STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH G. MINISH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am grateful to have this opportunity to appear before you to express my support for the pending administration immigration bill. I am 1 of the more than 50 sponsors of companion bills to the bill introduced at the request of the administration by Congressman Celler, the chairman of your full committee. My bill is H.R. 7959. Early in the first session I had introduced H.R. 3870 which is somewhat broader in scope but has the same objectives of removing purely arbitrary racial and nationality barriers to immigration.

The fundamental provisions of the legislation, as you know, are those amending the immigration quota control system. The national origins quota system has been criticized for its features of racial discrimination for many years. These criticisms, in my opinion, have had substance and I feel that if a workable substitute can be found one that will fulfill our own national goals without giving offense to other countries of the world-then such a substitute should be adopted. I believe that the administration's bill provides such a substitute.

The national origins quota system is based upon a belief that the people of one nationality or race are superior to those of another. Most Americans would agree, I am sure, that such a belief, however popular it once might have been, has no place in the laws of our Nation today.

It is no secret that when the first permanent immigration quota law was adopted in 1924 it was purposely designed to curtail the "new immigration" from Southern and eastern Europe while not interfering with the "old immigration" from northern and western Europe. This is apparent when one merely examines what the quotas are.

Great Britain, for example, has an annual quota of over 65,000-more than one-third of the total quotas of all the countries of the world, most of which goes used every year. Germany and Ireland also have liberal quotas, reflecting the many early settlers in the American Colonies and in the United States from Those countries. At the same time, a country like Greece whose immigration quota is oversubscribed by some 105,000 visa applications, has a quota of 308. Italy, with 51 million people, has a quota of only 5,666 annually. A citizen of the United States who has, say, a Swiss brother can obtain his admission promptly. But his neighbor must wait an indefinite number of years before he can be joined by his brother from Italy. A constituent of mine, who is Chinese by birth, is denied by quota restrictions the joy of sharing her nice home with her mother and young sisters and brother who are living in poor circumstances in overcrowded Hong Kong. Surely, equity demand that American citizens be accorded equal consideration in bringing their loved ones here. A nation of immigrants should make no such jarring distinctions among its own people.

Thus we have a situation in which the immigration quotas allotted to certain countries are larger than they can use, while other countries are given quotas which are paltry in relation to their needs. And all of this is determined by the accidents of history-which countries had contributed the most stock to the S population as it existed in the year 1920. Surely, some more equitable means of allocating our immigration quotas can be found than this.

I feel that I have a personal stake in this problem. My grandparents emigrated here from Italy long before the national origins quota system was adopted. Had they not been so fortunate as to have been able to come here, the lives of their children and grandchildren would have been far different and I would not be testifying before you today. We, as descendants of immigrants, must decide whether, and to what extent, others shall be permitted to enjoy the opportunities which but for the accident of time might today be denied to us.

In place of the national origins quota system the administration bill would Create a new system of immigrant visa allotment based primarily on a first-come, first-served basis, with several modifications to allow for a smooth transition in changing from one system to the other. It also contains provisions to allow for Le admission of refugees and others whose immigration might be impelled by the occurrence of unforeseen events.

The bill provides for a 5-year gradual retirement of quota numbers from the present national origins quotas of individual countries by assigning 20 percent of their numbers each year to a new quota reserve. It would grant the President authority, after consulting with the Immigration Board established under the hid, to reserve a portion of the quota numbers from the quota reserve to provide for the immigration of refugees and to avoid hardship in the cases of immigrants who would be prevented from gaining entry because of the reduction of the quotas for their countries. This latter provision is intended to protect the interests of

immigrants from countries whose quotas are now current and who would be unable to compete for visas with those in other countries with oversubscribed quotas who have the advantage of earlier registration.

The bill contains a number of desirable amendments in addition to the creation of a new quota system, a few of which I would like to mention briefly.

The bill would eliminate the highly discriminatory Asia-Pacific triangle provisions from the law. These provisions would become inoperative with the aban donment of the national orgins system, but I am glad to see that the bill provides for their immediate repeal. Under these provisions a person who is attributable by as much as one-half his ancestry to a people indigenous to the Asia-Pacific triangle area-which takes in most of the Orient and islands of the Pacific Oceanmust be charged to an Asia-Pacific quota rather than the quota of his country of birth. For example, a man who is born in Canada of a Japanese mother and a Canadian father is not a nonquota immigrant although he is a native of a Western Hemisphere country. He is chargeable to the quota for Japan which at the present time happens to be exhausted.

