Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Taft, after much consideration, acting on the advice of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, Mr. Nagel, vetoed the bill. It was promptly repassed by more than the needed two-thirds vote in the Senate, but by five votes failed to receive in the House the necessary two-thirds majority. The sole reason for this veto given by the President was the literacy test which, in his judgment and that of the Secretary, was contrary to the principles of American institutions. It is fair to say that this test was urged by the Immigration Commission not primarily for the sake of excluding illiterates as such, but because the illiterate immigrants are, in the main, men from southern and eastern Europe who come to this country without their families often with the intention of returning to their home country after only a brief period of residence. These classes are the most dangerous competitors of American workingmen and it is they, primarily, who threaten the American standard of living. On that account it was thought the literacy test would prove to be the best practical method of restriction. Moreover, it seemed to be the one method that would certainly receive the approval of Congress.

The Second Dillingham Bill

After the failure of the Dillingham-Burnett bill further study of the question led Senator Dillingham to suggest a new method of restriction of immigration which should not be open to the objections to the literacy test raised by President Taft. He, therefore, on June 2, 1913, introduced a bill regarding which he made the following statement explaining its method, purpose and probable results:*

*The Bill in full will be found printed in Appendix A.

"This bill, if enacted into law, will materially reduce immigration from southern and eastern Europe and western Asia. The bill is similar in many respects to the Dillingham-Burnett bill which was vetoed by President Taft at the last session of Congress on the ground that it provided for the exclusion of illiterate immigrants. The literacy test for immigrants is omitted from the present bill, however, and as a substitute means of restricting immigration of the class referred to, it is provided that the number of aliens of any nationality, exclusive of temporary visitors, who may be admitted to the United States in any fiscal year shall not exceed 10 per cent. of the number of persons of such nationality resident in the United States at the time of the United States Census next preceding, but the minimum number of any nationality admissible in any fiscal year shall not be less than 5,000. Countries of the western hemisphere are exempted from the operation of the provision. According to the bill, nationality is to be determined by country of birth rather than of residence, but the term country does not include colonies or dependencies, which are considered as separate countries.

"The bill provides that when the maximum number of any nationality have been admitted, all other aliens of such nationality who may apply for admission during the same fiscal year shall be excluded, except that aliens returning from a temporary visit abroad, and aliens coming to join near relatives, as well as members of professional and business classes, may be admitted without reference to such maximum number. It is also provided that the Secretary of Labor may admit aliens in excess of the maximum number when, in his opinion, such action is justifiable as a measure

of humanity. Transportation companies are subject to a fine of $100 for each alien brought to the United States in excess of the maximum number allowed.

"Based on the immigration experience of the past ten years, the proposed law would not reduce immigration from western Europe, but it would result in a very material reduction of the movement from various countries of southern and eastern Europe. How the various countries of the two sections of Europe referred to would be affected by the law may be seen from the following compilation:

[blocks in formation]

"The average annual immigration from AustriaHungary during the past ten years has been approximately 220,000, but under the bill immigration from that country would be limited to 167,000 annually, at least until the census of 1920 afforded a new basis for computation. Immigration from Italy has averaged 207,000 annually, but future immigration from that country would be limited to about 134,500, while Greece would be limited to 10,000 as compared with an average of about 20,000 in recent years. Apparently immigration from Turkey would be cut down about one-half. Of all the principal sources of southern and eastern European immigration, Russia alone would seem to be little affected, as under the proposed law 173,500 immigrants could be admitted from that country annually, as compared with an average annual immigration of 172,500 during the past ten years.

"On the other hand, western European countries in all probability would not be in the least affected by the proposed law. Germany has furnished an average of 35,000 immigrants in recent years and under the proposed law could send 250,000. The United Kingdom could send about 258,000, but has sent an average of 96,000 in the past ten years. In the cases of France, Belgium, Switzerland, Netherlands, and the Scandinavian countries the margin is not so large, but it is not believed that the law would in any way affect immigration from such countries.

"It seems certain that the proposed law would restrict European immigration along the lines recommended by the Immigration Commission, and restrict it to a greater extent than the literacy test which the Commission recommended as the most feasible single

means of bringing about the desired slowing down in the movement of unskilled laborers from Europe. The effect of the literacy test is largely conjectural, but the method of restriction proposed by Senator Dillingham would confine the influx from any one country within certain definite limits. Moreover, it is pointed out that, by putting a reasonable limit on the annual increase of population of various nonEnglish-speaking nationalities, as proposed by the bill, the possibility of properly assimilating and distributing the incoming hordes would be greatly increased.

"Finally, it is claimed for the new method that it will afford a simple and effective method of increasing or diminishing immigration from time to time, as may be desired, by simply changing the percentage, and that the law can be applied without hardship to the intending immigrant."

Chinese Immigration Laws and Treaties

During the early part of the decade, 1850-1860, the Pacific Coast States and cities attempted to restrict Chinese immigration, but their regulations were declared unconstitutional. Recourse was then had in the year 1862 to the Federal Government.

The first treaty in which emigration from China to the United States was considered was the Burlingame treaty, proclaimed July 28, 1868. Sections 5 and 6 of that treaty state the position of the United States respecting the rights of Chinese in this country. The inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance, and also the mutual advantage of free migration and emigration of their citizens and subjects, respectively, from the one country to the

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »