refugees of various categories. This view was specifically supported by Dr. Joseph M. Dawson, representing the Baptist World Alliance, Reverend Harold H. Henderson, representing the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., and the very Reverend Francis B. Sehr, Jr., Dean of the Washington Episcopal Cathedral. A similar view was expressed by Ms. Cordelia Cox of the National Lutheran Council. The experience in immigration under the Displaced Persons Act gives evidence that there is room in the United States. We admitted somewhat more than 250,000 in 1951, and so far we haven't felt any ill effects. What we are doing—have been doing—up until 1951 was a mere trickle. She went on to describe the situation in her own organization. Comparatively, these numbers were so small that they neither disturbed the balance of the labor market nor met the existing need for labor. In our national office, and in our 36 area offices, there are thousands of requests for farm and domestic workers. We can place any number of precision workers, engineers, doctors, and nurses. The need for more workers is documented daily in agencies like ours which are known to be interested in immigration. These sample experiences of one agency indicate something of the possible total needs of the United States. Monsignor Edward E. Swonstrom, Executive Director War Relief Services National Catholic Welfare Conference, testified that instead of the present law, a figure of more than 300,000 per year would be reasonable. We might well establish an annual admission figure in ratio to our population—for example, one new immigrant to every 500 people in our country. Various Jewish organizations advocated this same general figure as a minimum annual quota for permanent legislation. The United States Commissioner of Labor Statistics indicated to the Commission that a net annual immigration of 250,000 persons would result in an increase in the labor force by 1955 of less than one half of one percent. And this increase, it should be added, would be distributed throughout the entire area and among all the approximately 30,000 occupations of the United States. The Commission recommends an annual immigration quota ceiling of 251,162 based on the 1950 census, which, on the evidence presented, is fully within the capacity of the United States in the foreseeable future. End of Section 9, Recording by Maria Casper. Section 10 of Whom We Shall Welcome. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Whom We Shall Welcome. Report of the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization. Part 3, Chapter 5, National Origins System Background. The immigration laws can limit the number of immigrants who may enter the United States each year without reliance upon national origins as the method of selecting such immigrants. The total number and the method of selection within that number are two separate issues. The quota or ceiling was introduced into our law in 1921. The concept of the national origins as a means of selection within a quota was introduced in the Immigration Act of 1924, which became effective on July 1st, 1929. Each of these devices had its own unique objective. The National Origins System has been justified as an attempt to guarantee that particular ethnic, racial or nationality groups would have preference for entry into the United States on the assumption that they were more adaptable to American culture. The avowed purpose of the National Origins System, therefore, was a qualitative one. It was concerned with the kind of persons coming into the United States rather than with their number. The test it applied was not the individual worth of an immigrant, but rather the presumed superiority of people from certain areas of the world. Place of birth, not individual capacity or actual cultural background was the test. This concern with the caliber and quality of immigrants is naturally not new to our people. However, in most of our history qualitative selection was designed to keep out the obviously undesirable individual and not to distinguish between peoples or races. There have been five historical stages in the development of our immigration policies. Colonial period. In colonial times there were no national immigration policies, but only those of the individual colonies and of the mother country. These policies differed from colony to colony and accounted for major differences in regional development. As for example, between the northern states, which early encouraged free labor from Europe, and the south, where a plantation economy encouraged the importation of slaves rather than of free workers. The general problem of the colonial period was that of peopling and empty land. The population of the colonies was small and the continent was a vast unexplored and unsettled domain. Yet even in those early days the antagonists of new immigration asserted that there was no room for more immigrants and that the new arrivals were introducing an alien element and philosophy into the established communities. What may be new immigration to some is old immigration to others. For example, of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence, eight were first generation immigrants. The earliest colonists were predominantly British, although the Dutch, Swedes, French Huguenots, and some Spanish and Portuguese Jews were settled in certain areas. When the Scotch Irish came, shortly after 1714, they aroused considerable uneasiness. They were followed by a migration of Germans whose arrival was resented and feared by many. During these early years arguments which seem strikingly familiar today were developed against immigration. There