section 12 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 7 national origin system operation the national origin system has been in effect for more than 23 years and some of its results are clearly discernible it achieved its restrictive purpose of drastically cutting total immigration from quota countries in particular it discriminated against people from southern and eastern Europe and from Asia it failed in its positive purpose of channeling immigration in accordance with a statistical pattern actual immigration from 1930 to 1952 bears little resemblance to the ethnic and racial ratios incorporated into the national origins quota system the quotas the individual country quotas under the national origin system are shown in table five the quotas under the 1924 and 1952 acts differ in only two regards one the assignment of minimum quotas to certain Asian and African countries and two a slight pro rata reduction of all other quotas other than the minimum as a result of a slight change in the method of computation the principles and the net effect of the national origin system are retained in the 1952 act table five annual immigration quotas under the 1924 act and the immigration and nationality act of 1952 one Afghanistan 1924 act quota 100 1952 act quota 100 no loss or gain two Albania 1924 100 1952 100 no loss or gain three Andorra 1924 100 1952 100 no loss or gain four Arabian Peninsula 1924 100 1952 100 no loss or gain five Asia Pacific Triangle 1924 quota none 1952 quota 100 gain of 100 six Australia 1924 100 1952 100 no loss or gain seven Austria 1924 1413 1952 1405 loss of eight eight Belgium 1924 1304 1952 1297 loss of seven nine Bhutan 1924 100 1952 100 no loss or gain 10 Bulgaria 1924 100 1952 100 no loss or gain 11 Burma 1924 none 1952 100 gain of 100 12 Cambodia 1924 none 1952 100 gain of 100 13 Cameroons Trust Territory United Kingdom 1924 100 1952 100 no loss or gain 14 Cameroon Trust Territory France 1924 100 1952 100 no loss or gain 15 Céline 1924 none 1952 100 gain 100 16 China 1924 100 1952 100 no loss or gain 17 Chinese Racial 1924 105 1952 105 no loss or gain 18 Czechoslovakia 1924 2874 1952 2859 loss of 15 19 Danzig Free City of 1924 100 1952 100 no loss or gain 20 Denmark 1924 1181 1952 1175 loss of six 21 Egypt 1924 100 1952 100 no loss or gain 22 Estonia 1924 116 1952 115 loss one 23 Ethiopia 1924 100 1952 100 no loss or gain 24 Finland 1924 569 1952 566 loss of three 25 France 1924 3086 1952 3069 loss of 17 26 Germany 1924 25957 1952 25814 loss of 143 27 Great Britain and Northern Ireland 1924 65721 1952 65361 loss 360 28 Greece 1924 310 1952 308 loss 2 29 Hungary 1924 869 1952 865 loss 4 30 Iceland 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 31 India 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 32 Indonesia 1924 none 1952 100 gain of 100 33 Iran Persia 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 34 Iraq 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 35 Ireland 1924 17853 1952 17756 loss of 97 36 Israel 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 38 Japan racial and non-racial 1924 100 1952 185 gain of 85 39 Jordan 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 40 Korea 1924 none 1952 100 gain of 100 41 Laos 1924 none 1952 100 gain of 100 42 Latvia 1924 236 1952 235 loss of 1 43 Lebanon 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 44 Liberia 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 45 Libya 1924 none 1952 100 gain of 100 46 Lichtenstein 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 47 Lithuania 1924 386 1952 384 loss of 2 48 Luxembourg 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 49 Monaco 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 50 Morocco 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 51 Muscat Oman 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 52 Nauru Trust Territory Australia 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 53 Nepal 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 54 Netherlands 1924 3153 1952 3136 loss of 17 55 New Guinea Trust Territory Australia 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 56 New Zealand 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 57 Norway 1924 2377 1952 2364 loss of 13 58 Pacific Islands Trust Territory United States 1924 none 1952 100 gain of 100 59 Pakistan 1924 none 1952 100 gain 100 60 Palestine Arab Palestine 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 61 Philippines 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 62 Poland 1924 6524 1952 6488 loss of 36 63 Portugal 1924 440 1952 438 loss of 2 64 Rwanda Urundi Trust Territory Belgium 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 65 Romania 1924 291 1952 289 loss of 2 66 Samoa Western Trust Territory New Zealand 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 67 San Marino 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 68 Saudi Arabia 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 69 Somaliland Trust Territory Italy 1924 none 1952 100 gain of 100 70 Southwest Africa Mandate 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 71 Spain 1924 252 1952 250 loss of 2 72 Sweden 1924 3314 1952 3295 loss of 19 73 Switzerland 1924 1707 1952 1698 loss of 9 74 Syria 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 75 Tanganyika Trust Territory United Kingdom 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 76 Thailand Siam 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 77 Togo Trust Territory France 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 78 Togo Land Trust Territory United Kingdom 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 79 Trieste Free Territory of 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 80 Turkey 1924 226 1952 225 loss of 1 81 Union of South Africa 1924 100 1952 100 no gain or loss 82 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 1924 2798 1952 2697 loss of 101 83 Vietnam 1924 none 1952 100 gain of 100 Yap and other Pacific Islands 1924 100 1952 none loss of 100 84 Yemen 1924 none 1952 100 gain of 100 85 Yugoslavia 1924 938 1952 933 loss of five total 1924<PHONE_NUMBER> 154 657 losses 1005 gains 1385 net gain 380 that the quota system discriminates against southern and eastern European countries is evidenced by the fact that 81.6% of the quotas are allocated to the northern and western European countries while only 16% are allocated to southern and eastern European countries results of the national origin system it reduced immigration from southern and eastern Europe from 1900 to 1919 immigration from northern and western Europe averaged some 145 000 persons annually and from southern and eastern Europe some 488 000 the 1921 and 1924 acts cut back particularly the quota immigration from southern and eastern Europe after 1929 quota immigration from this area became a mere trickle compared to the flow immediately after the turn of the century the following table shows what happened table six immigrants admitted by area 1900 to 1951 period 1900 to 1909 northern and western Europe yearly average 181 156 index with 1900 to 1909 set as 100% 100% southern and eastern Europe 1900 to 1909 yearly average 582 287 index 100% period 1910 to 1919 northern and western Europe yearly average 111 264 index of 61% compared to the previous decade southern and eastern Europe yearly average 394 392 index of 68% compared to previous decade period 1920 to 1929 northern and western Europe yearly average 127 390 index of 70% of the first decade southern and eastern Europe yearly average 130 281 index 22% of first decade period 1930 to 1939 northern and western Europe 25 815 index 14% southern and eastern Europe yearly average 18712 index 3% period 1940 to 1949 northern and western Europe yearly average 37 270 index 21% southern and eastern Europe yearly average 1035 index 2% single year 1950 northern and western Europe yearly average 75909 index 42% single year 1950 southern and eastern Europe yearly average 135603 index 23% single year 1951 northern and western Europe yearly average 51 481 index 28% southern and eastern Europe yearly average 114 600 index 20% the rise of immigration from southern and eastern Europe in 1950 1951 reflects the operation of the displaced persons program through mortgaging of future quotas the displaced persons act permitted immigrants chargeable to small quotas to enter without regard to quota availability in any given year further effects of the national origin system it reduced the immigration of asiatics the official statistics also show a sharp cutback in immigration of people of asiatic origin after the national origin's law went into effect in 1929 table seven reductions in immigration of asiatics quota and non quota 1900 to 1951 1900 to 1909 Chinese 19182 Indians 3989 Japanese 142,536 Korean 7,749 1900 to 1919 Chinese 18,885 Indians 3,184 Japanese 77,257 Korean 996 1920 to 1929 Chinese 25,523 Indians 1286 Japanese 40,482 Korean 643 1930 to 1939 Chinese 2687 Indians 179 Japanese 2367 Korean 85 some single years from that decade 1930 Chinese 970 Indians 51 Japanese 796 Korean 27 1931 Chinese 748 Indians 65 Japanese 626 Korean 21 1932 Chinese 545 Indians 50 Japanese 503 Korean 19 1933 Chinese 44 Indians 1 Japanese 60 Korean 2 decade 1940 to 49 Chinese 7,764 Indians 153 Japanese 904 Korean 86 single years 1947 Chinese 1128 Indians 36 Japanese 9 Korean 1 1948 Chinese 3,574 Indians 42 Japanese 316 Korean 36 1949 Chinese 2,490 Indians 55 Japanese 492 Korean 39 1950 Chinese 1289 Indians 70 Japanese 45 Korean 6 1951 Chinese 1083 Indians 74 Japanese 206 Korean 24 Unused Quotas The 1924 Act established national