In discussing the subject of Japanese-American relations it is well to remember that two friends cannot clear up a misunderstanding by interchange of meaningless compliments, meanwhile ignoring obvious conditions and deceiving each other as to facts and opinions. Facts, and opinions too, may be handled with mutual toleration and courtesy, but above all there must be entire frankness. Responsibility for peace on the Pacific rests, it is said, on the shoulders of Japan and the United States. Peace may be maintained for a time between two nations, even in the presence of ill will, through a desire to maintain valuable trade interests or to avoid war, so disastrous even to the conqueror. But the best guarantee for peace lies in that. mutual confidence, that cordial relation, which prevents or removes misunderstanding. That is the spirit which, it is hoped, will always actuate the people of Japan and, the United States in their intercourse with each other. While that spirit lives, misunderstandings may occur, but will disappear. The traditional friendship of the two countries was threatened for a time by differences growing out of our immigration problems; and while the major differences have been resolved, at least temporarily, it is still felt by many that the question involved could have been settled in some way equally effective from our point of view and more satisfactory to Japan. It is fair, however, to say that this belief is held usually by those who lack intimate knowledge of the three months' consideration given to the matter by Congress in the spring of 1924. During that period every other plan suggested before or since, including quota, received full consideration, and each was rejected in turn for clearly defined reasons. The plan chosen seemed to be the one which should cause least reasonable protest. It is not discriminatory in itself, for it permits the entrance as immigrant of anyone eligible to American citizenship. If our naturalization law, which declares certain colored races ineligible to citizenship, were modified in favor of the Japanese, they would have the right to enter as immigrants under the present immigration act. It is therefore the naturalization law, and not the immigration law, against which the charge of discrimination should be made. Some other plan may yet be suggested which will meet Japan's views without violating basic laws or principles adopted by this nation; but until then (as was said by President Coolidge, the earnest friend of Japan) We must seek by some means besides immigration to demonstrate the friendship and respect we feel for the Japanese nation. Japan, however, has declared frankly through various official sources that she expects that friendship to be shown ultimately by such modification of the present law as will place her nationals on the same plane as white Europeans. OUR POLICY AS ORIGINALLY OUTLIN]ED Curiously enough the present misunderstanding in the matter of immigration has grown out of our desire and determination to so regulate our immigration policy that through it no rift would be created in the traditional friendship between Japan and this country; and it was President Roosevelt himself who clearly defined the issue in the interest of both nations.
Read full abstract
Jan 1, 1986
Billy G Smith + 1