The bill would change the status of parents of U.S. citizens, taking them out of the second-preference quota category and granting them nonquota status. This is certainly an improvement that we can well afford to make. It will not affect our immigration in any appreciable number. Yet it is a change which should be made as a matter of principle. Present law grants nonquota status to the spouses and children of U.S. citizens, and parents should receive the same treatment in the interest of uniting families.

The bill also grants nonquota status to natives of all independent island countries adjacent to North, Central, and South America. Under existing law, as you know, we have the anomalous situation where nonquota status is granted to natives of those island countries which were independent when the McCarranWalter Act was enacted, but not to natives of those countries gaining independence since that time. The bill would eliminate this double standard and treat the natives of all such island countries equally regardless of when they obtained their independence in the past or succeed in obtaining it in the future.

Another of the bill's amendments would create a new fourth preference category to admit aliens to meet the needs of labor shortages in this country. These would be workers without any special skills, as those possessed by first preference immigrants, but who are willing to work at jobs that are hard to fill from our own labor supply. Domestics and service workers are two large classes of such workers.

Mr. Chairman, everyone agrees that the period of unrestricted immigration for this country has long since passed. When the country was young it had an almost unlimited need for manpower that could not have been fulfilled except through immigration. American employers the railroad builders and factory owners of the 19th century-actually solicited immigration for many years. Beginning in the 1880's, however, we adopted a new policy of immigration restriction with the enactment of the Chinese exclusion law and the contract labor law. This policy reached its full development with the first quota laws enacted in 1921 and 1924 and was continued in effect by the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952.

Although all are agreed that we cannot go back to the unrestricted immigration of former years, all are not agreed that our present method of limiting it is proper or justified. It is not a question of whether, but of how, we achieve numerical control of immigration.

The administration bill affords us an opportunity to improve the method of controlling immigration numerically, without substantially increasing it in numbers. The bill would establish a more realistic and integral system than we now have under the national origins formula. The present system, as you know, has necessitated the enactment of numerous special laws to allow many thousands of worthy individuals to enter the country since the end of World War II. These have included the Displaced Persons Act, the Refugee Relief Act, and other laws granting nonquota admission to special groups, not to mention the great number of private immigration bills that have been enacted. Were it not for the lack of sound reason in the national origins formula few of these special laws would have been necessary.

The national origins quota system is as foreign to our national ideals today as is the once accepted institution of slavery. It has made its appearance on the national scene and has stubbornly refused to make a timely exit. I urge you gentlemen to do your part in bringing down the curtain on it. I urge you to give us a favorable report on the administration bill.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN S. MONAGAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appear today in support of H.R. 10990, the bill which I have introduced to amend the Immigration and Nationality

Act.

The demands and pressures which existed when the basic law was enacted some 40 years ago have become radically different. The countries which provided the bulk of our immigrants in times past now barely use the quotas available to them, while the needs of other countries far exceed their allotted number. The subsequent McCarran-Walter Act was at best a patch-up job which has since proven woefully inadequate.

The bill for which I now speak is similar to that which President Kennedy sponsored a year ago. Its passage has likewise been formally urged by President Johnson. The purpose of the bill is to liberalize the existing national origins quota system which has worked such hardship upon members of the families of American citizens who have been compelled to remain abroad. It has been the peoples of Mediterranean and southern European origin, particularly from Greece, Italy, and Portugal, who have suffered most under the existing law. A law which permits large numbers of families to remain broken can only work misery on both sides of the ocean. As Mr. Celler has already pointed out, the criterion for admissibility to this country must no longer be "what is your race or origin,” but rather "who are you and what can you do for the country in which you have chosen to live."

H.R. 10990 provides for gradual elimination of the quota system over a 5-year period. During this period it further provides for the allocation of unused quota numbers to oversubscribed countries. While the minimum number admissible from each country is raised to 200, the total quota figure for each country is to be reduced by 20 percent each year. These places by which the national totals are reduced are placed in a pool, from which admissions are to be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis in order of the established preferences.