quotas for immigration. The total authorized quota ceilings for the 28-year period since then, fiscal years 1925 to 1952, is 4,362,354 quota numbers. Of this, a total of only 1,923,509 was used. In other words, since the 1924 Act, 56% of the available quota was not used. Or, to summarize, total quota numbers available, fiscal years 1925 to 52, 4,362,354 total quota numbers actually allotted for use 1,923,509 44% total quota numbers unused 2,438,845 56% A picture of what happened to quotas in the two most recent years may be illuminating. Total quota numbers available fiscal year 1951, 154,285 total quota numbers actually allotted for use fiscal year 1951, 76,730 includes 9,579 numbers allotted to displaced persons under the Displaced Persons Act as amended total quota numbers unused 77,755 total quota numbers available fiscal year 1952, 154,277 total quota numbers actually allotted for use 92,181 includes 16,021 numbers allotted to displaced persons under Displaced Persons Act as amended total quota numbers unused fiscal year 1952, 62,096 Weighting Lists Despite large quantities of unused quota numbers assigned to some countries, there are lengthy weighting lists of people in other countries who were not able to obtain quota numbers because their country's quota was oversubscribed. The following are the five largest quotas Great Britain and Northern Ireland 65,721 Germany 25,957 Ireland 17,853 Poland 6,524 Italy 5,677 Only the British and Irish quotas are under-subscribed or open. The other three are oversubscribed or closed in varying degree. Thus as of August 26, 1952 only those applicants registered under the German quota prior to July 1st, 1952 could have expected quota numbers for the quarter October 1st through December 31st, 1952. So far as the Polish quota applicants were concerned, only those registered prior to October 1st, 1948 could be allotted quota numbers for that quarter in 1952. Registrants under the Italian quota who were in non-preference categories and who registered prior to January 1st, 1950 were eligible to receive numbers for that quarter provided as always that preference demands did not intervene. The State Department has provided the commission with the following list of oversubscribed quotas and the total registration thereunder, as reported by consular offices on August 1st, 1952. There is also listed the year through which quotas were mortgaged under the Displaced Persons Act as amended. Table 8, Waiting Lists for Quota Numbers Albania, present annual quota 100, total registration 2265, year to which quota mortgaged 1956. Australia, present quota 100, total registration 2836, year to which quota mortgaged not applicable under Displaced Persons Act. Austria, present annual quota 1413, total registration 27163, year to which quota mortgaged 1955. Bulgaria, present annual quota 100, total registration 1665, year to which quota mortgaged 1964. China, white, quota 100, total annual registration 1665, quota mortgaged to 1964. Chinese, racial, quota 105, total registration 2495, quota mortgaged to 1964. Czechoslovakia, present quota 2874, total registration 34,515, quota mortgaged through 1958. Danzig, quota 100, registration 4842, quota mortgaged to 1961. Denmark, present quota 1181, total registration 4842, quota mortgaged under Displaced Persons Act not applicable. Egypt, present quota 100, total registration 3400, quota mortgaged not applicable. Estonia, present quota 116, total registration 3908, quota mortgaged to the year 2146. Finland, present quota 569, total registration 3119, quota mortgaged not applicable. France, present quota 3086, total registration 4716, quota mortgaged not applicable. Germany, present quota 25957, total registration 262598, quota mortgaged not applicable. Greece, present quota 310, total registration 24227, quota mortgaged through the year 2014. Hungary, present quota 869, total registration 20697, quota mortgaged through 1989. India, present quota 100, total registration in India 6320, outside India 1501, quota mortgaged not applicable. Iran, present quota 100, total registration 4730, quota mortgaged through 1956. Iraq, present quota 100, total registration 7008, quota mortgaged not applicable. Israel, present quota 100, total registration 4050, quota mortgaged through 1954. Italy, present quota 5677, total registration 32107, quota mortgaged not applicable. Latvia, present quota 236, total registration 9104, quota mortgaged through the year 2274. Lebanon, present quota 100, total registration 2895, quota mortgaged not applicable. Lithuania, present quota 386, total registration 11946, quota mortgaged through the year 2090. Netherlands, present quota 3153, total registration 42265, quota mortgaged not applicable. New Zealand, present quota 100, total registration 710, quota mortgaged not applicable. Norway, present quota 2377, total registration 16381, quota mortgaged not applicable. Palestine, present quota 100, total registration 4394, quota mortgaged not applicable. Philippines, present quota 100, total registration 4217, quota mortgaged through 1954. Poland, present quota 6524, total registration 166244, quota mortgaged through the year 2000. Portugal, present quota 440, total registration 14871, quota mortgaged not applicable. Romania, present quota 291, total registration 23807, quota mortgaged through the year 2019. Spain, present quota 252, total registration 6208, quota mortgaged through the year 1956. Syria, present quota 100, total registration 2113, quota mortgaged not applicable. Trieste, present quota 100, total registration 623, quota mortgaged through 1958. Turkey, present quota 226, total registration 8874, quota mortgaged through 1964. Union of South Africa, present quota 100, total registration 697, quota mortgaged not applicable. USSR, present quota 2798, total registration 46292, quota mortgaged through 1980. Yugoslavia, present quota 938, total registration 56608, quota mortgaged through 2014. Reduction of quotas through special provisions. Quotas under the law are reduced by virtue of the effect of certain provisions of general or special laws, thereby further limiting the number who may immigrate to the United States. These reductions of the total quota came about by suspension of deportation. The general immigration law authorizes under certain circumstances the suspension of deportation of persons already in the United States. In each case the quota for that person's country of origin is reduced by one. By special acts, Congress may pass private bills for particular individuals. In each such case the quota is reduced by one. And by section four of the Displaced Persons Act as amended. A special section of the Displaced Persons Act permits certain aliens already in the United States to convert their status to that of permanent resident. In each such case the appropriate quota is reduced by one. The total of all quotas affected by changes of status is indicated by the following figures, which show quota charges through the second session of the 82nd Congress. Table 9 Quota Charges for Adjustment of Status. 1945, suspension of deportation, 5,429. 1946, suspension of deportation, 3,273. 1947, suspension of deportation, 2,981. Special Act, 26. Total charges, 3,007 or 2% of total quota. 1948, suspension of deportation, 1,652. Special Act, 27. Total charges, 1,679 or 1.1% of total quota. 1949, suspension of deportation, 1,392. Special Act, 83. Total charges, 1,475 or 1% of total quota. 1950, suspension of deportation, 833. Special Act, 133. Total charges, 966 or 0.6% of total quota. 1951, suspension of deportation, 1,506. Special Act, 289. Total charges, 1,795 or 1.2% of total quota. 1952, suspension of deportation, 1,780. Special Act, 192. Displaced Persons Act, special, 3. Total charges, 1,975 or 1.3% of total quota. 1953, suspension of deportation, 1,360. Special Act, 233. Displaced Persons Act, special, 29. Total charges, 1,622 or 1% of total quota. Future years, suspension of deportation, 1,781. Special Act, 92. Displaced Persons Act, special, 1,443 or total charges of 3,316. Failure of the National Origin System. Racial and National Pattern of Immigration. The purpose of the National Origin System is the selection and admission of immigrants in accordance with a basic racial and nationality ratio. In this regard the National Origin System has failed. For the period July 1, 1929 to June 30, 1951, during which the National Origin System actually has been in effect, a total of 2,010,887 immigrants were admitted to the United States, or an average of 91,404 per year. The quota immigrants averaged 54,095 per year, and the annual average for non-quota immigrants was 37,309. Considering only the quota countries, the distribution of actual immigration, quota and non-quota, varies considerably from that of the quotas themselves. The quota pattern did not prevail. Under the quota allocation, 81.6% were to come from Northern and Western Europe. Actually, only 55.8% of the quota immigrants came from this area. Under the quota allocation, only 16% were to come from Southern and Eastern Europe. In fact, of all quota immigration in the 22-year period, 1930 to 51, some 42.4% came from Southern and Eastern Europe. The following table shows the picture of the failure of the National Origins to accomplish its fundamental avowed purpose. Table 10, United States Immigration, 1930 to 51, by Regional Origins. Quotas under 1924 Act. Northern and Western Europe, 81.6%. Southern and Eastern Europe, 16.0%. Asia, 1.2%. Africa, 0.8%. Pacific, 0.5%. Total, 100%. Total Immigration, Northern and Western Europe, 38.7%. Southern and Eastern Europe, 34.2%. Asia, 1.7%. Africa, 0.2%. Pacific, 1%. Non-quota Western Hemisphere, 24%. Quota Immigration, Northern and Western Europe, 55.8%. Southern and Eastern Europe, 42.4%. Asia, 1.1%. Africa, 0.3%. Pacific, 0.4%. Mrs. Helen F. Ekerson, Chief of the Statistical Branch of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, wrote in the Immigration and Naturalization Service Monthly Review for October 1945, the pattern set by the admission of immigrants during the period 1930 to 1944 did not at all resemble the National Origins plan set up by Congress. Although the National Origins system did not establish a prefixed flow of immigration, the limitation on numbers did maintain a racial status quo in the United States, both in terms of nationality and racial characteristics. In terms of nationality origin, the following table from data provided by the Bureau of the Census shows that the status quo was maintained. Table 11, White Population of the United States by Origin, 1920 and 1940. Northern and Western Europe, 1920, 79.1%. 