Mr. DENNIS. What I am suggesting to you is, in order to clean up this backlog, you provide that after a man has been eligible for 2 years or some reasonable length of time, and he has not come in and gotten the visa, that he just lose his eligibility.

Father CoGo. Yes, it is a solution, but, in my opinion, less desirable than the allowing of a backlog.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Mayne?

Mr. MAYNE. Father Cogo, could you give me some idea of what growth is occurring in the population of Italy at the present time? Father CoGo. Less than in the United States. I do not know the statistics exactly, but I do know that the birth rate in Italy is lower than in the States.

Mr. MAYNE. In Italy, the population is growing rapidly, however, is it not? What is the population of Italy today?

Father CoGo. I think it is about 70 million.

Mr. MAYNE. There is a fairly rapid increase in population is there not?

Father CoGo. No, there is not at all.

As I said, the birth rate in Italy is lower than the birth rate here in the States.

Mr. MAYNE. If you do not have any definite information on how rapidly the population is growing, I take it you have not taken that factor into consideration in arriving at your judgment that there is going to be a decrease in the number of Italians wanting to migrate to the United States?

Father CoGo. It is my consideration that the decrease in interest in migrating to the United States is taken from the fact that the Italians are experiencing a booming economy, and they are no longer in dire need of better opportunities as they were 30, 20, or even 10 years ago. This is a sociological fact.

Mr. MAYNE. Do you not think that the total number of Italians. that there will be in these coming years is a factor which would counterbalance this economic factor in arriving at the numbers who will want to come?

Father CoGo. We have to project from the figures that are available to us now.

In the last 5 years, for instance, that should give us a good experience. Mr. MAYNE. But you do not have those figures on the growth of population in Italy?

Father CoGo. But the demand for immigration is not based on the growth of population, but it is based rather on the petitioner over here. Therefore, the projections are to be made on the petitioners over here, not so much on the birth rate over in Italy, because even if the birth rate is great, an infant is not eligible for immigration anyway. So I do not see the relation of birth rate to the demand for immigration, Mr. Mayne.

Mr. MAYNE. Well, the relation is that if there are more Italians, there is a greater chance there will be more Italians wanting to come over here.

Father Coco. I think the relation would be valid if we were talking about a "new seed" immigration or even skilled workers immigration. But where we talk for the greater part of a family-patterned immigration, then the relation is no longer that valid. It is the petitioner here who calls for his relative in Italy.

Mr. MAYNE. Thank you.

Mr. DENNIS. Is the economic boom in Italy you refer to taking place in the South as well as in the northern industrial part?

Father CoGo. Mostly in the North. However, the people from the South do migrate, in great numbers, to the North. Therefore, the boom is experienced also in the South in this reflex way.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you very much, Father Čogo. We appreciate your contribution to the deliberations of our Subcommittee.

Our next witness, whom we will be privileged to hear is Mr. Charles Gordon, the General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice. We are all familiar with the exceptional talent and ability of Mr. Gordon.

On behalf of the Subcommittee, I want to express to you a very warm and cordial welcome. You have with you as an associate, Mr. Sam Bernsen, Assistant Commissioner, Imigration and Naturalization, for adjudication. We are glad to have you both.

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES GORDON, GENERAL COUNSEL, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY SAM BERNSEN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ADJUDICATIONS, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss proposed changes in the laws under which the United States admits immigrants within its borders.

In the comprehensive amendments to the immigration laws adopted in 1965, Congress extensively revised the preferences and exemptions which modify the established quota limitations for the Eastern Hemisphere. It also established, for the first time, a limitation on immigration from the Western Hemisphere. The Western Hemisphere limitation of 120,000, to become effective in 1968, was adopted in the final stages of legislative consideration, and was not fully integrated into the statutory pattern. One obvious omission was the failure to prescribe any preferences within the newly prescribed limitation.

The 1965 act provided for a Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration, which would make a study and present recommendations to Congress. The Select Commission conducted a study which developed much valuable material. In its final report, dated January 15, 1968, the Select Commission recommended deferment of the 120,000 Western Hemisphere limitation for 1 year. However, that recomendation was never acted upon by Congress, and the 120,000 Western Hemisphere limitation became effective July 1, 1968.

