The preference category allowing members of the professions, scientists, and artists of exceptional ability to file petitions in their own behalf and the preference category dealing with skilled and unskilled laborers whose talents are in short supply, coupled with the elimination of the national quota, attracted enormous numbers of applicants in these areas. Although the old backlogs were erased during the transition period between 1966 and 1968, oversubscription in these categories has created new backlogs since the new law went into effect. I understand that there will continue to be oversubscription in all categories in countries where the demand exceeds the 20,000 limit. Italy had a backlog of almost 100,000 applicants in the fifth category in 1965. The 20,000-a-year limit is insufficient to relieve the backlog. In addition, applications in higher priority categories in many countries exceed 20,000 so that applicants in lower priority categories are never even considered.

I should like to point out at this time that this policy has not only affected Italians awaiting visas; it has adversely affected the people of Greece, Portugal and the Philippines as well.

Since the heavy rate of petitioning in all categories makes it unlikely that nonpreference applicants will obtain visas, large numbers of workers who had been coming into the United States from Western Europe with non-preference status are now seeking the third and sixth categories of the immigration pool. This has created, for instance, a two-to-three year delay for persons who are at this moment petitioning for these numbers.

In conclusion, gentlemen, while the Act of 1965 has largely eliminated the old backlogs which existed under the national origins quota system (except in Italy) and has facilitated family reunification and entrance of needed immigrants; it has created new backlogs through oversubscription in certain preference categories, delay in immigration of professionals from Western Europe, and limited availability of non-preference numbers.

Since there is a ceiling on the total number of immigrants into the United States, we may never entirely eliminate the backlog of applicants unless remedial steps are taken.

A number of bills have been submitted on this matter, Mr. Chairman. In considering the approaches proposed in each of them, I hope the Committee will especially keep in mind the plight of brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens under the present system.

Above all, I am sure that you will continue to bear in mind that we are not dealing in mere abstract figures, but in human lives-the lives of men and women whose hopes and aspirations can be raised or dashed by what we do here.

I know that it is not necessary to recount in detail the contributions which our ancestors—all immigrants-have made to the national life. But let us remember the nature of that life.

Our nation is unique among the major powers in that it is not a "tribal" culture. The United States government is not the nation-state cultural expression of a single people, or culture. This country was created for a purpose-to provide refuge for the world's oppressed and a new flowering of the human spirit.

America has done these things admirably-and we are richer for the experience. The immigrants who have come to our shores have enriched us culturally with their customs and ideas and economically with their skills and labors.

The potential contribution of prospective immigrants today is greater than ever before.

Yesterday's immigrant was largely unskilled. He came to a frontier society, pushed back the wilderness and manned the factories and railroads at the cutting edge of industrialization.

Today's immigrant is a man with education and saleable skills. He joins a society at the forefront of Western civilization. He fits more easily into twentieth century America (on the basis of performance) than his ancestor fit the frontier. Recent immigrants have included Enrico Fermi, Albert Einstein, Pablo Cassals and countless others without whom this nation would be poorer.

Modern immigrants have done scientific research, taught in universities, joined the health professions, served in our armed forces, built new industries and perfected new inventions. Above all, they have enriched our traditions. We cannot afford to shut them out now by failing to fully implement the spirit of the immigration reforms of 1965. I trust we can find an equitable means of opening our doors and eliminating the tragic waiting line at America's doorstep. Mr. Chairman, I should again like to thank you and the Members of this Committee for the opportunity to testify today.

STATEMENT OF SAM M. GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA, BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY SUBCOMMITTEE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, JULY 15, 1970

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having this opportunity to present a statement before your Subcommittee on the problems surrounding the immigration of persons from the Western Hemisphere into the United States.

For some time now, I have been concerned with the tremendous backlog in the status of applications for intending immigrants from the Western Hemisphere. The Department of State has advised me that there are over 120,000 persons in the Western Hemisphere whose applications have been approved for entry into the United States but whom must await the issuance of quota numbers. This compares with the approximately 233,000 persons from the rest of the world who are awaiting quota numbers under the Eastern Hemisphere quota.