1940, 77.9%. 20 year difference, a loss of 1.2%. Southern and Eastern Europe, 1920, 15.1%. 1940, 15.9%. 20 year difference, gain of 0.8%. Western Hemisphere, 1920, 5.6%. 1940, 5.9%. 20 year difference, gain of 0.3%. Other, 1920, 0.3%. 1940, 0.3%. 20 year difference, none. The maintenance of the general status quo is shown in the following table on the three major racial groups. Table 12, Population of the United States by Race, 1920 and 1950, numbers rounded to thousands. 1920, Total, 105,711,000. 1950, 150,697,000. White, 1920, 94,821,089.7%. 1950, 134,942,089.5%. Negro, 1920, 10,463,9.9%. 1950, 15,043,010%. American Indians, 1920, 244,000, 0.2%. 1950, 343,000, 0.2%. Other non-whites including Orientals, 1920, 182,000, 0.2%. 1950, 370,000, 0.2%. Thus, what succeeded in maintaining a racial status quo was not the arbitrary and unsuccessful national origins formula, but the reduction in the total amount of immigration. This was done by the quota ceiling, which kept immigration so low, that the resulting increment to our population could have no significant effect on the national origins and racial composition of a country of our size. Congressional recognition of failure. The inflexibility of the national origin system brought about its failure in another respect. This rigidity prevented the accomplishment of certain desired national objectives, and required the Congress to bypass the national origin system on many occasions through special immigration legislation. Among such legislative bypassing of the national origin system are the following. War Fiancés. Ancillary to the War Brides Program, legislation was enacted to permit the temporary entry of fiancés in order that they might marry veterans who were citizens of the United States. Upon the performance of the marriage they were permitted to remain in the United States permanently. By June 30, 1950, a total of 8,538 aliens were admitted under this legislation without regard to the established quotas. Displaced Persons. As a result of special legislation enacted in 1948 and in 1950, the Congress authorized the entry of certain designated displaced persons and other refugees without regard to the current availability of quotas, and subject to charges made against future annual quotas. Some 393,542 persons were admitted under this program by June 30, 1952. Skilled Sheep Hearders. Congress made special provision for the admission of Skilled Sheep Hearders by special quota arrangements as noted in Chapter 2. Intelligence Operatives. Under legislation enacted in 1949, entry is authorized each year outside of the established quotas under certain conditions for 100 aliens and members of their immediate families who are certified as useful in executing the intelligence mission of the Intelligence Agency. Overseas Enlistees. Special legislation sanctions the admission into the United States outside of the established quotas under specified conditions of certain aliens who enlist in the armed forces of the United States in foreign countries. The 1950 enactment fixed the limit of such admissions at 2500. This ceiling was increased in 1951 to 12,500. Private Bills. In recent years there has been a growing disposition on the part of Congress to enact private relief legislation exempting designated individuals from the requirements of the immigration laws. When granted, such relief is without regard to current availability of quotas. Eliminating the duplications resulting from introduction of the same bill in both houses of Congress, 2,465 private bills were introduced in the 81st Congress for the relief of 4,145 persons. Of these bills, 505 were enacted for the benefit of 835 persons. Five bills were vetoed by the President, three of which were subsequently reintroduced and reenacted. In the last Congress, the 82nd, 3,302 bills were introduced for the relief of 5,784 persons, of which 732 bills were enacted affecting 1,364 persons. Two bills which were vetoed were subsequently reintroduced and reenacted. Conclusions. The National Origins System failed in its avowed purpose because it was arbitrary and did not conform to the facts. Immigrants do not come to the United States in the proportions set up by the National Origins Formula, and therefore it could not succeed in its purpose. The failure grows out of several factors, including the following. 1. The favored quota countries did not send immigrants in proportion to their quota ratio. 2. The National Origins System did not apply to non-quota immigration which was substantial. This included people from the Western Hemisphere and the families of citizens of any national origin. During the 22 fiscal year period from 1930 to 1951, immigration totaled 2,010,887. Of this total, more than 40% or 820,795 persons was non-quota. 3. Congressional recognition of the necessity for ignoring the National Origins System through special legislation such as the displaced persons and the war-fiancé programs and private bills which together admitted almost half a million people since the war. End of Section 12, Recording by Maria Casper. Section 13 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 8 National Origins System Suggestions to the Commission In discussions of the National Origins Quota System over a period of years, many alternatives have been proposed. Following are some of the suggestions made to the commission as to possible courses of action. Proposals concerning a total annual quota. To stop all further immigration to the United States. Such proposals have been advanced from time to time without success during our national history. In fact, the 1921 Act developed from just such a proposal. Some few urged this extreme measure during the commission's hearings. To abandon any numerical limitations. This is the pattern of free immigration subject to qualitative limitations which prevailed in the United States before 1921. No one has seriously urged this position upon the commission. To abandon numerical limitations, but to require assurance of financial responsibility. While this plan would not proclaim any specific maximum limitations, its sponsors argue that it would in effect operate as a self-limiting guarantee against excessive immigration. The qualitative restrictions in the present law would in substance be retained. In addition, each prospective immigrant would have to furnish firm and legally enforceable assurance that he would not become a burden on the community. This is a plan for qualified immigration similar to that in effect in some other countries. To allow free movement of peoples in designated areas of free trade. This proposal has been advanced by Fortune Magazine and envisages specific identification of the immigration policy of the United States with revised economic and foreign policies. To adopt flexible annual quotas based on national need and capacity. The advocates of this plan argue that the present immutable annual maximum number that may be admitted makes no allowance for national needs and changing world conditions. They point out that the quotas have remained fixed despite alterations in the requirements of the United States and of the world's situation. They favour periodic revisions in the immigration quota maximum based on an evaluation of current needs and the national capacity to absorb immigrants. This proposal could be combined with any formula for allocating visas within the annual numerical limitations. Either the national origin system or any substitute plans. Some have suggested that an administrative agency be given authority under standards established by Congress to determine the number of immigrants who would be received in the United States each year within a designated range. Proponents say that flexible authority to determine the number of immigrants to be admitted annually is conferred upon administrative agencies in other countries. Proposals to retain the national origin system. To retain the national origin system without change. This course of action was followed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and approved by some witnesses at the hearings. To retain the national origin system but make adjustments and revisions in its operations. Among those who urge this course are persons who support the national origin system in principle but admit that some modifications in the current statutory design are desirable and also persons who oppose the national origin system in principle but who have not devised any workable substitute pattern or who believe that legislative strategy dictates interim measures. A