|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE The leading Copyright |
Veto of Bill To Revise the Laws Relating to Immigration, Naturalization, and Nationality: Presidential Paper Historical Seriesby President Harry S Truman: 1945-1953
Veto of Bill To Revise the Laws Relating to Immigration, Naturalization, and Nationality To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith, without my approval, H.R. 5678, the
proposed Immigration and Nationality Act. In outlining my objections to this bill, I want to make it
clear that it contains certain provisions that meet with my
approval. This is a long and complex piece of legislation. It
has 164 separate sections, some with more than 40
subdivisions. It presents a difficult problem of weighing the
good against the bad, and arriving at a judgment on the
whole. H.R. 5678 is an omnibus bill which would revise and codify
all of our laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and
nationality. A general revision and modernization of these laws
unquestionably is needed and long overdue, particularly with
respect to immigration. But this bill would not provide us
with an immigration policy adequate for the present world
situation. Indeed, the bill, taking all its provisions
together, would be a step backward and not a step forward. In
view of the crying need for reform in the field of
immigration, I deeply regret that I am unable to approve H.R.
5678. In recent years, our immigration policy has become a matter
of major national concern. Long dormant questions about the
effect of our immigration laws now assume first rate
importance. What we do in the field of immigration and
naturalization is vital to the continued growth and internal
development of the United States--to the economic and social
strength of our country-which is the core of the defense of
the free world. Our immigration policy is equally, if not more
important to the conduct of our foreign relations and to our
responsibilities of moral leadership in the struggle for world
peace. In one respect, this bill recognizes the great
international significance of our immigration and
naturalization policy, and takes a step to improve existing
laws. All racial bars to naturalization would be removed, and
at least some minimum immigration quota would be afforded to
each of the free nations of Asia. I have long urged that racial or national barriers to
naturalization be abolished. This was one of the
recommendations in my civil rights message to the Congress on
February 2, 1948. On February 19, 1951, the House of
Representatives unanimously passed a bill to carry it out. But now this most desirable provision comes before me
embedded in a mass of legislation which would perpetuate
injustices of long standing against many other nations of the
world, hamper the efforts we are making to rally the men of
East and West alike to the cause of freedom, and intensify the
repressive and inhumane aspects of our immigration procedures.
The price is too high, and in good conscience I cannot agree
to pay it. I want all our residents of Japanese ancestry, and all our
friends throughout the far East, to understand this point
clearly. I cannot take the step I would like to take, and
strike down the bars that prejudice has erected against them,
without, at the same time, establishing new discriminations
against the peoples of Asia and approving harsh and repressive
measures directed at all who seek a new life within our
boundaries. I am sure that with a little more time and a
little more discussion in this country the public conscience
and the good sense of the American people will assert
themselves, and we shall be in a position to enact an
immigration and naturalization policy that will be fair to
all. In addition to removing racial bars to naturalization, the
bill would permit American women citizens to bring their alien
husbands to this country as non-quota immigrants, and enable
alien husbands of resident women aliens to come in under the
quota in a preferred status. These provisions would be a step
toward preserving the integrity of the family under our
immigration laws, and are clearly desirable. The bill would also relieve transportation companies of
some of the unjustified burdens and penalties now imposed upon
them. In particular, it would put an end to the archaic
requirement that carriers pay the expenses of aliens detained
at the port of entry, even though such aliens have arrived
with proper travel documents. But these few improvements are heavily outweighed by other
provisions of the bill which retain existing defects in our
laws, and add many undesirable new features. The bill would continue, practically without change, the
national origins quota system, which was enacted, into law in
1924, and put into effect in 1929. This quota system-always
based upon assumptions at variance with our American
ideals--is long since out of date and more than ever
unrealistic in the face of present world conditions. This system hinders us in dealing with current immigration
problems, and is a constant handicap in the conduct of our
foreign relations. As I stated in my message to Congress on
March 24, 1952, on the need for an emergency program of
immigration from Europe, "Our present quota system is not only
inadequate to most present emergency needs, it is also an
obstacle to the development of an enlightened and satisfactory
immigration policy for the long-run future." The inadequacy of the present quota system has been
demonstrated since the end of the war, when we were compelled
to resort to emergency legislation to admit displaced persons.
