their adult lives; they have paid taxes to the State and Federal Governments, they have raised children, some of whom have gone off to fight in wars for the United States. Yet these people can never become citizens under the present law. Because of their educational background they cannot read or write in English, and because of their advanced years there is little or no chance that they can ever become proficient in our language.

We all know that there are a great number of advantages that American citizens have which are not available to aliens and non citizens residing in this country. Not the least of these advantages is the opportunity to participate in the various State public assistance plans under the Social Security Act. The State plans are by no means uniform and the differences in citizenship requirements is particularly significant for purposes of this discussion. For there are 11 States with public assistance plans under the Social Security Act that set out citizenship require. ments which must be met before persons can benefit under the act. Seven of these States qualify the citizenship requirement with a residency requirement that may be met in lieu of citizenship. The residency requirements vary from 10 to 25 years. Thus, for example, in Arizona a person may qualify for benefits under the State public assistance plans if he is a citizen or has resided in the United States for at least 25 years. Other States with similar requirements are Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. But four States have absolute requirements of citizenship. That is, in four States persons who are not citizens are absolutely barred from participating in public assistance plans no matter how many years they may have resided in the United States. In other words, the persons who cannot come within the exemption of 312(1) because they came to this country after 1932, in those four States also cannot participate in the public assistance plans under the Social Security Act. They cannot participate in aid to the blind, they cannot participate in old age assistance, they cannot participate in aid to dependent children, and they cannot participate in aid to the permanently and totally disabled. And as I stated earlier, some of these persons have worked here most of their adult lives and have raised children who are themselves married and raising their own children. The four States with absolute citizenship requirements are my home State of Texas, Colorado, Indiana, and South Carolina.

The 1952 act updated by 2 years the exemption set out in 312(1). Congress by that action therefore established a precedent of updating this exemption, and the 88th Congress would be perfectly consistent in once again updating it. But in doing so we would be merely postponing for some future Congress the task of correcting the inequity which I believe the present wording of 312(1) creates. I am therefore asking this committee to give every possible consideration to H.R. 7883 and that you act favorably on this bill.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDNA F. Kelly, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am most grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to appear before this distinguished and hardworking subcommittee in support of the legislation introduced at the request of the administration by Mr. Celler, your distinguished chairman, the dean of the New York delegation.

I was happy to join Mr. Celler in introducing H.R. 7852, which is identical with H.R. 7700 and at this time I wish to express my sincere and devout hope that you will act favorably on this much overdue correction of the inequities inherent in our immigration laws.

In all frankness, permit me to tell you that I consider myself a realist and with the background of my long experience in serving my constituents in the House of Representatives, I feel that time appears to be rather short for an undertaking of such magnitude as is embodied in H.R. 7700 and my bill, H.R. 7852.

I agree with the statements made at various times by the chairman of this subcommittee with regard to the necessity of a detailed and searching study of our immigration policy. I wish to commend this subcommittee for the splendid work you gentlemen have done under the leadership of your departed and lamented chairman, my friend, Tad Walter, in commencing the study of population and immigration problems. As far as I know that study is not yet completed and it is my hope that you will bring it to a conclusion, thus providing the necessary basis for this type of a basic change of our immigration system as envisaged in the administration bill.

However, my inclination to realism causes me to bring before you a ples for immediate remedy of the many hardships imposed now on thousands, or possibly tens of thousands, of American families who are separated from their closest relatives, such as parents, children, brothers, and sisters.

You are undoubtedly aware of the hopeless oversubscription of many of our immigration quotas. You are also no doubt aware that intending immigrants chargeable to some of the oversubscribed quotas or oversubscribed portions of some of the quotas are experiencing delays and waiting periods exceeding, in some instances, 15, or even, 20 years. This is truly an intolerable situation requiring immediate attention of the Congress. While you are considering legislative proposals designed to bring our immigration laws into line with the requirements and realities of modern times and while this work will necessarily require months, if not years, of study, I submit that you could serve the best interests of this country by enacting, this year, interim legislation such as the several laws enacted by the Congress upon your recommendations on several occasions between 1957 and 1962.

What is needed at the present time is the bringing up to date of sections 1 and 2 of the act of October 24, 1962 (Public Law 87-885), so as to move up cutoff dates contained in these sections.