number of revisions have been suggested. Pooling of unused quotas. This plan has had strong support. It is predicated on the recognition that high proportions of certain quota allotments have not been utilized, particularly by Great Britain and Ireland. It proposes to assign such unused quotas to other countries. The supporters of this plan argue that it merely makes possible the full utilization of the quota numbers authorized by Congress which have to a large extent been wasted in the past. The opponents contend, on the other hand, that Congress did not guarantee that the quotas would be fully used, but rather established a maximum authorization. They also assert that any pooling plan would unbalance the national origin's pattern. A major problem is the determination as to how to apportion such unused quotas. Some would allocate the unused quota numbers solely on the basis of precedence in applications or in proportion to registered demand for quota members. These suggestions have aroused the objection that the entire pool would, in effect, be appropriated by nationality groups with high demand for immigration. Another proposed plan would reserve such unused quotas for the countries with low quota allotments and assign them in proportion to the original quotas. Another plan would assign the unused quotas to regional areas, the unused European quotas to Europeans, and the unused Asian quotas to Asiatics. Still another plan would apply the unused quotas to designated groups of immigrants selected on the basis of preferences, such as our national needs, family ties, and personal hardship of the applicants. Adjustment of the basis of computation Many have suggested substituting the current census, for that of 1920, as the basis for determining national origin's quotas. Such a modification would increase the total quota and make possible the admission of a somewhat larger number of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, where needs are great and quotas small. Another suggestion is to include Negroes, Indians, and other non-white persons in the population base on which the percentage is computed in order to arrive at the total quota. Under the present law, Negroes and American Indians have been excluded from the population base. Worthy to be included, this modification alone would result in an increase in the quotas under the act of 1952, based on the 1920 census, from approximately 155,000 to approximately 171,000. If both these suggestions were adopted, the aggregate quotas on the 1940 census basis would approximate 230,000, and on a 1950 basis aggregate quotas would become 251,162. Eliminate special racial quotas for Asiatics and also special quotas for colonies in the Western Hemisphere. It is alleged that these limitations constitute a survival of racial discrimination and are unnecessary in achieving limitation of immigration. The proponents of such special racial quotas urge, however, that they must be retained in order to preclude excessive immigration of Asiatics from Western Hemisphere countries. Moreover, they contend that the inhabitants of dependencies should not be permitted to utilize the quotas of their mother countries. Recind the mortgaging of quotas inaugurated under the Displaced Persons Act. Such mortgaging commitments are claimed to be an unwarranted burden on the future. In its final report, the DP story, the Displaced Persons Commission made this recommendation. Many witnesses at the hearings urged it strongly. Eliminate reductions in quotas through private bills, suspension of deportation, and adjustment of status. It is argued that by granting relief in such cases Congress recognizes that they present special meritorious circumstances, and that such action should entitle the alien to admission outside the quotas. Assign future quotas on the basis of the proportionate use of quotas during any specified period. Such a plan would gear future quotas to the proportions of past immigration. Assign national quotas on basis of national origin percentage in military service of the United States rather than on percentage of total population. This suggestion is intended to reward services rendered to the people of the United States. To retain the national origin system, but substitute regional quotas for the present national quotas. Under this proposal the quotas for all European countries would be pooled into a single quota for Europe. Likewise the quotas for the countries of the Asiatic area could be pooled into a single quota for Asia. This plan bears some resemblance to the Asia-Pacific triangle device introduced in the Act of 1952. It would afford greater flexibility in utilizing the quotas for Europe. The supporters of the national origin's principle would probably object to the failure to reserve the major proportion of the suggested European quota for the countries of northern and western Europe. On the other hand many of the opponents of the national origin system would probably argue that this new device would merely continue racial discriminations under another guise. However this suggestion would accomplish a pooling of presently unused quotas. To retain the national origin system in principle, but bypass it in practice through emergency legislation to admit additional persons on a non-quota or quota-mortgaging basis. The Displaced Persons Act was an example of such an approach. Quota-mortgaging was used to evade the restrictions of the national origin system. Senator McCarran's special sheepherder law, the War Fiancé's Act, Congressman Walters' Bill for Specialists, and President Truman's Emergency Proposal for 300,000 Refugees and Others during a three-year period, as embodied in the bills of Senator Hendrickson and Congressman Seller, are additional examples. Some oppose this proposal, who may agree with the objectives of a specific program so advanced, but argue that the way to deal with such recurring emergencies is through enactment of a sufficiently flexible basic immigration law, rather than through crisis legislation. Others in opposition object to the specific program. Proposals to Abolish National Origin System To repeal the national origin's formula and substitute a flexible allocation within a maximum quota established by law, this proposal would establish a maximum annual quota and would authorize the selection of immigrants within that total quota without regard to their nationality, race, color, or religion. Several different proposals have been advanced for selection within the single quota maximum. A. Some urge of first come first served basis. B. Others suggest a system of preferences for the selection of immigrants within the maximum quota. Various criteria have been suggested for such preferences. The following are some preferences that have been suggested to the Commission. 1. Relatives of American citizens and of alien residents of the United States. 2. Persons with special skills. 3. Refugees, escapies, expellees. 4. Immigrants from overpopulated areas. 5. Persons left in the displaced person's pipeline. 6. Immigrants to satisfy needs in the United States. Opponents of this plan claim that it would virtually preempt the entire quota for particular nationality groups. The proponents argue that this is the only formula that is morally defensible and completely fair. Furthermore, the proponents argue a proper system of preferences would prevent undue favoritism to any one nationality, and flexibility would permit adjustment to meet the domestic and foreign policy needs of the United States. End of Section 13, Recording by Maria Casper. Section 14 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 9. A Unified Quota System, The Commission's Recommendation. The Commission recommends the complete abolition of the national origin system. In its place, the Commission recommends a unified quota system. The Commission's recommendation contemplates a maximum annual number of quota immigrants to be determined by the Congress and a flexible method of allocating visas within such annual maximum. Vices should be allocated on the basis of statutory categories best serving the interests of the United States, and without regard to national origin, race, color, or creed. This allocation should be made periodically by an administrative agency established for that and other purposes, and would be subject to review by the President and the Congress. The National Council of Churches of Christ testified before the Commission that the national origin system is an affront to the conscience of the American people, the Archbishop of the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston stated to the Commission, the theory of national origins cannot be defended without recourse to the discredited and unchristian tenets of racism. The Synagogue Council of America testified that the national origin system flies arrogantly in the face of everything we know and have learned, and stands as a gratuitous affront to the peoples of many regions of the world. These representatives of the major religious faiths throughout the United States were joined by spokesmen from all walks of life in this country, the sciences, the arts, the professions, education, agriculture, business, labor, law, and social service, as well as by civic leaders and individual citizens. The Commission believes that its recommendation to abolish the national origin system accords with the convictions of the majority of informed people in the United States. The principal characteristic of the unified quota system is that it selects prospective immigrants without regard to national