IMMIGRATION WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 1965 U.S.SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:40 a.m., in room 2228, New Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., presiding. Present: Senators Ervin and Kennedy of Massachusetts. Also present: Fred M. Mesmer, staff director; Drury H. Blair, staff member; and William A. Stevens, minority staff member. Senator ERVIN. The subcommittee will come to order. The subcommittee is pleased to welcome this morning representatives from two of our most patriotic organizations. Our first witness this morning will be Mrs. Olive Parsons, representing the American Coalition. Mrs. Parsons, we are delighted to have you with the committee. We will be glad to hear from you at this time. STATEMENT OF MRS. OLIVE WHITMAN PARSONS, IMMIGRATION COMMITTEE, AMERICAN COALITION OF PATRIOTIC SOCIETIES Mrs. PARSONS. Thank you, sir. Do you want me to stand here? Senator ERVIN. No, sit down and be comfortable. You might sit behind the mike there. Mrs. PARSONS. I want to thank you very much for giving me the chance to come and testify. Do you want me to read that first page as it is or Senator ERVIN. Any way you prefer. You can either read it or summarize it. Mrs. PARSONS. I have never done this before. Senator ERVIN. Perhaps it would be better if you read it. Mrs. PARSONS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Olive Whitman Parsons, I am a resident of the town of Hunter-Tannersville, Greene County, N.Y., and I appear before you as a member of the immigration committee of the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies. The American Coalition of Patriotic Societies has approximately 100 affiliated civic, patriotic, and fraternal organizations, with a membership approaching 3 million persons. I have appended to my testimony a list of the affiliated organizations, Mr. Chairman. At the 36th Annual Conference of the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies, held in Washington on February 4, 1965, a number of resolutions were adopted, of which I would like to read you the following-Mr. Chairman, in view of time, do you want me to read that? Senator ERVIN. Yes, I think so. Mrs. PARSONS. This is paragraph 6 of Resolution No. 2, entitled "General Composite Resolution," to retain the Immigration and Nationality Act (Walter-McCarran Act) which is vital to the preservation of this Republic; and Resolution No. 6 entitled "Immigration Legislation": Whereas increase of immigration into the United States is certain to raise unemployment; and Whereas certain proposed immigration legislation will erode the safeguards provided by the Immigration and Nationality Act (McCarran-Walter Act); and Whereas there is reason to believe that the provisions of the McCarran-Walter Act regulating nonquota immigrants need strengthening; Resolved, That the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies continues unchanged in its support of the McCarran-Walter Act, and recognizes that it may be in the national interests to support additional legislation which will supplement and render more effective our national policy of immigration restriction; and Resolved, That the immigration committee is directed to study pending immigration legislation and support such bills as will have the effect of preserving our national policy on immigration restriction, and oppose bills with contrary results. In supporting restriction on immigration, the 36th annual conference has continued an activity in which the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies has been concerned since its founding in 1929. The national origins quota system has been our particular concern as it seems to us an eminently fair and wise method of assigning quotas. It is based on arithmetic and not on the dictates of political expediency, emotion or discrimination; the quotas have been based on the composition of our own population in 1920. The fact that up till World War II our immigration reflected our total population may be one reason that so many foreign groups were eventually integrated into our way of life and contributed of their own best characteristics and gifts to our culture. But, if we take in new immigrants in numbers disproportionate to the various foreign national origins of our people they tend to become neither absorbed nor assimilated but remain as enclaves of alien philosophies, prejudices, and mores endangering our form of government and the constitution of our legal system which derives from the English common law. While the organization I represent has in the past continually supported the national origins quota system we now recognize that a serious problem exists due to the ever emerging new countries, the continuing stream of those fleeing tyranny, and religious persecution and/or ethnic difficulties. This has resulted in a long series of amendments to the basic law re nonquota provisions for certain classes outside the Western Hemisphere. Consequently, we realize the time has come to set forth a new set of rules. These nonquota provisions along with the nonquota status of nationals from the free countries of the Western Hemisphere have caused roughly a 2 to 1 