was a fear that the new immigrants' differences in speech, customs, and antecedents would disturb the cultural unity of the American people. Many objected to the caliber of the immigrants, particularly to those who were paupers and criminals. Other opposition grew out of religious prejudices. In general, however, immigration was encouraged during the colonial period and some 750,000 people came to these shores from 1600 to 1770. The Charters of Virginia, 1609, and Massachusetts, 1629, granted the right to abide and live not only to our loving subjects, but to any other strangers that will become our loving subjects. In the Declaration of Independence the colonists declared that one of their chief grievances was that the government of the mother country had hindered the free flow of people into the colonies. The founding fathers continued the tradition of encouraging immigration. The Continental Congress, for example, invited the Hessian mercenaries of George III to leave his service and settle in the Americas. The Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, necessarily implying that newcomers would join the community. In 1783 George Washington declared, The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions, whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment. The federal government used the principle of religious freedom to stimulate immigration as the guarantee of religious freedom in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 exemplifies, Alexander Hamilton, who was born in the British West Indies, wrote in his Report of Manufactures in 1792, A perfect equality of religious privileges will probably cause immigrants to flock from Europe to the United States. Tench Cox, Assistant Secretary of State in 1790, compiled notes for the information of the immigrant in which he listed all religious faiths in the United States and definitely offered assurance of religious liberty as an inducement for immigration. Early 19th Century The second stage of our immigration history occurred approximately from 1800 to 1875. Immigrants were still welcome and sought for, but concern was beginning to be expressed for the qualitative aspects of immigration. As early as 1819 legislation was passed to improve the condition of immigrants on vessels bound for the United States. Although the policy of the nation was to encourage and welcome newcomers, efforts were made to bar paupers, criminals, and others clearly undesirable. The restrictionist sentiments of those who opposed free immigration were sharpened by the steady rise in the tide of immigration. This so-called Native American movement was first crystallized in the Native American Party, launched about 1835. About 1850 this group became known as the Know-Nothings, and in later years it emerged as the American Protective Association. With the expansion of this faction's support and influence there were recurrent manifestations of anti-alien feeling, some of which were accompanied by acts of violence against foreigners. Yet an 1841 message from President Tyler to Congress stated, We hold out to the peoples of other countries an invitation to come and settle among us as members of our rapidly growing family. The platform of the Republican Party, then called the Union Party, which Abraham Lincoln helped to write in 1864, stated Foreign immigration should be fostered and encouraged by a liberal and just policy. Through World War I the third stage of immigration in America was in the period of 1875 to 1920. There was a sharp rise in the volume of immigration commencing in the 1880s with immigrants coming from every country in Europe. This period saw the first General Federal Immigration Statute, which barred convicts, lunatics, and persons likely to become a public charge. The Chinese Exclusion Act, which virtually shut the gates of entry to Chinese, the Contract Labor Act, designed to end wholesale importation of cheap labor, and other acts providing for the exclusion and deportation of aliens. In this period Congress set up the Immigration Commission of 1907. This commission submitted a voluminous report in 1911 which discussed the desirability of limiting immigration and favored a literacy test as the most feasible single method of restricting undesirable immigration. Bills prescribing a literacy test for immigrants were passed at various times by Congress, but were vetoed by Presidents Cleveland, Taft, and Wilson. A fourth bill was vetoed by President Wilson, but his veto was overridden by Congress in enacting the Immigration Act of 1917. In addition to establishing the literacy requirement, the 1917 Act codified and extended previous restrictions. In addition it established a so-called Asiatic Barred Zone, which was intended to bar orientals. There were numerous other statutes which imposed supplementary restrictions on immigration. In general all the legislation during this period concerned itself with improving the quality of individual immigrants and with shutting out orientals. Since World War I. The fourth major stage of our immigration history was the period from 1920 to 1950. The United States had emerged from the First World War anxious to return to normalcy, but now the United States, with some 106 million people, was filled up and the prevailing doctrine of the open door to European migration was challenged from several directions. Politically the nation was suffering a sharp revulsion against the war. Implicit in much of the thinking was the desire to forget the conflict and all it meant in terms of United States responsibilities in Europe and the world. The country turned its back on President Wilson, on the internationalists