Just as discrimination, because of race, within our borders against our own citizens is not in the interest of the United States, discrimination because of race against persons who want to live in the United States is not in the public interest and does, in fact, run counter to the principles on which this country was founded, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Just as the boundaries of the civilized world have broadened tremendously in the last 40 years, we must broaden our immigration policies accordingly and recognize that the current laws create an ever-widening gulf between the United States and the emerging nations of the world. Immigration restrictions based on old world ties are the last vestige of our 19th-century civilization.

Not only is great indignity suffered by intending immigrants from the areas discriminated against, but it is a slap in the face of the entire race and people of those areas.

You are more familiar than I with the details of both the current and the proposed laws, Mr. Chairman, as well as with the untenable waiting lists in many nations. I would only like to reiterate my feeling that the national origins quota policy is in direct opposition to the principles which guided the Founding Fathers of the United States.

In addition, I have introduced a proposal that I would urge the committee to include in any amendments of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This bill, H.R. 6859, would prohibit deportation of any alien, lawfully admitted for permanent residence, who had continuously resided in the United States for 10 years after such admission, or who had been admitted for permanent residence prior to his 14th birthday.

Certainly there should be a definite length of time specified after which a permanent resident really becomes a permanent resident. If he commits a crime he should pay for that crime in the same way as anyone else through proper court procedures. As you know, under current laws, deportation often follows and becomes, in effect, double punishment.

Many times it is a much worse punishment than the first. Certainly in the case of an alien who was brought here before reaching the age of 14, and in most cases where there is more than 10 years' residence here, all ties with the country of his birth have been severed completely and banishment to that country amounts to no less than cruel and unusual punishment.

In one instance that I have knowledge of, we are attempting to deport a man who was brought to this country at the age of 8—in 1918. He was convicted, sentenced, and served his term on a grand theft charge more than 10 years ago with no previous or subsequent criminal record. He was raised in this country. His mistake was acted upon according to our standards of justice and punishment. He now faces deportation to a country he hardly knows.

Mr Chairman, I hope that the deliberations of the committee will give strong consideration to including this provision in the general legislation, to help bring our immigration laws up to date and to provide fair and equitable administration of these laws.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES C. CLEVELAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am here today to urge you to give favorable consideration to a bill which I have introduced. This bill, H.R. 9533, is short, simple, and deals with only one amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act, in contrast to many of the other general immigration law revisions that are being discussed in the present hearings.

My bill would amend section 349 of the act-the section which states the grounds for loss of U.S. nationality by a native-born or naturalized citizen. The additional grounds for expatriation provided by the bill is the application for naturalization in a foreign state while physically present in such state.

Present law, as you know, provides for expatriation in cases in which a U.S. citizen applies for naturalization in a foreign country only if such naturalization is obtained. This is the way the law is written and this is how it has been interpreted and applied by our courts and by the Department of State.

If a person applies for naturalization in a foreign country and it is denied, he has every right under existing law to claim the full protection of his U.S. citizenship and every right to come and go across our borders as a citizen. believe that such a person has forsworn all allegiance to this country.

Yet, I

There are a number of people of whom this is true. The outstanding example, of course, was Lee Harvey Oswald, who unsuccessfully applied for Soviet citizenship while he was in the Soviet Union in 1959. Had the provisions of my bill been enacted at that time the national disaster of last November 22 would not have occurred. Not only did Oswald not lose his U.S. citizenship but, as a citizen, he was granted a loan by our State Department in order that he and his wife might travel to this country.

My bill provides further that in any case in which a foreign state refuses to grant naturalization then the expatriated American citizen would be allowed to reenter the United States as a nonquota immigrant. He would thereafter have the right to acquire back his former citizenship through the regular naturalization process.