origin, race, color, or creed. In this regard it is in line with the attitude expressed by George Washington in 1784. Writing to a former aide de camp, Washington asked assistance in getting several immigrants for his plantation and gave the following qualifications. If they are good workmen they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe, they may be Mohammedans, Jews, or Christians of any sect. The Commission recommends a ceiling on quota immigration into the United States, based upon the formula figure used in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Namely, one-sixth of one percent of the population of the United States. However, that population base should be the latest available census figures and should include all persons in the United States without regard to national origin, race, color, or creed. On the basis of calculations shown in Chapter 4, under the 1950 census, this quota ceiling would total 251,162 visas annually. A unified quota system. Allocation of visas within annual maximum. The selection of immigrants who may enter the United States should be made on the basis of considerations which advance our national interest, strengthen our economy and culture, protect our security, and win and keep friends for us among other nations. The Commission's proposed substitute for the national origin system is a unified quota system. It is a unified or single quota of one-sixth of one percent of the total population of the United States, instead of the eighty-five national quotas required under the 1952 Act. The Commission recommends that within the annual maximum the allocation of visas should be made in accordance with the following five categories in the order determined by the proposed administrative agency. The right of asylum. One of our national traditions is that we have provided asylum and haven to the oppressed of other lands. This we were able to do until 1924, because our law was flexible enough to meet such situations. Asylum for the oppressed is thwarted by the national origin system. For example, Congress had to bypass that system by enacting the Displaced Persons Act of 1948. The United States is one of the few major democratic countries of the free world whose present laws impede and frequently prevent providing asylum. This is harmful not only to the cause of freedom and peace in the world, but to our own selfish best interests within our own borders. The Commission recommends that one of the categories should be based on the right of asylum, available for refugees, escapees, expellees, and other persons suffering from political, religious, and economic persecution. The Commission realizes that such problems are of international scope and responsibility, which the company of free nations must jointly assume. However, our present immigration law hinders the United States from playing its reasonable part in such efforts. The Commission believes that these categories normally should be subject to flexible application. However, in connection with this category, and as a temporary statutory priority to go into immediate effect, the Commission recommends that provision should be made for the annual admission over a three-year period of one hundred thousand such refugees, escapees, expellees, and remaining Displaced Persons. Under this recommendation, the entire recommended increase in the annual number of visas would, for a period of three years, be used to help solve an existing emergency situation. In this way a basic immigration policy can be established which would promptly help solve the existing emergency and still remain within a flexible immigration pattern, obviating the need for periodic emergency piecemeal legislation. Within the foreseeable future this recommended category would apply principally to Europe rather than to Asia. The outstanding exception to this may be Japan. The Commission's recommendations are based on existing world conditions. As shown in Chapter 3, American participation in a coordinated international effort to provide migration opportunities for refugees, expellees, escapees, and the remaining Displaced Persons in Europe could bring substantial alleviation to the emergency problem there caused by World War II and its aftermath. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the refugee situation in Asia, where the number of persons affected by dislocations of World War II have been equaled if not exceeded in the post-war period. Reunion of Families The great American success story records that we are a nation of immigrants and that a great part of our moral and spiritual fiber grows out of the sacred place of the family in American life. The Commission recommends that one of the categories should be for immigrants whose admission would result in reuniting families. Needs in the United States Our immigration law should encourage entry into the United States of persons whose skills, aptitudes, knowledge, or experience are necessary or desirable for our economy, culture, defense, or security. The Commission recommends that one of the categories should be for persons of skills or occupations to fill needs certified by the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, or Labor, or by other appropriate officials to be necessary in or desirable for the national welfare. Special Needs in the Free World The security and welfare of the United States are linked with the stability of other free nations in the world. The economic, political, and social conditions of other nations directly affect our capacity to preserve peace and freedom, develop international trade, and promote friendship among nations and peoples. An important problem facing the free world today is overpopulation. Wherever it exists the stability of the nation affected is threatened, and that nation's contribution to the defense against the totalitarian menace is lessened. For that reason among others all free nations and especially the United States are deeply concerned with the existence of such conditions and with efforts to reach solutions. In the interest of world peace and security there is an urgent need for a cooperative international effort to move surplus people to parts of the world where they can more effectively and constructively participate in the national economy. The Commission recommends that one of the categories should be for persons from countries of the free world where immigration to the United States can meet special needs and can provide substantial alleviation of hardships which threaten economic, political, or social stability in such countries. Obviously the United States cannot solve the entire world's overpopulation problem. This category should meet special needs. One, where population pressure is causing hardship and political discontent dangerous to the peace and stability of the free world, and two, where a reasonable amount of emigration would be effective in providing relief and alleviating tensions. Since the application of this category should depend upon the existence of special needs which can effectively be dealt with by migration, the circumstances and special needs of the particular country are significant. For Western Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, and perhaps Japan, emigration 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 where both the need and desire for migration is most acute, and where its result would be soon effective. A concerted international effort to deal with this situation would serve to bring about a relatively manageable situation in which the natural population increase of such countries could be readily absorbed for productive use within their own economies. Consequently the category would provide some migration possibility for overpopulated countries of Europe, but not at this time except perhaps for Japan for overpopulated countries of Asia where the need is not for migration but for improved use of resources and greater economic development. General Immigration There are aliens who may be desirable immigrants merely because they are good people whom we would be happy to welcome. These aliens may not be refugees or relatives of people in the United States or from overpopulated countries or possessive special skills. They are the kind of immigrants the United States traditionally has received, and they can contribute substantially to our development. It is distinctly in our interest to keep alive the opportunity for enterprising immigrants to come here. The Commission recommends that one of the categories should be for general immigration of all other qualified persons without regard to national origin, race, color, or creed. The Commission gave consideration to the desirability of applying this category on a first-come, first-served basis. Although in theory this might seem to avoid any taint of discrimination, the Commission believes that in practice it may bring about the kind of discrimination which should not result from our immigration laws. Conceivably a few countries of the world, through early registration for visas, might monopolize this part of the quota. A better plan, the Commission believes, is to use this category for the allocation of visas among such areas or regions of the world as may be determined by the agency for the purpose. Within any area or region, as defined by the agency, the number of visas may vary from year to year and should be issued on a first-come, first-served basis. The Commission suggests that the considerations to guide the agency in the exercise of its judgment in prescribing areas or regions should include, but not