Since its adoption, it has become clear that at some future time Congress would want to reexamine the special Western Hemisphere limitation, in order to coordinate it with the other provisions of the immigration laws. The Subcommittee's consideration of this problem is both useful and timely.

One major issue to be resolved is whether the Eastern and Western Hemisphere limitations should be merged in a single worldwide quota. Chairman Feighan's bill (H.R. 15092) and Mr. Rodino's (H.R. 17370)

propose such a merger. Chairman Celler's bill (H.R. 9112) would retain separate hemisphere limitations.

While the adoption of a worldwide quota might be the best ultimate system, we believe that such a change should await further experience in the administration of a new Western Hemisphere limitation. It is our view that a merger of the two limitations at this time might operate unfairly against Western Hemisphere immigrants, particularly if a uniform system of preferences is adopted. We defer to the expertise of the Department of State in this area, and support continuance, for the present, of separate limitations for the Eastern and Western Hemispheres.

Another urgent problem is whether special consideration should be given to immigrants from Canada and Mexico. The inauguration of the Western Hemisphere limitation, in 1968, upset the previous pattern of migration across the borders, and produced difficulties, particularly in regard to immigrants from Canada. Some of these difficulties were removed by the act of April 7, 1970, Public Law 91-225, which created a new nonimmigrant class of intracompany transferees. However, there is still need, in my view, for a recognition of the special relationship we have with our neighboring countries, and for adoption of provisions which would remove a source of friction and facilitate reciprocal movement across the land borders.

H.R. 15092 would deal with this problem by increasing the country limitations for Canada and Mexico (within the worldwide quota) to 35,000 each. H.R. 17370 would remove Canada and Mexico from any prescribed limitations, permitting unlimited immigration from those countries by immigrants who satisfy the labor certification requirements. In our view a preferable approach is to allot 35,000 visas each to Canada and Mexico, outside of any numerical restriction applicable to any other country. Such an approach would reasonably meet the needs of our neighboring countries and retain the concept of limited immigration.

In emphasizing the principles of family unity and benefit to the United States, the preferences established by the 1965 act are essentially sound. Experience has demonstrated the desirability of some modification in the percentage allocations. However, management and use of the visa allocations are within the competence of the Department of State, and the Department of Justice defers to the views of that Department regarding any necessary adjustments in visa allocations.

We wish to comment, however, on several aspects of the preference allocations. First, it is manifest that the omission of a preference system for the Western Hemisphere is inconsistent with the principles of family unity and national need inherent in our immigration laws. Therefore, we favor extending to the Western Hemisphere the same preference system which will be applicable to the Eastern Hemisphere. Second, we favor inclusion of the parents of a permanent resident alien in the second preference, if the resident alien child is at least 21 years of age. The present statute grants immediately relative status to the parent of adult U.S. citizens. We believe the principle of family unity also supports the granting of second preference status to the parents of permanent resident aliens. Third, we support modification of the fifth preference to limit it to the unmarried brothers and sisters of a U.S. citizen, if the citizen is at least 21 years of age. The fifth pref

erence is intended to promote family unity, and it seems correct to conclude that in granting a preference to married brothers and sisters, the present law is not actually unifying families, but in many cases is sanctioning the entry of new families.

The Department of Justice also has several comments regarding the seventh preference, which deals with refugees. The extension of the preference system to the Western Hemisphere would, of course, include this preference. We note, however, that the present program relating to Cuban refugees presumably will not be affected by the establishment of a seventh preference in the Western Hemisphere. The program for paroling Cuban refugees has been in effect for a number of years, and has had specific congressional approval since the 1966 legislation authorizing adjustment of status for such refugees. Unless Congress otherwise directs, the parole of Cuban refugees will continue as a separate program.

