The united American : a magazine of good citizenchip., December 01, 1926, Page 9, Image 9

December 1926
THE UNITED AMERICAN
Page Nine
Admits the Immigration Law Contains Inhuman Provisions
By H. J. LANGOE
“T HE IMMIGRATION COMMITTEE wants to and
intends to make some minor amendments to the
immigration law so that it will be more humane.”
This quotation is taken verbatum from a press
interview in which Congressman Albert Johnson,
chairman of the Committee on Immigration, in the
lower house of Congress, aired some of his philoso­
phies and mental reactions to current public opinion,
some time before the opening of the present session
of Congress. The United American is taking the
liberty of accentuating the last part of the quoted
statement, as it contains nothing more*or less than
an admission of error in the original draft, which is
now the law.
The statement embraces one of two things:
either that Albert Johnson, himself, or the committee
as a whole, in drafting and pushing through Congress
the original Immigration Quota law, as it now stands,
were prejudiced and not wholly actuated by what he,
as spokeman for the committee, asserted to be a
simple expedient, a traditionally fair expression of
American justice in the interest only of adequate
protection for America and her people, or else it is
an open admission of gross ignorance of facts obtain­
able, neither of which can gracefully constitute an
alibi in keeping with the implied responsibilities
resting upon the offices of chairman and membership
of the Committee on-Immigration in Congress.
*
*
*
There is nothing wrong with the earlier Ameri­
can traditions of fairness. Our history is replete with
incidents showing that the American people, in the
past, have laid due stress upon strict adherence to
the principles of justice—the kind that we have
been so proud to term “the American brand.” They
maintained uncompromisingly that these principles
should never be infringed upon, neither in our deal­
ings with one another, nor in our dealings with
foreign nations, and least of all in our dealings with
the immigrants who knock at our door. Through the
years since America entered the sisterhood of nations,
the world has gradually learned to regard the Ameri­
can expressions of justice as a criterion, the acme in
humane reasoning, and our strict adherence to these
principles have done more than anything else to place
the halo of esteem and admiration, love and respect
around the very name—AMERICA.
Fortunately our earlier records tell most vividly
this story.
Should we refer to some of the major legislative
enactments which have been written into our state
and congressional legislative records in recent years,
many and noticeable digressions from the established
principles of American justice would pass in review.
Perhaps it was too much to expect that America
could escape its share in the abominable harvest of
hatred which followed the recent world war, but
those who have used their positions of trust and in­
fluence to plant the seeds of war hatred and intolerence
in American soil, cannot escape the eventual conse­
quences.
Is it safe to conjecture that the reactions, even at
this stage, have set in with sufficient force to show
those responsible for this situation, the sorry con­
trast they and their speeches, their interviews and
legislative accomplishments constitute, as permanent
records in the American history ? Perhaps we are
venturesome, but there is a margin for our guess.
*
*
*
“More humane.”— Well, it may not mean much
to those who are not affected by any of the needless
and overly drastic clauses in this law, which smacks of
fallacious reasoning, but nevertheless it carries a ray
of hope to the families sundered by the specific and
sundry provisions in the law.
As old as immigration to America itself, so old is
the custom of the family provider, the husband and
father, to leave his family behind in the old countrv,
while, like an advance agent, he goes to America to
accumulate enough to provide ticket money for his
loved ones, and lay a foundation for a home in which to
receive them. When the restricted quota immigration
law went into effect, practically terminating, immi­
gration from many of the European countries, the
struggling immigrants ifi America, who had waiting
families in Europe, found themselves robbed of this
fruit of their labor, l'he meager quota would, in most
instances, prevent a reunion of the families on this
side of the Atlantic for the remainder of their natural
lives—only one alternative remaining open: the immi­
grant might leave America and return to his family
and the conditions he left behind, with not one in a
thousand chances of ever being able to re-enter this
country as an immigrant.
Well, perhaps it wasn’t any business of ours to
consider that phase of the matter. “We didn’t ask
them to come in the first place,” is the way many
Americans, not feeling particularly interested in the
immigrants, are frequently heard to exclaim. We
might, even in spots, be so considerate that we can
persuade ourselves to become a wee bit sorry for these
unfortunate “foreigners.”
Beyond that point the matter is rather boresome
to the smug type of citizen who sees no reason why
he should lose any sleep over such an uninteresting
subject as the Immigration law.
Let us compare it with the prohibition law—well,
that would hardly do, for somehow that brings home
to every American a matter of serious dispute, anent
infringements on old established prerogatives of per­
sonal liberty, the sanctity of the home, the automo­
bile, the garage, the secret saloon compartment in the
office desk, the hip pocket booze storage plant, etc.,
etc., oh, that’s a different matter all together, even
congressmen who vote dry, have “perfect” personal
wet prerogatives that are no other citizen’s business.
No, of course, from a strictly American viewpoint of
personal interest there is no comparison between the
Immigration Quota law and the Prohibition law and
Constitutional provisions.
Perhaps not.
There may be no real issue of sound comparison
between these laws, yet, we compare the two, to draw
(Continued on Page Sixteen)