be limited to, benefits to the United States from granting the desires of peoples who are anxious to become permanent residents and citizens, and the opportunity to satisfy general needs of the United States for immigrants who do not qualify under any of the other categories. The standards to be applied under this category should not be rigid. The agency charged with such a responsibility should have a reasonable latitude in reaching a fair, impartial, and workable result, and should safeguard this category so that no one country, group, or area would obtain unfair advantages under its operation. The Commission recommends that the allocation of visas within the proposed annual maximum quota, in accordance with the statutory standards, should be made by an independent administrative agency established by Congress for that purpose, among others, described in Chapter 10. The Commission recommends, one, that such agency be headed by a commission, two, that the proposed agency be authorized to determine, in the first instance, the number of visas within the total maximum to be assigned to each of the categories, three, that there be public hearings before these determinations are made, four, that such determinations be submitted to the President, and thereafter sent with any changes he deems proper to the Congress, five, that such determinations become effective unless within a specified time Congress should disapprove of them by joint action of both houses, six, that categories so approved shall remain effective for a period of three years, provided that during the interim the proposed agency may, at the direction of the President, submit other allocations to meet emergencies, such new interim allocations should be subject to the same procedure as those originally made. The visa division of the Department of State has advised the Commission that on the basis of present visa control experience, and from the point of view of administration, a unified quota system is practicable and can be operated. Other aspects of immigration policy Other aspects of immigration policy are related to the national origin system and quota limitation. Non-quota immigrants. Neither the national origin's quota system nor the proposed unified quota system nor numerical limitations upon immigrants to be admitted into the United States covers all immigrants. Immigrants admitted for permanent residents, to whom neither applies, are called non-quota immigrants. The Commission recommends non-quota status for all persons born in independent countries of the Western Hemisphere, regardless of race or color. The Commission recommends that all discriminations and restrictions against colonies in the Western Hemisphere as a special class should be eliminated. The Commission recommends reinstating the previously applicable non-quota status for professors, clergymen, and other persons as such status was defined prior to the passage of the Act of 1952. The Commission recommends non-quota status for close relatives of citizens, with close relatives defined to include a. Spouses, b. Children, including adopted and stepchildren, c. Parents and grandparents. Restrictions upon immigration. It is intended that the Commission's proposed unified quota system will include qualitative restrictions upon individual immigrants. Such grounds for exclusion relating to security, health, public charge, criminal record, and other personal qualifications are considered in Chapters 12 and 15.


A mysterious man working in an unspecified place. He keeps digging, seemingly requesting anything other than avarice. A portal appears and a dreadful shadow steps out of it and into a man's body suddenly he was under the control of a demon, a very deadly one at that. Sheriff Roy Pulsifer died and earned membership into celestial organization that specializes in destroying demon's call rest in peace department RIPD. Would he destroy a man with human powers?


on Think Tech Live, broadcasting from our downtown studio in Honolulu, Hawaii and Moana, New York. I'm your host, Joshua Cooper. The title of today's episode is the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Nations 21st Session, Indigenous Peoples' Rights in the Mekong Delta. The UN PFI is actually bringing together Indigenous Peoples from around the planet to discuss the most important initiatives in human rights. Today, the Khmer Kampachia Kham representatives from the Mekong Delta share their unique history and current challenges facing Indigenous Peoples in Southeast Asia. Moni, thank you so much for joining us. Can you share and tell us where the Khmer Khrom people originate from and how are the Khmer Khrom Kampachia Federation organizing to make sure the world is aware of the human rights of your people? Thank you, Joshua Cooper, for giving us an opportunity to talk at your program today. So, we are the Khmer Khrom people from the Mekong Delta, and originally the Alphom land would belong to Cambodia, but in the French colonization hand over French Alphom land to Vietnam during June 4, 1949, and Alphom Khrom people now living in Vietnam. So the people just know that South Vietnam only have the Khmer people those not all belong to Vietnam, not Cambodia. So for us as the indigenous people of the Mekong Delta, we have no voice. The people back home have no voice. Unfortunately, we have the Khmer Khrom people living around the world, and we've formed the Khmer Khrom Khrom Federation just to advocate for our people's voice in the Mekong Delta. And people may know about the Khmer people from the Mekong Delta, but not a lot of people know that the Khmer Khrom originally really made from Delta. So we as the indigenous people, we try to let the world know the issue, the problem that our Khmer Khrom people are facing. Unfortunately, the people back home, they cannot go outside of Vietnam to tell the world the issue. So our organization fortunate that attended the United Nations Forum on issues in 2004. So since then, the world no more about the Khmer Khrom issue. And thank you, Joshua, for helping our organization to bring this issue to the UN. And we've been absolutely attending UN since 2004. And the Vietnamese government always denied, does not recognize our people as indigenous people. And even though claim that our organization has no right to represent for our people, but without our organization, the Khmer Khrom issue, we're not known by the world. So hopefully through this program, you know, the world will know more about the Khmer Khrom and the issue that we are bringing to the UN for this year. Tony, thank you so much for the introduction to share about the rich history of the Khmer Khrom people in Kampuchea. And I see Priscilla, you're in the UN General Assembly Hall. We know yesterday that's where the opening took place. And of course, what's really important about the Khmer Khrom in this two week session that happens every spring is they usually pick a theme. This year's theme is indigenous people's business autonomy and the human rights principles of due diligence, including free prior form consent. Why is that theme so significant for the Khmer Khrom people in the Mekong Delta? And why did you come to New York this week? Thank you, Joshua. Yes. So this theme is very important to the Khmer people of the Mekong Delta for many reasons, because our Khmer people lack the legal recognition as indigenous people in Vietnam. And so this lack of awareness really creates systemic oppression and discrimination against our communities in order to improve their businesses and livelihoods of our people. So because we are not recognized as indigenous people, Vietnam also does not support the rights of indigenous people. That would also allow us to move forward in protecting us in terms of business and human rights and those guiding principles. And so one of the biggest issues is how Vietnam is one of the biggest rice exporters in the world. Yeah, our rice farmers continue to be left behind because one, the government of Vietnam has mandatory price controls on our rice exports, which really keeps our people in poverty. Another thing is that the Khmer people also face human rights abuses by the businesses in the area. So for example, in one of our provinces in the Mekong Delta, crude oil is being extracted from the shores of where our people live. However, there's no free prior or informed consent with our people. So unfortunately, our people are not only having their land being taken from them and not having equal access in terms of their market competition with their rice production, but they're also not getting any benefit or dialogue with the businesses in state when it comes to extracting resources from their land. Thank you so much, Priscilla. So Ti, you know, you've also been here at the UN permit forum often. Why is this theme so important? And what was it like to speak and address this annual assembly and being able to share the words of the people back home who aren't able to speak for themselves due to the political pressure? Yeah, so I think it's definitely an honor and a privilege to be a voice for our people because without the KKF here, our people wouldn't be able to engage in the mechanisms of the UN. And so I know that there is a big following on Facebook and they're just so proud and happy that we're doing something for them. So it's definitely, you know, I'm so honored to be a voice and we're excited to continue this mission to advocate for their rights. And so I think, you know, the work that we do is very important and in particular, I just also wanted to add kind of what Priscilla