Mr. FEIGHAN. I am asking what is your proposal to amend that section.

Mr. LINDSAY. Under H.R. 11446, page 17, section 502, paragraph 27, section 212 (a), aliens with respect to whom there are reasonable grounds for believing that they seek, and so on.

What is the question?

Mr. FEIGHAN. What is your proposal to amend that section of the law relating to the exclusion of such aliens?

Mr. LINDSAY. The language which I just read would be the language which would appear in the statute. I am trying to find the existing provision.

Mr. FEIGHAN. On page 11838 of your remarks in the Congressional Record of June 1, the first column, it is stated just as I read it earlier. I wondered what you meant by that proposal.

it.

Mr. LINDSAY. I must find the existing provision of law to compare

I am refreshed now. It is consistent with the other changes that I am suggesting, and that is the finding in this respect can be made not only by a consular officer but also by the Secretary of State.

In other words, it is a flat statutory prohibition. It sets the standard which the Government follows.

Mr. FEIGHAN. In what manner?

Mr. LINDSAY. I suppose we are talking about drafting technique here as much as anything.

The existing provision reads:

Aliens who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe seek to enter the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in activities which would be prejudicial to the public interest ***.

My bill states:

Aliens with respect to which there are reasonable grounds for believing they seek to enter the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in activities ***.

Mr. FEIGHAN. What is the specific amendment?

Mr. LINDSAY. It leaves out the language "who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe." In other words, it states the standard. It simply states the standard, and then it would be applied by whatever authority has the power to apply it from then on, which I assume would be the Secretary of State or the Attorney General.

Mr. FEIGHAN. It takes it from the consular office?

Mr. LINDSAY. The consular official would exercise it in the first instance. He is the only one who can. He is on the scene.

Mr. FEIGHAN. On that same page of the Congressional Record I would like to know what is your amendment to section 212(a)(29) which includes aliens who engage in espionage, seek to overthrow our Government by unconstitutional means, or are members of subversive organizations. I would like to know the import of your amendment. Mr. LINDSAY. We are talking about page 17 of H.R. 11446. What paragraph?

Mr. FEIGHAN. "C."

Mr. LINDSAY. The same answer. You substitute for the language after consular officer or the Attorney General" and you place instead of that "There are reasonable grounds for believing." What that does is to establish the statutory standard. That would be enforced

or applied, as the case may be, by either the Secretary of State or the Attorney General, or their junior officers.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Lindsay, in your remarks on the floor of the House of June 1 of this year you noted the President has authority to use up to $10 million outside regular appropriations to meet unexpected refugee problems.

In this connection, are you advised and do you have any information about the use of such funds to remove so-called White Russians from Communist China and resettle them throughout the free world?

Mr. LINDSAY. I don't have any facts or any knowledge about activities of the U.S. Government in that regard in this administration or the prior one.

I knew in the Eisenhower administration there was a good deal of discussion of that problem but nothing specific was done about it. Mr. FEIGHAN. My office has been deluged with letters and telegrams in protest to such a plan.

Mr. LINDSAY. The chairman would know more about it. The administration is his party and not mine. I don't know what the administration is doing.

Mr. FEIGHAN. I thought perhaps you would.

Mr. LINDSAY. It is a Democratic administration and the chairman is of that party. I would not know what the administration is up to in that regard.

Mr. FEIGHAN. The subcommittee will have to go into this matter to establish the facts, if there are any, to substantiate the reasons my office has received so much mail on this.

Mr. Moore?

Mr. MOORE. I would like to follow up two questions which I think perhaps he thought I was out in left field on, and that is whether or not by providing a lot of additional opportunities to come into the country we were setting up some irritants which could exist between countries.

I would like the record to show that apparently this is already apparent under the existing law. Today Great Britain has complained bitterly we siphon off her best people, and I use the term "raid." Perhaps it does not mean we went there and got them but under our immigration practices they came here, and just up until a few years ago Italy required an exit permit for their professional personnel.

