Harry S. Truman

Excerpt from Message to the House of Representatives on the Veto of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

Presented on June 25, 1952

The president vetoes an immigration bill that would limit the number of immigrants from outside northern Europe

"This 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…. Such a concept is utterly unworthy of our traditions and our ideals."

I n 1952 a debate broke out on the future immigration policy of the United States. On one side were politicians like U.S. senator Patrick McCarran (1876–1954) of Nevada and U.S. representative Francis Walter (1894–1963) of Pennsylvania. McCarran and Walter wanted to continue to impose quotas, or limits, on immigration from different countries in a way that favored immigrants from northern Europe at the expense of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe and Asia. On the other side were those like President Harry S. Truman (1884–1972; served 1945–53), who wanted to admit more immigrants from areas outside northern Europe.

U.S. Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952—also called the McCarran-Walter Act—to replace the Immigration Act of 1924 (see entry). In both cases, the laws restricted the number of immigrants coming from each country to a small fraction of the number of American citizens who traced their backgrounds to each country. The idea behind the quotas, or limits, was to keep the population of the United States roughly the same. From 1880 to 1920, a large number of immigrants had come to the United States from southern and eastern Europe. The number of immigrants from this region changed the character of the population. For example, as a result of the huge flow of immigrants in those four decades, there were many more Catholics and Jews living in the United States. A country that had once been dominated by people of English, Irish, and German heritage now began looking more like the world outside the United States. People with darker skin and different religions had taken their place alongside the mostly light-skinned Protestants of northwestern Europe who had arrived in the period before 1880.

In 1952, the Congress wanted to continue the policy of limiting immigrants in a way that maintained the balance of national backgrounds found in 1920, just as the law of 1924 had tried to maintain the balance of national backgrounds that was present in 1890. President Truman objected to the 1952 law on two grounds. First, it discriminated on the basis of race and religion, in effect telling the rest of the world that America was mostly for light-skinned Europeans. Second, Truman thought that this policy would hurt the image of the United States in the global contest between communism and capitalism. Communism is a political system under which the government owns large factories, transportation (airlines and railroads), and communications systems (such as telephones, radio, and television). It has usually been accompanied by harsh dictatorships. Capitalism is a system under which ownership of businesses is in private hands. It is often, but not always, accompanied by governments ruled by democracy, like the United States.

In 1952, the issue of competition between communism, led by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (also known as the Soviet Union or the U.S.S.R.; a country made up of fifteen republics, the largest of which was Russia, that in

1991 became independent states) and capitalism, led by the United States, was foremost in the minds of most American politicians. Around the world, communists accused the United States of racist behavior, that is, of acting with prejudice based on a person's race. Communists often pointed to the treatment of African Americans as evidence of American hypocrisy: The words of the Declaration of Independence (1776) declared "… all men are created equal," but Americans did not behave as if they believed the words. In Truman's opinion, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 would be used as more evidence of America's racist attitudes. The act would allow relatively few immigrants into the United States from Asia, Africa, and southern and eastern Europe, while the number of people allowed to come from England, Ireland, and other northern European countries would be very large.

A second set of issues in the 1952 law involved efforts to bar "undesirable" people from emigrating to America. Such "undesirables" included criminals and people judged insane. The category also included people who were, or were suspected of being, communists. The law included provisions for deportation, or sending people back to their home country. The law made it possible, long after a person had come to the United States, to deport such undesirable individuals, including anyone who had lied on an application for an immigration visa, the document giving permission to enter the United States.

Things to remember while reading an excerpt from President Truman's Message to the House of Representatives on the Veto of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952:

• The year in which the immigration law was passed was also a presidential election year. Truman, who was widely unpopular, had decided not to run for reelection. (Illinois governor Adlai E. Stevenson [1900–1965] wound up being the Democratic nominee.) The issues raised in the debate over the Immigration Act of 1952 often separated Democrats.
• The pressure to admit immigrants in 1952 reflected both the upheavals of World War II (1939–45) and also the political changes in Europe brought about by the war. As a result of World War II, many people had been forced out of their homes and whole cities had been destroyed. The eastern part of Europe had been occupied by the Soviet Army, fighting to push German troops back into Germany, and communist governments had been installed in many countries. Europeans who did not wish to live under communism had fled their countries. Many Europeans wanted to come to the United States, which had been untouched by fighting.
• In some European countries, such as Greece and Italy, communist politicians were in a struggle against capitalist politicians to gain power through democratic means. In such countries, the communists were often popular. President Truman worried that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 would present an image of the United States as hostile to inhabitants of southern and eastern European countries which, consequently, could help communist politicians gain power.
• In order for a law passed by Congress to take effect, the president must agree to the act by signing it. If the president vetoes a bill—refuses to sign it into law, as happened in the case of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act—the Congress may then vote again on the law. If two-thirds of both the Senate and the House vote to approve the law, it goes into effect without the president's approval. The process is called "overriding a presidential veto."

Excerpt from President Truman's Message to the House of Representatives on the Veto of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith, without my approval, H.R. 5678 , the proposed Immigration and Nationality Act.

H.R. 5678: The numerical designation of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, passed by the House of Representatives (H.R.).

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 forty 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.

Omnibus: All-inclusive.

Codify: Classify.

Naturalization: The process of becoming a citizen of a country to which one has emigrated.

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.

Dormant: Inactive; unasked.

Free world: A term referring to noncommunist nations during the period 1945–1991.

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.

Bars: Barriers.

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.