was saying, like this theme is super important because it covers so many different types of topics, you know, and it's interlinked in a big way because, you know, the recognition of us as Indigenous people is very important because it allows us to access the rights that is enshrined in the UND drip. And it's really time, you know, our people, I can show an example, for example, one of our youth that, you know, they basically printed a translated copy of UND drip and basically they got tortured, they got arrested. And so this Indigenous led initiative was met with a lot of violence from the government and that's something that we're very concerned about because it is alright according to Article 3 and 4 of UND drip to be recognized, to self-identify as Indigenous. And we want to make sure that the voices of our people are heard in the process and we are here today to make sure that that is happening. Thank you, Sotie. And it is exciting. We have Soquintia with us who is a sophomore in high school and while most youth are doing model United Nations, you're actually here to talk about this important issue of free crime and foreign consent. What's it like to be at the UN and what are some other points you think that the world should know about what's happening in the Mekong Delta? Thank you again, Uncle Josh, for allowing us to be honest though, this is such a great opportunity for us. Honestly, this has been such a phenomenal experience coming over here to New York and actually experiencing what firsthand what is going on in the United Nations. Yeah, what our people have gone through in the Mekong Delta is really disheartening and it's not really like exposed a lot. So it's such a great opportunity to be able to represent my people and talk at such an important and big conference room and be able to tell everyone that oh, these are our issues and this is why we need to speak up because if we don't do it, no one will. So being so young too is kind of intimidating because everyone here is so much older but everyone coming here with open hands and everyone's so inclusive. So I really do appreciate this opportunity and I really do. Thank you. It's an honor to have you here and for you to be able to share with the world what's going on and it's also just the opening but what's really important probably is also the theme that's the UN decade of Indigenous languages. Priscilla, can you share why that's so important? I think you'll actually be going to your homeland and trying to learn your Indigenous language. Why is this theme of the UN decade of Indigenous languages which begins in 2022 so important to you and what do you think is important that the UN can do going forward to protect the Indigenous peoples in the Mipang Delta to be able to make sure that your mother tongue will actually flourish and not be made extinct by horrible policies and detrimental actions against the Indigenous people just for practicing their own right to language. Yes, this theme on Indigenous languages is incredibly important to our people and to me especially because I grew up in the United States. It was difficult for me to maintain our native language because I always spoke English in the United States so for me I'm excited and privileged to have the opportunity to go back and learn my language but unfortunately for the people living in the Mipang Delta Vietnam they have endured a lot and really been prevented by speaking and learning their native language. For example, the only way that many of them can learn their language is through our micro and Buddhist temples but even then those temples have been monitored by the Vietnam Buddhist Sangha and so monks at these temples have also been harassed and interrogated and detained for trying to teach and preserve our language. So I think that there are many things that the international community and the United Nations can help to do in order to preserve our Khmer language. We especially seek the help of the UNDP to assist in distributing and informing to help share and teach the UN Drift and the SDGs in our Khmer language and we also want our Khmer language to be recognized as an official second language of Vietnam because the Khmer names of our villages and districts and provinces should be widely used and our official documents should also be translated in distributing Khmer. So I also think that if Vietnam were to implement a national action plan that acknowledges and recognizes the Khmer people as the indigenous peoples of the Mipang Delta then that would allow our people to take part in discussions for how to sustain our language. One thing that we'd like to recognize is Canada's recently passed their Indigenous Languages Act and we urge Vietnam to help create an act similar to this in order to reclaim and revitalize our indigenous language in Vietnam. Thank you so much Priscilla and Soti. I know Indigenous language is very important for you as well and I know the UN UNESCO Specialized Agency program is funded also for could you maybe share why that might be helpful for assisting Khmer people to maintain their language and make sure that it's alive and flourishing not just like the jam on a jar or jelly just staying there static. Yeah so UNESCO is a very important agency. It's an agency that's leading actually the global action for the international decade of international indigenous languages and so UNESCO has a great I guess a great opportunity to help a lot of the indigenous groups like the Khmer people by helping to create a model what I say create a more inclusive and equitable education by developing a model for bilingual schooling in the Khmer language on kindergarten through to college and also expand to where we live so we definitely need more Khmer school but school's not just in Vietnamese and in Khmer but also in English because a lot of the work that we do is in advocacy in English and we have realized that that is you know that is very hard for our people and so we would also just like to reaffirm a right to learn our language and that you know it is used correctly and I think that UNESCO can really do a lot of great things to I think bring the importance of indigenous language and also create curriculum that is you know that is sensitive to indigenous indigenous people and I know that there is a we want a greater need like I know Priscilla just mentioned about like how the role of our monks in education it's it's through our monks our spiritual leaders that we have you know our culture identity and aspects of our language still intact because there's they're they're doing Khmer classes in the summer and so what we really want also with the this theme we want to ask the the UN and the help of the UN is to reaffirm the need for more independent you know indigenous institutions so to be creative and live without fear or influence from the state and that's so important moving forward in terms of preserving our language and identity. So T and we know today we're so honored to be met by a monk who was actually released from prison and he was just like many other monks the only thing they were doing was actually teaching the indigenous language in their temples after school and for that basic act for exercising sustainable development goal number four called the education they were then forced to be detained, disappeared and in this case serve out a prison sentence and it's pretty amazing so Quintia that you're here meeting these monks now why do you think that this decade of education is so important and how can UNESCO and these UNMCs help Khmer people inside the Mekong Delta? Thank you for your question I really do think that we can ask for like a special repertoire to come and invite them to ask Vietnam to invite the special repertoire to come to talk with the people and try to meet an agreement with like on how to be able to like teach like the Khmer language without like any like fear of being arrested or anything like that but I agree I think in learning indigenous languages is a big part of our culture and I've been through many like with my experience now in the UN I've listened to many like different reports of seeing how many languages are dying out like by the thousands every year hearing about like different stories about like during people like losing their culture and it's really disheartening to see this and we have the same issue the Khmer language is not like staying strong but because of you know monks spreading like they're being our spiritual leaders and everything I believe that we can still stay strong but we also have the fear of you know being arrested by the Vietnamese police and we need we need to act now to prevent this from getting any worse honestly it would be great to be like you see more people learning our language because it's such a beautiful language and like the the letters are so like decorative and really pretty and I think that we should be able to spread the language but currently in the current situation I remember reading that there was a school that only taught Khmer language for like one hour a week and that's like when you learn a language you need to learn how to practice it and have consistency because without having practice you won't be able to actually fully understand the language and one hour a week taking from personal experience growing up in when I was younger my parents dragged me through class school when I was like seven and I learned the gossips which is like the alphabet and it took me like three years to memorize all of it which is really bad but it's slow improvement but I think that with better