These figures would not be so startling were it not for the fact that the 120.000 figure represents only 23 countries of the world while the 233,000 figure represents 96 countries.

Mr. Chairman, this is hardly fair to our neighbors to the north and south. In further examining these figures. I learned that of the 120.000 Western Hemisphere immigrants now on the waiting list for quota numbers, over 30.000 (or 4 of the total) are persons of Cuban birth who either wish to enter the United States by way of a third country or are already in this country and wish to adjust their status to that of permanent resident. Four to five thousand persons a year of Cuban birth are in Mexico, Spain or other countries in the world awaiting entry into the United States while over 2,000 a month are adjusting their status while already here, having already entered this country as refugees. Under normal conditions, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the 120,000 annual limitation set in the law for immigrants from the Western Hemisphere would be more than sufficient. However, we are presently faced wth this backlog, which, I believe, stems from the fact that every Cuban who adjusts his status to that of permanent resident in the United States or comes through a third country on a permanent resident visa is charged to the Western Hemisphere quota.

I think it is entirely proper that we open this country to the refugees from the communist-dominated country of Cuba. However, I also believe that such a policy should not discriminate against the persons from the other countries in the Western Hemisphere as is now the case.

An intending immigrant from Canada, Colombia, Argentina, Peru, or any other country in the Western Hemisphere must face a backlog of cases and often has to wait a year or more to enter the United States. Since job clearances are only good for one year, this backlog often necessitates a person obtaining a second job clearance which only adds to the paperwork of the Department of Labor and results in further delay.

In addition, unlike persons in the Eastern Hemisphere who are assigned preferences in accordance with their relation to someone in the United States or the quality of their skills, persons in the Western Hemisphere receive no preferences and are lumped together regardless of their skills or relation to persons in the United States. This practice is also unfair.

I believe that Cubans should be quota exempt since it is the policy of our country to welcome them since they face an intolerable system of government in their own country. Then, the limitation of 120,000 annually from the Western Hemisphere would be more equitable and we could eliminate the tremendous backlog in our embassies in Mexico and Spain.

I base my proposal to allow Cubans to be quota exempt on the following foundation.

In the first place, the United States has always opened its doors to people fleeing communist domination. This particularly applies in the case of Cuba since she is our neighbor and we are vitally concerned about the welfare of those who wish to leave that country.

In the second place, we allow refugees from Cuba to directly enter the United States on the airlift into Miami, and in my estimation it serves no purpose at all to make them wait a long period of time merely to become permanent residents. This prohibition often serves to keep many Cubans from becoming responsible, tax-paying members of the community since many employers will not or cannot hire persons who are not at least permanent residents of the United States.

The same reasoning, I believe, applies to Cubans in third countries who have been able to leave Cuba and enter Mexico, Spain and other countries with the only intention of coming to the United States. They, too, face long waiting periods. This waiting only adds to the financial burden of the immigrant and his friends and relatives in the United States. In addition, Mexico and Spain must keep these intending American immigrants in their countries while these persons wait out the quota.

Mr. Chairman, we constantly stress the need for improving our relations with our neighbors to the north and south. It would certainly appear that an immigration policy which would facilitate entry of persons from the Western Hemisphere into the United States would be desirable.

STATEMENT BY HON. SEYMOUR HALPERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 15092

Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of H.R. 15092, I welcome this opportunity to comment on its merits and on the need most particularly for those provisions with which these hearings are concerned, Western Hemisphere immigration and the preference system currently regulating allocation of immigration visas in the Eastern Hemisphere. In 1965 we enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act amendments of 1965, aimed at a sweeping reform of our immigration law. These amendments went into full effect on July 1, 1968, and we have now had time for an initial assessment of how this legislation works in actual practice, and how it may be improved to correct unintentional inequities.