The issuance of visas is rendered considerably more flexible. Each year foreign citizens seek to visit this country on business or pleasure. Likewise increasing Lumbers of students from abroad want to attend our universities. The inordinate difficulty which they now encounter in obtaining visas tends only to deter qualified foreigners from visiting the United States. Whereas under the existing law the quotas provide for order of preference only within each individual country, my bill will now determine the priority between nationals of different countries throughout the world. In addition to this, the broad discretion to be vested in the President and in the Immigration Board allows the free allocation of previously unused quotas to applicants from any nation, so that the basic provision of a 10 percent maximum monthly allocation of visas does not prevent the subsequent issuance of visas which were not used up during a previous month. The bill further eliminates the waste of quota numbers by those who apply for visas and then never apply for admission, thereby depriving others of the right. To the same end, quotas may not be used up by people of nonquota status.

The nonquota status itself is to be extended to several important groups, including parents of U.S. citizens and all natives of independent Western Hemisphere countries. Likewise, at the discretion of the Attorney General, certain mentally afflicted members of the immediate family of a U.S. citizen, barred from admission under the existing laws, may be admitted as nonquota immigrants. There are several significant changes in the preference system. Further latitude is allowed for immigrants with special skills, or with the ability to perform a job for the filling of which a shortage exists in the United States. Also, in addition to the three existing categories, a new fourth preference is created in favor of the parents of aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence. The process of applying for a preference is simplified as well. Replacing the existing and often harsh requirement that an applicant for a "special skills" preference submit an affidavit from a U.S. employer is a provision that allows the Attorney General to grant the preference upon affidavit from the immigrant, plus any further documentary evidence which the Attorney General, having consulted the Secretary of Labor, may require.

To administer our immigration policy, this bill provides for the establishment of a seven-member Immigration Board, three members of which would be apprinted by the President, two by the President of the Senate, and two by the Speaker of the House. The function of this Board would be to study the conditions here and abroad which bear on our immigration policy. The members

would consult with the Secretaries of Labor, State, and Defense and would then in turn make recommendations to the President and the Attorney General as to the allocation of quotas and admissions such as will best serve the purposes of this act.

Our

A more flexible, up-to-date immigration law has long been a necessity. Chief Executive has urged this reform. Our citizens demand it, as evidenced by each day's mail, which brings new pleas from those suffering from the inequity of the existing laws. I believe we have a moral obligation to answer their call.

STATEMENT OF HON. F. BRADFORD MORSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the committee for this opportunity to testify on behalf of my bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act. I know that the committee has a number of proposals before it and I am confident that a progressive bill can be developed.

As a nation, we have many pieces of unfinished business before we can say that we live according to the principles and ideals we profess. The civil rights bill brought us a long step forward, but as Senator Dirksen said on the floor of the Senate last week, "Every generation *** must march up to the unfinished tasks of the generation that has gone before." One of our most important unfinished tasks is the overhaul of our immigration policy.

I cannot see the logic in a system which bases our quota allocation on the U.S. population of more than four decades ago and creates backlogs of as many as 100,000 for some countries while a third of the total quota numbers remain unused. Nations with the largest quotas use as little as 37 percent of their total allocation, while nations with small quotas are heavily oversubscribed.

We recognize the inadequacy of the quota system every time we authorize an exception to it. During the past decade we have admitted about 1 million people to this country through special enactment, regulation, or proclamation.

Every time we adhere rigidly to a tiny quota for certain nations we not only deny the advantages of American democracy to thousands of deserving applicants, we deny our Nation the talents, skills, and energies they possess.

Now, it is obvious that the United States cannot realistically open its doors to every single person who wishes to come here. But we should make our selection rational-based on the validity of the claim of the applicant and not on the accident of his birth. To some extent we have done this in the development of the preference system for family members and skilled workers. My bill would not disturb the present preference system, but would extend the family preference now available to a spouse or child to the parents of a U.S. citizen or resident alien. Most importantly, the bill would bring the quota system into line with current reality. Instead of basing quota allocation on the 1920 census, the bill would compute the quotas according to the 1960 population. In effect this would result in about 50,000 additional immigrants each year. The present annual total of 154,000 is generally exceeded by about 100,000 due to the special arrangements I mentioned before. Pooling of the unused quotas would hold the total figure constant, but would permit the alleviation of additional hardships.

