154 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW
racial homogeneity as we still possess. Here we are in entire agree-
ment with the views of the 47 signers of the memorial of scientists to
which I have referred, expressed in the following language [reading
from the memorial] :
2. We further urge the prompt putting into effect of that provision of the
immigration act of 1924 whereby the quotas after July 1, 1927, at present de-
termined by the number of foreign born of each nationality bere in the year
1890, are to be adjusted so as to conform to the officially estimated number
of persons now in the country of each national origin, either by birth or descent.
We believe that this permanent basis for fixing the quotas already provided for
by law is sound in principle and fair to all elments in the population. Only by
this method can that large proportion of our population which is descended
from the colonists and other early setttlers, as well as the members of the
newer immigration, have their proper racial representation in the quotas. We
believe that Congress wisely concluded that only by such a system of propor-
tional representation in our future immigration could the racial status quo
of the country be maintained or a reasonable degree of homogeneity secured.
Without such basic homogeneity we firmly believe no civilization can have its
best development.
I believe that we have here an excellent statement of the true rea-
sons for retaining the national-origins provision, and I want particu-
larly to emphasize the last point made, that it is necessary to preserve
“ga reasonable degree of homogeneity ” in our population,
While it is true that we are a composite people to-day, it is also
true that by far the largest single element is still composed of the
basic Anglo-Saxon stock, which almost exclusively settled the coun-
try prior to the Revolution, gave us our Constitution, and founded
our American civilization. That stock at the time we became a
Nation constituted about 90 per cent of our population. We were
then, both in race and culture, a homogeneous people. Let me quote
what George Washington said just after the Revolution:
Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to
concentrate your affection * * * With slight shades of difference you have
the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles.
This homogeneity continued until about the middle of the last
century. Since then we have as a people undergone great racial
changes through successive waves of immigration. Some of this
immigration by reason of its fairly close ethnical relationship to the
original population was assimilated with comparative ease, both
racially and culturally. With the later—the so-called “newer ” im-
migration from southern and eastern Europe greater difficulties of
assimilation have been encountered; but if we do not further dilute
the basic stock, which still constitutes about one-half of our white
population, we may hope to overcome these difficulties. The effect,
however, of converting the temporary 1890 apportionment of our
immigration into a permanent basis will not help to achieve this
end, for it will further seriously dilute the original stock which at
the present time is still strongly represented in all parts of the
country.
While the national-origins basis will preserve the present status
quo and give that stock a share in the quotas, as great but no greater
than its present representation in our population, the 1890 quotas, if
continued, would heavily discriminate against it. This appears from
the following table showing the 1890 and national-origins quotas:
