It seems to me that, while it may be numerically small percentagewise, the effect of the country is much more important perhaps than its numbers would indicate.

Miss WATSON. I did not see this article, but it probably has a great deal of truth to it.

Mr. DENNIS. The report hasn't been released yet, I understand, but it has been in the paper. Somebody leaked it.

Miss WATSON. I see.

Mr. DENNIS. That is a point to bear in mind, it seems to me, in all these things. It's valid.

Miss WATSON. Yes. As Mr. Smith mentioned, this whole problem of how much this country can absorb and what should be the overall policy over a long range period of time has not as yet been studied. We have been operating on past experience with our knowledge and projected experience, but the overall policy with respect to immigration per se vis-a-vis the needs and desires and requirements of this country are still to be formulated.

Mr. DENNIS. I think it's a thing we do need to think about, because they say, "20 percent of the total population growth last year was immigration." They project one-third for the future and they say that, "More than 70 percent of the net inflow of migrants into the metropolitan areas will be foreign immigrants." If that is true, it's much more significant than mere numbers might suggest, it seems to me.

Miss WATSON. Of course, we must remember that 74 percent of the numbers available for immigrants from the Eastern Hemisphere are for those having a family relationship with someone here. Of the other 26 percent you have just 6 percent for the refugees and 20 percent for those with needed skills.

Mr. DENNIS. There is one other point which you just touched on, and then I will pass on. You mentioned about Cuba and refugees, and you say, "It seems unfair to allow these to operate to the disadvantage of other Western Hemisphere aliens." I take it the idea would be they wouldn't be counted against the ceiling?

Miss WATSON. They would not be counted against the ceiling.

Mr. DENNIS. I was wondering about that. If you don't do that, suppose this refugee stream decreases in the future, as is my hope-won't you have to raise the ceiling later?

Miss WATSON. For refugees?

Mr. DENNIS. If you don't count the Cubans against the ceiling, won't you have to do something about it later on?

Mr. SMITH. Our proposal would be that they would be permitted adjustment of status. These would not count against the ceiling, nor would they come under any limitations on refugees.

Mr. DENNIS. Suppose Castro falls and there aren't any more refugees. What do you do about regular immigration from Cuba?

Miss WATSON. We are only talking about adjustments of status, sir. Mr. SMITH. Cubans who are in other countries are counted against the ceiling and they get regular visas.

Miss WATSON. Those who came in on the airlift and were subject to the November 2, 1966 legislation, which permitted them adjustment of status after 2 years here are now also counted against the ceiling. It's this adjustment of status that we are concerned about, because it takes numbers.

Mr. DENNIS. Only those?

Miss WATSON. Only the adjustment of status cases. Those Cubans who manage to get out of Cuba and go to, say, Mexico or Madrid, with some few exceptions do have to get immigrant visas to come to this country and are chargeable to the Western Hemisphere ceiling.

Mr. DENNIS. Thank you.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Would you go back to that question before?

Miss WATSON. On the refugees, sir?

Mr. FEIGHAN. Yes.

Miss WATSON. We understand-and Mr. Sobotka can verify thisthat a provision which will enpower by resolution one house of Congress to limit the authority already granted by law might possibly pose a constitutional problem. If this is the case, then we would have to defer to the Department of Justice for their ruling in this matter. Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you.

Mr. Eilberg?

Mr. EILBERG. Miss Watson, the colloquy that just took place interests me very much. You speak of considering in your proposal both requirements of the United States and the needs of foreign citizens. It strikes me that your proposal tends to emphasize the matter of the needs of persons overseas.

It seems to me that we are delegating the prerogative to the needs of foreign countries in using percentages. Would you care to comment further on that?

Miss WATSON. We are really not stressing the needs of foreign countries. Our concern has been for the reunification of families, sir, and the skills which we need in this country. If I gave that impression, I certainly don't want to perpetuate it.

Mr. Eilberg. Also, Chairman Feighan asked a question earlier concerning what would happen if the per country limitations were removed from Mexico and Canada, and you gave some figures with regard to that that I was hoping you would follow up or the question would be asked at that point as to whether you have a preference in that matter. Would it be better to exempt Canada and Mexico from the ceiling without a per country limitation and allow the labor certification to be the numerical control?

