Message to the Senate Returning Without Approval "An Act to Regulate the Immigration of Aliens to and the Residence of Aliens in the United States"

To the Senate:

I return herewith, without my approval, Senate Bill No. 3175.

I do this with great reluctance. The bill contains many valuable amendments to the present immigration law which will insure greater certainty in excluding undesirable immigrants.

The bill received strong support in both Houses and was recommended by an able commission after an extended investigation and carefully drawn conclusions.

But I can not make up my mind to sign a bill which in its chief provision violates a principle that ought, in my opinion, to be upheld in dealing with our immigration. I refer to the literacy test. For the reasons stated in Secretary Nagel's letter to me [below], I can not approve that test. The Secretary's letter accompanies this.

WM. H. TAFT.

The White House, Washington, February 14, 1913.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,

Washington, February 12, 1913.

My DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: On the 4th instant Mr. Hilles, by your direction, sent me Senate bill 3175, "An act to regulate the immigration of aliens to and the residence of aliens in the United States," with the request that I inform you at my earliest convenience if I know of any objection to its approval. I now return the bill with my comments. The following are some of the objections that have been raised:

First. No exception has been made in behalf of Hawaii.

Second. The provision that persons shall be excluded who can not become eligible under existing law to become citizens of the United States by naturalization is obscure, because it leaves unsettled the question as to who are to be regarded as white persons. But this is merely a perpetuation of the uncertainty which is now to be found in the naturalization law.

Third. The provision that the Secretary may determine in advance upon application whether it is necessary to import skilled labor in any particular instance, that this decision shall be held in abeyance for 30 days, and that in the meantime anyone objecting may appeal to the district court to try de novo such question of necessity is unsatisfactory. The provision for the appeal to the courts is probably unconstitutional, but even if the entire provision proves ineffective the law will be left substantially where it is, and so this does not constitute a grave objection to the bill.

Fourth. The provision that the Secretary may detail immigrant inspectors and matrons for duty on vessels carrying immigrants or immigrant passengers is objected to by foreign countries, but inasmuch as this is left to the discretion of the Secretary, and it is understood, for illustration, that Italy insists upon such practice with respect to all steamship companies taking immigrants from her shores, it does not seem to me that this is a controlling objection.

Fifth. The provision in section 7, with respect to the soliciting of immigration by steamship companies, vests the Secretary with somewhat drastic authority by way of imposing fines and denying the right of a steamship company to land alien immigrant passengers. Again, this is not mandatory, and therefore does not go to the heart of the bill.

It appears to me that all these and similar objections might well have been considered in committee and may become the subject of future consideration by Congress, but, fairly considered, they are of incidental importance only and furnish no sufficient reason for disapproving this bill.

With respect to the literacy test I feel compelled to state a different conclusion. In my opinion, this is a provision of controlling importance, not only because of the immediate effect which it may have upon immigration and the embarrassment and cost it may impose upon the service, but because it involves a principle of far-reaching consequence with respect to which your attitude will be regarded with profound interest

The provision as it now appears will require careful reading. In some measure the group system is adopted—that is, one qualified immigrant may bring in certain members of his family—but the effect seems to be that a qualified alien may bring in members of his family who may themselves be disqualified, whereas a disqualified member would exclude all dependent members of his family no matter how well qualified they might otherwise be. In other words, a father who can read a dialect might bring in an entire family of absolutely illiterate people, barring his sons over 16 years of age, whereas a father who can not read a dialect would bring about the exclusion of his entire family, although every one of them can read and write.

Furthermore, the distinction in favor of the female members of the family as against the male members does not seem to me to rest upon sound reason. Sentimentally, of course it appeals, but industrially considered it does not appear to me that the distinction is sound. Furthermore, there is no provision for the admission of aliens who have been domiciled here, and who have simply gone abroad for a visit. The test would absolutely exclude them upon return.

In the administration of this law very considerable embarrassment will be experienced. This at least is the judgment of members of the immigration force upon whose recommendations I rely. Delay will necessarily ensue at all ports, but on the borders of Canada and Mexico that delay will almost necessarily result in great friction and constant complaint. Furthermore, the force will have to be very considerably increased, and the appropriation will probably be in excess of present sums expended by as much as a million dollars. The force of interpreters will have to be largely increased and, practically speaking, the bureau will have to be in a position to have an interpreter for any kind of language or dialect of the world at any port at any time. Finally, the interpreters will necessarily be foreigners, and with respect to only a very few of the languages or dialects will it be possible for the officials in charge to exercise anything like supervision.