and on the League of Nations. It indulged in reaction against foreign influences. Fear of the Bolshevist menace resulted in various forms of legislative and administrative suppressions. There were strong undercurrents of racial and religious prejudices, most dangerously expressed in the Ku Klux Klan, which ultimately gained millions of members. Ideologically the more extreme rationale of this dramatic nationalist revival was the gospel of Nordic white supremacy. These views did not go unchallenged, but they had a marked influence on American attitudes toward immigration. Economically there were more immediate causes for concern in the situation after World War I. The country entered a prosperous period in late 1915, mainly as a result of the war in Europe. The economy hesitated briefly in the first few months after the armistice, then boomed in earnest. The labour market was very tight and prices soared to a peak in mid-1920. Strikes became numerous as workers were affected by inflation. The collapse was swift. Wholesale prices dropped and manufacturing production fell. Unemployment mounted rapidly. Labour saw immigration as a potential threat to its standards of living. Socially the crowding of immigrants in the cities and the slums had created serious concerns about housing, health, crime and assimilation. Problems undoubtedly accentuated by the large number of immigrants in the pre-war era. Many bills prohibiting or restricting immigration were introduced in the House and Senate of the United States Congress in the years from 1918 to 1921. Rumours were afloat that a flood of European immigrants, including many alleged undesirables, were getting ready to engulf the country. This reported prospective invasion was said to number millions. The sheer physical limitation of steamship facilities and of financial means, not to mention political and legal restrictions at home, seemed to play little part in reducing these rumours to a reasonable perspective of the actual conditions. The House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization reported favourably on December 6, 1920, a bill to prohibit all immigration with very limited exemptions for a period of two years. Finally, out of all this, came the 1921 Act, which limited the aliens of any nationality who might be admitted each year to 3% of that nationality resident in the United States in accordance with the 1910 Census. This was the beginning of a legislative theory that people themselves were not as important as their ancestry. The 1921 Act was intended as emergency legislation for one year, but in due course was extended for three years. In the meantime, discussions continued on proposals which ultimately became the Immigration Act of 1924. This Act not only established a ceiling quota or a maximum of 150,000, subject to certain minimum quotas, but also established the basic present pattern of the national origin system. It sought to establish a rigid racial and nationality formula for immigration. The curious part of this development was that the major controversy leading up to the national origin system was not on that system itself, but on the literacy test. As has already been stated, three presidents vetoed this test for admission. There is considerable mystery shrouding the development of the national origin's plan. There was no extended debate in the Congress on it. It seemed to come in as an afterthought without any major public discussion. Of the some 500 pages of the Congressional Record devoted to debate on the Immigration Act of 1924, a total of approximately 14 pages were given over, in both the House and the Senate, to the consideration of the national origin system. Only a small minority of the Senators and Congressmen participated in this discussion. What started out as a debate on a literacy requirement developed into a move to end all immigration became a temporary emergency measure and ended up without much discussion as the national origin system. Present Law The fifth and current stage of American immigration dates from the discussions in 1950 culminating in the enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The 1952 Act retains essentially the national origin's quota system which was introduced by the 1924 Act. However, it does add some important racist provisions which in fact depart from the basic theory of the national origin system itself. The 1952 Act requires the establishment of separate subquotas for colonial dependencies in the Western Hemisphere, a provision which has generally been regarded as discriminatory against the colored people of the Caribbean area. The 1952 Act likewise defines a special geographic area known as the Asia Pacific Triangle. The people of that area are given a special limited racial or oriental quota regardless of the place of their birth, a departure from the origin's principle, a discriminatory law. The United States is the only major English-speaking country in the world which has written discrimination into its national immigration laws. Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the other great English-speaking countries, all of them immigrant receiving countries, have neither a national origin system nor an inflexible quota limitation. The national origin system is also unique among the laws of English-speaking nations in the candor of its purpose. The legislative history, the statements by its sponsors and the nature of its operation all point to the fact that the 1924 National Origin System was designed and intended to discriminate on the basis of national origin, race, color and in effect religion. It was designed to favor immigrants from Northern and Western Europe and to discriminate against those from Southern and Eastern Europe and against Orientals. Three groups were set up in the 1924 National Origins Law. One, the people of the Western Hemisphere who were granted non-quota status and permitted to enter the United States without regard to any numerical limitation. Two, Orientals who were completely excluded. And three, Europeans and others from the rest of the world for whom some 154,000 quota numbers were allocated for distribution on the basis of place of birth. Some deny that the intent of the National Origin System is to discriminate against particular nationalities and races. Perhaps the best answer is the view held by the senator who in 1924 proposed and succeeded in enacting the National Origin System. Senator David A. Reed introduced the National Origin System Amendment on the floor of the Senate. His views are clearly stated in the following quotation from a colloquy occurring in hearings before the Senate committee in 1924. I think most of us are reconciled to the idea of discrimination. I think the American people want us to discriminate and I don't think discrimination in itself is unfair. We have got to discriminate. The only question that I think worries the committee is whether the use of the 1890 census or the use of the method based on naturalization is the more plausible method of attaining that discrimination which is the object we are all seeking. The question we are tackling is which is the more plausible, the more reasonable, and the more defensible method of attaining that end. Practically all of us are agreed that that is an end that should be attained. The Senate Judiciary Committee which conducted the study and submitted the bill which is now the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 specifically considered this same question. That committee rejected proposals seeking to ameliorate the discriminatory provisions of the National Origin System in the following terms. It is obvious, therefore, that the plan would disrupt the National Origin System since the quotas for Southern and Eastern Europe have a higher percentage of usage than the quotas for Northern and Western Europe to distribute the unused quotas on the basis of the registered demand would shift more quota numbers to the countries of Southern and Eastern Europe. In its conclusions the committee states, Without giving credence to any theory of Nordic superiority the subcommittee believes that the adoption of the National Origins formula was a rational and logical method of numerically restricting immigration in such a manner as to best preserve the sociological and cultural balance in the population of the United States. There is no doubt that it favored the peoples of the countries of Northern and Western Europe over those of Southern and Eastern Europe, but the subcommittee holds that the peoples who had made the greatest contribution to the development of this country were fully justified in determining that the country was no longer a field for further colonization and henceforth further immigration would not only be restricted but directed to admit immigrants considered to be more readily assimilable because of the similarity of their cultural background to those of the principal components of our population. Many of the considerations which lay behind the passage of the National Origins Quota Law have now become of little significance. The fact remains, however, that the National Origins system has established a rigid formula for allocating the overall number of quotas determined by Congress to be the maximum number to be admitted annually. Quotas, thus established by law, are definite and automatically resist the pressures of special groups. It is the rigidity of the formula, however, which also causes much concern, since it eliminates the selection of the immigrants on the basis of their potential worth to the United States. The 1952 Act intentionally perpetuates the National Origins system, principally to preserve what the committee stated was the sociological and cultural balance in the population of the United States. This is merely a gentle way of saying that its purpose was to continue racial and national discrimination. That racial and national discrimination is the essence of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 is shown in several other ways. For the first time in American history a sub-quota is created for immigrants born in colonies or dependent areas of the Western Hemisphere. This substantially reduces immigration of Negroes from the Caribbean area. For example, it shrinks immigration from Jamaica from an average of a thousand annually to a statutory maximum of a hundred annually. A second indication of the intentionally discriminatory character of the Act of 1952 is the fact that although the law repeals the Japanese Exclusion Act and sets up a minimum quota for Japanese, it establishes a racial quota under which orientals are to be charged to the Asia-Pacific Triangle on the basis not of place of birth as is true in all other cases, but of their own racial background. This is the national origin system. Until 1921 the United States followed its great tradition of regarding all peoples as being equal and of examining the intrinsic worth of immigrants in terms of their prospective individual contributions to the American scene. In 1921, in 1924, and even more emphatically in 1952, our immigration laws abandoned our traditional faith in the individual human being. End of Section 10. Recording by Maria Casper. Section 11 of Whom We Shall Welcome. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org whom we shall welcome. Report of the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization. Part 3. Chapter 6. National Origins System. Assumptions. There is a great deal of official documentation as to the assumptions and basic philosophies which motivated adoption of the National Origins System by Congress in 1924. In particular, the Congress relied upon the findings of the Immigration Commission of 1907, which reported its conclusions in 1911, and upon a report prepared by Dr. Harry Loughlin of the Carnegie Institution for the House Committee on Immigration in 1922. These studies were conducted without public hearings, and it is clear that some of their conclusions ran counter to the evidence they themselves include. In the Commission's hearings the people of America, the scientists, the scholars, the social workers, the clergy, leaders of business, labor and agriculture and others, have for the first time had a substantial opportunity to present evidence and views on the validity of the National Origins System. The preponderant testimony is that the underlying assumptions of the system are wrong. Scientific and other studies and an enormous amount of additional research completed since the 1924 Act was passed corroborate this conclusion. Assumptions behind the National Origins System. The fundamental assumption of the National Origins System is that the place of birth of prospective immigrants is a reliable indication of their possible contribution to the United States and the likelihood of their becoming good citizens. To those holding this theory, the so-called old immigrants from northern and western Europe are better than the so-called new immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. There are three large areas of assumption behind the National Origins System. One, that there are inferior and superior races. Two, that immigration is harmful particularly to the economic life of America. And three, that the so-called new immigrants have inferior personal qualities. The theory of superior races. The Immigration Commission's report of 1911 sought to classify races in a pseudo-scientific manner as having group and defined characteristics. Its theory was that all races can be combined into two clear-cut categories. The superior, those that were predominant in immigration prior to 1880, and the inferior, all others. An interesting contrast between scientific viewpoints then and now is available. The whole argument behind the National Origins System was given forceful expression by a former anthropologist of the American Museum of Natural History, Madison Grant, in a book published more than 35 years ago. He said, These new immigrants were no longer exclusively members of the Nordic race as were the earlier ones. The new immigration contained a large and increasing number of the weak, the broken, and the mentally crippled of all races drawn from the lowest stratum of the Mediterranean basin and the Balkans, together with hordes of the wretched, submerged populations of the Polish ghettos. Our jails, insane asylums, and almshouses are filled with this human flotsam, and the whole tone of American life, social, moral, and political, has been lowered and vulgarized by them. Compare this with the views of a present distinguished anthropologist of the same institution, Margaret Mead. In her testimony before the commission, she said, All human beings from all groups of people have the same potentialities. Our best anthropological evidence today suggests that the people of every group have about the same distribution of potentialities. When you add to that that it is, on the whole, the enterprising who immigrate, and those who care more about freedom and are willing to risk their skins for freedom in many parts of Eastern Europe, you realize that any such point of view is artificial and cuts off good ancestors for our great-great-grandchildren. We want that ancestry in good human stocks from wherever it comes in the world. Another comparison of scientific evidence in 1924 and 1952 is also illuminating. In 1920 Dr. Harry Laughlin was asked by the House Immigration Committee to study the relation of biology to immigration, particularly as it bore on the problems of social degeneracy. His report, submitted in November 1922, includes the following comment. We in this country have been so imbued with the idea of democracy, or the equality of all men, that we have left out of consideration the matter of blood or natural inborn hereditary mental and moral differences. No man who breeds pedigreed plants and animals can afford to neglect this thing. Congressman Albert Johnson, then chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, examined this report and stated, I have examined Dr. Laughlin's data and charts and find that they are both biologically and statistically thorough and apparently sound. However, the presently accepted scientific views appear in testimony before the commission by Professor Ralph L. Beals, Professor of Anthropology, University of California, and formerly President of the American Anthropological Association. He said, The degree of difficulty will vary according to the way of life in which people have developed. To put it in simple terms, because of their training and experience some people may find it slightly easier to adapt to American civilization than do others, but this difference does not lie in any inherent qualities attaching to a particular group. He informed the commission that there is no scientific verification for any belief in inherited difference in the ability of different peoples to be assimilated into the United States. He stated that there were individual