If the quota system remains unchanged, we shall be compelled
to resort to similar emergency legislation again, in order to
admit any substantial portion of the refugees from communism
or the victims of overcrowding in Europe. With the idea of quotas in general there is no quarrel.
Some numerical limitation must be set, so that immigration
will be within our capacity to absorb. But the overall
limitation of numbers imposed by the national origins quota
system is too small for our needs today, and the country by
country limitations create a pattern that is insulting to
large numbers of our finest citizens, irritating to our allies
abroad, and foreign to our purposes and ideals. The overall quota limitation, under the law of 1924,
restricted annual immigration to approximately 150,000. This
was about one-seventh of one percent of our total population
in 1920. Taking into account the growth in population since
1920, the law now allows us but one-tenth of one percent of
our total population. And since the largest national quotas
are only partly used, the number actually coming in has been
in the neighborhood of one-fifteenth of one percent. This is
far less than we must have in the years ahead to keep up with
the growing needs of the Nation for manpower to maintain the
strength and vigor of our economy. The greatest vice of the present quota system, however, is
that it discriminates, deliberately and intentionally, against
many of the peoples of the world. The purpose behind it was to
cut down and virtually eliminate immigration to this country
from Southern and Eastern Europe. A theory was invented to
rationalize this objective. The theory was that in order to be
readily assimilable, European immigrants should be admitted in
proportion to the numbers of persons of their respective
national stocks already here as shown by the census of 1920.
Since Americans of English, Irish and German descent were most
numerous, immigrants of those three nationalities got the
lion's share--more than two-thirds--of the total quota. The
remaining third was divided up among all the other nations
given quotas. The desired effect was obtained. Immigration from the newer
sources of Southern and Eastern Europe was reduced to a
trickle. The quotas allotted to England and Ireland remained
largely unused, as was intended. Total quota immigration fell
to a half or a third--and sometimes even less--of the annual
limit of 154,000. People from such countries as Greece, or
Spain, or Latvia were virtually deprived of any opportunity to
come here at all, simply because Greeks or Spaniards or
Latvians had not come here before 1920 in any substantial
numbers. The idea behind this discriminatory policy was, to put it
baldly, that Americans with English or Irish names were better
people and better citizens than Americans with Italian or
Greek or Polish names. It was thought that people of West
European origin made better citizens than Rumanians or
Yugoslavs or Ukrainians or Hungarians or Baits or Austrians.
Such a concept is utterly unworthy of our traditions and our
ideals. It violates the great political doctrine of the
Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal."
It denies the humanitarian creed inscribed beneath the Statue
of Liberty proclaiming to all nations, "Give me your tired,
your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." It repudiates our basic religious concepts, our belief in
the brotherhood of man, and in the words of St. Paul that
"there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor
free .... for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." The basis of this quota system was false and unworthy in
1924. It is even worse now. At the present time, this quota
system keeps out the very people we want to bring in. It is
incredible to me that, in this year of 1952, we should again
be enacting into law such a slur on the patriotism, the
capacity, and the decency of a large part of our
citizenry. Today, we have entered into an alliance, the North Atlantic
Treaty, with Italy, Greece, and Turkey against one of the most
terrible threats mankind has ever faced. We are asking them to
join with us in protecting the peace of the world. We are
helping them to build their defenses, and train their men, in
the common cause. But, through this bill we say to their
people: You are less worthy to come to this country than
Englishmen or Irishmen; you Italians, who need to find homes
abroad in the hundreds of thousands--you shall have a quota of
5,645; you Greeks, struggling to assist the helpless victims
of a communist civil war-you shall have a quota of 308; and
you Turks, you are brave defenders of the Eastern flank, but
you shall have a quota of only 225! Today, we are "protecting" ourselves, as we were in 1924,
against being flooded by immigrants from Eastern Europe. This
is fantastic. The countries of Eastern Europe have fallen
under the communist yoke--they are silenced, fenced off by
barbed wire and minefields--no one passes their borders but at
the risk of his life. We do not need to be protected against
immigrants from these countries--on the contrary we want to
stretch out a helping hand, to save those who have managed to
flee into Western Europe, to succor those who are brave enough
to escape from barbarism, to welcome and restore them against
the day when their countries will, as we hope, be free again.
