IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1976 SEPTEMBER 15, 1976.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. EILBERG, from the Committe on the Judiciary, REPORT [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] [To accompany H.R. 14535] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 14535) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. The amendments are as follows: Page 10, line 7, after the words "specified in," insert: "paragraphs (1) through (6) of" Page 10, lines 14 and 15, strike out "subject to the numerical limitation specified in section 201 (a) (2)" and insert in lieu thereof: "born in the Western Hemisphere". Page 10, lines 20 and 21 strike out "subject to the numerical limitation specified in section 201 (a) (2)" and insert in lieu thereof: "born in the Western Hemisphere". PURPOSE The purpose of the bill is to eliminate the inequities in existing law regarding the admission of immigrants from countries in the Western Hemisphere. Toward ths end, it extends to the Western Hemisphere the seven-category preference system (with minor modifications), the 20.000 per-country limit, and the provisions for adjustment of status currently in effect for Eastern Hemisphere countries. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, provides for an annual ceiling of 120,000 "special immigrant" visas for natives of the independent countries of the Western Hemisphere and their alien spouses and children. Unlike Eastern Hemisphere immigration, immigration in this hemisphere is not regulated by a priority or preference system, and there is no per-country limitation. Eastern Hemisphere immigration, restricted to 170,000 visas per year, with a 20,000 per-country limit, operates under a seven-point preference system designed to give top priority to reuniting families and to attracting aliens with needed skills to this country. Western Hemisphere immigration, on the other hand, operates entirely on a first-come, first-served basis, without any per-country limitation. The only restriction is that an alien entering the country to perform skilled or unskilled labor must obtain a certification from the Secretary of Labor indicating that his entry will not adversely affect the American labor market. Parents, spouses, and children of U.S. citizens or of aliens legally admitted for permanent residence are exempt from this requirement. As a direct result of the imposition in 1968 of the Western Hemisphere ceiling of 120,000 without a preference system, all intending immigrants from this hemisphere who fall under the numerical ceiling are presently experiencing a wait of more than two years for their visas. This backlog has beeen accumulating steadily since the ceiling went into effect in 1968. Beginning with the first permanent quota restrictions imposed on immigration to this country by the Immigration Act of 1924, and continuing through the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the McCarran-Walter Act, immigration from other Western Hemisphere countries had been numerically unrestricted. The current numerical restriction on Western Hemisphere immigration is the result of the far-reaching 1965 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act. To a considerable extent, passage of the provision for a ceiling on Western Hemisphere immigration came about because a sufficient number of those opposed to it agreed to accept it as the price that had to be paid in order to insure passage of legislation abolishing the national origins quota system which dated back to the 1920's. This latter goal was the primary purpose of the 1965 legislation since its inception, and this emphasis accounts in large part for the very limited consideration given to the actual implementation of the Western Hemisphere ceiling during the 1965 debate. A ceiling of 120,000 annually for Western Hemisphere immigration, to go into effect July 1, 1968, was incorporated in the bill as the result of an amendment adopted in the Senate. The reasons for the establishment of the controversial quota on Western Hemisphere immigration were summarized in the Senate report on H.R. 2580, which became Public Law 89-236, as follows: The committee has become increasingly concerned with the unrestricted flow of immigration from the nonquota countries 1 Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended, Sec. 101(a) (27) (A), (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a) (27) (A)); Act of Oct. 3, 1965 (Public Law 89-236). Sec. 21(e). According to the Department of State bulletin, "Availability of Immigrant Visa Numbers for September 1976." visa numbers allocated for September issuance under the Western Hemisphere limitations were for applicants with priority dates earlier than April 1, 1974. which has averaged approximately 110,000 admissions over the past 10 years. Last year the nonquota admissions from Western Hemisphere countries totaled 139,284, and the evidence is present that the increase will continue. Not only is the committee concerned with the volume of the immigration, but it has difficulty with reconciling its decision to eliminate the concept of an alien's place of birth determining the quota to which he is charged with the exemption from the numerical limitation extended to persons born in the Western Hemisphere. To continue unrestricted immigration for persons born in Western Hemisphere countries is to place such aliens in a preferred status compared to aliens born in other parts of the world which the committee feels requires further study. (Senate Report 748, 89th Congress, 1st session, pp. 17-18.) A study was conducted by the Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration, established by the 1965 legislation. It recommended postponement of the effective date of the numercial restriction on Western Hemisphere immigration from July 1, 1968 to July 1, 1969. It was their hope that labor certification, rather than a fixed numercial ceiling, might "provide that measure of immigration control the Congress may deem needful," and they requested a year for further study of this possibility. However, legislation implementing this recommendation was not enacted, and the 120,000 ceiling went into effect on July 1, 1968. Since the establishment of the Western Hemisphere immigration ceiling, there has been no concerted attempt or public pressure to abolish it. In this regard, the Committee notes the recommendation made in 1972 by the President's Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, that "immigration levels not be increased." 3 It is apparent from the estimated current Western Hemisphere backlog of approximately 300,000 active cases that immigration would have risen above the current level without the ceiling. The total number of immigrants entering this country in fiscal year 1975 from all countries was 386,194. Total annual immigration over the past tenyear period has ranged from a low of 323,040 in fiscal year 1966 to a high of 454,448 in fiscal year 1968.