NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 131 
it would restrict this immigration at once by about 50 per cent. I 
may not be exactly accurate on the figures, but I believe it would 
involve the reduction of this immigration in the case of the German 
element from 57,000 to 23,000 or 24,000; and we believe that there 
is nothing in the record of the German element in the United States 
to warrant or to justify such a cut, and on the basis of national 
origins such cut would be made. 
We feel also that when it comes to the consideration of immi- 
gration there should be taken into consideration other things than 
the question of who arrived or who did not arrive a hundreds years 
ago. We do not believe that that is scientific; that it is worth 
while or important; that if immigration is to be fixed on some 
basis that it ought to be fixed on something that deals with the 
welfare of the United States and the conditions in the United 
States to-day, and not on something that happened a hundred 
years ago. 
I do not want to take up the time of the committee, but I would 
like to say that one of the reasons why there has not been a larger 
representation of the German element, that there have not been more 
persons appearing here, is because we have believed and felt that this 
matter had been definitely disposed of by the pledges of the candi- 
Jates in the last election, by the attitude of the two major parties 
on this proposition, and that that had more or less settled the matter. 
But since these hearings have come up we are down here to register 
this protest; to say that we think it is an unfair basis. There are 
many other matters in relation to the quota law that we object to, 
but we think that they are secondary to this one important matter; 
that it is an injustice to base the immigration of to-day on hap- 
penings of a hundred years ago, particularly as there is nothing in 
the record of the German elément to create in anyone's mind the 
impression that they are not a desirable element. Their whole record 
ever since the country has been founded has been a good one, and 
we believe that the basis should be fixed on something else, not on 
the national-origins clause. 
The CHARMAN. Are there any question ? 
Senator Rerp. Yes; I would like to ask Mr. Ridder a couple of 
questions. Do you believe in restricting immigration at all, Mr. 
Ridder? 
Mr. Roper. I believe in restricting immigration somewhat, ac- 
cording to the conditions, but I believe that the restriction should be 
selective; that it is not a good basis to say, for example, that out of a 
certain country so many people can come. whether desirable or 
undesirable. 
Senator Reep. You do not believe in the numerical limitation of 
immigration from particular countries? 
Mr. Ripper. No; I believe that the individual immigrants would 
give us a better basis to work on than to say, for example, that out 
of any country a certain number should come, good, bad, or indiffer- 
ent; that we have a much better way of selecting immigration, and 
that would be to make it a personal selection rather than a group 
selection. 
Senator Reep. Do you think we could ever agree on what immi- 
grants were the best?