But this we cannot do, as we would like to do, because the
quota for Poland is only 6,500, as against the 138,000 exiled
Poles, all over Europe, who are asking to come to these
shores; because the quota for the now subjugated Baltic
countries is little more than 700--against the 23,000 Baltic
refugees imploring us to admit them to a new life here;
because the quota for Rumania is only 289, and some 30,000
Rumanians, who have managed to escape the labor camps and the
mass deportations of their Soviet masters, have asked our
help. These are only a few examples of the absurdity, the
cruelty of carrying over into this year of 1952 the
isolationist limitations of our 1924 law. In no other realm of our national life are we so hampered
and stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are in this
field of immigration. We do not limit our cities to their 1920
boundaries--we do not hold our corporations to their 1920
capitalizations-we welcome progress and change to meet
changing conditions in every sphere of life, except in the
field of immigration. The time to shake off this dead weight of past mistakes is
now. The time to develop a decent policy of immigration--a
fitting instrument for our foreign policy and a true
reflection of the ideals we stand for, at home and abroad--is
now. In my earlier message on immigration, I tried to explain
to the Congress that the situation we face in immigration is
an emergency--that it must be met promptly. I have pointed out
that in the last few years, we have blazed a new trail in
immigration, through our Displaced Persons Program. Through
the combined efforts of the Government and private agencies,
working together not to keep people out, but to bring
qualified people in, we summoned our resources of good will
and human feeling to meet the task. In this program, we have
found better techniques to meet the immigration problems of
the 1950's. None of this fruitful experience of the last three years is
reflected in this bill before me. None of the crying human
needs of this time of trouble is recognized in this bill. But
it is not too late. The Congress can remedy these defects, and
it can adopt legislation to meet the most critical problems
before adjournment. The only consequential change in the 1924 quota system
which the bill would make is to extend a small quota to each
of the countries of Asia. But most of the beneficial effects
of this gesture are offset by other provisions of the bill.
The countries of Asia are told in one breath that they shall
have quotas for their nationals, and in the next, that the
nationals of the other countries, if their ancestry is as much
as 50 percent Asian, shall be charged to these quotas. It is only with respect to persons of oriental ancestry
that this invidious discrimination applies. All other persons
are charged to the country of their birth. But persons with
Asian ancestry are charged to the countries of Asia, wherever
they may have been born, or however long their ancestors have
made their homes outside the land of their origin. These
provisions are without justification. I now wish to turn to the other provisions of the bill,
those dealing with the qualifications of aliens and immigrants
for admission, with the administration of the laws, and with
problems of naturalization and nationality. In these
provisions too, I find objections that preclude my signing
this bill. The bill would make it even more difficult to enter our
country. Our resident aliens would be more easily separated
from homes and families under grounds of deportation, both new
and old, which would specifically be made retroactive.