differences in this regard, but no demonstrable scientific differences in the group. Other expert witnesses testified to the same conclusion. Professor Albert Grazia, Executive Officer for the Committee of Research in Social Sciences at Stanford University, stated, The fact is that the doctrines that were rather widespread about ethnic superiority and inferiority in the early 20s have been systematically refuted by every branch of science that concerns itself with those presumed inherent superiorities of different ethnic groups. Now the surprising thing is that it is rather difficult to put one's finger on this literature because the fact is so well assumed by anyone of any competency in the field that we haven't bothered to build up a great literature dispelling these myths. Professor Philip M. Hauser, Department of Sociology, University of Chicago and former Acting Director of the United States Bureau of the Census, testified of the 1952 Act that Three, it perpetuates a doctrine of racism based on unwarranted assumptions in respect to the differential quality and potentials of various ethnic and national groups. Four, it is blind to the historic example afforded by the experience of the United States of the capacity for any people to rise to positions of high social, economic and political level when provided with the opportunity to do so. In attempting to support its distinctions between races and its belief that some races are inferior to others, the 1907 Immigration Commission looked to individual motives for immigration. First, it argued, the new immigrants came here only temporarily and not to stay permanently. However, it presented no evidence that the new immigrants were less likely to become citizens than the so-called old immigrants. On the contrary, its data proved only what the Displaced Persons Commission has since found, that the percentage of immigrants becoming citizens increased with the length of their residents in the United States. The participation of aliens in the armed forces of the United States in three wars since the 1911 report is evidence enough of the invalidity of the report's conclusions. The 1911 report also contended that the new immigrants came here for a less worthy reason than the old immigrants. There is no evidence in its report to justify this conclusion. The motives which have brought people to the United States have been much the same since the discovery of the New World, political and religious persecution in their homelands, economic opportunity and freedom's call in the New World, history shows that much the same motives and hopes brought the English and Scots in the 17th and 18th centuries, the Irish, Germans, Scandinavians, Orientals and French-Canadians in the 19th century, the Italians, Jews and Poles in the early 20th century, and the present refugees and escapies from communism and other forms of totalitarianism. The impulse to emigrate which affected people may have arisen in different countries at different times. The same desire for freedom which motivated the German refugees of 1848 seems now to be inspiring the Iron Curtain refugees of 1952. All the reliable evidence refutes this conclusion of the 1911 report. Perhaps Theodore Roosevelt best described this situation when in his autobiography he said that the term settler is a euphemistic name for an immigrant who came over in the steerage of a sailing ship in the 17th century instead of the steerage of a steamer in the 19th century. National policy should be formulated on the basis of accurate and reliable information. The best scientific evidence available today is that there is no evidence of any inborn differences of personality, character, intelligence or cultural and social traits among races. The basic racist assumption of the national origin system is scientifically invalid. The Theory of Economic Harm The earliest arguments for the national origin's quotas relied heavily upon predictions of economic harm likely to develop from immigration. In Chapter 2 the Commission discusses the economic aspects of immigration. The evidence not only repudiates the theory of economic harm, but actually shows that immigration is economically desirable and necessary for the United States. In the arguments of 40 years ago various reasons were adduced to support the 1911 report's conclusions. 1. That a larger percentage of the new immigrants were unskilled labor. This was not substantiated in the report. 2. That the new immigrants pushed the old immigrants out of the labor force by lowering the conditions of labor. This was not substantiated by evidence before the 1907 Commission. Perhaps the best proof of the continuing unsoundness of this reason is the present attitude of organized labor in urging an increase in the number of immigrants to be permitted to come into the United States and in recommending the abolition of the national origin system. 3. That immigrants weakened labor unions. The history of organized labor in America proves that this was not true then or since. 4. That immigration increased the number of industrial accidents. There was no objective evidence to support this reason. 5. That the new immigrants created no new industries. This is clearly erroneous in the light of the contributions by immigrants to the development of the American economy. 6. That immigration caused or aggravated unemployment during depression. The 1911 report contained no proof to support this reason. On the contrary, Chapter 2 of this report reviews evidence which indicates that there is no relationship between immigration and unemployment. Whatever may have been the situation caused by unrestricted immigration in 1911, immigration of the size contemplated by this commission cannot be a factor in aggravating unemployment or depressions. 