Miss Watson. I think, sir, it would be consistent and uniform, since we have a ceiling in the Eastern Hemisphere and you have a ceiling in other parts of the Western Hemisphere. It would certainly be more equitable to have a ceiling and still keep the labor certification.

If you exempt those two, then you open yourself to pressures, "Well, Canada and Mexico don't have it. I am your good friend too. Why not exempt me?"

Mr. EILBERG. Should the labor certification requirement be uniform worldwide in its application?

Miss WATSON. Yes, I think so.

Mr. EILBERG. The labor certification procedures have a tendency to confuse many people. I am wondering if some of the processing and reviewing of labor certifications by consular officers is a burden on their offices.

Miss WATSON. Any work, sir, is a burden. The consular offices have been able to handle the situation quite well. The Labor Department has been cooperative in giving out directives relative to the need

for skills and so on. The basic workload is in the Department of Labor. We follow the directives and the certifications of the Labor Department.

Mr. EILBERG. The impression that I have is that the Department of Labor is taking it over more and more in this area now.

Miss WATSON. You are not alone in that impression, sir.

Mr. EILBERG. Will the proposed amendments, which make provision for section 203 (a) (7) refugees applicable to the Western Hemisphere, be sufficient in existing labor to provide the bona fide emergencies and not lend itself to every soccer revolution that may develop?

Miss WATSON. It would not cover a soccer revolution. I am sure that it would be sufficient to handle the requirements of this hemisphere. Mr. Sobotka, would you like to speak to that?

Mr. SOBOTKA. One of the problems involved in the whole question of definitions regarding refugees is to try to envisage all of the various refugee situations that might occur. At the present time we have a simplistic definition covering refugees from communism, which is a rather cleancut type of thing and from the general area of the Middle East.

Once you begin to extend this to cover other types of refugee problems, there are so many varied situations throughout the world, so many different types of relationships between the United States and other countries, that if we went into a broadened concept-going beyond what we now have in the present seventh preference provisionit would seem desirable to us to provide for some limitation whereby the President, or perhaps by delegation to the Secretary of State, could define by classes or groups and categories and areas the type of refugee and the numbers who might be admitted after a determination was made that it was in the interests of the United States.

Mr. EILBERG. May I interrupt here? I think your answer may be somewhat different from Miss Watson's in this case. I asked her if just transferring the language over as it presently exists would be sufficient.

As I understand your answer, it would not be sufficient because you would have to further define what you mean by refugees and to take in the thrust of my question-that is, you have so many unstable governments and refugees easily in South America that may or may not be communistic or whatever-that you would want to look at that more closely or have us define that more closely. Is that correct?

Mr. SOBOTKA. That is correct. However, Miss Watson also is correct, the present language would not cover that type of situation, unless the country were a Communist country, and the visa numbers would be sufficient.

Mr. SMITH. If you were going to expand the language you would have to be very careful.

Mr. FEIGHAN. On the subject of refugees, all three bills presently under consideration would broaden the definition of the term "refugee" to include persons who flee from countries other than Communist countries or the Middle Eastern countries.

I wondered if you could comment a little more on that change? Also the expanded definition in all three bills includes persons who shall flee, as well as those who have already fled. Do you have any observations concerning this proposal?

Mr. SOBOTKA. Mr. Chairman, in answering that question, I would like to first say that our general policy approach toward refugee immigration is that since we are a country largely descended from refugees, and many people here are refugees, and in view of our general humanitarian posture in behalf of those who are victims of persecution, we feel that we should have a policy which will permit the United States to give liberal asylum to refugees and to take our reasonable fair share of those in the world. I would like to make this as a sort of general background statement.

In that connection, the present section 203 (a) (7), with perhaps some increases as have been proposed by the Department in the numbers of refugees, taken together with the fact that we still have supplementary authority for the Attorney General to use under section 212 (d) (5), provides a reasonable basis for handling most of the situations that we can envisage and which we might face. The present authority provides for a known number of refugees, other countries understand what we are doing, the refugees know what opportunities there are here, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service has been conducting the program in a very effective and efficient manner. Therefore, at this particular point we have not proposed on the part of the Department a change in the present setup.