Some additional changes in the seventh preference seem appropriate. First, the present allocation of 6 percent has proved inadequate to meet current and anticipated needs, in the light of the existing world situation. The seventh preference allocations for fiscal years 1969 and 1970 were exhausted well before the end of those years. We would favor an increase of the seventh preference allocations to 10 percent of the established limitation for each hemisphere. Second, we suggest that the definition of refugee in the seventh preference be clarified by specifying that refugee status under its terms is not available to former refugees who have been firmly resettled in a third country. There are conflicting court decisions on this issue, and the Government has filed a petition for certiorari challenging a decision that a Chinese national firmly resettled in Hong Kong is entitled to seventh preference status. Yee Chien Woo v. Rosenberg, 419 F. 2d 252 (C.A. 9, 1969). Regardless of the outcome of this petition, we believe the legislative purpose should be clarified by specific language in the

statute.

I would like to bring to the attention of the Subcommittee two other issues on which modification or clarification of the statute may be indicated. The first is the preclusion of adjustment of status for natives of Western Hemisphere countries. While this preclusion was adopted in order to cope with an enforcement problem, I believe it operates unfairly in its present form in requiring qualified immigrants from the Western Hemisphere, usually spouses of American citizens, to leave the United States in order to achieve permanent residence status. The Department of Justice favors the modification of this preclusion, so that it would be applicable only to natives of contiguous countries and adjacent islands; and even for such persons we would retain eligibility for adjustment of status if they are immediate relatives of American citizens or if they are born to parents who are eligible for adjustment of status.

This concludes the formal portion of my testimony. I will be pleased to attempt to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you very much for your presentation Mr. Gordon.

I would like to ask you: In both H.R. 9112 and H.R. 17370, they would place the refugees within the parole authority of the Attorney General and outside the numerical limitation and preference system. H.R. 15092 would retain the seventh preference for refugees and the

Attorney General would retain the authority to parole additional refugees into the country in emergency circumstances. Could you com ment upon the differences in approach taken by each of these bills?

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, in our view, both of these bills are reasonable approaches to the problem of parole. As you know, there has been some difficulty with the present provision of the statute. There have been differing interpreations and questions about the authority of the Attorney General in light of the language of the statute.

We believe that both of these bills, in defining and confirming the authority of the Attorney General and in making provisions for adjustment of status of refugees admitted under parole, present a reasonable approach and we believe both of them are acceptable.

Mr. FEIGHAN. In one bill there is a provision that either house of Congress could pass a resolution eliminating the authority. Do you have any comment on that?

Mr. GORDON. I believe that is a matter for Congress.

Actually, under the present setup, Mr. Chairman, we are required to report to Congress any admission of seventh preference refugees. As you know, Mr. Chairman, when the parole authority has been exercised by the Attorney General, it has been in consultation with the committees of Congress.

Now the Department of Justice has not taken any position on this particular legislation, but in general we think that either of these approaches might be a reasonable one.

Mr. FEIGHAN. H.R. 9112 and H.R. 17370 both contain a provision for a limited number of visas for so-called "new-seed immigrants," but they would be exempt from the labor certification requirements. Would you briefly comment on that provision?

Mr. GORDON. That is outside of our area of expertise, but I can give you my personal judgment. I believe that the State Department is the prime authority in this area. We would be disposed to follow their views on this subject. We think there is some room in the present statute, under the present setup, for "new-seed" immigrants. We do not see any objection, frankly, to the proposal, if Congress is disposed to make this 10 percent provision for "new-seed" immigrants. It does not seem to us that such a proposal would be objectionable.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Could I ask you, do you think that the seventh preference should be retained in the law, or parole only, used for the refugees?

Mr. GORDON. We favor the retention of the seventh preference and continuance of the authority to parole.

Mr. FEIGHAN. 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 Middle Eastern countries. I would like you to comment on that change.

Also, the expanded definition includes persons who shall flee as well as those who have already fled.

Do you have any observations pertaining to these changes?

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, this problem has confronted us in our present administration of the law. We are in the process of attempting to arrive at an interpretation. Our inclination is to interpret the present statute as covering persons who have fled from countries, although the language does not specifically cover those.

52-013-71--13