past 191⁄2 years. This is a reflection on me and my people. I don't care what anybody says about Chelf as an individual, but when they start talking about Chelf and his representation they are critical of my people, and that is the thing I don't like about it. In summation-I want to repeat the national origins quota system is not dead-nor dying of dry rot. It is very much alive because this committee has made it so. We have by our understanding and our fairness amended it so as to keep it workable. Mr. Chairman, I have had my say. Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chelf. Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, I would request at this time you recognize our colleague on the full committee, Mr. Lindsay, who wants to make a statement-not to the bill but concerning his availability. I will reserve the right to cross-examine. Mr. FEIGHAN. Very good. Mr. POFF. Mr. Lindsay cannot be here after noon. He must be on the floor at noon. Mr. ROGERS. Do I understand you are now asking me to step aside? Mr. FEIGHAN. No. Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. McCulloch is in Ohio. He asked me to be on the floor at 12 noon sharp today because of the taking up of the civil rights bill and its probable reference to the Rules Committee. I understood from the staff I was to testify next and I will be happy to testify at any time subject to the committee's will and wish provided I can be on the floor at 12 noon today. Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you, Mr. Lindsay. Mr. Poff? Mr. POFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 簿 I may have some of your testimony confused with some of the testimony of our chairman, Mr. Celler. May I ask this: Did I understand you to say, or was it Mr. Celler who said, that this legislation, H.R. 7700, and your bill which is identical, would not work any increase in the total immigration? Mr. ROGERS. There is no sizable increase contemplated. However, when you talk about increased immigration if you confine it to those where immigrant visas for permanent residence are issued the answer is "Yes." It it may apply to refugees or others who may be admitted under some unusual circumstances the answer would be "No," depending upon the circumstances of the parole power exercised by the Attorney General. Mr. POFF. Leaving aside the parole provisions and the refugee provisions of your bill, would your bill work an increase in the total immigration? Mr. ROGERS. Under the quot a system, no. It doesn't contemplate that. Mr. POFF. Let us explore that just a moment. Statistics already in the record are to the effect that over the last several years immigration under the quota system has averaged about 100,000 a year. This means something in the neighborhood of 57,000 quota numbers were not used. Mr. ROGERS. That is right. Mr. POFF. If your bill is enacted it is contemplated that all numbers would be used on a first-come first-served worldwide basis; is that correct? Mr. ROGERS. No. Mr. POFF. In what particular is it not correct? Mr. ROGERS. The first 50 percent must fall in the category of skilled specialists that we need. If the 50 percent of the 157,000, for round purposes let us say 75,000, suppose we don't have need for them and have need for only 25,000, and this Board so finds, then you will get only 25,000 if I interpret these provisions correctly. But if there is a need for the 75,000 then they would come. Then the second category, being that of uniting relatives, you may get the 30 percent and you may not. To say with certainty whether it would increase beyond 100,000 now admitted under the quota system is just a guesstimate. It could be or it could not, depending on the circumstances. Mr. POFF. Potentially it might result in an increase of 57,000. Mr. POFF. I believe that is what you just said. It might? Mr. POFF. Your bill also provides, does it not, for a doubling of the minimum quotas for the minimum quota areas? Mr. ROGERS. The term "doubling" to which you refer, if we stick with the old formula, let us take Asia-Pacific quota involving more than one country, as you know under the system we now have, has 100, or something like that. Yes, with that it would be increased, for minimum quota areas only. Mr. POFF. There are some 77 of those areas. It would be fair to say then, would it not, that this provision in your bill would work an increase of at leat 7,700? Mr. ROGERS. I don't think I follow you. Mr. PoFF. You have 77 areas. The present minimum quota is 100. Your bill would double the minimum quota; 77 times 100 equals 7,700. Mr. ROGERS. You mean as to the specific people my bill would take? Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, I don't care to pursue that further. Back to the original line of inquiry, the gentleman knows that his bill would provide that any unused portion of the first preference would drop into the second preference category, would it not? Mr. ROGERS. That is right. Mr. POFF. Your bill would also grant nonquota status to parents of U.S. citizens; is that correct? Mr. ROGERS. On nonquota basis? Mr. POFF. Yes. Mr. ROGERS. It is my understanding they come now in the second quota preference. Mr. POFF. I believe you will find your bill puts a nonquota status on them. Mr. ROGERS. On parents? Yes. Mr. POFF. On parents, yes. By way of a yardstick let us use the average of actual entries of parents under the second preference category. In the time frame 1958-62 that figure would be 3,300 annually, that would represent an increase in immigration, would it not? Mr. ROGERS. Let us see if I understand your question. You say that between the years 1958 and 1962 they were admitted-how many people who left their parents in the other countries? Mr. POFF. I didn't say that. Mr. ROGERS. Then what did you say? Mr. POFF. Am I not speaking loud enough, Mr. Rogers? Mr. ROGERS. I will admit I have a deafness, but Mr. POFF. I am sorry. I will try to speak a little louder. Mr. ROGERS (continuing). In my left ear, but that is not my problem. My problem is understanding what your question relates to. Mr. POFF. It is not my accent, is it? Mr. ROGERS. No. Mr. POFF. The figure I used represented the actual entries of parents in the second preference category in that time fame. Mr. ROGERS. That is what you say, that 3,300 were admitted from 1958 to 1962. Mr. POFF. Last year, you might be interested to know, that figure was in the neighborhood of 4,000. Mr. ROGERS. I don't know what it is. I am sure that the State Department can tell you the number of visas issued in that area. Mr. POFF. I don't care to pursue that line further. If what we have discussed at this point is reasonably accurate, and I suggest these figures are conservative and can be documented, then there is within the framework of your legislation a potential increase in immigration of some 68,000 people per year. Mr. ROGERS. That would depend somewhat on the question as I have previously outlined it to you. That is, do we need the skills? That is No. 1. If