I am convinced that in order to alleviate hardship and contribute to the improvement of our social fabric as it is expressed in family life, preferential immigrants eligible for second, third, and fourth preference status under the oversubscribed immigration quotas should have the benefit of nonquota entries after they have been awaiting their turn for over 10 years.

The present cutoff date for fourth preference immigrants is March 31, 1954. That date should be moved up at least to December 31, 1960. As far as intending immigrants in the second and third preference are concerned, they-the parents of U.S. citizens and children of lawfully residing aliens-certainly deserve nonquota status on the basis of petitions or registration dates valid up to the date of enactment of the amendment I am recommending to you today.

Similarly, the needs of our economy, the need of skilled specialists require urgently an amendment of the date of April 1, 1962, as it appears in section 2 of Public Law 87-885. That date should also be changed and urgently needed skilled specialists should be admitted, for purely selfish national interests, on the basis of petitions valid up to the enactment date of the amendment I am pleading for.

There is another most urgent matter which I want to bring to your attention. It is the subject matter of my bill, H.R. 9987, which is before you. Under that bill, immigrants born in any independent country of the Western Hemisphere would be granted nonquota status. As you know, the two new independent entities located in the Caribbean, Jamaica, and Trinidad-Tobago, are still limited to 100 immigrant visa numbers per year, the same number they had access to while they remained colonial possessions of Great Britain.

While Jamaica and Trinidad-Tobago are limited to the colonial subquota allocations, their neighbors, Haiti, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and others, enjoy nonquota classification for the benefit of natives of those islands.

From the point of view of our foreign policy, this situation is most harmful and truly intolerable. I would say that the situation is outright dangerous, and I hope you will agree with me when you consider that the discrimination occurs in the most sensitive area of our hemisphere, the Caribbean, next door to Castro's Communist Cuba.

In addition to the foreign policy aspects, there is also the humanitarian aspect involved. There is a great number of American families of Jamaican background and a lesser number of families whose ancestors have migrated from Trinidad and Tobago who are looking to be reunited with their relatives just as much as some of the immigrants of European background are anxious to see their families reunited.

I realize that the subject matter of H. R. 9987 is incorporated in the administration bill, H. R. 7700, but as I stressed before, I believe that the existence of urgency should be recognized and that remedial action should be taken now, without delay, while the study of the broader aspects of our immigration policy may go on for some time.

I would not wish to press at this time for the consideration of my two bills, H.R. 3402 and H.R. 3403, as the purpose of the two bills would be served if the administration bill is approved. However, I wish to request most urgently that you, gentlemen, take action on H. R. 9987, and that you amend it by adding to it one or two sections taking care of the change of dates which appear in Public Law 86-885, which I explained earlier.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE M. KILGORE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you and the members of the committee for giving me this opportunity to present my statement in support of H.R. 8589, which I introduced, to amend section 312 of the Immigration and Nationality

Act.

Please permit me to bring to your attention the problem, in existing law, which is of serious concern to a very considerable number of loyal and lawabiding aliens who are permanent residents of the United States-a concern, I may add, that is equally shared by their many sons and daughters whom they have reared to be, and who are, worthwhile citizens of this great country. I introduced H.R. 8589 in an effort to adjust these situations where the humanities involved require remedial legislation.

As you know, the problem of which I speak has its origin in legislative history. During a period of more than 100 years, our laws did not impose English language requirements upon the candidate for naturalization. Under a statute enacted in 1906, candidates had to speak our language and some courts, drawing their authority from an interpretation of other statutory prerequisites, insisted on literacy skills as well. English literacy, together with an ability to speak and understand our language became express requirements of the law with the enactment of the Internal Security Act of 1950, but the statute exempted those candidates who, on its effective date, had reached 50 years of age and had resided in the United States for at least 20 years. These overall educational prerequisites and the related exemption were perpetuated in the current Immigration and Nationality Act, which also advanced the date determinative of exemption to December 24, 1952, In short, candidates who had the requisite residence and age on that date became exempt.

Twelve years have passed since the Immigration and Naturalization Act became law. Throughout that period, a considerable number of aliens, fully qualified for naturalization in all respects, have been denied citizenship solely because they have been unable to master the intricacies of the English language. Many in this substantial group have conscientiously attended citizenship classes, or pursued other avenues of instruction, for years, but to no avail. Numbered among them are aliens who, 12 years before, could not meet the statutory requirements for a language exemption because they lacked what they now have the required residence and age. Indeed, today, some of these residents are almost 61 years of age, while others have resided in this country for a period in excess of 30 years. Yet, under the wording of the existing law, they have no remedy other than a continued effort to acquire a knowledge of the English language which, in their cases, is demonstrably no remedy at all.

Some months ago, I introduced legislation designed to remedy this situation. This legislation, H.R. 8589, proposes to amend the proviso to section 312(1) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act to accord an exemption from the English language requirements of that section to any person who, on January 1, 1964, was over 50 years of age and had resided in the United States for periods totaling at least 20 years. Thus, the exemption formula remains unchanged, but the date which will determine who is to be granted the benefit has been advanced to accommodate changing conditions. This bill, I submit, is just and humane legislation. I commend it to your attention and urge that it be accorded favorable consideration.

At this point, I would like the record to show that I am in agreement with the legislative policy requiring naturalization candidates generally to familiarize themselves with the English language. Certainly, it is indisputable that citizenship responsibility is better served when the citizen is literate and has the capacity to express himself in our tongue. Obviously, certain duties and obligations of citizenship cannot be performed by the illiterate. Yet, there is a strong and persuasive body of opinion which argues that the permanent resident alien who has proven good moral character and has lived in accordance with democratic principles should not be barred from citizenship on these educational grounds. It has been pointed out that the media of mass communication, and the multilanguage press of this country make, it possible for the linguistically limited alien to satisfactorily familiarize himself with social and political problems, and become a participating citizen in our society. We also have the lesson of the 19th century, when thousands of aliens with a very limited knowledge of the English language were nonetheless deemed, and subsequently proved themselves, worthy to receive the precious privilege of U.S. citizenship.

Again, I am ever mindful of those circumstances which tend to convert an otherwise reasonable language prerequisite into an undeserved hardship, circumstances which prompted the Congress some 15 years ago to grant an exemption to our older residents. They are as real today as they were in yesteryear. With and humanity, our immigration laws recognize the general concept that family unity is desirable by according certain special benefits to the parents of citizens and permanently resident aliens, among which is the removal of illiteracy as a ground for exclusion from the United States.

These immigrants generally enter this country at a relatively advanced age, and it has long been acknowledged that linguistic and literacy skills, particularly the latter, are difficult to acquire in adulthood. Elderly people who never learned to read and write are especially handicapped and it seems somewhat incongruous to admit them to permanent residence and then condemn them to the status of alien, thereby destroying the family unity which springs from a common allegiance and citizenship.

May I conclude these remarks by once again soliciting your careful consideration of H.R. 8589, legislation with a humane purpose which is needed not only in my section of the country, but in other sections as well.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT L. LEGGETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AN IMMIGRATION POLICY THAT REFLECTS OUR GREATNESS

Mr. Chairman, I congratulate this committee for conducting these hearings on proposals to update our Immigration and Nationality Act which are long overdue and which have been endorsed, in principle, by four Presidents-Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson. Most particularly I am concerned with the revision of the antiquated and anti-American national origins quota system which was adopted exactly 40 long years ago this year, on May 26, 1924.

To suggest just how long ago this was it may be useful to remind the committee that President Coolidge, who had just succeeded Harding, made the first Presi dential address transmitted by radio in January of that year, and a few months later the Teapot Dome scandal "broke." Motion pictures with sound had not started and Ford cars, without self-starters, were selling for $290. As this committee well knows, the 1924 Immigration Act, born in a period of post-World Wari solationism, fear, and witch hunting, reflected the parochialism of that longago time by setting up a national origins system which discriminated sharply against the people of southern and eastern Europe and Asia.

I am opposed to the national origins principle, in the first place, because it hasn't worked, since the substantial quotas set for northern European countries consistently go begging, while other countries are heavily oversubscribed. I am opposed because I believe it was wrong in principle. And I am opposed because it poses an image for us abroad which reflects bias and prejudice rather than our true ideals and objectives at this critical time in world affairs.

As to the point that the so-called national origins principle has not worked we may recall that Britain's quota in the original act was 66,000, larger by 40,000 than Germany's quota of 26,000 which was the next largest. The effect was to cut actual immigration far below the volume authorized by the law-thus upsetting any illusion that immigrants would be admitted in the same proportions which constituted our nationality groups in the 1920 census, the year prescribed by present law.

