This system is highly inequitable since the spouse of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or the brother of a U.S. citizen are required to wait on the same list with an unskilled worker who has met labor certification requirements, but who has no ties to anyone in this country. There is also, in our present system, no distribution of numbers of immigrants among the various Western Hemisphere countries and no orderly visa issuance procedure a fact which has created difficulties between us and our closest neighbors, Mexico and Canada.

H.R. 17370 solves each one of the problems I have outlined. First, it would integrate the Eastern and Western Hemisphere quota systems by substituting for the present 120,000 Western Hemisphere and 170,000 Eastern Hemisphere annual limitations a worldwide limit of 250,000 immigrants per year. As many as 25,000 instead of the current 20,000-qualified immigrants from each country would be allowed by this bill to enter the U.S. annually. Mexico and Canada, as our nearest neighbors, would be exempt from this system and thus have a nonquota status.

Second, H.R. 17370 would set up a new preference system which would apply to immigrants from both Eastern and Western Hemispheres. The present preference system was also established by the landmark 1965 Immigration Act Amendments to which I have already referred. The amendments eliminated a 40 yearold quota system that was based on national origin and submitted for it a preference system that is based on immigrants' family relationships with U.S. citizens or residents, their special employment skills, or their need for asylum. Under each preference, the percentage of available places is derived from the average number of immigrants admitted in those categories over the years before 1965. But immigration patterns reflect the ever-changing world situation and thus they also constantly change. As a result, some of the current preference categories are continually oversubscribed and there is no hope of decreasing the backlog. Also, the use of numbers for the higher preference makes it virtually impossible for non-preference immigrants to obtain visas to come to the U.S.

In order to remedy this inequitable situation and to provide the system with the flexibility it needs to respond to changes in the world's political climate, H.R. 17370 revises the preference order and sets up four new preferences. The first preference under this bill provides 62,500 visas-which is 25 percent of the total worldwide annual quota-for the spouse or unmarried child of an alien admitted here for permanent residence or for any qualified immigrant who is either the married child or the unmarried sibling of a U.S. citizen. The second preference provides the same number of visas to professional people or persons of great ability in the sciences or the arts. Under this preference, only 5,000 visas would be available to any one country.

Skilled workers whose skills are needed in the U.S. make up the third preference under this bill; 62,500 visas, plus any unused visas from the first and second preference, are available for immigrants of this category. The fourth preference provides 37,500 visas-or 15 percent of the total-plus any unused visas left over from the first three preferences for religious workers, aliens who will not look for employment in the U.S. Finally, 25,000 visas, plus any left over from the first four categories, would be set aside for non-preference immigrants; 25 percent of these visas would be reserved for persons less than 25 years old-the so-called "new seed immigrants" for whom labor certification would not be required.

I will not discuss any of the other key provisions of H.R. 17370-such as those dealing with refugees except to say that they, like those I have already dealt with, supply practical solutions to the problems that have arisen since the passage of the 1965 Amendments. The provisions contained in this bill fairly and flexibly implement our immigration policy objective of bringing families together and encouraging aliens with useful skills to come to this country. This bill will ensure that the beneficial partnership between nation and immigrant will be continued and strengthened; I ask your support for it.

Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF JAMES C. CORMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, JULY 16, 1970

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to speak before the Committee on the very important subject of amending our present immigration laws, as reflected in my bill, H.R. 18248. My proposal supports the provisions of H.R. 17370, introduced earlier this year by Representative Rodino.

The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 marked the beginning of a new era in the immigration policy of this country. The old national origins quota system, which discriminated against people on the basis of their citizenship, was abolished. It was replaced by a more equitable system which gives preferred status to immigrants on the basis of reuniting families and supplying this country with labor where there are shortages in our own domestic labor force.

After five years, the record shows that the improved policy was not able to adequately cope with certain problems not foreseen prior to enactment of the 1965 amendments. The most glaring deficiency in the present law is the unequal fashion with which potential immigrants from the Western Hemisphere and those from Europe are dealt. Although European immigrants have the advantages of the newly instituted preference system, immigrants from the Western Hemisphere are still processed on a crude first-come first-served basis. The result of this inequitable system has been the personal hardship suffered by many citizens of the United States and aliens with permanent residence in this country and their families abroad. Under the present law, a relative of a citizen of the United States has no more priority than someone with no familial connections in the United States whatsoever. As a result, it takes eleven to fourteen months (which is the average time required for processing due to a large backlog) before immediate families can be reunited in this country. The undue hardship endured by these families could be easily eliminated by the institution of the preference system in our immigration policy directed toward the Western Hemisphere.

My bill further facilitates speedy family reunification by altering the present structure of the preference system. It gives all members of the immediate families of citizens of the United States or aliens with permanent residence status first priority in the preference system.

The lack of the use of a preference system in the processing of potential immigrants from the Western Hemisphere has also caused many unnecessary problems and delays for United States businesses with extensions abroad. Under present law, intra-company transfers of personnel from Latin America or Canada have been made extremely difficult. Company personnel must wait the average of one year period before their immigration request is handled. It is obvious how this kind of delay would affect the administrative affairs of a company.