7. That the new immigrants did not go into agriculture. To an extent this was true, but it was an incident of the industrialization of the United States and of the demand for services in commerce and industry rather than an indication of national and racial differences. Generally speaking the evidence before this commission shows that a reasonably limited amount of immigration would have no adverse effect and that on the other hand there would be considerable economic gains and advantages to be derived from such immigration. 8. The theory of inferior personal qualities. In this area several factors were constantly discussed by supporters of the national origins theory. 1. It was stated that illiteracy was greater among the new immigrants than among the old immigrants and that this was due to inherent racial capacities. All reliable evidence shows that illiteracy is more closely related to opportunity than to any other single factor. The literacy of persons admitted under the Displaced Persons Act showed a surprising degree of similarity to that of the American people as a whole. The theory of inherent racial tendencies to illiteracy is completely disproved by the one hundred years experience of the American public school system which shows that there are no substantial differences in the capacity of different groups to be educated and Americanized. 2. It was alleged that there was more criminality among the foreign born than among the native born. This is not true. When the 1907 Commission turned to the only existing source of information, the Census Report on Prisoners, it discovered that immigration has not increased the volume of crime to a distinguishable extent, if at all, that the percentage of immigrants among prisoners had actually fallen between 1890 and 1904, and that Native Americans exhibited in general a tendency to commit more serious crimes than did the immigrant. Similar conclusions emerge from the studies of criminality during the past twenty-five years. As to the total inclination to crime, President Hoover's National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement, the so-called Wickershem Commission, found in 1931 that the foreign born committed fewer crimes than the native born in proportion to their respective numbers in the total population. The best available scientific information indicates that criminality has no direct relationship to racial or ethnic affiliations. 3. The 1907 Commission's data and conclusions relating to the evidence of insanity showed that no objection could be made to the new immigrants on that ground. In summary, it would appear that there was no reliable evidence that new immigrants were inferior to old immigrants in terms of personal qualities. 4. Assimilation of immigrants. It is natural and proper to be concerned about the assimilability of new immigrants. The preponderant weight of testimony before the Commission was to the effect that immigrants have made a satisfactory adjustment to the American scene. Helen M. Harris testified on behalf of the National Federation of Settlements and Neighborhood Centers, a group of social institutions which has had first-hand experience for more than sixty-five years with immigrants from almost every country of the world, Ms. Harris testified that her organization has found no essential difference in the capacity of different groups to assimilate. The question of assimilability of new immigrants has arisen at every stage of our history. Even before our own revolution some people already here were complaining about the strange newcomers from Scotland and Germany, and of course during the Revolutionary War there was serious complaint against the more recent immigrants from England who were loyal to that country. Before the Civil War there were fears that Irish and Germans would never be assimilated. These complaints were similar to those before World War I that the Southern and Eastern Europeans could not be assimilated. Each new group or category of immigrants evoked fear that they could not assimilate, but nonetheless with the passage of time each of the various succeeding groups became full participating members of the American community. Distinguished witnesses who testified before the Commission made this point on various occasions. Dr. Carl Whitkey, Dean of the Graduate School of Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, who is an eminent historian on American immigration, testified as follows. Now the other point I want to make is that many of the things that were said in later years in criticism of the Italian, the Pole, the Czech, and so on, on the ground that they were an unassimilable group and represented a very foreign custom in ideology, they were all said a hundred years ago about these so-called representatives of the older immigration group. Let me again pick the Irishman by way of example because I think of no immigrants who more quickly became a 100% or 300% American than the Irishman. But in the 1850s and 1800s if you read the newspaper, comments, and all the literature, you'll find that the Irish immigration which came in such terrific volume alarmed the old time Americans. The Irishman spoke a peculiar brogue and he had a peculiar dress. He was forced to live in the slum tenements, in the garrets, and in the cellars, and the Irish shanty towns developed in all our big cities. He was charged with being intemperate and loving liquor too much, or being a kind of boisterous riotous person. He was depressing the labor standards of the average American. A lot of the