We find ourselves, today, in a situation where the United Kingdom and Eir ordinarily use only 40 percent of their quotas; and Sweden only about 60 percent, while France, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland have used more than 95 percent. and Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, and Portugal usually exhaust their quotas As of October 1963, the Italian quota, with 263,878 registrations against an annual quota of 5,666 was most heavily oversubscribed; Portugal had 63,293 people waiting for visas and an annual quota of only 438; Greece had an excess registra tion of 105,233 against a quota of 308, and most quotas in the Near East were heavily oversubscribed.

I am opposed to the national origins principle in our immigration system he cause it does a great disservice, I believe, to the democratic ideals which we must live by. For, as President Johnson stated in his state of the Union address où January 8 of this year:

"We must ✶ ✶✶ lift by legislation the bars of discrimination against those who seek entry into our country, particularly those with much-needed skills and those joining their families. In establishing preferences, a nation built by the immigrants of all lands can ask those who now seek admission: 'What can you do for our country?" But we should not be asking: 'In what country were you born?"

And, as President Kennedy wrote, a few years earlier, "I am convinced that the most serious defect in the present law is not that it is restrictive but that many of the restrictions are based on false or unjust premises." If we are to be true to ourselves at home, and to reflect an accurate image abroad we must have an immigration law which, like most of our other laws, sets our values as judging a man or woman on the basis of ability, industriousness, intelligence, integrity, and all the other factors which truly determine a man's value to his country. The administration bill will increase the total quota by only several thousandraising it from around 158,000 to around 165,000-and cannot, therefore, be charged with "opening wide the gates." But through its 5-year gradual retirement of quota numbers from the present national origins quota of individual countries by assigning 20 percent of their numbers each year to a new quota reserve, it will make the system responsive to our needs and the needs of people of other lands. Among other important liberalizations, it will remove the discriminatory Asia-Pacific triangle provision under which people with as much as one-half of oriental or Pacific Islands ancestry must be charged to their ancestors' quota rather than to the quota of their place of birth. And it grants the President authority, after consulting with a new Immigration Board set up under the bill, to reserve a portion of the quota numbers from the quota reserve to provide for the immigration of refugees and to avoid hardship in cases of immigrants who would be prevented from gaining entry because of the reduction of the quotas for their countries.

Mr. Chairman, this country has changed vastly in the last 40 years. It has new responsibilities at home and abroad which call for a new dedication to the important principles for which we stand. America stands today as one of the best examples of how a union of diverse cultures and skills composed of men descended from many lands can achieve a unique position in manufacturing, commerce, finance, government, and the arts. The year 1964 will, I trust, be the year which will go down in history as marking the beginning of an American immigration policy which reflects our greatness as a nation and our abiding concern with the rights of man.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROLAND V. LIBONATI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. Chairman, our Nation reflects the powerful influence exerted by the teeming immigrant populations that came to our shores to seek the opportunities of a new life in an underdeveloped land whose ideologies contributed to the dignity of the human race. Its laws and social norms guaranteed the liberties and freedom of every individual. Its democratic way of life stimulated human effort to seek by hard work the pursuit of a better life and greater accomplishments.

The family in its inner strength of establishing a proud heritage became the sinews of government. The father, as head of the household, and mother, as its religious guidance, sacrificed to prepare their offspring as specialists in their educational, business, and scientific careers to serve humanity in the ranks of an accomplished and great citizenry. Thus each new generation added to the power and greatness of a new land.

The future of a new land depends largely upon the immigrant movement to its shores. The United States was exceptionally fortunate in attracting millions of men, women, and children to settle within its borders.

To be sure, these immigrants were not only seeking a new chance for financial independence, but also had a burning desire to become citizens of a new type of government-whose basic concept was the guarantee of equality among men and justice and liberty for all.

This exodus of humans from continental Europe was in the nature of a peaceful revolution against the old social order-that nobility is a sacred heritage and that mediocrity cannot be permitted to rise in social status or educational accomplishment above their forebears. There were some who came to enjoy religious fredom-others to escape famine-still others banishment under political or criminal decrees, and the majority to seek a new life in a new world.

36-382-64-pt. 1- -20