I do not consider my bill to be harsh, as some might. It provides merely for the loss of citizenship by individuals who have indicated that they no longer wish to retain their U.S. citizenship. Those who are successful in obtaining naturalization in a foreign state would lose their U.S. nationality under existing provisions of the law. Those who are denied foreign nationality or who have a change of heart before it is obtained could reenter the United States without regard to any quota restrictions, provided that they meet all of the admissibility standards of the law.

I urge that you act upon my bill to plug the gaping legal loophole through which Lee Harvey Oswald sailed back into this country.

STATEMENT OF HON. SILVIO O. Conte, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure to speak before this distinguished subcommittee under the chairmanship of the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Feighan. I applaud the gentleman and members of this subcommittee for holding hearings on what I consider "must" legislation for the United States at this critical juncre in our Nation's history.

My legislation is similar to the legislation introduced by Judiciary Committee member Congressman John Lindsay, of New York, and others.

Briefly, the bill overhauls the quota system; abolishes the national origins sis; pools and makes use of unused quota numbers; provides for the unification of families by providing nonquota status for parents of U.S. citizens, and provides or permanent machinery for the handling of refugee and Communist escapee roblems.

Mr. Chairman, ever since coming to Congress I have sponsored and fought for revision of our present immigration and naturalization laws.

Never before, however, have I been more pleased with legislation than I am with the present bill, which I feel is most comprehensive and justifiable.

The reforms contained in the legislation are worthy of this great land of ours. is the son of parents born on foreign soil, I feel that the implicit humanity conained in this legislation will right a number of inequities that have plagued our Fation.

I have called attention to these inequities on occasions too numerous in the ast to mention. I will not take the time of the members of this distinguished bcommittee reviewing the features of the bill since they are perfectly aware of he specific provisions contained therein. I would like to direct my remarks to ur present policies.

The most obvious and apparent inequity is a quota system based on national rigins. As long as a system is so based, there are bound to be dangerous con

quences.

Mr. Chairman, it is also obvious that 1960 census figures must be used. Our ustry, with its forward-looking tradition, cannot use antiquated figures in an ver-changing world situation.

A number of hardships will be reduced if we stop using the 1920 figures. Our antry, since 1920, has witnessed minor revolutions and changes that stagger e immagination. To keep on using figures that are representative of a past at is no longer applicable is to invite the charge that we ourselves are outdated d outmoded.

This legislation, Mr. Chairman, is vitally needed at this time. We have tolered a system that has not met the serious problems in a manner befitting the fty goals of this Nation-a nation, I might add, of immigrants.

As Doris Fleeson pointed out in a recent column in the Washington Star, 24 States have over 15 percent of their populations made up of first- and secondgeneration immigrants. This includes New York (38 percent); New Jersey (35 percent); and States such as California, Minnesota, Illinois, and Michigan each having approximately 25 percent of their population made up of first- and second-generation immigrants.

In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as elsewhere, these people have contributed significantly to our way of life.

This subcommittee has a historic opportunity to demonstrate our responsibili ties as Americans and leaders of the free world.

I respectfully request a favorable report by this subcommittee, and I trust that the U.S. Congress will enact this legislation which is in the best interest of the United States and the free world.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES C. CORMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, I submit this statement in support of H.R. 7700, Chairman Celler's bill to revise the immigration law.

Our present law is based on the national origins of the population of the United States in 1920. It no longer serves the national interest for it contradicts the basic concepts of our modern democracy, it is unresponsive to the needs of the 1960's, it projects a harmful image of America in other countries, and deprives us of the talents of those who would make a valuable contribution to our national life. The national origin system is without logic or reason. It discriminates among those who seek admission to our country on the basis of an accident of birth. It singles out one arbitrary factor and makes this the standard by which a person is judged. This is not the American way. It is fundamental to our way of life that a person should be judged on his own merits. We should ask those who seek admission to our shores what their training and qualifications are, what their relationship to those in the United States is, and what they would do to advance our national welfare.

Our present policy creates the impression that people from northern Europe are better and hence more acceptable than those from southern Europe. It also discriminates against those from the Far East and permits only a very small number of orientals to be admitted each year. In these times of struggle for the hearts and minds of men throughout the world, the United States cannot afford to create this kind of image abroad.