you don't, then you get back to Mr. Feighan's theory of uniting families. Nobody seems to object to that. If that should bring an increase then it doesn't result in an increase in excess of the present quotas. Mr. POFF. The figure of 68,000, it should be remembered, does not include any estimate of the increase in total immigration which would occur by granting nonquota status to newly independent nations in the Western Hemisphere. Mr. ROGERS. If I understand your question, that any residents of a new independent country would be free to come here regardless of any quota? Mr. POFF. That is what your bill provides. Mr. ROGERS. No; my bill provides they have to meet certain requirements. Mr. POFF. I mean they will become nonquota immigrants, they will be able to come in in unrestricted numbers. Mr. ROGERS. If it does do that then I misunderstand, because the 10-percent ceiling is based upon a quota. Now you are talking about something that does not have a quota. Mr. POFF. I am saying your bill would create a nonquota area out of what is now a quota area, and regardless of the total numbers that may be assigned later, and regardless of the 10-percent limitation, they will be allowed to enter in unrestricted numbers. Mr. ROGERS. Let us put it this way: Aside from the 10 percent, with which we agree, after the pool is established and at the end of the 5 years, then any country must meet the requirements set forth by the Board as to skills, as to Mr. POFF. I beg to differ with the gentleman. That is not a fact. Your bill would not make it apply to nonquota areas. After Mr. ROGERS. But if they are in a nonquota area-after the end of 5 years, then you are completely out of the quotas in every area. the end of 5 years you go into another category. Now, if you are in a new nation which has been created and you haven't had a quota, you still, according to my interpretation, must come within these categories that are set by this Board. Mr. POFF. But that your bill would not provide. Mr. ROGERS. After the end of 5 years Mr. POFF. Of course, you recognize that your bill would provide, not at the end of the 5-year period but immediately Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago would become nonquota areas. Mr. ROGERS. What would become nonquota areas? Mr. POFF. Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago. Mr. ROGERS. But they still have to meet the requirements of the immigration law, don't they? Mr. POFF. The gentleman is mistaken. They would not be subject to any preference rules whatever under your bill. Mr. ROGERS. Fix it so they would be. Mr. POFF. In other words, you do not intend such a result to follow? Mr. ROGERS. No; I do not intend by this proposal to open any floodgates. I think it is a fair estimate and a fair explanation of trying to make it for the benefit of the people in this country regarding the admission of aliens in the future. If it does not accomplish that then I am mistaken in my indefiniteness. Mr. POFF. And you would like the committee to change that feature of the bill? Mr. ROGERS. If the features of this bill permit immigrants to come regardless of economic safeguards and other qualifications, and that the State Department is authorized to issue to them immigrant visas because just they want to come without meeting the requirements that the rest of the world has to meet, then let us change it to make them meet that. Mr. POFF. If there are any such areas in the world today and the present law permits any such thing, would you change that? Mr. ROGERS. If there are any such areas today which permit open entry without compliance with the immigration law? Mr. POFF. On a nonquota basis. Mr. ROGERS. On a nonquota basis; yes. I would say tighten it up. Mr. POFF. I thank you. I have no further questions. Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. The subcommittee will recess subject to call of the Chair. It is our hope to obtain unanimous consent to sit this afternoon and hopefully at 2:30 p.m. It will be at the call of the Chair. Mr. ROGERS. You will not require my presence at 2:30? Mr. FEIGHAN. Unless Mr. Moore cares to question you, you will be so advised. Mr. ROGERS. I will be available sitting over with Representative Lindsay. Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. (Hearing recessed at 11:45 a.m.) AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. FEIGHAN. The subcommittee will come to order. We are happy to welcome Congressman John V. Lindsay, 17th District of New York, who will testify on his bill, H.R. 11446, which goes well beyond any pending bill in terms of basic changes proposed in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Our colleague is experienced in the immigration field. It is my understanding that while serving in the Justice Department he had considerable responsibility for oversight of the administration of our immigration laws. We look forward to hearing your analysis of this bill and examining its short- and long-run implications. Mr. Lindsay: STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN V. LINDSAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I thank and compliment you first on calling these hearings and I thank you for permitting me to testify in support of H.R. 11446, which is the bill introduced in June of this year, a modification of legislation that I introduced in prior Congresses. For too long America's immigration and naturalization laws have, sadly and unnecessarily, conflicted with our national ideals. American history is an impressive testament to the 40 million men, women, and children who, crossing the oceans in search of a better life, helped transform an empty continent into a powerful bastion of democracy and opportunity. All aspects of our national life-politics, religion, commerce, and the arts-have been molded by this, the greatest folkmigration in history. America has done much for the immigrant; the immigrant has done even more for America. Yet our immigration policies reflect both a xenophobia and an unnecessary rigidity which are neither sensible nor becoming. The trouble has little to do with the total volume of quota numbers-the volume of immigration into the United States. This is not the issue. The problem will not be solved by vast numbers of new admissions. But the problem has everything to do with basic concepts. As long as the quota system is based on national origins it will be a source of pain and of shame. And it takes on an element of the ridiculous when one considers how easily it can be corrected. As to the specific allocation of the quota between countries, the law does not make much sense. A high proportion of those who most want to come to America and who would be of most benefit to us are ineligible. A very few countries are given high quotas which they don't use. Other countries with vastly larger populations and whose people bave much to offer the United States are given tiny quotas. The comparison right away puts in question the honesty of the quotas. |