STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES ROOSEVELT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for granting me this opportunity to offer a statement in support of H.R. 7700, and my own bill, H.R. 7905, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for other purposes. The nature of most of the reforms embodied in the proposed bill are already well know, especially those relating to the gradual elimination of the national origins quota system, and I shall, therefore, restrict my comments to only a few of the advantages to be derived through enactment of this proposed legislation. There are few values which rank higher than the security and unity of the families of American citizens. Under the proposed bill, the present immigration laws would be so revised as to grant greater assurance to each American that he may enjoy the presence of those he most deeply loves. This would be accomplished through the repeal and modification of several features of the existing laws which sometimes give rise to adverse situations. In a system such as we now have, in which visas are allocated by quota according to the nationality group of prospective immigrants, the preference status given to these groups often causes long periods of waiting before family reunions can be achieved. This is especially true if the hopeful immigrants are members of a national group which was not well represented in our Nation's population during 1920, the year in which was taken the census forming the basis of the present quota system. The gradual elimination of the national quota system envisaged in the bill would be a substantial step in easing this situation, especially in regard to sons and daughters, and brothers and sisters of American citizens. The plight of many parents of U.S. citizens seeking admission to our country is as serious, and deserves the specific remedy which this bill provides. Many such persons are aged and infirm, and can ill afford the luxury of waiting years for a place to become available on limited quota lists. Of course, in many instances parents can be reunited with their children without waiting for a viss for permanet entry. A large number of these persons secure temporary visitors' permits, and thus are able to live with their families for extended periods of time. This circumstance, however, is not without its unfortunate aspect, for when their temporary authorizations expire, they must return, unhappily, to their native land. The bill now pending before you would remove this Sword of Damocles over the heads of these people by granting them the status of nonquota immigrants, as specified in section 6. Charitably, it will enable those who are dependent on their families for support to escape the want and isolation which might be intendant on a return to their homeland. Granting nonquota status to parents of U.S. citizens, I might add, would not result in a flood of indigents to our shores, for at the most only a few thousand immigrants would come in under these provisions, and in almost every case, those who are unable to maintain themselves would be happily supported by their families who would consider it a small price to pay for reunion with their loved ones. I should also like to call to the subcommittee's attention section 4 of the bill, which would amend section 202 of the existing Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the so-called Asia-Pacific triangle provisions. These provisions require persons of Asian stock to be attributed to quota areas not according to the place of their birth, but according to the place of their Asian ancestor's descent. It would be enough to point out the purely racial nature of this distinction to display its incompatibility with any acceptable standard of fairness. It should be noted that the discriminatory effect of the law operates not only with regard to aliens, but to American citizens as well. For example, should a naturalized American citizen of British birth, but of Indian ancestry, wish to secure admission and naturalization for his brother or sister, he would find his task virtually impossible under the present law, as visas for fourth preference immigrants from India are entirely unavailable. On the other hand, should his neighbor, also of British birth, but of non-Asian ancestry, have likewise purposes, he would obtain the desired admission immediately on the virtually inexhaustible British quota. It is my hope that this Congress will be impressed with the desirability of removing this unjust restriction from the statute, and I am confident it will recognize the irrelevancy of weighing the sacredness of family relationships on the capricious grounds of racial origins. The present Immigration and Nationality Act is based on outmoded, outworn concepts of favored nationalities and races, but the bill now before the subcommittee will, when enacted, represent a significant step in the reaffirmation of the boundless promise of American life, and I urge your early favorable report. STATEMENT OF HON. ARMISTEAD SELDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we are all aware that news reports indicate that about 80 so-called students from the United States are illegally in Cuba at the present time. I seriously doubt that they are students as we usually know them, but rather students of communism, Marxism, Leninism, and Castroism. This is not to assert that every one of the students can be so categorized, but previous examples of professional subversive