Imperial Valley press., 1928-07-21

The following stat tement, brletfd
from printed hearings held before
the House immigration Committee
in June, 1928, is submitted by tn
California Joint immigration Com
mittee as an answer to the question
often asked, why the United States
does not apply an immigration quota
to Japan, instead of excluding
residents of that country from com
ing here.
1t is frequently asked why does
not Congress grant immigration
quota to Japan and thus end the
misunderstanding between the t-vo
countries, since less than two hun
! dred japanese year would enter
under such an arrangement? =
The question is asked usually by
those who have had no opportunity
| for acquainting themselves with the
/ details of the hearings on the sub
ject by the Committees of Congress
| prior to the passage of the lmmigra
tion Restriction Act in 1924. L is
natural inquiry to make. in the
absence of the knowledge which in
! duced or forced Congress to reject
! this quota plan after full considera-
tion, when it had determined that
Japanese immigration must be stop
ped and by plan which would give
least reasonable ground for com
plant on Japan 5 part.
The fundamental reasons are thai
the plan involves discrimination
against all other colored races of
Asia, including Chinese, Hindus,
Malays, etc, and still more import
ant, II involves entire Abandonment
of the basic principle to keep out
all the colored races without dis
eliminating laws. Congress felt it
could not afford to abandon that
/ principal even though there were
admitted thereby only one indivi-
dual instead of a few hundred.
Does Not Mention japanese
The seven line exclusion section
of the 1924 immigration act. which
does not even mention the japanese,
! is in no way a discrimination against
the japanese, and not even against
the other colorcd races, since it is
based on our naturalization law and
simply declares that we wil not ad
NIT to this country for permanent
settlement anyone who under our
laws is not eligible to become a
citizen. Our naturalization law,
which since 1890 has refused citizen
, ship 20 members of the yellow, brown
and red races, may he considered
| discriminatory against such races !;
but If the japanese or any other of
such races were declared eligible to
American citizenship they would be-
come thereby admissible as jmmi.
grants without any change in the
immigration act Japan 5 complaint,
therefore, if she has 4 legitimate
one, is not against tho immigration
act, but against the naturalization
law.
If Japanese arc admitted 3s i'm.
migrants we az once nullifv the
provision which excludes all indi-
viduals ineligible TO citizenship.
Unless We grant the same privilege
to Hindus, Chinese and other roIor-
ed races of Asia, we discriminat.
insultingly against such other races
and provoke friction and endless
| trouble.
Quota, if granted to japanese =.
lone of the races now ineIigibln 10
our citizenship, under the provision
OF the present act g per cent of the
foreign born in continental United
states according to the 1890 ccususj
would admit only 40 japanese per
year; but if the same privilege we're
granted to other Asiatic races. over
1000 Chinese could come each wear.
If Hawaii s population were nj
cludcd in the basic factor the num.
Der of japanese admissions would
increase to over 200 and the Chi.
nesc TO 200 or more. If tho cen.
sus of 1910 or 1920 should he used
~ basis, the quota of Japan would
be greatly increased.
Cannot Grant Quota
If we grant quota to all the col
ored races ii is only question of
time when under possible changes
in the immigration law or policy
their number in this country may
be increased; but in any event we
are sacrificing at once the basic
principle which holds that races de-
clared ineligible TO citizenship for
I reasons deemed to be sufficient
slal! not De admittcd to Ills c9un-