Resolution of House Committee to Amend Immigration Law Given

Senate Opinion Opposed to National Origins Plan, Discussion Shows (Jewish Daily Bulletin)

The resolution which was recommended favorably to the House by the Immigration Committee, amending the Senate Resolution for changes in the Immigration law of 1924 provides that:

“Subdivision (a) of Section 4 of the Immigration Act of 1924 be amended so as to read as follows:

“(a) An immigrant who is the unmarried child under 21 years of age, the wife, or the husband, of a citizen of the United States who resides there in at the time of the filing of a petition under Section 9.”

Section 2. (a) Subdivision (c) of Section 4 of the Immigration Act of 1924 is amended to read as follows:

“(c) Animmigrant who was born in territory which at the time of the application for the issuance of the immigration visa is under the jurisdiction of the United States, or in the Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, the Republic of Mexico, the Republic of Cuba, the Republic of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, or an independent country of Central or South America, and his wife, and his unmarried children under 21 years of age, if accompanying or following to join him”;

“(b) So much subdivision (a) of section 12 of the Immigration Act of 1924 as reads as follows: “An immigrant born in the United States who has lost his United States citizenship shall be considered as having been born in the country of which he is a citizen or subject of any country, then in the country from which he comes,” is repealed.

Section 3. Section 6 of the Immigration Act of 1924 is amended by adding at the end thereof a new subdivision to read as follows:

“(d) If before the close of any fiscal year the President finds that the estimated demand for immigration visas by quota immigrants of any nationality who are either relatives of citizens of the United States entitled to preference under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of this section or the wives, or unmarried children under 21 years of age, of aliens lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence, exceeds 60 per centum of the quota for such nationality for the ensuing fiscal year, he shall by proclamation so declare, and thereupon–

“(1) Paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) (relating to preference to skilled agriculturists and their wives and children) and subdivision (b) of this section shall not be in effect during such ensuing fiscal year in respect of immigrants of such nationality;

“(2) During such ensuing fiscal year, in the issuance of immigration visas to quota immigrants of such nationality preference shall be given to the wives, and the unmarried children under 21 years of age, of aliens lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence; and

“(3) The preference provided in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) (relatives of American citizens) and in paragraph (2) of this subdivision shall not, in the case of quota immigrants of such nationality, exceed 90 per centum of the quota for such nationality. During such ensuing fiscal year the immigrants enumerated in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) shall have priority in preference over those enumerated in paragraph (2) of this subdivision.”

Opposition to the national origins provision of the Immigration Act, “comes principally from the German element and the Irish, and partly from the Swedes, because their quotas will be cut down by the ‘national origins’ method,” declared Senator Reed (Rep.), of Pennsylvania, in the course of the debate on the proposal to defer application of the principle for another year.

The Senate adopted the proposal in the form of a resolution favorably reported by the Committee on Immigration, with the understanding on the part of proponents and opposers of the measure that it is a temporary arrangement due to lack of complete information on national origins.

In the debate in Senate on Feb. 1, Senator Reed of Pennsylvania stated:

“If the ‘national origins’ method is repealed, it will allow an immigration of about 164,000 annually. If it goes into effect, it will cut down the immigration to 153,000.”

Mr. Lenroot (Rep.), Wis., stated that he favored the immigration remaining permanently as it is under the law applied today.

Senator Reed (Dem.) of Missouri stated: “I have examined the report Which is transmitted by the President to the Congress; and the report having been made with reference to the question of ‘national origins.’ Anyone who will examine that report will understand that at best it furnishes only the loosest kind of a guess as to the origins of the present population of the United States. A moment’s consideration will show how difficult the problem would be.

“A man whose ancestors or some of whose ancestors have been in this country four or five generations finds as many crosses of blood, and each of these crosses of blood finds as many crosses in its own instance; and the result is that it is very difficult to say, as to any man whose ancestors came here a century ago, that they are of English stock, or Irish stock. or Scotch stock, or German stock, because there may intermingle in his veins the blood of a half dozen different races.

“So that the proposition of selecting people by race-origin is impossible, for there are probably men in this Chamber who have four or five different national bloods in their veins; and this commission undertook to guess it off by the number of people of known national origin at some certain time in the country, and then presuming that their posterity continued in that ratio.

“It is the wildest kind of a guess. The national-origins law is the most impractical thing I ever saw written into a law, and it opens the door for all kinds of unfairness and injustice.

“According to this schedule which was prepared, we are nearly all English; the great percentage of our population is English. Everybody with a little bit of common sense knows that is not true. The law ought to be changed.

“For instance, under the present law, as shown by this report, there can be admitted from Germany 51,227; under the proposed change only 23,428.

“From Great Britain and northern Ireland–they divide northern Ireland now from southern Ireland. I presume because it happens to be politically separated–under the present law there can be admitted 34,007, and under the new alloment 73,039.”

Gifts amounting to $100,000 were presented to the Hebrew Institute of Pittsburgh in commemoration of the school’s tenth anniversary, it was announced.

Mrs.Sel Rosenbloom presented $25,000 to the institute. Marcus and Charles I. Aaron pledged $10,000 and other large contributors were Bennie Neiman, Leo Lenman, Edgar J. Kaulmann. Irvia F.Lehman. Abe Seder. Mandel. George and Harry Goff. Joseph Berkman. Sig Hahn, Morris Landay. M. Lando. Harry L. Neaman, Herman Kamins, J. H. Frank and Aaron Cehen.

The amount will be used to aid in paying a deficit and also to increase the school’s annual income, the increase having been made necessary by the opening of a Jewish teachery’ training school in connection with the institute.

The new building of the Daughters of Miriam. Home for the Aged and Orphans in Clifton, N. J., was dedicated last Sunday.

Senator Edward I. Edwards. James Wilson. president of the Chamber of Commerce; former Mayor Nathan Barner and Isidore Simon. were among the speakers at the dedication ceremonies. Filber L. Ber### provided.