“Close Your Gates to Us — But Give Us Independence First”

Editor, The Filipino Forum:

Your editorial in the Forum about me has come to my attention, and I do not blame you for challenging my motive in the light of what the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has said. It quoted me as suggesting the exclusion of the Filipinos from the United States, and even I was “shocked” on reading it. The P-I reporter, either by intent or by misunderstanding, did not place me correctly on the matter. The Seattle Star gave out a more accurate statement of my stand. I said: “Close your gates to us, but give us our independence first.”

I am sending you a copy of my letter to the Star, which I read before the members of the legislative committee of the Labor Union. I attended their meeting at the suggestion of Mr. Connell of the Star, and in the hope that I might be able to prevent the formulation of very insulting measures against us. I found the members to be reasonable. We agreed on the proposition that independence for us would be capable of effecting what they want — to bar us out and thus eliminate our competition. That condition, in the aggregate impossibility of a more favorable one, sounded acceptable enough. Their desires would be gratified; and we, too, could get what we crave — independence. It does not appear workable in the least, especially with the means that we have, to demand everything; we have to concede in some way. Of course, I rather believe the position assumed by Representative Johnson — to exclude us without even a mention of our political freedom — is his own personal choice. He is a “reactionary” Republican, and is from the district where there has been so much dissension between white and Filipino workers.

I pride myself in being Filipino, and my wishes in regard to our country should not differ from yours; namely, to have our name, the Filipino name, respected. It is not surprising, however, if our efforts in accomplishing it do not coincide. You see, before forming an opinion of the “effects” in any case, I first look as deeply as I can into their causes; and I do so for the sake of fairness to all concerned. I stand by any influences that tend to elevate that name, and vigorously oppose those that tend to drag it down, whatever and whoever these influences might be. And, to be sure, we are not devoid of faults in this case. Note in my letter I said “limitation” but not “exclusion.”

If you will, give me more entries to discuss the question with you more extensively. And better still if you will also print this communication in full, for which you will oblige me very much.

Very sincerely, Victor Nazareth Seattle, Washington, January 25, 1929

(Editor’s Note: Following are extracts from the letter of Mr. Nazareth to the Seattle Star, as mentioned in his letter to the Forum.)

I am here since 1921, and I have always opposed the coming of my countrymen in volume that leaves no chance for their absorption. As it is, however, they continue in ever-increasing numbers, and now they are no longer the student class but the working elements, mostly from the northern part of the Philippines. You see, the richness of your country is well known and it must be that the Filipinos, like any other people, would want to go where money is easy picking. On the other hand, the white workers, as are to be found in the labor union, are generally foreign born. They have also come here to escape from their hard lot in the old countries, and they want everything they can set their eyes on. They demand things that, were positions reversed, they themselves will be unwilling to grant. Hence, the conflict.

But I do not mean to indulge in fault-finding; only that I would like to convey to you the idea that neither side in this controversy is absolutely right nor wholly wrong. Certainly, every man deserves to exist.

I am against any attempts on the part of Filipinos to come over for the purpose of making money, because by so doing we must necessarily encroach on the prerogatives of your workers. It produces animosities, and our name is made to bear humiliations from which it cannot easily recover. You Americans have as much right to feel secure of your possessions as we Filipinos have of ours. We refuse to let your capitalists feudalize us at home; and, for consistency, we have no reason to force a condition that is prejudicial to you. I admire your institutions, and agree with you that your standards should be preserved. Therefore, immigration should be limited to students who show aptitude for higher developments and to those who have the means to support themselves while here. True that under existing laws we are not restricted from coming, but our officials, our civic organizations in Manila should be the wiser to foresee the danger.

Opportunities for employment even in this most prosperous country can take care of just so many; and any number of us in excess of the opportunities will work hardships on the whites as well as on us. This condition is practically realized today. Line boys are out of work, and they become a burden to others. As for my being here — I am endeavoring to finish a career in the university. I am not broke. But even if I should go back now, it will not help the situation a bit because there are hundreds of others whom I will leave behind, and soon many more may come.

Really, it is high time that we Filipinos should turn our hands to the development of our own resources. Mindanao offers almost unlimited possibilities for us, and only awaits our devoted and skillful attention to make us prosperous and very happy without the necessity of crowding you up here. But, of course, you must do your part: liberate the Philippines and close your gates to us.

I am sending a copy of this letter to our authorities both in Manila, P.I., and in Washington, D.C., for any action they may see fit to take. A similar copy is also being furnished the legislative committee of the local union.

Very respectfully, Victor Nazareth

“If there is to be trouble, it is best for both of us that we are excluded,” Nazareth declared. “But give us our independence.”

(From the Seattle Star of Jan. 10, 1929.)