band to acquire her nationality. If the parties so wish, it should be possible for both to be of the same nationality.

The independent attitude of the United States has created wide gaps which should be filled by appropriate legislation. The international confusion resulting from granting independent citizenship to the women of one country has been compared to burning the house to roast the pig. A matter assuming so vital a rôle in international affairs deserves the sincere consideration of an international tribunal or conference.

THE QUOTA PROVISIONS OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1924

BY A. WARNER PARKER

Of the District of Columbia Bar

The Immigration Act of 1924 is a novel piece of legislation in two respects.1 In it, for the first time, is a real attempt made to control immigration, measurably at least, at its source, and thus to reduce to a minimum the hardships and inhumanities that heretofore have prevailed to such an extent as almost to be regarded as a matter of course. And in it, for the first time also, are immigration and eligibility to citizenship recognized as related subjects, and ineligibility to become naturalized made a reason for the exclusion of aliens.2 While it is by far the most drastic immigration statute ever passed by the United States Congress, it is in numerous respects the most humane measure yet devised.

The regulation of immigration by fixing quotas for foreign countries and then excluding all aliens born in those countries applying in excess of such quotas was tried for the first time in the Quota Act of 1921, which expired by limitation on June 30, 1924, and was at once superseded by the new Quota Act. When the 1921 act was passed the plan was regarded by all as highly experimental; indeed, at that time it was stated quite generally that its use was a temporary expedient only, intended to give the country a "breathing spell" and to allow Congress time in which to work out a "scientific" method of immigration control. Although mary difficulties were encountered and great hardships and embarrassments arose in connection with the enforcement of that act, the idea of excluding by the quota method steadily grew in favor. And when Congress came to adopt "a more scientific" measure, that plan (very materially modified, however) was retained, evidently being regarded as the best method available.

1. The main objects of the new, as of the old, quota law are: first, a sufficient reduction in the volume of immigration to give assurance that the country will not admit more annually than it can accommodate; and, second, making the reduction fall most heavily on the "new immigration" countries (of southern and eastern Europe), and most lightly on those

1 The act is published in the SUPPLEMENT to this issue of the JOURNAL, pp. 208. Therefore it is usually possible, in the interest of brevity, to avoid quoting, and simply to refer to, its various provisions.

2 An article by the author with respect to the provisions of the new law excluding aliens ineligible to citizenship, will appear in a future number of the JOURNAL.

Approved May 19, 1921, 42 Stat. L., 5; extended by Public Resolution No. 55 approved May 11, 1922, 42 Stat. L. 540.

countries (of western and northern Europe) from which our earlier immigration was principally derived this in order to give assurance of the more rapid assimilation of those admitted. These, judging from the law itself and its "legislative history," are the theories upon which Congress proceeded when formulating the measure."

2. The humane purposes of this legislation and the necessity for amending the law in such manner as to effect those purposes may be thus described: both the general immigration statute and the quota act superseded by the new law had been found in practice to produce many hardships, some of which were of a heart-rending character. Moreover, the enforcement of the 1921 Quota Act often resulted in absurd consequences. The most severe hardships arising under the two laws consisted of the separation at United States ports of the immediate members of families. And under the Quota Act of 1921, with the competition which arose, on the part both of the immigrant-carrying vessels and the immigrants, to reach United States ports and apply for admission before a quota for a certain month had been exhausted, thousands of aliens were transported to this country only to find that others, embarking somewhat earlier than they, or traveling on vessels faster than theirs, had beaten them to the goal, and that they would have to return to their homes, which had often been broken up when the "mad rush" for America began. The ridiculous spectacle was repeated again and again at New York of vessels racing each other into port in order that their passengers might get the preference under the quotas and their owners or masters escape the penalties imposed for bringing aliens in excess of the numbers allowed by the law."

The experience with the previous laws, that with the 1921 Quota Act particularly, seems to have convinced the Congress that something must be done toward transferring the inspection of aliens to the sources of our immigration, and that the methods of determining the quotas and the "machinery" for keeping account of those filling up the quotas must be so improved as to stop the competition just described and the ridiculous and dangerous results thereof.

Under the 1921 act "a troublesome difficulty" was "the enforcement of the numerical limitation," as that act required the "actual physical counting of human beings arriving by ship," which was "a task of magnitude," leading to mistakes, the racing of ships into ports, delays, disappointments, and hardships, and "distressing appeals for relief in individual cases." 6 So Congress determined that the new law should contemplate the counting of "certificates (visas), not persons"; that the law should provide "for enforcement of the numerical limitation not by counting immigrants upon

See H. Rep. 350, 68th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 12-14.

