Selected Comments on President Kennedy’s Message
Senator Philip A. Hart, Democrat of Michigan, speaking of the message on revision of the immigration laws sent to the Congress in 1963, said:
It is fitting that this proposal should come at a time when the nation and the Congress are deeply committed to a full review of our practices and laws affecting our fellow citizens of different races. . . . Let us get on with this job.
From the other side of the chamber, Republican Senator Kenneth B. Keating of New York declared:
I am very pleased that the executive branch has now made these proposals and I am sympathetic to the approach in this bill. . . . I shall certainly exert every possible effort to have such legislation enacted at this session . . . and hope that there will be prompt hearings on this important subject.
Strong support for a thoroughgoing revision of our present immigration policy came from Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, the Minnesota Democrat. He said:
Although Congress faces many urgent matters of national importance at this session and the next, I fervently hope we can nevertheless push ahead with the long-postponed, long-overdue task of bringing our immigration laws up to the civilized standard which the world has reason to expect of the United States. The present system is cruel, unworkable, discriminatory, and illogical.
Republican Senator Hiram L. Fong of Hawaii said: “I shall strongly support efforts to basically revise our immigration laws and policies,” and added that he was “heartened” by the administration’s recognition of the need for a basic change in American immigration policies.
Congressman Emanuel Celler of New York, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said:
It is my considered opinion that the President’s bill offers a broad and firm basis for a long overdue revision of our policies and practices in this most important area of domestic and foreign human relations.
Congressman James Roosevelt of California stated:
The President of the United States has urgently called upon the Congress to implement long overdue and sorely needed changes in our immigration laws.
I would like to strongly urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this new and far reaching immigration proposal of the President’s.
Congressman William F. Ryan of New York said:
I believe that President Kennedy’s proposals represent a giant step forward in the creation of a sensible and humane immigration policy.
Newspaper editorials reflected a similar, nonpartisan approach to the projected revisions. The Chicago Tribune commented:
The idea of shifting the basis of immigrants’ admission from the arbitrary one of country of origin to the rational and humane ones of occupational skills and reuniting families deserves approval.
The policy of action without regard to race, religion, or country of origin has increasing appeal and scope in the United States, especially in the processes of government. The immigration quotas have been the principal exception in federal practice to equality before the law for people whatever the circumstances of their birth. It is an exception that it is well to reconsider.
The Denver Post approvingly said of the proposed changes:
It would replace a system based on racial and national discrimination with one having two worthwhile and humane objectives: to assure the United States of a continuing flow of usefully-skilled new citizens, and to reunite the families of U.S. citizens.
The Washington Post, July 24, 1963, called President Kennedy’s proposal “the best immigration law within living memory to bear a White House endorsement.”
The New York Times, July 25, 1963, in its lead editorial stated:
. . . Adoption of the President’s wise recommendations would be an act of justice and wisdom, as well as evidence that we fully understand the true nature of the changed world—now grown so small—in which all humanity lives.
The St. Paul Pioneer Press editorialized on July 26, 1963:
Possibly the only negative feature of the administration’s new immigration plan is the five years it proposes to take in implementing it. The present system is so archaic and inflexible as to deserve speedier abandonment.
“It is time to lay aside the thinking of the ’20s in favor of the realities of the ’60s with regard to our unreasonable quota system on immigration,” wrote the Chattanooga Times. It continued:
The system of national quotas has long been recognized as a paradox, in a nation proud of its pattern of growth and development based in large part on the openness of its shores to people seeking an opportunity in the “land of opportunity.”
The quota system was set up in the immigration law of 1924. Many of its supporters saw this as a means of checking an Asian immigration invasion. But others adapted it to meet their own desires to limit the number who could come to this country from Southern Europe.
We are a big nation with room—and a continuing need—to grow stronger. We can do this with the skill and ability of our native born and of those from other lands who wish to be a part of this great nation and to work with us in trying to fulfill its ideals.
The time to worry about immigration is when people stop wanting to come to this country.
Seventy-two leading religious, civic, labor and social service agencies, members of the American Immigration and Citizenship Conference, jointly commended the President as follows:
We wish to endorse strongly the historic step you have taken in your Message of July 23 in calling for the elimination of the National Origins Quota System.
We have long urged the removal of this discriminatory aspect of our American immigration policy.
We are greatly encouraged and wish to express our appreciation for the outstanding leadership you are giving in this major field of human rights.