Under the proposed legislation, these personnel and other professionals or experts needed in the United States would be given priority status. The bill further facilitates the entrance of these professionals by giving them second preference status and increasing the number who would be granted immigration visas in this particular category.

A second aspect of the bill which I have proposed deals with our immigration policy toward Mexico and Canada. The bill would eliminate any quota restriction on immigration from Canada and Mexico. In lieu of the fact that we share thousands of miles of undefended border with both of these countries, it is entirely compatible with our relations with these two neighboring nations that we eliminate quota restrictions on Canadians or Mexicans applying for immigrant status. Under the proposed legislation, Mexicans and Canadians with labor certification could be processed for visas without any of the present tedious delay or numerical limitation.

A final facet of the bill which I find highly desirable is the increase in the number and kind of refugees that could be paroled into the United States. Under the proposed bill, a refugee of any kind of political repression or natural calamity could be paroled into the United States without numerical or geographical limitation. Refugees from such a country as Cuba could therefore be able to enter the United States immediately rather than escaping first to Mexico or Spain and then applying for an immigrant visa to the United States. This action is in accordance with the responsibility the United States has as a humanitarian country and is in line with our foreign policy objectives.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that Congress must act now to make our immigration policy, especially as it concerns the Western Hemisphere, more equitable and more closely reflective of the humanitarian posture of this country. I would urge, therefore, that the Committee take favorable action on this measure without delay.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN EDWARD J. DERWINSKI OF ILLINOIS, BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 15092

Mr. Chairman: As a co-sponsor of H.R. 15092, and having maintained a sustained interest in complex problems in the field of immigration, I welcome this opportunity to submit my views to the Subcommittee.

I believe it will be consistent with the last major immigration bill passed by Congress that application for visas from the Western Hemisphere be subject to a preference system based on relationships or skills such as is applied to the Eastern Hemisphere.

Mr. Chairman, I believe there is continued inconsistency in our approach to immigration. I believe that an immigration law should be drawn to continue a numerically-controlled flow of immigrants consistent with the historic immigration to this country. More specifically, I believe that we should place reemphasis on the natural flow of immigrants from Greece, Italy, Ireland and Eastern Europe.

I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that many technical and, unfortunately, emotional problems are involved in legislation adjusting immigration laws. I believe the 1965 law was an over-correction of the problems that we attempted to correct; therefore, practical modification is in order.

STATEMENT BY HON. THADDEUS J. DULSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE No. 1 OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON H.R. 15092, JULY 15, 1970

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to present my views in support of H.R. 15092 of which I am a co-sponsor with you and others of my colleagues in the House.

For the record, Mr. Chairman, I am Thaddeus J. Dulski, a member of Congress representing the 41st District of New York.

I commend you for calling this hearing on this much-needed legislation. It is clear from experience that the time is at hand to make sweeping revisions in the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

H.R. 15092 would create a unified worldwide preference system and numerical ceiling of 300,000 visa numbers per year. Present law provides no preference system for the Western Hemisphere, handling admissions on a first-come firstserved basis.

Most members of Congress, I feel sure, have seen the impracticality and the heart-breaking results of the present system.

It is clearly inequitable, for example, for the spouse of a United States citizen or permanent resident to be required to await his or her turn on the same quota list with those who have no direct ties in our country.

All of us are aware of the serious backlog which has developed under the nonpreference system and the hardship which it has imposed upon those seeking to enter from the Western Hemisphere. Those with valid family ties in our country should have better consideration.

H.R. 15092 also revises other preferences and I am sure that your Subcommittee will consider carefully the arguments for adjustments. Necessarily, we must have a system of priorities but we must reconsider from time to time whether conditions warrant changes in preferences and categories.

As for the preference dealing with professional persons of exceptional ability. we all know, for example, of the great need in our country for trained people in the medical profession. Our medical and other schools are not graduating enough physicians, nurses and others. That, of course, is another matter in itself.

But in seeking to aid local hospitals, etc., who seek to keep visiting medics, we must at the same time recognize that other countries also have similar needs. We want to avoid setting up loopholes that thwart the efforts of other nations to give their medical professionals needed experience in our country with the clear expectation that they will return to their native countries to practice and to teach others.

I support the liberalization of refugee provisions of law as they apply to victims of persecution, including those in Poland, the land of my forefathers. which has been for too long in the hands of the Communists.

Mr. Chairman, I know that you and your Subcommittee made extensive studies of existing law before you developed this pending bill. And I know that you have been continuing your studies and investigations since the bill was introduced.

I am confident that you and your colleagues will apply this expertise to your executive deliberations and that you will act promptly to correct the inequities in present law.

I urge approval of H.R. 15092.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for permitting me to make this supporting presentation.

STATEMENT OF HON. SAMUEL N. FRIEDEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND, IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 15092, BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, JULY 21, 1970

Mr. Chairman and Members of this important Subcommittee, it is indeed a pleasure and I consider it a privilege as well to submit a statement of my views before so distinguished a group of my colleagues in the Congress.