education these kids can learn faster and like understand their elders too because the big generation gap from elders the younger generation is getting worse because there's like the language barrier and improving schooling right now can help you know bridge the gap and really allow us to talk more and have a better connection those are great points and for the UN decade on indigenous languages I've been learning aloha Hawaii every Thursday for just one hour a week and I can attest here it's so right it takes longer than an hour it takes many hours to build that foundation and it's not possible one of the other exciting aspects though of this two-week UN permanent form on indigenous issues is also the focus on the six mandated areas of the permanent form so one of the exciting areas that they look at is economic and social development culture environment education health and human rights maybe you can share a little bit Priscilla about some of these six mandated areas and what are the main concerns related to the human rights and the situation for Khmer Khrom people related to those six mandated areas these six mandated eight mandated areas are all incredibly important to our Khmer people especially in terms of economic and social development as well as culture and education and human rights as we've discussed one of them that we haven't been able to dig into as much with the human rights and so currently as we speak there was a one of the farmers in the Mekong Delta was has been arrested last year for trying to defend his land for farmers because the the vietnamese government has confiscated this land and so this is only one instance of there have been many other microbe activists that have tried to defend their land but they've been interrogated and harassed and even tortured and so this is probably one of the most crucial areas that our Khmer people need justice for and in addition we talked about the cultural aspects of our indigenous language and how we can improve that education by implementing it into primary schools through college however one aspect that isn't discussed in us regarding the economic and social development is their inequality in terms of the workers rights in terms of how our Khmer people are able to compete on an international level in terms of exporting their produce their rice especially because they are forced to sell at lower prices for the other industries and the government's profits so I think there's so much more for our people to do for us to go in order for us to advocate for them in order to get justice for these human rights abuses in order to improve the social and economic conditions of our people in the Mekong Delta and then as well as environmental sustainability thank you so much and so T how about you what do you think some of the parties are around education health human rights culture as well as economic social development yeah so I think definitely with the COVID pandemic we are very behind in terms of development in those areas I think it there was a lot of things that were happening that were put on hold so for example education a lot of our kids were unable to go to school and they didn't have access to the internet and so we are very concerned and worried you know in terms of the progression towards moving forward in terms of education and then there was also a lot of health related limited access to health during this time and so it's it's it's it's really really there's there's so much that needs to be done in address and so having the opportunity to be here to kind of provide recommendations to all the different agencies that can help us create projects it's vital to I guess to us moving forward and being engaged and being able to benefit right from from the work of the UN and making sure our people are represented so yeah thank you and so Contilla what do you think are some of the most important issues that could come under these six mandated areas related to education and health and human rights as well as economic and social development? I think so I think human rights and having the ability to like I okay I learned from my history teacher which is a bit out of topic but my teacher told me that oh I think that human rights is the best the most important right having the feeling of safety because well survival you have to find food water and stuff like that and schooling but if you're being murdered or like there's like constantly like enforcement is trying to like be on your back you can't find like the basic necessities before you keep yourself alive so the idea of having safety and making sure that your rights are protected is crucial to be insured that you are in a good environment in a good place um and I think that's one of the most important mandates out of this mandate that's wonderful and it's great to be with all four of you here at the Permanent Forum and so team it reminds me as we're closing I remember you coming from Australia for the first time and speaking on the floor of the Permanent Forum and you got a thunderous applause when you really spoke to to power about what was going on in the Mekong Delta reflecting on that how do you feel the progress that we've made I've heard Moni sharing that the people inside Compatio Comm are standing up more are watching things live on their telephones and gauging and even around the sustainable development goals maybe you can share a bit about that and your perspective yeah so I think having been doing this work and I've appreciate working with you all those years I remember like starting and not knowing and you having you to help guide us in all learning about the UN and things like that so um I think there we have come so much I mean we started off not knowing anything and now like the world knows everything knows a lot more about chamelecromes so if you did a google search of chamelecromes there's like pages and pages and pages about it and then it just shows the the work that we do is is is working right and so just recently the fact that our our youth is able it's courageous enough to you know put their lives on the line because they felt it's important to have this right that they're printing it out it doesn't matter if they're going to get harassed they know what they're doing it's right and they're trying to access that right I think that is just absolutely amazing it's very inspiring and we're we want to to promote this and improve but in those so the work that we do is so so important but like I said with with technology with Facebook we can directly connect with them we can share we can translate it it's it's phenomenal it's just changing the face of the work that we do and I think it's very exciting it's very important and we definitely I think the only other thing that I would add is that just amount of woman that has come through since since you know I think KKF is amazing in the sense that we are able to bring a lot of different people in we have the older we have the youth but we also have the woman so you know you can see here there's Priscilla and then there's so frontier and so much youth that have come through and that's something I'm really proud of to be part of this organization is the diversity of people that we've able to bring to be engaged on board not just inside of come to your ground which is most important but also the what we do outside but we're bringing communities together learning about our rights together it is exciting I remember in 2004 when we first met the KKF it was all suits and ties and it is exciting now as we're looking at a election for your organization coming up to see you and then even as you could almost say the next generation now that you're a proud mother and seeing college students and high school students coming and speaking form the feminist perspective for a strong foreign policy that reflects with women's rights at its core and I also remember the important work that you did at the UN committee on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and I know it's historic because Moni is preparing for the upcoming UN committee on the rights of the child that would be looking at children's rights inside the Mekong Delta and looking at article 17 29 and 30 of the UN convention on the rights of the child so so much is happening and it's so great to see the Khmer Crown people on the global stage and people knowing who you are and talking about the important issues in the Mekong Delta I know we'll have a couple seconds left Priscilla is there anything you'd like to add in these closing moments of Hooper Union Thank you yes I would just like to add how much of a privilege this has been to come to New York and be at the United Nations and stand inside the General Assembly for the first time in two years like all the other indigenous peoples and just meet these brothers and sisters from around the world that share so many of our struggles and also just coming from the US being able to speak on behalf of the Mekong Delta Federation and our Mekong people in the Mekong Delta has truly just been an honor it is exciting to exercise these human rights that we know of to then make a difference for peoples around the world and we'd like to thank you all for participating in sharing about the 21st session of the UN permanent forum on indigenous issues with the world thank you so much for watching think tech Hawaii if you like what we do please like us and click the subscribe button on youtube and the follow button on vimeo you can also follow us on facebook instagram twitter and linked in and donate to us at thinktechHawaii.com Mahalo