I ask the question simply having those things in mind, whether or not we could not in, let us say, southern Europe find again circumstances where those nations would not look too happily upon any great change in our immigration policies which would siphon off their highly skilled and trained personnel.

I want to ask the gentleman this question about his bill: Are you wedded to this proposition of changing and amending the registry section of the law?

Mr. LINDSAY. What section?

Mr. MOORE. The registry section, section 249. You bring it up from 1940 to 1952. Are you really wedded to that as a basis for asking us to cure one of the inequities which exists in our immigration law? There are no entrapments intended, so I say this.

We don't know who that section of the law embraces. We don't know who is in this country today where amending that particular

section of the law would grant them every opportunity for citizenship. It would take care of the dope peddlers. It would take care of the smugglers. It would take care of all the conceivably bad elements that are in existence in the country today, and that is the reason I ask the gentleman.

I would imagine it would cure some individual cases of hardship, perhaps, but by and large are you wedded to the proposition of changing that date which would emancipate so many of an element which exists in this country which today are of such number we don't know who they are or what their numbers are.

Mr. LINDSAY. Again I view this as a very practical problem of getting some legislation through. The only portions of legislation that I am wedded to completely in this area in order to get a result would be the junking of the national-origin system. I think that can be done immediately or in stages. That is the portion of the bill that I think is the most important.

Mr. MOORE. The reason I asked the question of whether or not you were wedded to the registry section is this: If you amend this bill in this regard this relieves the showing required by section 244 in order for the individual to qualify.

I am intrigued by what the gentleman says about junking the national-origin system. I don't read your bill as junking the nationalorigin system.

Mr. LINDSAY. No; it doesn't. It is a start. That is why I offer it in this form. It is admittedly a compromise and I think one which would attract some support because it is a compromise.

Mr. MOORE. At first blush I was going to compliment you on that phase of the suggested compromise until you made the statement about junking the national-origin system. It seems to me you are now telling us that the national-origin system as such is terrible, bad, and it should be taken out of the law. Is that not right?

Mr. LINDSAY. Yes; I don't like it.

Mr. MOORE. Yet you have written into your bill, the only thing you do with the national-origin system is double the inequity and double the bad characteristics of that system so you take something which you say is bad and you double it.

Mr. LINDSAY. No, the way the law is now it is based on a portion of the white population of the United States. The Negro population was not considered citizens under the 1920 law. I would like to remove that.

I also would like to base the population on the 1960 census rather than the 1920 census.

Using actual immigration to make that projection

Mr. MOORE. You still preserve quota areas.

Mr. LINDSAY. Wait a minute, I am answering the question.

Mr. MOORE. You still preserve quota areas.

Mr. LINDSAY. Yes; it is a simple adjustment. As it works out it would correct some of the imbalances between those countries that have used all or their quotas and those which do not use them.

The only way you get a clean break with the national origins system, the nationality system, is by the pooling of unused numbers. This is the opening door. This is the wedge which goes into the door. I think that will prove to be workable, administratively feasible, and sound from the point of view of the U.S. best interests.

Having done that, then I think you can take the next step which is to get rid of the rest of the built-in national origins basis for the immigration laws.

Mr. MOORE. Then you support H.R. 7700?

Mr. LINDSAY. The administration bill in this respect? If the subcommittee should report out that bill I will vote for in enthusiastically. Mr. MOORE. Actually you seek to gain an additional 100,000 in number, so to speak, to be issued on a first-come-first-served basis. Basically that is what your bill does. It frees 100,000 to be used outside the quota system.

Mr. LINDSAY. Between 50,000 and 60,000.

Mr. MOORE. Each year we forfeit about 56,000, or approximately that much. We will double it. You will pick up twice that number

per year.

Mr. LINDSAY. No; that is not right. The adjustment that is made. between the 1920 and the 1960 censuses is an adjustment which would cut way down on the big quota countries which do not use them. It would chop them way down.