Under the present inflexible system many nations do not fill their quotas each year while those of other countries are greatly oversubscribed. This means that about 60,000 quota numbers are wasted each year.

The United States is the wealthiest nation in the world. We have a great responsibility to those homeless refugees who are victims of World War II and the cold war. It ill becomes us to restrict immigration on the basis of national origin. This is not in accordance with the spirit that brought this Nation to its present position. The immigration laws should and must be changed.

I urge the subcommittee to revise the immigration laws in accordance with the principles set forth in H.R. 7700.

STATEMENT OF HON. DOMINICK V. DANIELS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

I am pleased to appear here today in support of legislation amending the Immigration and Nationality Act, abolishing the national origins system..

In my congressional district, the 14th District of New Jersey, encompassing the cities of Jersey City, West New York, Hoboken, Union City, Weehawken, and Secaucus, we have a high percentage of immigrant families of all nationalities. Many of the immigrants entering the United States through the port of New York settled in or near New York and remained to raise their families. As a result, immigration problems have been important to the residents of the area and the Member of Congress representing them. I can appreciate and understand the problems confronting men and women who came to the United States in search of a new and better way of life. They came with high hopes and stout hearts, leaving their families and relatives behind in the old country, but bringing with them a culture, learning, and products of an old civilization. Their gifts have aided and enriched our country and have added much to its greatness.

recall the late John Fitzgerald Kennedy having said that "our investment in new citizens has always been a valuable source of our strength."

While Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower all requested a revision in the present immigration statute, it was President Kennedy who forwarded a historic message to the 88th Congress recommending basic revision of our immigration laws. His message proposing specific legislation which would abolish the national origins system was the first proposed to the Congress by a President of the United States. This proposal has also received the wholehearted support and approval of President Lyndon B. Johnson who has incorporated it in legislative recommendations to the Congress.

Our present immigration program has been criticized because it encompasses three separate immigration policies, each applicable to a different part of the world, namely:

(1) Unrestricted immigration for certain nations of the Western Hemisphere;

(2) Almost total exclusion of immigrants from the Asian-Pacific triangle and the new nations of Africa and the Caribbean; and

(3) Partial restriction of immigration from Europe and the Soviet Union. Our present system of annual quotas to govern immigration from each country is based upon the national origins of the population of the United States in 1920. The use of the year 1920 is arbitrary and discriminatory.

We

I have introduced a bill in this session of Congress, H.R. 7726, which supports the recommendations of revision of our immigration laws made by our late beloved President John F. Kennedy, under which highest priority would be given to immigrants with the greatest ability to add to the national welfare, irrespective of where they were born. Secondly, priority would be given to those immigrants seeking to be reunited with their relatives in this country. My bill applies new tests and new standards which I believe are reasonable and equitable. should be most concerned with the alien's ability to make a good American citizen and contribute to our country and society. Recently in speaking to a group of Congressmen, President Johnson stated, with reference to proposed legislation to abolish the national origins system, that we "should follow rules of common sense, common decency which operate for the common good" and he added "that is why I hoped that in establishing preferences, a nation that was really built by immigrants-immigrants from all lands-could ask those who seek to immigrate now: What can you do for our country? But we ought never to ask: In what country were you born?"

I would like to just take a few minutes to discuss the main features of the proposed legislation:

1. The total annual immigration quota would be increased by 8,000 to 165,000.

2. Existing national quotas would be reduced at the rate of 20 percent a year for a period of 5 years. The immigration quotas released each year, together with the unused numbers from the previous year, would be placed in a reserve pool, to be distributed under the new criteria.

3. Natives of no one country could receive more than 16,478 or 10 percent of the total quota numbers authorized in any one year.

4. A seven-man Immigration Advisory Commission would be established, to help implement the new legislation.

5. Nonquota status would be extended to parents of U.S. citizens, as well as to spouses and to children under 21 years of age.