Admission to our citizenship would be made more difficult;
expulsion from our citizenship would be made easier. Certain
rights of native born, first generation Americans would be
limited. All our citizens returning from abroad would be
subjected to serious risk of unreasonable invasions of
privacy. Seldom has a bill exhibited the distrust evidenced
here for citizens and aliens alike--at a time when we need
unity at home, and the confidence of our friends abroad. We have adequate and fair provisions in our present law to
protect us against the entry of criminals. The changes made by
the bill in those provisions would result in empowering minor
immigration and consular officials to act as prosecutor, judge
and jury in determining whether acts constituting a crime have
been committed. Worse, we would be compelled to exclude
certain people because they have been convicted by "courts" in
communist countries that know no justice. Under this
provision, no matter how construed, it would not be possible
for us to admit many of the men and women who have stood up
against totalitarian repression and have been punished for
doing so. I do not approve of substituting totalitarian
vengeance for democratic justice. I will not extend full faith
and credit to the judgments of the communist secret
police. The realities of a world, only partly free, would again be
ignored in the provision flatly barring entry to those who
made misrepresentations in securing visas. To save their lives
and the lives of loved ones still imprisoned, refugees from
tyranny sometimes misstate various details of their lives. We
do not want to encourage fraud. But we must recognize that
conditions in some parts of the world drive our friends to
desperate steps. An exception restricted to cases involving
misstatement of country of birth is not sufficient. And to
make refugees from oppression forever deportable on such
technical grounds is shabby treatment indeed. Some of the new grounds of deportation which the bill would
provide are unnecessarily severe. Defects and mistakes in
admission would serve to deport at any time because of the
bill's elimination, retroactively as well as prospectively, of
the present humane provision barring deportations on such
grounds five years after entry. Narcotic drug addicts would be
deportable at any time, whether or not the addiction was
culpable, and whether or not cured. The threat of deportation
would drive the addict into hiding beyond the reach of cure,
and the danger to the country from drug addiction would be
increased. I am asked to approve the reenactment of highly
objectionable provisions now contained in the Internal
Security Act of 1950--a measure passed over my veto shortly
after the invasion of South Korea. Some of these provisions
would empower the Attorney General to deport any alien who has
engaged or has had a purpose to engage in activities
"prejudicial to the public interest" or "subversive to the
national security." No standards or definitions are provided
to guide discretion in the exercise of powers so sweeping. To
punish undefined "activities" departs from traditional
American insistence on established standards of guilt. To
punish an undefined "purpose" is thought control. These provisions are worse than the infamous Alien Act of
1798, passed in a time of national fear and distrust of
foreigners, which gave the President power to deport any alien
deemed "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United
States." Alien residents were thoroughly frightened and
citizens much disturbed by that threat to liberty. Such powers are inconsistent with our democratic ideals.
Conferring powers like that upon the Attorney General is
unfair to him as well as to our alien residents. Once fully
informed of such vast discretionary powers vested in the
Attorney General, Americans now would and should be just as
alarmed as Americans were in 1798 over less drastic powers
vested in the President. Heretofore, for the most part, deportation and exclusion
have rested upon findings of fact made upon evidence. Under
this bill, they would rest in many instances upon the
"opinion" or "satisfaction" of immigration or consular
employees. The change from objective findings to subjective
feelings is not compatible with our system of justice. The
result would be to restrict or eliminate judicial review of
unlawful administrative action. The bill would sharply restrict the present opportunity of
citizens and alien residents to save family members from
deportation. Under the procedures of present law, the Attorney
General can exercise his discretion to suspend deportation in
meritorious cases. In each such case, at the present time, the
exercise of administrative discretion is subject to the
scrutiny and approval of the Congress. Nevertheless, the bill
would prevent this discretion from being used in many cases
where it is now available, and would narrow the circle of
those who can obtain relief from the letter of the law. This
is most unfortunate, because the bill, in its other
provisions, would impose harsher restrictions and greatly
increase the number of cases deserving equitable relief. Native-born American citizens who are dual nationals would
be subjected to loss of citizenship on grounds not applicable
to other native-born American citizens. This distinction is a
slap at millions of Americans whose fathers were of alien
birth. Children would be subjected to additional risk of loss of
citizenship. Naturalized citizens would be subjected to the
risk of denaturalization by any procedure that can be found to
be permitted under any State law or practice pertaining to
minor civil law suits. Judicial review of administrative
denials of citizenship would be severely limited and impeded
in many cases, and completely eliminated in others. I believe
these provisions raise serious constitutional questions.
Constitutionality aside, I see no justification in national
policy for their adoption. Section 401 of this bill would establish a Joint
Congressional Committee on Immigration and Nationality Policy.