Mr. MOORE. Is that provided in a different formula in your bill? Mr. LINDSAY. Yes; it is provided in the bill. The use of the projection of the 1960 census, the division between countries is based on the actual immigration into the United States between 1920 and 1960 so that Great Britain, Germany, and the other countries that have these huge quotas not used would be cut way down by that formula.

Mr. MOORE. But they still go into a pool and you would free them from the national origin

Mr. LINDSAY. Yes; you said double. It would not work out that way. They still would go into a pool. I don't know what the pool would be. Call it 75,000 all told. It is now 56,000.

Mr. MOORE. If we were to create the pool today of unused numbers we know it will be something less than 60,000.

Mr. LINDSAY. That is right.

Mr. MOORE. If we take your adjustments upward, censuswise, and including counting the Negro population or the nonwhite population of the country, there is every reason to believe it would approximately double

Mr. LINDSAY. No; it would not approximately double. It would be less than double.

Mr. MOORE. Be that as it may, let me ask this-I think actually the gentleman would create a pool of about 100,000, and those would be issued on a first-come first-served basis.

Mr. LINDSAY. Subject to the regular preferences.

Mr. MOORE. Right; you are talking about relieving Congress of all this great burden. Don't you believe this section of your bill which will liberalize visa requirements will really compound our congressional difficulty in this area?

Mr. LINDSAY. No.

Mr. MOORE. Tell me why. You sound like Goldwater with such an affirmative "No." If anybody can get on a ship and come into this country and then wants to stay here and a visa is not necessary for him to do that, how can you ever arrive at a decision other than the fact it will burden the private legislative problems?

Mr. LINDSAY. You are relieving a great deal of pressure by providing a pooling of unused numbers. That is the first point.

The second point-would you permit me to answer the question? Mr. MOORE. I would like to and not recite the bill.

Mr. LINDSAY. I would like to answer the question. The second point is this: Call it a 100,000 pool if you want to. I think it would be less, but you can put a cutoff on that, as I testified in my main testimony. I will accept something substantially less than that if quantity is the criterion that the gentleman is worried about. Cut it down.

Thirdly, visas would be issued according to whatever preference the applicant should fit into. If you have an atomic scientist he is first preference. If you have a common laborer not related to any U.S. citizen he is the last preference.

The immigration would be administered accordingly.

Mr. MOORE. I appreciate that but it does not answer the question I posed.

Mr. LINDSAY. If the gentleman would permit me, on the congressional pressure we have here, the Eisenhower administration suggested that the Congress pass legislation that would permit the Attorney General to make adjustments in hardship cases regardless of anything else in the immigration laws at all in order to relieve the pressures on the Congress and Members' time on private legislation, and there was a howl from the Congress which could be heard clear around the world, so they had to abandon it.

Mr. MOORE. Can I restate my question and ask you to answer it? Mr. LINDSAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. MOORE. I asked you whether or not the provision of your bill, section 301, it amends 212(d) (4), it provides that people can come into this country without the necessity of having in their possession a nonimmigrant visa or border crossing identification card.

Mr. LINDSAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. MOORE. You do not see that that will complicate any of this load you are worried about here in the Congress by permitting a vehicle of any body, regardless of how current you make the waiting list, both quota and nonquota, you mean to tell me there are not seated abroad today 1,500 people who immediately will board ship, plane, boat, or canoe and start for the United States, and that subsequently they will learn that their Congressmen, who answer all problems of the world, can introduce a private bill and keep them here?

Mr. LINDSAY. Section 301 of this bill would authorize the Secretary of State and the Attorney General acting jointly and on the basis of reciprocal arrangements with other countries to cut out the redtape. Mr. MOORE. Yes.

Mr. LINDSAY. And all of the probably unnecessary red tape procedures that often have to be gone through. This would allow nonimmigrants to visit the United States temporarily for business or pleasure without having in their possession a nonimmigrant visa, or border crossing identification card, again based on arrangements made with other countries.

The same thing with respect to medical officers, to permit these to serve in consular posts overseas to examine aliens coming here for business or pleasure and for whom the requirement of a visa has been waived to do so abroad.

36-382-64-pt. 1——10