On the other hand, we would support, in principle, the idea of broadening the definition, if this were desired because it would give the United States a nonrestrictive approach toward all refugees.

However despite the overriding importance of the humanitarian side of the picture, the broadened definition could present some difficulties to the United States in terms of foreign policy implications and might affect adversely our relations with certain countries.

For example, the determination that a country persecutes some of its inhabitants is a determination of considerable sensitivity. Therefore, the admission of persons to the United States as refugees without regard to the foreign policy factors could produce serious problems. Therefore, we do feel, as I mentioned before, that there ought to be, if you use a broader definition, some provision for restrictions by the President or the Secretary of State on the groups that could be admitted.

Mr. FEIGHAN. On page 15, Miss Watson, you stated that "section 245 (c) should be amended so that the natives of the Western Hemisphere, other than those born in continguous territory or adjacent islands, are eligible to apply for adjustment of status."

A prior witness suggested that the prohibition against adjustment of status be eliminated entirely, since it did not actually, in his opinion, serve as a deterrent to misuse of the immigration laws. If section 245 (c) prohibition of adjustment of status was deleted entirely; what do you think would be the result?

Miss WATSON. The immediate result would be there would be a lot more workload for INS. But we would have no objection to the elimination of 245 (c).

Mr. FEIGHAN. H.R. 17370 raises the per country limitation for the Eastern Hemisphere to 25,000. Could you comment on this suggestion? Miss WATSON. This is possible. However, the only two countries that would benefit from this would be Italy and the Philippines. Those are the ones that are oversubscribed.

As you know, in the fifth preference, everywhere else is current excepting Italy and the Philippines, and it certainly would make more numbers available for the fifth preference.

But I don't see, since none of the other countries are oversubscribed, that it would benefit them to any great extent. Of course, the increase in the numbers used by the preference applicants will reduce the amount that can fall down to the nonpreference applicants.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Could you comment briefly on the situation along the southwest border of the United States caused by the illegal entrance of commuter aliens and aliens working in violation of their immigrant status and how it would be affected by the administration's bill? On March 26, 1969, I introduced H.R. 9505, together with Mr. Celler, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Kennedy introduced an identical bill. The bill would require permanent resident aliens residing in Canada and Mexico and working in the United States to receive labor certifications every 6 months. The bill would also remove the provision from the Immigration and Naturalization Act which exempts from criminal sanctions persons who wilfully and knowingly employ aliens who have entered the United States illegally.

Miss WATSON. Yes, sir; this is a problem that naturally is of grave concern to us. However, this is largely within the bailiwick of INS.

The commuter problem has been a troublesome one, or at least one of some note. However, there are many factors that have to be considered. This is not only true with the southwest border but if it's a commuter problem you also have to think of Canada as well. One must consider the effect on the economies of the two nations and the effect on the foreign relations of the nations involved, that an abrupt cessation or cutting down of border crossing would have. It might very well exacerbate the relations that exist between Mexico and the United States, and indeed Canada and the United States.

For example, with Canada there are interlocking relationships economically, not only with respect to businesses but also with respect to unions. This is particularly true of the Windsor-Detroit area.

We are certainly concerned about nonimmigrants who are coming here and working in violation of their status. This is a matter which we are presently investigating to see how this could be stopped.

Mr. FEIGHAN. If the issuance of these new green cards to commuter aliens were terminated, would any adverse consequences result, particularly with regard to the United States relations with Mexico and Canada?

Miss WATSON. I would definitely think so, sir. Any sudden termination would certainly do it. I think that without a long phaseout period thereby giving us the opportunity to prepare both countries for this, you may have a lot of serious problems.

Mr. FEIGHAN. If natives of subquota areas lying in the Western Hemisphere were alloted numerical ceilings of 600, which ones do you feel would still be backlogged and which ones relatively current? How would this change alone affect the situation in the Virgin Islands?

Miss WATSON. Sir, with respect to the first part of your question, if the ceiling were raised to 600, the following areas would still be backlogged. These are current figures: In Antigua there are 2,300 registered; British Honduras, 1.300; Grenada, 1,100; St. Kitts, 3,500. That takes care of the Western Hemisphere.