TO AMEND THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT MONDAY, JUNE 29, 1964 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE No. 1 OF THE Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a.m., in room 346, Cannon Office Building, Hon. Michael A. Feighan (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Mr. Feighan and Mr. Chelf. Also present: Walter M. Besterman legislative assistant. Mr. FEIGHAN. The subcommittee will come to order. We are privileged this morning to have as our first witness our very able and distinguished colleague from Illinois, Congressman Barratt O'Hara. Will you proceed, Mr. O'Hara? STATEMENT of Hon. BARRATT O’HARA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Mr. O'HARA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have no prepared statement but this is an area of legislation with which I have lived ever since I have been in the Congress. When I was elected in 1948 one of the issues in my district and one my constituents were most interested in was the McCarranWalter Immigration Act. They did not like it. I came down here pledged to my constituents to do all that I could in my small way to bring about a liberalization and a greater Americanism into our immigration laws. I think it was in the 81st Congress that a bill was drawn by the then-Senator Lehman, as I remember, and he with his staff worked a good many months on it. I was one of the sponsors of an identical bill in the House. I think you were, too, Mr. Chairman. I think there were a good many Members of the House and the Senate who introduced that bill. Mr. Chairman, I think you are doing a great service not only for our own people but for the people of the world in having these hearings on pending legislation at this time. I would wish to emphasize a few things. First, Mr. Chairman, I do not think in morality our country can ever take the position of closing the doors of entry and of opportunity to the neglected and the persecuted of other countries. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, you and I are of Irish blood and we Irish owe so much to America. I think you also were happy when one with Irish blood became President of the United States. President Kennedy's people came from Ireland about the same time my people came from there and they came fleeing persecution, want, and lack of opportunity. In America we can never close the door of opportunity simply because we are here and we have been taken care of. We cannot say, "We are taken care of so we have got to forget other people." I think we can never take that position. We must proceed, I think, with caution and we must bear in mind our population explosion and the great increase in our own population as well as the demands on employment and education and all that sort of thing. Mr. Chairman, as I read what you proposed and I am speaking of you as the chairman-what I have heard you discuss, I think your approach is the right approach. Taking the matter of employment if we bring in patternmakers, only a few people can make patterns but after they have been made, many people can follow the pattern and so if we bring in people of great professional and industrial skills we bring them in and they make the patterns and from the patterns they make, they create employment for many other people. As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, that is your approach and I very much approve of it. Now, as to skilled tailors, not very many tailors are skilled but when you bring in those of high skills, they make the patterns that hundreds of thousands of other workers can work from and this makes employment. I will say the same thing holds true with these stone workers, the hard rock workers and there are unquestionably many other classifications. We can open the doors for these people. Sure, we are bringing in more workers but these workers come in here and make work for less skilled people. Mr. FEIGHAN. They are not, I take it, displacing others who are presently employed? Mr. O'HARA. Exactly. Mr. FEIGHAN. Instead, by their talents and special skills, they open up employment for other persons who would otherwise be unemployed? Mr. O'HARA. Exactly; exactly. I will say for one of these unskilled workers you bring in, and if you take a skilled tailor, Mr. Chairman, one skilled tailor might make employment for a thousand less skilled workers, men and women who can use a needle and thread and machine but do not have the skill or ability to draw the pattern. Mr. FEIGHAN. That is especially true in the case of cutters in the tailoring business. For example, in my own district, we have Lyon Tailors which is a large tailoring company for men and, to a minor degree, for women. They have been having extreme difficulty in obtaining cutters and, because of the lack of cutters, they are months behind in their schedule of production. I have been trying to assist them as much as I can in endeavoring to make available to them qualified tailors from foreign countries who would supply that need and, thereby, afford an opportunity for employment for people unemployed. Mr. O'HARA. It is a need recognized both by the employers and by the union leaders, I understand. That is, both groups wish these skilled tailors brought in so it will make more work. I know of no opposition to it from any source. Mr. Chairman, then there is the factor that we cannot ignoredivided families. Just before I came over here I was reading the details of a private bill I put out and all of these people are unknown to me, a group of Italian children. One of the girls was going into a convent but her brothers and sisters were all leaving for America so she thought she should remain with her father and mother. They all came here except this girl and they all prospered and all became citizens. Recently the mother and father died and this woman who is now about 50 years old, maybe nearer 60, she is alone, but she has performed her duty. She stayed with her father and mother as long as they were on earth. Now the only way she can get into this country, as I understand it is by a private bill. I think our laws should be so broad that this can be done in every case administratively. We have no right to continue the division of families. As I understand it, the legislation now proposed and thought of by you, Mr. Chairman, is to liberalize all of the factors that prevent families from being quickly reunited in this country. Am I correct, Mr. Chairman; is that your thought? Mr. FEIGHAN. Yes, very definitely. Of course, in some instances, in the case of other than a private bill, a person may come here under a preference, but as we all know, many of those preferences are oversubscribed. There is an indefinable time of waiting that might have to be endured and probably, in many instances, that time will consume more than a person's allotted time on earth for many of those people who seek that preference. Mr. O'HARA. How hopeless it must be to the brothers and sisters with means and able to take care of their separated loved ones waiting year after year for the loved ones to be united with them, and waiting for them to reach a quota number. This is cruel. I do not think in our American concept of morality and American understanding, we can tolerate that sort of thing. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the privilege of appearing here, but I do want to make one further comment. I though that in the Walter-McCarran Act, too much authority was given the consuls. I think in every case they try to exercise their best judgment and they all are fine people, but yet the tendency was that it was easier to deny than to admit, since if they would admit people, they might be subject to criticism and things might go wrong. I thought there was too great authority given consuls, and I think that you are seeking to correct that. What I very much approve of and I think would go a long way in reaching a correct solution is the creation of a board and a constant study of these matters, a board of seven, as I understand it, to provide for this in the act; three to be appointed by the President, two by the Speaker, and two by the President of the Senate. I would imagine-I am just guessing-but I would imagine on such a board would unquestionably be the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee because of your position in the House and your counterpart in the Senate. With this board going on constantly studying this matter, I would imagine we would make real intelligent and constructive progress. Mr. FEIGHAN. May I interrupt a moment, Mr. O'Hara? There is in the present Immigration and Nationality Act, often referred to as the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, a provision; namely, section 401, which provides for a continuous review by a joint committee of the Senate and the House with five members each appointed by the Speaker of the House and five by the Vice President set up for for that particular purpose. Do you feel it is better to have Congress which under the Supreme Court decision of 1875 and the foreign commerce clause provided, or at least sustained the obligation and the duty of Congress-to have jurisdiction and control over immigration and that that should be retained, or do you feel that Congress should relieve itself of that obligation and turn it over to the board so that even though that board would have a few Members of Congress that Congress should relieve itself of that obligation. Mr. O'HARA. No; very definitely not, Mr. Chairman. It was the concept of a board, in looking over hurriedly the bill this morning, where I saw that provision and I thought the idea of a board studying this was a good idea. I think that if the work is being done by a joint committee of the Congress, that is definitely better than a board that would include both the Executive and Congress. As I understand it now, Mr. Chairman, all of that work of the board is being done by the joint committee of which this chairman. is the chairman. Mr. FEIGHAN. That is correct. Mr. O'HARA. I think that is definitely preferable to a board that could include representatives of the Executive, very definitely so. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the rare privilege of testifying here. Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. O'Hara, you mentioned the authority given to the consular officers in the issuance of visas. A proposal has been made-not, of course, in your bill but, I believe, in the bill introduced by our able colleague, Mr. Lindsay-which would enable an alien to make application for a visa and if turned down by the consular office, would permit him to bring suit against the Secretary of State. In other words, if such were the case, the right to receive, or the receiving of a visa by an alien, would be treated as a right rather than a privilege. I can foresee if the consuls were stripped of that and the alien were permitted to sue in court the Secretary of State, we would have a large backlog of suits. I cannot see the wisdom of it myself. I know it is not in your bill. Mr. O'HARA. I would be fearful, Mr. Chairman, that that which you foresee would happen. If we separate that which is a privilege and that which we give voluntarily, and make it a right that can be forced in court, we are running into a lot of trouble. Mr. FEIGHAN. I agree with you, Mr. O'Hara. Mr. O'Hara, you mentioned the priorities of giving admission to skilled workers and also reuniting or uniting families. You also mentioned providing elasticity where you give haven to those who may become the victims of persecution, tyranny, or terror abroad. Of those three priorities, what priority of importance do you attach to reuniting families under your proposal? It is Mr. O'HARA. I would give top priority to it, Mr. Chairman. the human element and it is a matter on which I think that if there were a vote by the American people, 95 percent of the American people would vote to liberalize completely the laws so that families could be quickly reunited. I would give top priority to that. Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Hara. Mr. O'HARA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FEIGHAN. Our next witness will be our able colleague from the great State of New York, the Honorable John M. Murphy. Will you proceed, Mr. Murphy? STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate the opportunity of being able to appear before the committee this morning. I appear not for the sake of changing a law just for the sake of changes, and I do not subscribe to that theory at all. However, I feel that in the instance of our immigration laws, the experience I have come in contact with indicates some changes are in order. I realize, of course, that in many sections of this country, and I would say in most sections of this country, there are people who feel they do not want any immigration into this country. Through correspondence with hundreds of thousands of people in my own district, I have gotten the feeling they do not want any immigration into the United States and yet there are others who probably are from families who are first, second, or third generation and who have a more liberal attitude toward the immigration laws, feeling opportunities that this country offers should be offered or held open to people throughout the world. I find that the quota system as it now is applied, particularly with people of Italian ancestry, Greek ancestry, and Polish ancestry, I find that the wait of so many years to unite families imposed by these quota systems, which allow quotas from Great Britain and Ireland and some of the other countries, that the urge to immigrate here is not as great and their quotas go unfilled and this could well be allocated to worthy people in these other countries who wish to emigrate for the sake of not only uniting a family or providing a skill to this country-perhaps people in Poland or other countries behind the Iron Curtain who want to escape persecution would want to come here. I do not think our overall immigration should increase substantially and I think basically the numbers now prescribed in the legislation introduced of 164,582 is certainly adequate and just. Mr. FEIGHAN. May I interrupt? Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir. Mr. FEIGHAN. You are familiar, of course, with the fact that under the quota system, in the past 10 years only about 33 percent of alien admissions to the United States came under the national origins quota formula and about 67 percent have entered the United States on a nonquota or other specific legislation? Mr. MURPHY. Yes; I am. Mr. FEIGHAN. The total annual admissions of the last 10 years have been between 290,000 and 300,000 each year. |