30 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW
The Cuammax. I suggest, then, Mr. Lloyd, that you proceed.
Mr. Lroyp. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the
immigration act of 1924 was widely regarded as America’s second
declaration of independence. But the Nation has not yet been able
to obtain the great benefits which® were intended. The national-
origins provision, that vital and fundamental portion which settles
the vexed question of quota apportionment, settles it in a way which
is fair to every nation, and therefore bids fair to be permanent. has
twice been postponed.
As we see it, those postponements have not been because there
was anything the matter with national origins or because Congress
was opposed to it. We feel and we believe, we can show, that those
postponements have been due to a widespread misunderstanding
which had its origin and inspiration, or, rather, were caused by
directly and indirectly what we call “hyphenated propaganda.” I
I use that word advisably. It is a hard word. I use it advisedly.
We are prepared to show photostatic copies of documents of secret
organizations with alien purposes which a long time ago began
to agitate on this question.
What we want is the law as it stands. We are not asking for any
change. What we have got now under this great law is only a tem-
porary, makeshift arrangement. We do not like it because of its
arbitrary and discriminatory features.
Senator Reep. You refer to the 1890 basis?
Mr. Lion. I refer to the 1890 foreign-born basis, which is now
temporarily in operation. It is not a thing that looks as if it would
stand up, because, being discriminatory, it 1s open to violent attacks.
We feel it will not constitute a settlement of the nestion, and that
this great and important subject will be a bone of contention, with
danger to the cause of restriction and danger to the whole country
for many years to come.
The Cramrman. Why?
Mr. Lrovp. Sir, if the 1890 basis is discriminatory, it will be open:
to the charge of discrimination, and I believe that that is more
of a load than any restriction law can carry. Any law to restrict
immigration into this country has to stand up against terrific pres-
sure, and a law which is discriminatory will have the added disad-
vantage of being open to the accusation of being unfair and, there-
fore, it will have two kinds of opponents: It will have the out-and-
out sort of alien-minded antirestrictionists, and it will also have indi-
vidualistic and fair-minded people who will say this thing is quite
wrong as it discriminates against this European nation in favor of
that one; and the whole cause of restriction will be weakened thereby.
Senator Reep. It has already been attacked on that ground.
Mr. Lrovp. Yes, sir. I have a statement, which I would like to
come back later and make, if I might. But at any rate I have
speeches made in the last campaign in which the present 1890 basis
was violently attacked before a meeting of Italians because, as the
speaker said, that census was picked out “because it discriminated
against you people.” And the same thing can be said about other
nations; and we feel that there is more of a strain than the immigra-
tien laws can stand, to be up against—the alien pressure for anti-
restriction plus an accusation of unfairness.