* Attention is more appropriately focused on two aspects of the immigration law which received little discussion during the 1965 debate: the absence of a preference system and per-country limit for the Western Hemisphere. As previously noted, this is in contrast to immigration from the Eastern Hemisphere which is subject to an overall annual numerical ceiling of 170,000, a 20,000 per-country limitation and a seven-point preference system. This system enables certain categories of immigrants, most notably close relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens, and those possessing talents and skills in short supply in this country, to be given preference over others. However, because the Western Hemisphere has no preference system and no per-country limit, in effect, the United States has two different immigration laws for the two hemispheres. For example, under 3 "Population and the American Future", The Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, March 1972, p. 117. US Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1975 Annual Report, p. 31. the provisions determining Eastern Hemisphere immigration, the 22year-old British citizen daughter of a U.S. citizen or the Spanish wife of a permanent resident alien would receive preferential treatment compared to other intending immigrants whose relational ties were more distant, or who were entering under the occupational preferences. However, the 22-year-old Brazilian daughter of a U.S. citizen or the Canadian wife of a permanent resident alien would be required to line up behind the other intending immigrants from this hemispherenow numbering close to 300,000-and to wait more than two years for a visa. In contrast, immigrant visas for the Eastern Hemisphere are immediately available under the relative preference categories for all countries except the Philippines and Korea. A further difference in the immigration law as it relates to the two hemispheres is in the application of the adjustment of status provision, which permits certain aliens legally in the United States to adjust to immigrant status without leaving the country. As amended in 1965, the Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits all natives of Western Hemisphere countries from adjusting their status from that of a nonimmigrant to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. Previously, following enactment of legislation in 1958, this privilege had only been denied to natives of countries contiguous to the United States and specified adjacent islands. The legislative history of the 1965 Act indicates that the further restriction of the privilege of adjustment of status originated as a House Judiciary Committee amendment and was not initially intended to operate in conjunction with an overall numerical ceiling on Western Hemisphere immigration. The provision was retained in the bill reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, along with the ceiling of 120,000 which was to go into effect July 1968 unless further Congressional action was taken. Since the numerical ceiling effectively restricts Western Hemisphere immigration, the current blanket prohibition against adjustment of status by Western Hemisphere natives does not appear to serve any useful purpose commensurate with the hardship and inconvenience it causes natives of Western Hemisphere countries who, unlike their Eastern Hemisphere counterparts, must return to their country of origin to obtain an immigrant visa from a Consular Officer. In short, when repealing the national origins quota system, the 89th Congress did not provide an adequate mechanism for implementing the Western Hemisphere ceiling, nor did it sufficiently integrate the ceiling into the immigration law as a whole. The result, competely unforeseen and unintended, has been considerable hardship for intending immigrants from this hemisphere who until 1968 enjoyed the privilege of unrestricted immigration. It is the express purpose of this legislation to correct this situation. As the Honorable Joshua Eilberg, Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and International Law, commented during hearings on a related bill passed by the House in 1973: It should be remembered that, with the abolition of the national quota system in 1965, Congress endorsed the prin 5 Sec. 245; 8 U.S.C. 1255. Act of August 21, 1958; P.L. 85-700; 72 Stat. 699. ciples of equity and family reunification as the basis of our HISTORY OF LEGISLATION PRIOR TO THE 93D CONGRESS The Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and International Law (formerly Subcommittee No. 1), has been aware of the situation regarding Western Hemisphere immigration for a number of years. The problem was discussed as early as April, 1968 during a series of hearings subtitled "Review of the Operation of the Immigration and Nationality Act as Amended by the Act of October 3, 1965" (Immigration, 90th Congress, 2d Session, 1968, Serial No. 23). In the Ninety-first Congress, omnibus immigration bills concerning Western Hemisphere immigration reform were considered during five days of hearings in July and August, 1970. (Immigration, 91st Congress, 2d Session, 1970, Serial No. 32). While the illegal alien issue was the primary focus of the extensive hearings conducted during the Ninety-second Congress, the Subcommittee was cognizant of that problem in the context of the broader issue of regulation of Western Hemisphere immigration, and much of the data developed during the course of the illegal alien hearings was of direct relevance to it. (Illegal Aliens, 92nd Congress, 1st and 2d Sessions, 1971-1972, Serial No. 13)." 93D CONGRESS H.R. 981, an omnibus immigration reform bill with emphasis on the equalization of the immigration law as it relates to the two hemispheres, was introduced by the Honorable Peter W. Rodino, Jr., Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, on January 3, 1973. Seven days of hearings were held on H.R. 981, between March 28 and June 14, 1973. Testimony was received from Members of Congress, as well as from representatives of the Executive agencies involved (State, Justice, and Labor), organized labor, the Association of Immigration and Nationity Lawyers, the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, voluntary agencies concerned with immigration problems, and expert and public witnesses (Western Hemisphere Immigration, 93d Congress, 1st Session, 1973, Serial No. 8). The hearings were followed in July, 1973 by three mark-up sessions on the legislation, and by full Committee consideration of the Subcommittee amendment to H.R. 981. This amendment, in the nature of a substitute, was approved unanimously by voice vote and ordered reported to the House on July 24, 1973 (H. Rept. No. 93-461). H.R. 981 passed the House of Representatives on September 26, 1973 by a vote of 336 yeas to 30 nays. The primary focus of H.R. 981 as reported and passed was the application of a preference system and 20,000 per-country limits to For a discussion of Committee action relating to illegal aliens through the 94th Congress, see House Report No. 94-506, pp. 2-4. |