This committee would have the customary powers to hold
hearings and to subpoena witnesses, books, papers and
documents. But the Committee would also be given powers over
the Executive branch which are unusual and of a highly
questionable nature. Specifically, section 401 would provide
that "The Secretary of State and the Attorney General shall
without delay submit to the Committee all regulations,
instructions, and all other information as requested by the
Committee relative to the administration of this Act." This section appears to be another attempt to require the
Executive branch to make available to the Congress
administrative documents, communications between the President
and his subordinates, confidential files, and other records of
that character. It also seems to imply that the Committee
would undertake to supervise or approve regulations. Such
proposals are not consistent with the Constitutional doctrine
of the separation of
powers. Many of the aspects of the bill which have been most widely
criticized in the public debate are reaffirmations or
elaborations of existing statutes or administrative
procedures. Time and again, examination discloses that the
revisions of existing law that would be made by the bill are
intended to solidify some restrictive practice of our
immigration authorities, or to overrule or modify some
ameliorative decision of the Supreme Court or other Federal
courts. By and large, the changes that would be made by the
bill do not depart from the basically restrictive spirit of
our existing laws--but intensify and reinforce it. These conclusions point to an underlying condition which
deserves the most careful study. Should we not undertake a
reassessment of our immigration policies and practices in the
light of the conditions that face us in the second half of the
twentieth century? The great popular interest which this bill
has created, and the criticism which it has stirred up, demand
an affirmative answer. I hope the Congress will agree to a
careful reexamination of this entire matter. To assist in this complex task, I suggest the creation of a
representative commission of outstanding Americans to examine
the basic assumptions of our immigration policy, the quota
system and all that goes with it, the effect of our present
immigration and nationality laws, their administration, and
the ways in which they can be brought in line with our
national ideals and our foreign policy. Such a commission should, I believe, be established by the
Congress. Its membership should be bi-partisan and divided
equally among persons from private life and persons from
public life. I suggest that four members be appointed by the
President, four by the President of the Senate, and four by
the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The commission
should be given sufficient funds to employ a staff and it
should have adequate powers to hold hearings, take testimony,
and obtain information. It should make a report to the
President and to the Congress within a year from the time of
its creation. Pending the completion of studies by such a commission, and
the consideration of its recommendations by the Congress,
there are certain steps which I believe it is most important
for the Congress to take this year. first, I urge the Congress to enact legislation removing
racial barriers against Asians from our laws. Failure to take
this step profits us nothing and can only have serious
consequences for our relations with the peoples of the far
East. A major contribution to this end would be the prompt
enactment by the Senate of H.R. 403. That bill, already passed
by the House of Representatives, would remove the racial bars
to the naturalization of Asians. Second, I strongly urge the Congress to enact the
temporary, emergency immigration legislation which I
recommended three months ago. In my message of March 24, 1952,
I advised the Congress that one of the gravest problems
arising from the present world crisis is created by the
overpopulation in parts of Western Europe. That condition is
aggravated by the flight and expulsion of people from behind
the iron curtain. In view of these serious problems, I asked
the Congress to authorize the admission of 300,000 additional
immigrants to the United States over a three year period.
These immigrants would include Greek nationals, Dutch
nationals, Italians from Italy and Trieste, Germans and
persons of German ethnic origin, and religious and political
refugees from communism in Eastern Europe. This temporary
program is urgently needed. It is very important that the
Congress act upon it this year. I urge the Congress to give
prompt and favorable consideration to the bills introduced by
Senator Hendrickson and Representative Celler (S. 3109 and
H.R. 7376), which will implement the recommendations contained
in my message of March 24. I very much hope that the Congress will take early action
on these recommendations. Legislation to carry them out will
correct some of the unjust provisions of our laws, will
strengthen us at home and abroad, and will serve to relieve a
great deal of the suffering and tension existing in the world
today. NOTE: On June 27 the Congress passed the bill over the
President's veto. As enacted, H.R. 5678 is Public Law 414, 82d
Congress (66 Stat. 163). On June 30, the President signed Proclamation 2980 (3 CFR,
1949-1953 Comp., p. 161) revising the immigration quota
list. For the President's message to Congress on civil rights,
dated February 2, 1948, see 1948 volume, this series, Item
20. For the President's message to Congress on aid for refugees
and displaced persons, dated March 24, see Item 65, this
volume. Reprinted with permission from John Wolley and Gerhard Peters of the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Santa Barbara at the American Presidency Project.
About The Author |
Add to del.icio.us