The immigration quota numbers in the "reserve pool"-by the end of 5 years would include the total immigration quota-would be allocated under a preference system as follows:

1. First call on the first 50 percent would be given to persons whose admission would be "especially advantageous" to the United States, because of exceptional skill, training, or education.

2. First call on the next 30 percent, plus any part of the first 50 percent not issued to skilled specialists, would be given to unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens who are not eligible for nonquota status because they are over 21 years of age.

3. First call on the remaining 20 percent, plus any part of the first 80 percent which goes unused by the first two classes, would be given to close relatives of resident aliens.

4. Any portion of the quota still remaining would be issued to other applicants, with preference going first to other relations of U.S. citizens and resident aliens, and then to certain classes of workers.

5. Within each class of preference, visas would be issued on a first-come, first-served basis. In a country where there is a long waiting list, the Secretary of State may require reregistration from time to time.

Under our present policy, it is significant to note that in every year since 1953, admission of nonquota immigrants has exceeded that of quota_immigrants. I refer to natives of Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Canal Zone, and independent countries of Central and South America; and spouses and children (under 21) of U.S. citizens, as well as others exempted from quotas by the McCarran-Walter Act. I understand that in 1963, nonquota arrivals under the basic law totaled 183,295 compared with 103,036 quota immigrants. I further understand these nonquota arrivals are primarily natives of Mexico, Canada, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic.

Many thousands of additional immigrants enter the country each year under special legislation enacted by Congress dealing with specific cases of hardship or need.

While all of this indicates that the quota and the national origins systems are working, yet there are so many exceptions that it is apparent there is a need for a change or revision of our immigration laws-otherwise, we should ask: "Why do so many people immigrate to this country whose admissions are not authorized under the regular quota program?"

No provision of national law has been more repugnant to peoples of so many nations throughout the world than that based on the infamous concept of judging a man's worth for immigration on the basis of place of birth or ancestry. This concept is contrary to the spirit of our Nation and is more alien to our country than the immigrants whom we have labeled "alien."

I am hopeful legislation will be enacted to end this discrimination, so that immigration will be on a first-come, first-served basis. I consider the proposed legislation to be a great step forward in achieving an equitable immigration program, and one of the most important measures before the Congress today. Immigration is, indeed, America's historic forte and the most-persistent influence in her development.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES J. DELANEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I thank you for the privilege and welcome the opportunity to present my views on the need for reform in U.S. immigration policy and to endorse Chairman Celler's bill, H.R. 7700, as a vital step in making these reforms, particularly in the area of national origins quotas.

The time is long past due for Congress to give its attention to the need for removing the national origins quota system, a blight on the Federal statute books since 1924, from America immigration policy. I am sure that I need not go into the history of the system at this time. You are as familiar with it as you are aware of its total lack of logic and sound reasoning.

There is one basic provable fact that emerges from the testimony and statements made regarding the system, and that is that the national origins quota system injustly, unfairly, and irrationally discriminates against the immigration of persons coming from southern and eastern Europe, including such countries as Italy, Greece, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and others. The present law has a built-in slap in the face for these people, while at the same time it gives a friendly pat on the back to immigrants coming from northern and western Europe.

There is no rational basis for this distinction. Immigration policy should be based upon what is good for the United States, not upon the accident of birth in certain geographical areas. Immigration policy should also project the image of an America which is fair and humanitarian and without discrimination toward any race or nationality. We cannot project such an image with legal monstrosities like the "Asian-Pacific triangle" and the national origins quota system on the books.

How can we say to nations around the globe, committed and uncommitted, that their people are not worthy of coming to the United States to live and then expect them to stand beside us in the war against the materialistic and godless threat of communism.

Discriminatory immigration practices must be stopped and they can be stopped with the enactment of the administration's proposed revisions of the immigration laws. The reforms requested by the late President Kennedy are embodied in