Americans said, here we have an unassimilable group here in America, more interested in its homeland, in its foreign church, and so on, than in becoming good Americans. I select this simply to indicate that within a short time these Irishmen, who came out of the garrets and the cellars and the slums, rose up in the scale socially, economically, politically, to become as enthusiastic and patriotic Americans as any native Yankee who had come over on the Mayflower. The whole political situation was introduced a hundred years ago, much as you have heard it introduced today. My whole point in saying these things is to emphasize the fact that if you take the broad historical point of view, I have heard nothing said by way of criticism of more recent immigrants that cannot be duplicated from the record as to what has been said about older immigrants of more than a century ago, but who in due course and with a proper American attitude towards them became quickly assimilated and represented an excellent economic and social contribution to this developing America. The National Origin System is based on false assumptions, unsubstantiated by physical science, history, sociology, economics, or anthropology. The Commission found substantial evidence to corroborate the Senate Judiciary Committee statement that many of the considerations which lay behind the passage of the National Origins Quota Law have now become of little significance. The Commission recommends, therefore, that since the basis of the National Origins System is gone, the system itself should go.


They are big shoes to fill. Shane has been a high profile, a very senior member of our team. But a loose cannon. He's got a great robust turn of phrase and Shane is Shane, but around our senior team meeting table he gives good advice, calls us, spays us, helps us to see things we might not otherwise see.  We phoned to get you on this program at 6.15 and your Chief Press Secretary and media director didn't know he was leaving. That would be because we were still talking with him and weren't entirely sure how it was going to turn out. What does that mean, that you knew he was leaving or you weren't sure? He said that he was planning to go but we said we'd consult during the day and various people talked to various people. But actually for tonight, I want to be here to acknowledge Shane Jones, the contribution that he has made to our Labour Party and to the Labour Caucus, the relationship that he will continue to have with the Labour Party, to say that we are going to miss him. He is a highly valued colleague, he has earned his stripes in our team and he will leave a big hole. So that is the truth of it. That's what you want to say tonight. That's exactly right. What will you be saying tomorrow? We'll see how the morning plays.


Right-wing political commentator Dave Rubin was on someone else's show and they were having a general discussion I'm assuming about how horrible the left is and this particular clip is blowing up on left Twitter because Dave Rubin manages to contradict himself not once but twice in this short 25 second clip and You know putting aside the fact that he contradicted himself and it's stupid the point overall that he's trying to make Is also seemingly idiotic in and of itself, so let's watch and then we'll discuss it afterwards Name three if you say to anybody you could say to the far furthest lefty socialist Bernie bananas Loon on Twitter if you say to them name three politicians you like they can't do it. They'll say Bernie AOC And then you know maybe picks another but the point is nobody can pick three They like even the people who love Trump the most they don't love him because he's a politician They love him because he's not a politician Dave Rubin is He's a very unique individual. We'll say that The look on that guy's face was listening to him talk and make this completely incoherent point was really I think It was the cherry on top of this clip You can tell he was just kind of like nodding along along trying to be polite, but um Dave Rubin was going nowhere, so I mean In case you know you couldn't follow along because it was difficult, right? So first he asserts that nobody can name three politicians that they like and then he proceeds to use the left as an example But in his own example, he disproves that original point by basically saying oh well, okay The left can name three politicians, but then after disproving his own point He goes back to his original point that nobody can name three politicians that they like except You just disproved the original point that you made so why would you go back to that after disproving your original point like Let's let's go through I took the time to transcribe this name three you could say to anybody You could say to the far furthest left socialist Bernie bananas loon on Twitter If you if you say name three politicians you like They can't do it. They'll say AOC and maybe pick another such as easily named easily named three politicians But the point is nobody can be but the point is nobody can pick three They like even people who love Trump the most so then So then he goes on to attacking the right Then they don't love him because he's a politician.  You've been president now Dave Rubin, it's like I almost feel bad making fun of him because this is the low hanging fruit And Like even though he has a larger audience than me and a bigger platform like it still feels like I'm punching down by making fun of Dave Rubin Because he like you think that he'd be more like Seasoned here.   Nonetheless That's Ray Dubin, you know, um, love him or hate him. You got to accept him. He uh Not a serious person