I am of the opinion that this provision can not be defended upon its merits. It was originally urged as a selective test. For some time recommendations in its support upon that ground have been brought to our attention. The matter has been considered from that point of view, and I became completely satisfied that upon that ground the test could not be sustained. The older argument is now abandoned, and in the later conferences, at least, the ground is taken that the provision is to be defended as a practical measure to exclude a large proportion of undesirable immigrants from certain countries. The measure proposes to reach its result by indirection, and is defended purely upon the ground of practical policy, the final purpose being to reduce the quantity of cheap labor in this country. I can not accept this argument. No doubt the law would exclude a considerable percentage of immigration from southern Italy, among the Poles, the Mexicans, and the Greeks. This exclusion would embrace probably in large part undesirable but also a great many desirable people, and the embarrassment, expense, and distress to those who seek to enter would be out of all proportion to any good that can possibly be promised for this measure.

My observation leads me to the conclusion that, so far as the merits of the individual immigrant are concerned, the test is altogether overestimated. The people who come from the countries named are frequently illiterate because opportunities have been denied them. The oppression with which these people have to contend in modem times is not religious, but it consists of a denial of the opportunity to acquire reading and writing. Frequently the attempt to learn to read and write the language of the particular people is discouraged by the Government, and these immigrants in coming to our shores are really striving to free themselves from the conditions under which they have been compelled to live.

So far as the industrial conditions are concerned, I think the question has been superficially considered. We need labor in this country, and the natives are unwilling to do the work which the aliens come over to do. It is perfectly true that in a few cities and localities there are congested conditions. It is equally true that in very much larger areas we are practically without help. In my judgment, no sufficiently earnest and intelligent effort has been made to bring our wants and our supply together, and so far the same forces that give the chief support to this provision of the new bill have stubbornly resisted any effort looking to an intelligent distribution of new immigration to meet the needs of our vast country. In my judgment, no such drastic measure based upon a ground which is untrue and urged for a reason which we are unwilling to assert should be adopted until we have at least exhausted the possibilities of a rational distribution of these new forces.

Furthermore, there is a misapprehension as to the character of the people who come over here to remain. It is true that in certain localities newly-arrived aliens live under deplorable conditions. Just as much may be said of certain localities that have been inhabited for a hundred years by natives of this country. These are not the general conditions, but they are the exceptions. It is true that a very considerable portion of immigrants do not come to remain, but return after they have acquired some means, or because they find themselves unable to cope with the conditions of a new and aggressive country. Those who return for the latter reason relieve us of their own volition of a burden. Those who return after they have acquired some means certainly must be admitted to have left with us a consideration for the advantage which they have enjoyed. A careful examination of the character of the people who come to stay and of the employment in which a large part of the new immigration is engaged will, in my judgment, dispel the apprehension which many of our people entertain. The census will disclose that with rapid strides the foreign-born citizen is acquiring the farm lands of this country. Even if the foreign-born alone is considered, the percentage of his ownership is assuming a proportion that ought to attract the attention of the native citizens. If the second generation is included it is safe to say that in the Middle West and West a majority of the farms are to-day owned by foreign-born people or they are descendants of the first generation. This does not embrace only the Germans and the Scandinavians, but is true in large measure, for illustration, of the Bohemians and the Poles. It is true in surprising measure of the Italians; not only of the northern Italians, but of the southern.

Again, an examination of the aliens who come to stay is of great significance. During the last fiscal year 838,172 aliens came to our shores, although the net immigration of the year was only a trifle above 400,000. But, while we received of skilled labor 127,016, and only 35,898 returned; we received servants 116,529, and only 13,449 returned; we received farm laborers 184,154, and only 3,978 returned, it appears that laborers came in the number of 135,726, while 209,279 returned. These figures ought to demonstrate that we get substantially what we most need, and what we can not ourselves supply, and that we get rid of what we least need and what seems to furnish, in the minds of many, the chief justification for the bill now under discussion.

The census returns show conclusively that the importance of illiteracy among aliens is overestimated, and that these people are prompt after their arrival to avail of the opportunities which this country affords. While, according to the reports of the Bureau of Immigration, about 25 per cent of the incoming aliens are illiterate, the census shows that among the foreign-born people of such States as New York and Massachusetts where most of the congestion complained of has taken place, the proportion of illiteracy represents only about 13 per cent.

I am persuaded that this provision of the bill is in principle of very great consequence, and that it is based upon a fallacy in undertaking to apply a test which is not calculated to reach the truth and to find relief from a danger which really does not exist. This provision of the bill is new, and it is radical. It goes to the heart of the measure. It does not permit of compromise, and, much as I regret it, because the other provisions of the measure are in most respects excellent and in no respect really objectionable, I am forced to advise that you do not approve this bill. Very sincerely, yours,

CHARLES NAGEL, Secretary.