and doctrinaire tactics make it unlikely that this group is a typical group of American students. The "student" trip to Cuba is a flagrant attempt to embarrass the United States and not, as these young people argue, an attempt to learn first hand the situation in Castro's Communist satellite. While Americans are laying down their lives fighting totaliarian communism in South Vietnam, we have a group of moral renegades serving as dupes for the cause of communism in our own hemisphere. As you will recall, some 58 "students" made a similar visit to Cuba last year. Both expeditions reportedly were arranged and financed by the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, which has been cited by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee as a Communist-front organization. This, alone, casts a serious doubt on the authenticity of the group. The "student" expeditions are not intended to be for factfinding purposes, for the first report received from this year's group was a call by four Negro members for the destruction of the U.S. Government. When last year's group returned to the United States, they refused to surrender their passports and staged a sit-in in the New York airport, but the State Department later invalidated their passports. Four principal leaders have been indicted and will be tried, but, to the best of my knowledge, no action has been taken against the others who deliberately used this purported factfinding trip to embarrass the United States. Action was taken against the four leaders under indictment for conspiring to violate our travel controls, not for visiting Cuba. The Secretary of State can prevent these trips only by refusing to grant passports to these individuals. Nothing prevents the participants, however, from obtaining passports for a European country, such as Czechoslovakia, and then going on to Havana. When they return to this country, except for invalidating their passports, the Secretary is almost powerless to punish the violators. The United States Court of Appeals, in the case of Worthy v. U.S., 328 F. 2d 386, has held unconstitutional that provisions of section 215(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act which makes it unlawful for U.S. citizens to enter the United States without a valid passport. H.R. 11621 is designed to give the Secretary authority to designate certain areas under foreign jurisdiction into which U.S. nationals may not travel without authorization from the Secretary. Congress must recognize that conditions may exist from time to time which make it contrary to our national interest for U.S. citizens to travel to certain other nations hostile to the United States. H.R. 11621 would give the Secretary of State the authority to restrict travel to those areas, and it would authorize the Secretary with the cooperation of the Justice Department, to punish those who violate our travel control restrictions. I respectfully request that the subcommittee approve this or similar legislation to give the Secretary the necessary authority to punish those individuals who daunt our travel regulations and restrictions and embarrass the United States in the eyes of the rest of the world. Thank you very much. STATEMENT OF HON. CARLTON R. SICKLES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND Mr. Chairman, I am here today to testify in support of legislation to implement the immigration program proposed by President Johnson. This legislation represents an important and much-needed step toward correcting a serious blot on the image of the United States. Our existing immigration laws, even when viewed in their most favorable light, are grossly inequitable. The present quota system is a thinly disguised attempt to key the criteria for entry to the United States to a discriminatory concept of national interests. The existence of this quota system has damaged the prestige of the United States. It is an affront not only to the emerging nations of Asia and Africa, but also to some of our closest allies, such as Greece and Italy. These countries must consider our immigration laws as no less than an insult to their people and their nations, for these laws have resulted in many serious inequities. For example, Great Britain is assigned over 65,000 quotas annually, with 25,000 of them not being used; at the same time 265,000 Italians are on a waiting list for 5,666 quotas. Additionally, such populous countries as India, as well as most Afro-Asian nations are given only 100 quota spaces per year. The enactment of H.R. 8145 would accomplish a number of highly desirable objectives. First, of course, it would modify the 1952 act's aforementioned restrictive provisions against immigrants from eastern and southern Europe, its token quotas for Asian countries, and the discriminatory implications of its Asia-Pacific triangle clauses-provisions which have no place in our public policy. The bill would remove the purely arbitrary barriers to immigration on the basis of color and national origin, and would substitute a new formula based on equality and fairplay. Second, the enactment of the bill would set America's immigration record straight, and update our basic statute to conform more with our actual practice since 1952. Since 1952 over 2,500,000 immigrants have been admitted to this country, most of them now contributing skills and talents to our social and economic growth. But this has not been achieved under the act of 1952. It has been achieved in spite of it-through a