In these days we hear a lot about discrimination and the making of invidious distinctions. However, the discrimination that I am referring to is not used in the context in which we hear this term referred to today. The discrimination that I oppose is the discrimination shown the people of the Nations of the Western Hemisphere. We refer to them as our "good neighbors." We point with pride to the fact that our northern boundary between the Dominion of Canada and the United States is the longest unguarded boundary between any two nations in the entire world.

In like measure, we are proud of our very good relations with our neighbors to the south-Mexico.

These two nations, Canada and Mexico, account for a very large proportion of our international trade.

Unfortunately, the present state of our immigration laws is such that an injustice is being perpetrated on the peoples of 26 nations of this Hemisphere. There are 26 independent countries of the Western Hemisphere within the purview of Section 101(a) (27) (A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act which, together with the Canal Zone, are subject to the overall annual numerical limitation of 120,000. These Countries are: Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Canal Zone, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guiana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela.

In 1965, the Congress first imposed a ceiling of 120,000 immigrants from the Western Hemisphere. Currently, all applicants for visas from the Western Hemisphere face approximately a one-year wait for the issuance of visas. I am reliably informed by the State Department that in many cases, applicants for visas have waited years before quota numbers are available for their use.

Unlike the system devised for Eastern Hemisphere immigrants, no preference or priority system based on relations or skills is applied to the Western Hemisphere. In other words, the State Department must impose a "first-come-firstserved" method of dealing with applications for immigrant visas.

Our largest amount of international trade is carried on with Canada and many United States firms and Canadian companies have offices or subsidiaries in each of these respective countries. In the normal course of trade and business, it becomes necessary to transfer key personnel from one country to another, but they are faced with the current status of the law. That is one of the principal reasons why I strongly urge and recommend that favorable consideration be given II.R. 15092 to revise the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Under the present law, applications for visas for persons born in areas other than the independent countries of the Western Hemisphere are given preferences in certain categories.

In all justice. I feel that these preferences should be extended to our good neighbors in Canada and Mexico and other Countries of North and South America. I, therefore, urge your favorable consideration of this measure.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT N. GIAIMO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, THURSDAY, JULY 16, 1970 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today. The matters which your Subcommittee are considering are of particular interest to the people of my district.

Mr. Chairman, it has been nearly five years since the United States adopted its present immigration policy. That policy was adopted in the healthy spirit of reform. It abolished the highly discriminatory national origins quota system adopted under the Immigration Act of 1924 and replaced it with a more just and humane policy of equal treatment of all countries within the two hemispheres. Yet former immigration policies were so biased that today's enlightened preference system is burdened with a backlog of injustices from the past.

Today, we are considering legislation which would modify and clarify the Amendments of 1965 in order to more fully implement the principles of equality and fair treatment for all prospective Americans.

Under the 1965 Amendments, a ceiling of 170,000 immigrants from countries outside the Western Hemisphere was established with a limitation of 20,000 immigrants from any one country. Beginning on July 1, 1968, when these amendments went into full effect, immigrants were admitted on a first-come, firstserve basis within an established preference system. During the interim period from the passage of the Act to its effective date, unused quotas from any country were parcelled out to remaining countries so that the total allowable number of immigrants into this country would be realized.

The seven preference classes used for the Eastern Hemisphere countries set up the following categories and precentages:

First, 20 per cent of the 170,000 total available visas go to unmarried adult sons and daughters of United States citizens, and second, 20 per cent go to spouses and unmarried sons and daughters of aliens admitted to the United States for permanent residence, plus unused numbers from the first preference. Third, 10 per cent of the total number of available visas are allotted to members of the professions or persons having special talent or education.

In the fourth preference category, 10 per cent of the 170,000 limit goes to married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens plus unused numbers from the first three categories.

Fifth, 24 per cent of the total is allocated for brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens plus any unused numbers from the first four preferences.

In the sixth category, 10 per cent of 170,000 visas available go to skilled or unskilled laborers who could fill a specified labor need in the United States exclusive of temporary or seasonal work.

In the seventh and last category, 6 per cent is allowed for the conditional entry of refugees including those from areas where natural disasters have occurred.

Upon exhaustion of all the preceding preferences, numbers from the 170,000 limit are issued to non-preference applicants, for whom the only requirement is labor certification.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the 1965 Amendments were obviously based upon a desire to emphasize family reunification and to encourage the entry of skilled immigrants. However, let us examine the actual effect the new law has had on the pattern of immigration into this country from the Eastern Hemisphere.

First, we have found that although the present law has been effective in attaining the maximum authorized immigration level by leaving no numbers unused from the 170,000 total, it has failed to eliminate the tragic backlog in the fifth preference category-particularly in the case of Italy.

As a point of illustration, under the national quota system, married sons and daughters and brothers and sisters of United States citizens had to wait until the first three preferences were filled before they could obtain visas. This left few or no places for these relatives. In countries where the quota was small, it seemed useless to petition for a status in which one would be unable to obtain a visa anyway.

Because the 1965 Amendments provided for a fixed percentage of relatives and no national quota, there was a sudden over-abundance of applicants in this class. In the first year between 1965 and 1966, the number of petitions filed by this class increased three-fold.