excess of nonquota to quota immigrants over the last 10 years. A contributing factor to this issue is the lack of any numer ical control over immigration from the countries of the Western Hemisphere from whence we can expect the trend to rise due to the projected population increase rising from their old stock and the new native born resulting from their own immigration. Under the McCarran Act the presently authorized number of quota immigrants is 158,361. The estimate, that under S. 500 the number of immigrants would be increased by about 7,000 per year, is misleading. The Commissioner of Immigration in his report for the year ended June 30, 1964, says that 102,844 quota immigrants were admitted during the year. Therefore, visas authorized but not issued totaled 55,517. The object of S. 500 is to make use of all authorized visas. Adding the number of unused visas to additional entries of nonquota immigrants would produce a large annual increase in immigrants admitted in numbers far exceeding 7,000. It would be an increase of 55,517 quota immigrants alone, other provisions of the proposed bill would result in a further increase in nonquota numbers and parole admissions. Mr. Abba Schwartz, Administrator of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, Department of State, has admitted the overall admissions would increase to a minimum of 400,000, meaning an increase of more than 100,000 immigrants per year over the annual average of the past 10 years, and Mr. Schwartz should know. This, one presumes, is during the 5-year phaseout period of national origins. I would like to insert here a few questions. If national origins is such an unpalatable idea, why should proponents of S. 500 feel constrained to go through a 5-year phaseout period with the attendant involved and complicated reshuffling of quotas that ultimately denies the logic of the system as instituted. One asks if this period is proposed in order to placate certain nations and curry favor with others whose quotas during such a period would be increased. Are we trying to alleviate the overpopulation of some parts of the globe and so buy friendship in return for population discards? If this be the case, then our immigration policy has become an exaggerated part of our foreign policy and a global form of social service rather than a safeguard for our country and our economy. Mr. Chairman, I started to prepare by testimony quite a few months ago. My study was based then on the relative merits and demerits of both the existing law (McCarran Act) and the bill S. 500. Since then H.R. 8662 has been introduced by Congressman Michael A. Feighan in the House of Representatives. We have studied this bill with care and it is our opinion that it represents a constructive and deliberate step in the direction of a worldwide selective immigration policy. Our opinion of H.R. 8662 is based upon these facts: (1) H.R. 8662 sets a ceiling of 255,000 immigrant admissions a year from all countries external to the Western Hemisphere. The present law sets no ceiling whatsoever on immigrant admissions nor does S. 500 now pending before this committee. Moreover, from testimony presented before the House Subcommittee on Immigration during 1964, it is fair to conclude that S. 500 would, if enacted into law, result in a minimum annual rate of 293,000 immigrant admissions from all countries external to the Western Hemisphere. This is a minimum figure because it does not take into account the likely number of refugees who would be paroled into the United States under the authority given to the Attorney General under S. 500 or the number of Western Hemisphere immigrants. 52-441-65-pt. 2- -24 (2) H.R. 8662 repeals the national origins quota system while simultaneously repealing all nonquota provisions of the present law as they apply to countries external to the Western Hemisphere. The official record will show that immigrant admissions resulting from these special nonquota provisions of law have averaged 68,000 per year for the past 10 years. This figure I got from an annual report of the Visa Division. When this figure is compared to the average of 95,000 quota immigrant admissions per year from these same countries during the same 10-year period, it becomes more apparent that the quota system has been reduced to a deceptive myth. I would like to quote here the figures for 1964 taken from the annual report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, page 2. A total of 292,248 aliens were admitted or accorded status as permanent residents: 102.844 of these were quota immigrants, leaving a balance of 199,404 nonquota status and adjusted individuals. S. 500 proposes that a new, nonquota class be added to the present ones-covering parents of U.S. citizens-which would result in bringing the total of nonquota admissions closer to the total of quota admissions. Where this trend will lead unless Congress takes corrective action is all too apparent. No one has yet proposed that brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles of U.S. citizens be made nonquota. But that would logically follow if the present trend is allowed to continue. (3) H.R. 8662 repeals use of the parole provisions