series of special, temporary immigra tion enactments circumventing the restriction and inequities of the basic statute. A third objective of the bill is to facilitate the reunion of families now separated because of unfairness in the act of 1952. Today American citizens find it most difficult and sometimes impossible to bring close relatives to this country. Fourth, enactment of the bill would enhance America's economic growth rate by elimi nating obstacles to the admission of persons who possess talents and skills urgently needed in this country. The fifth and final objective of the reform bill is to provide a continuing and orderly, but flexible, authority for the yearly admission of a reasonable number of refugees. The steady trickle of escapees into Western Europe, the flight of refugees into Hong Kong, the Jewish exodus from north Africa, and the recent entry of the many Cuban refugees come to mind, an example of the continuing need for flexibility in our admission practices. Enactment of H.R. 8145 would not flood the country with immigrants, a charge that is sometimes made. It does not substantially alter the present rate of immigration; nor does it eliminate the health, literacy, security, and financial screening that each prospective immigrant must pass. It is based upon priorities for skilled immigrants and those with relatives here and presents simply a reasonable and factual approach to the problem and need of determining an equitable and useful immigration policy for America. Some look upon the immigrant as an economic liability—a competitor for jobs. This is a more serious misunderstanding, and one which I would like to discuss at some length. No responsible citizen will deny that our immigration policies have an impact on our economy, but I would like to dispel a few of the myths in which this consideration is so often couched. That we continue to need the economic stimulation of immigration is outlined graphically in recent studies by the U.S. Department of Labor. Officials point out that the outlook for job opportunities over the next decade would not be upset if the current level of immigration is maintained. They even suggest tha a slight increase in admissions during this period would be a boon-in terms of economic growth-if the skill level and occupational composition of added immigration fell into categories of need. I need not remind you that this is one of the priorities of this legislation. Under our present immigration policy we add through immigration—including quota immigration and nonquota immigration from the Western Hemisphereabout 125,000 workers a year to our national labor force. The best estimates are that under the terms of H.R. 8145 this figure would be increased by about 50,000. When we compare these 50,000 new workers to those which will b added to our labor force through population growth each year, then we see the impact of immigration on employment in its proper perspective. It is estimated that approximately 2.6 million young people will be added to our labor force in each of the next 10 years as our population grows. The addition of workers which might come under a revised immigration program is less than 2 percent of that figure-and less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our total national labor force today. We are aware that we must continue to attack unemployment in this Nation today. The solutions lie—at least in part-in training the unskilled, in removing discriminatory bars to equal employment opportunities, and in expanding the economy through sound tax reform and fiscal policies designed to stimulate economic growth. Many of these steps are already being taken by Congress. But it serves no useful purpose to make immigration the scapegoat for the problem of unemployment. Such reasoning only generates confusion, perpetuates our problems, creates false issues; giving cause for doubt among our friends and ammunition to our enemies on the claimed vitality of our democratic society. This legislation was not introduced without thoughtful and thorough consideration of our economic situation and the hard facts about our complex technologically oriented economy. It is my belief that the immigration program proposed by this bill would have a favorable impact on our economy and provide a stimulus to economic growth. The best data unquestionably supports this assertion. In summary of this point, I would like to present four points which stand out with relation to the impact of immigration on our economy, based on statistics and facts supplied by the U.S. Department of Labor, the Bureau of the Census, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Justice Department. First, under H.R. 8145, total annual immigration to the United States is limited to 164,500, plus perhaps 200,000 nonquota admissions a year, totaling about 364,500, a figure which is only slightly higher than the number we actually have been admitting over the past 10 to 15 years. Second, immigration has been a sharply declining factor in the increase of U.S. population. In the last 30 years immigration has accounted for an average of 5.1 percent of our population increase. Third, the number of immigrant workers entering the United States in any single year during the postwar period represented a very small fraction of the total work force. Fourth, particularly in the coming decade, immigrants can help us make up for a shortage of skilled people in the central age ranges, from 25 through 44. Thus I think it can easily be seen that the so-called adverse impact of immigration on our economy is largely a myth, and that, in actuality, the enactment of H.R. $145 would actually benefit the economy. But in addition to these very inite advantages, it is always wise to bear in mind the harm being done to our country by the McCarran-Walter Act and the basic injustice of our exclusive policies. By supporting this proposal, we are in the fortunate position of being able to correct a serious discrepancy between our laws and our avowed national goal of equal opportunity for all. We are able to reunite more families and boost our economy in critical skill areas. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM L. ST. ONGE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am gratified that your committee is considering legislation for the revision of the laws governing the immigration policy of this country. The distinguished chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has introduced a bill, H.R. 7700, embodying the principles and provisions of a new policy of inmigration and naturalization based upon the recommendations to the Congress by the late President Kennedy. President Johnson has also urged Congress to *dorse these proposals. I have chosen to indicate my support of the suggested revisions by submitting an identical bill, H.R. 8106. The basic principle of the current immigration laws-the so-called principle of national origins-is offensive to many of our citizens. It is also harmful to our relations with other countries. Save for the American Indians, all citizens of this country are immigrants of the descendants of immigrants; and all are Americans, regardless of their place of birth or national origin. To discriminate among persons seeking residence or Citizenship in this country on the basis of their national or racial origins is, therefore, to discriminate among persons according to a principle repugnant to the traditions of our country and offensive to the great majority of the American people. The inequities of the current law are extreme. The immigration quotas are based on the national origins of the U.S. population of 1890, at which time immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe had hardly begun. The Italians and Poles, for example, are particularly slighted. From Italy, with a total population of 46 million, we can accept only 5,666 immigrants annually; from Poland, with a population of 25 million, only 6,488 persons are permitted to enter the country each year. The principle of the current immigration laws also stands as an insult to many The principle of the 1924 legislation is, therefore, unacceptable. I seek its revision in this bill. All considerations based upon national or racial origins are to be abolished. Though representing a major departure from the current laws, this provision does not, in fact, represent a great departure from actual practice. For the multiple revisions of the law of 1924 have eroded to the point of abolition the actual implementation of the rule of national origins. The new bill, recognizing the inadequacies and inequities of the old, applies the categories and priorities hitherto used for single countries to a worldwide quota, as specified in amended section 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. First priority to the first 50 percent is given to persons whose admission, because of exceptional skill, training, or education, is advantageous to the United States. First priority on the next 30 percent, plus any part of the first 50 percent not filled, is given to unmarried sons and daughters not eligible for nonquota status. First priority on the remaining 20 percent, plus the unfilled portion of the additional 80 percent, is given to the spouses and children of aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence. No country would be allowed to receive more than 10 percent of the quota available in any year, with certain exceptions. These principles are to replace the old system over a 5-year period. During this period, a worldwide quota of 164,582 immigrants will be fashioned from the present national quotas, and the complex administration of our immigration policies will be revised accordingly. The bill has other important provisions. Nonquota status is extended to all the natives of the independent countries of the Western Hemisphere. The parents of U.S. citizens are also given nonquota status, thus alleviating a longtime source of inconvenience and grief. The methods of issuing visas are amended to obviate potential procedural means of countering the provisions of the bill. And flexibility is insured by granting the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, the Surgeon General, and the proposed Immigration Board the power of revising immigration policy in the face of new political needs, foreign or domestic. All the above revisions represent clear improvements in our immigration laws. The provisions replacing the principle of national origins, I again stress. represent long-needed departures from a principle inconsistent with the central tenets of our Nation's political tradition. I, therefore, strongly endorse the revision of our immigration and nationalization laws. I urge the subcommittee's approval of this measure. And I look forward to the privilege of voting for it in our full Committee on the Judiciary. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK THOMPSON, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of |