Repressive: Restricting.

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….

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….

Alien: Foreign; in immigration law, someone who is not a citizen.

Preferred status: A classification that allowed a person to go to the head of the list of possible immigrants to the United States based on a special situation, such as being the relative of someone living in the United States.

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 putinto 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.

National origins quota system: The system in U.S. immigration law first implemented in 1924 of limiting the number of immigrants from a given country on the basis of how many people of that nationality already lived in the United States.

This system hinders us in dealing with current immigration problems, and is a constant handicap in the conduct of our foreign relations….

The inadequacy of the present quota system has been demonstrated since the end of [World War II], 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.

Displaced persons: People forced to flee from their homelands after World War II.

Refugees: People forced from their homelands by war.

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 over-all 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 greatest vice of the present quota system [enacted in 1924], however, is that it discriminates, deliberately and intentionally, against any 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.

Rationalize: Justify.

Assimilable: Capable of being absorbed into a new culture.

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.

Lion's share: Largest portion.

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 virtuallydeprived 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 Balts or Austrians.

Baldly: Plainly.

Balts: People from nations bordering the Baltic Sea, notably Latvians, Lithuanians, and Estonians.

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 denied 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."

Repudiates: Rejects.

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.

Slur: Shameful mark.

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 [communism]. 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 these people:

Alliance: A friendship between nations, usually an agreement for joint protection or action.

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 isfantastic. The countries of Eastern Europe have fallen under the Communist yoke—they are silenced, fenced off by barbed wire and mine fields—no one passes their borders but at the risk of his life.

Fantastic: Unreal; the result of a dream or fantasy.

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….

Succor: Relieve.

Barbarism: Brutality.

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.

Stultified: Hindered.

Capitalizations: The value of companies.

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….

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 per cent Asian, shall be charged to these quotas….

Consequential: Valuable.

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 home outside the land of their origin. These provisions are without justification….

Invidious: Unpleasant or objectionable.

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 ground 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….

Retroactive: Made effective as of a date in the past.

Expulsion: Ejection.

First-generation Americans: People who immigrated to the United States and became citizens.

We have adequate and fair provision 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.

Consular officials: Representatives appointed by a government who live in a foreign country to defend the interests of citizens of the appointing country.

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….

Totalitarian repression: Creation of fear in countries governed by a dictatorship that controls every aspect of life.

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….

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 [by North Korea, which sparked a war pitting the communist-ruled North against the U.S.-backed South]. 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."

Veto: In the U.S. government, the act by a president of refusing to sign a piece of legislation passed by the Congress into law.

Attorney General: The head of the U.S. Justice Department, responsible for enforcing federal laws.

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.

Discretion: Good judgment.

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.

Deemed: Considered.

Such powers are inconsistent with our Democratic ideals. Conferring powers like that upon the Attorney General is unfair to himas 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 of 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….

Heretofore: Previously.

Consular employees: Low-level employees responsible for day-to-day affairs of diplomacy, such as granting visas, or permission to travel to the United States.

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….

Dual nationals: Citizens of two nations.

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….

Harry S. Truman

The White House,

June 25, 1952

What happened next …

The 1952 law was enacted by Congress despite President Truman's veto. Thirteen years later, in October 1965, Congress repealed the national quotas of the 1952 law. Congress replaced the quotas based on national origin with a new system based on allowing the entry of people with specific, needed job skills and of the relatives of people living in the United States.

A significant result of the 1965 law was to admit many more people from Asia than had been previously allowed. The law was passed at the time of the Vietnam War (1954–75), which had led to many marriages between American soldiers and Vietnamese women. It was also passed by the same Congress that enacted major civil rights legislation designed to eliminate racial discrimination in the United States.

According to government statistics, immigrants from Europe accounted for half of all immigrants in the period 1955 to 1964 but only 10 percent of immigrants in 1988. The percentage of legal immigrants from Asia jumped from 8 percent in the period 1955 to 1964 to 41 percent in 1988.

Did you know …

• Despite the argument between President Truman and Senator McCarran, the national quota system was increasingly irrelevant in the 1950s. Fewer than half the immigrants admitted to the United States in that decade came under the national quota system; the others came under special laws enacted to respond to specific crises or situations, or else they came from the Western Hemisphere, where there were no quotas. A year after the 1952 bill became law over Truman's veto, the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, and a set of amendments the next year, authorized admission of 214,000 people who were fleeing their homes in Europe or had escaped from countries ruled by communist governments. About a third of these immigrants were from Italy, Germany, Yugoslavia, and Greece—far more than would have been admitted under the 1952 law. After a 1956 revolt in Hungary against the communist government there, the United States admitted 38,000 Hungarians, far above their national quota.

For More Information

Books

Briggs, Vernon M. Mass Immigration and the National Interest. Amonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1992.

Brown, Mary Elizabeth. Shapers of the Great Debate on Immigration: A Biographical Dictionary. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999.

King, Desmond. Making Americans: Immigration, Race, and the Origins of the Diverse Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.

Ziegler, Benjamin Munn, ed. Immigration: An American Dilemma. Boston: D. C. Heath, 1953.

Periodicals

"Good Riddance to a Bad Law." The Washington Post (February 12, 1990): p. A10.

Ngai, Mae M. "Legacies of Exclusion: Illegal Chinese Immigration During the Cold War Years." Journal of American Ethnic History (Fall 1998): p. 3.

Web Sites

"Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952." U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/LegisHist/511.htm (accessed on March 1, 2004).