of law for the admission of refugees and substitutes therefor a fixed ceiling on the number of refugees we will admit each year as immigrants and makes them chargeable against the total annual ceiling of 225,000. Under the present law refugees are admitted as "parolees" with a nebulous formula as to the number we will take each year. S. 500 proposes that the present refugee parole program be continued and extended to cover new countries, with unique authority granted to the Attorney General with respect to numbers which may be admitted. Beyond this S. 500 provides the President with authority after receiving the advice of an Immigration Board, to use up to 10 percent of the newly proposed quota, or 16,600 per year, for additional refugee admissions. We are advised that the formula proposed in H.R. 8662 will allow for the annual admission of approximately 17,500 refugees who are bona fide victims of Communist political or religious persecution. In our opinion this is more than adequate to meet the problem as it exists today. (4) H.R. 8662 rejects the proposal in S. 500 for an Immigration Board with authority to advise the President on distribution of up to 40 percent of the authorized visas (166,000) among countries and classes of aliens now seeking admission into the United States. In lien thereof it substitutes the following formula: (a) A single country ceiling per year of 20,000, exempting only spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens from the country ceiling. but charging them against the total annual ceiling of 225,000. (b) Clearly defined preference classes in law, with a percent limit fixed to each preference class except the first preference class which benefits the immediate families of U.S. citizens. There follow six preference classes: (2) Members of professions, scientists, the skilled and talented in the performing arts, 10 percent: (3) Spouses, children and parents of permanent resident aliens, 20 percent; (4) Married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, 20 percent; (5) Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens, 20 percent; (6) Persons with skills found by the Secretary of Labor to be unavailable or in short supply, 20 percent; and (7) Refugees, 10 percent. Remaining visa numbers to be distributed among nonpreference immigrants on a strictly first-come, first-served basis. My organization feels that these percentages will take care of the often deplored question of divided families, one of the loudest criticisms of the McCarran Act. This section also solves in an orderly manner the backlog of visa numbers from some countries. (c) Authority for the President to use up to 50 percent of the visas that would fall to nonpreference classes for the exclusive purpose of removing any hardships that might fall upon the countries which now have high quotas as a consequence of the immediate repeal of the quota and nonquota provisions of the present law. This authority would, therefore, be limited to such countries as Great Britain, Germany, the Scandinavian countries, and the so-called Benelux countries. We believe this authority is justified in terms of longstanding patterns of immigration into the United States and to make certain that no adverse effects of a change in our policy of immigration admissions will be felt among our proven NATO allies. This seems to my organization a sounder and more workable solution than the 5-year phaseout period proposed in S. 500. This same authority is given directly to the President to use in circumstances of an international refugee emergency such as occurred in 1956 with the Hungarian Freedom Revolution and in 1957 with the earthquake disaster in the Azores. This will make it unnecessary for Congress to enact special emergency legislation in the future to meet such situations should they occur and the President determines that the national interest requires him to act. (The official record discloses that since 1948 special emergency refugee legislation enacted by Congress has resulted in the admission of over 700,000 refugees-over and above the quota limits of the law.) To accomplish these purposes only visas which would otherwise go to nonpreference immigrants may be used. Nonpreference immigrants are in reality so-called new seed immigrants and there are serious doubts about the need for such immigrants at this advanced stage of our national development. We are engaged in broad and costly welfare programs, Jobs Corps camps for school dropouts, a war on poverty, and an adjustment to automation. Soaring relief rolls plus an exploding population and the prospect of about 12 million more entering our labor force in the next 7 years present us with yet another appalling problem. (5) H.R. 8662 provides new safeguards for American workers which are not contained in the present law or proposed in S. 500. All nonpreference immigrants and all immigrants qualifying under the sixth preference of H.R. 8662 must first secure a certification from the Secretary of Labor that there are no willing or able workers in the United States to fill the jobs these immigrants are scheduled to take upon their arrival here. Within the language and intent of H.R. |