'See H. Rep. 350, 68th Cong., 1st sess., p. 12, and Congressional Record, Vol. 65, Part 6, p. 5465.

H. Rep. 350, 68th Cong., 1st sess., p. 12.

their arrival, but by counting 'immigration certificates' issuable at American consulates overseas." 8 And it was also provided, in connection with the visa system discussed hereinafter, that the consuls should not issue a visa to any immigrant if it should appear to him from the evidence presented that such immigrant was a member of any class excluded by the immigration laws.

Aside from these general provisions intended and calculated to reduce the hardships and inhumanities of immigration control, Congress has made a number of exceptions to the law exempting certain classes of aliens from its operation, some of which have the humane object of preventing the separation of families. These are discussed below under the headings "Classes exempted" and "Preferences." Moreover, the difficulties which had arisen under the old law from the fact that, nationality being determined rigidly by place of birth, immigrant families would sometimes apply some members of which were of one and some of another nationality and for some of whom a quota would be open while for others none would be available, were overcome in the new law by specifying exceptions to the method of determining nationality-discussed hereinafter under the heading "How nationality is determined."

3. How quotas are determined. The new law effects drastic changes in this regard. Under the 1921 act the "quota base" was the census of 1910, and the number of admissions allowed to any nationality annually was three per centum of the number of foreign-born shown by that census to be in the United States. The new law makes the "quota base" the census of 1890, and the percentage two, with a proviso that the minimum quota for any nationality shall be 100. The quota so calculated is to remain in force until June 30, 1927. On July 1, 1927, an arrangement, known as the "national origins" plan, is to come into operation. Under it "the annual quota of any nationality" will be "a number which bears the same ratio to 150,000 as the number of inhabitants in continental United States in 1920 having that national origin bears to the number of inhabitants in continental United States in 1920, but the minimum quota of any nationality shall be 100."

The manner of calculating the quotas under the two per centum plan is specified with great care and particularity in subdivisions (b), (c), (d), and (e) of Section 12 of the act, captioned "Nationality," while that of calculating them under the "national origins" plan is specified with equal clearness in subdivisions (c), (d), and (e) of Section 11, captioned "Numerical Limitations." No good purpose could be served here by repeating those specifications.

7 These when the House and Senate bills were finally merged and enacted into law were called "visas," not "certificates."

H. Rep. 350, 68th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 1 and 12.

Subd. (b), Sec. 11.

4. The "national origins" plan, being entirely new, and the claim being made for it that, instead of arbitrarily reducing the volume of immigration, in general, or from certain countries, it is a scientific plan for keeping America American, it is well worth while to give a brief synopsis of the lengthy and painstaking description of it furnished to the Senate by its proponent, Senator Reed of Pennsylvania, with a reference to the record where those interested may go into the details if they please.10

The principle upon which the "national origins" plan runs is this: The real assimilation of aliens depends to a very large extent upon their associates after entering "we can easily assimilate" them "if their origins resemble the origins of the people they find when they get here." The fixing of the quotas by allowing a certain percentage of the number of a certain nationality here to come in annually is artificial and (while not discriminatory in the racial sense for which such system is generally criticized) is discriminatory in that it fails to take into account the origins of our native-born population; and, if our racial stock is to be preserved in approximately its present condition, a sound policy demands that calculations with respect to the numbers of the various nationalities to be, from time to time, admitted shall be based upon a determination of the national (or racial) origins of all the people here with whom the new arrivals are to intermingle and intermarry.

This is, indeed, a scientific method of determining quotas, if it is feasible to make even approximately correct calculations of the kind contemplated. And there would seem to be little real ground for doubting its feasibility.

5. How nationality is determined. The 1921 act provided simply that "nationality shall be determined by country of birth, treating as separate countries the colonies or dependencies for which separate enumeration was made in the United States census of 1910." The new law, under the caption "Nationality," repeats this provision, inserting after the word "dependencies" the words "or self-governing dominions," and changing "census of 1910" to "census of 1890," and then adds two very important exceptions. As these provisions originated with the House committee, the best explanation of them doubtless is that given by the committee, as follows:

The question of nationality is of importance in the enforcement of a numerical limitation. Since the enactment of the 3 per cent law some perplexing problems have been presented by reason of different nationalities represented in the same family; by reason of changes of allegiances; and by reason of doubt as to places of birth.

On the whole, the committee believes that determination of nationality by country of birth, while not always just or equitable, is the most satisfactory principle upon which to base the quotas. No other feasible principle has been evolved.

10 Congressional Record, Vol. 65, Part 6, pp. 5460 et seq. See also id., Part 6, pp. 59425945, and id., Part 7, p. 6457.

11 Subd. (a), Sec. 12.