I know that my bill and others like it have been discussed here in some detail. and I will not repeat what my colleagues have said. But I am convinced that the proposed formula in this bill will permit us to return to what I believe should be the fundamental purposes and goals of U.S. immigration policy: a willingness to serve as a haven for refugees; a determination to ease the suffering of U.S. citizens who are separated from their families; and an effort to attract skilled immigrants to contribute to our economy and culture.

STATEMENT OF HON. ABRAHAM J. MULTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am heartened and gratified by your decision to hold these hearings-the first to be held before a House committee on general revision of the Immigration and Nationality Act since that act was signed nearly 12 years ago.

I am here to urge you in the strongest terms to give favorable consideration to the pending administration proposal, H.R 7700. My companion bill is II.R. 7855

A number of alternative proposals have been introduced to amend the basic national origins provisions of the law. I introduced a bill at the beginning of the present Congress (H.R. 552), which provides a somewhat different approach than the administration bill. Many other Members have introduced other alternatives.

Since President Kennedy sent us his recommendations and proposed amendments last July, however, I have felt that we, the supporters of immigration reform, should unite in supporting the administration proposal. I believe it is the best proposal that has been introduced. We have had many years to examine and consider the many immigration reform bills that have been introduced in the past. I believe that President Kennedy and his advisers did just that last year and that they evolved the most reasonable, realistic and workable bill which has been introduced on this subject since the Immigration and Nationality Act was enacted.

For

The administration bill suggests several changes in the present law. example, it grants nonquota status to parents of U.S. citizens. This change would have a very minor numerical effect on immigration. Yet it is a change that is long overdue. I can think of no good reason why citizens of this country should be separated from their parents for any length of time simply because a second preference quota number is not available to them.

I would go even further and grant the same nonquota status to parents of permanent immigrants who are waiting the privilege to become citizens.

The bill also would extend nonquota status to natives of all independent island countries of the Western Hemisphere. Under present law those island countries which have gained their independence since the enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Act are excluded from the provisions granting nonquota status to natives of other independent Western Hemisphere countries. This is a purely adventitious distinction which ought to be eliminated.

Other changes made by the bill include the creation of a new fourth preference category to cover aliens whose occupations are in short supply, and the creation of an Immigration Board, which would participate in issuing regulations, study conditions affecting immigration policy and perform other advisory duties.

These are some of the amendments contained in the bill. I believe that they provide important and reasonable changes in the law.

The most urgent matter dealt with in the bill, however, is the national origins quota system. This, as we all know, is the single issue that lies at the center of the storm which has raged over our national immigration policy for 40 years or

more.

The national origins quota system is unjust and unfair. It cannot be justified. It is a rigid mathematical equation with absolutely no basis in reason or sound national policy. It is not sacred writ, as some would have us believe. What is more it has not worked in application-it has not governed our pattern of immigration as it was intended to.

During the last fiscal year, ending June 30, 1963, over 306,000 immigrants were admitted into the United States. The total annual quota during this time was about half of this number, around 157,000. And how many immigrants' admission was actually governed by the quota? The answer, as you know, is 103,036. So in actual practice, virtually two-thirds of the immigrants entering the United States in fiscal year 1963 entered outside the quota. Only one-third ame in under the quota. The same is true, approximately, for every recent

Year.

What type of national policy is this? We, like the Pharisees of old, must make broad our phylactories to convince ourselves that the national origins quota ystem maintains the racial composition of our people as it existed 44 years ago. Yet this, precisely, is the purpose and the only purpose of the system. But it has not worked.

Nevertheless, it remains on the statute books giving offense to the peoples of the world against whom it unjustly discriminates. And it has put us in the untenable position of preaching racial equality to the people of the world while our "ational laws contain a basic system of immigration control which, in their eyes, appears to be racial discrimination per se. Believe me, this is an area of our national policy which is known throughout the world, especially in those countries with heavily oversubscribed quotas and those that have been granted the token quotas of 100 per year.

I do not understand why we must maintain this senseless system. The alternative system proposed in the administration's immigration bill seems to me to clearly more sensible and reasonable.