The most important achievement of the 1965 legislation, of course, was the abolition of the 40-year-old national origins quota system. Under this system, the number of immigrants who could come here annually from most Eastern Hemisphere countries was equal to one-sixth of one percent of the number of inhabitants in the continental United States in the year 1920 whose forebearers came from that area. Besides being about as relevant to the realities of these times as the number of angels on the head of a pin, this system was grossly discriminatory. and its repeal was long overdue. In its place we now have an annual ceiling of 170,000 on Eastern Hemisphere immigration with a per-country limit of 20,000. Within these two restrictions, visa are allocated on a first-come, first-served basis, according to a seven-point preference system designed first to reunite families, and second, to attract individuals able to provide needed skills and services.

H.R. 15092 retains this basic structure, while making adjustments in the percentage and definitions of the seven preference categories aimed at making them more responsive to actual need. The first preference, unmarried children of U.S. citizens, would be reduced from 20% to 10% of the total; second preference would include parents of permanent resident aliens, as well as spouses and unmarried children, as the law already provides; third preference would increase from 10% to 15% the allotment of visa numbers available for the highly skilled and professional. Fourth preference, married children of U.S. citizens, remains unchanged.

Fifth preference would be restricted to unmarried brothers and sisters and reduced from 24% to 20%.

Th bill also and importantly-provides a special provision allowing for the nonquota entry of all brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens for whom petitions were filed prior to Jan. 1, 1969. This is aimed, in large part, at eliminating the ten-year backlog of Italians applying for fifth-preference entry. It is hoped that, beginning again on a first-come, first-served basis, fifth preference visas will remain available upon demand. Should this not be the case, additional amendment will be required.

Sixth preference, skilled and unskilled workers in occupations in which a shortage of employable and willing persons exists in this country, is increased from 10% to 15% of the total immigrant visas. Seventh preference, refugees, is increased from 6% to 10%, and refugees would be granted regular visas rather than the "conditional entry," as is now the case. All unused immigrant visa numbers from each preference category would drop down to the one below, with any visa numbers unused by the seven preference categories available to nonpreference applicants. The purpose of this drop-down feature is to make the system selfregulating with regard to the actual areas of demand.

The second major change in our immigration policy resulting from the 1965 amendments concerns, of course, Western Hemisphere immigration. The amend

ments abolished the traditional nonquota status of countries in the Western Hemisphere, replacing it with an annual ceiling of 120,000 immigrant visas, with no other restrictions besides, in most cases, labor certification. This measure, highly controversial at the time, was motivated largely by the beliefand I quote from a 1965 Senate report-"That 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.” It was argued, in effect, that nonquota status for Western Hemisphere immigrants was itself a kind of national origins quota and that legislation abolishing this system for the Eastern Hemisphere should abolish it for the Western Hemisphere as well.

The ceiling on Western Hemisphere immigration went into effect on July 1, 1968, and it has become abundantly clear in the comparatively short time which has elapsed that the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction concerning restriction of immigration and in this Hemisphere. First, the annual allotment of 120,000 is too small; natives applying for visas from the Western Hemisphere face a waiting period of well over a year. Visas are currently available in July 1970 for eligible applicants who filed in May of 1969. This compares very badly with the overall Eastern Hemisphere picture where, with a few notable exceptions, particularly Italy, visas are currently available for most countries in most categories.

Second, under existing law Western Hemisphere immigration is not regulated by a preference system, and labor certification is required of everyone except some immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens. Taken together, these provisions have the startling and surely unintentional effect of making our avowed aim of placing top priority on the reunification of families a fiction, as far as the Western Hemisphere is concerned. As an example, a 22year-old son or daughter of an American citizen must obtain labor certification and stand in line for a visa, with no special preference due to his close family ties.

The most important provisions of H.R. 15092, in my opinion, are those addressed to this problem of reconciling the differences in our immigration policy toward the two hemispheres. Under this bill, after a three-year transition period, a world-wide ceiling of 300,000 immigrant visas to be allocated by a unified worldwide preference system-the system I described earlier-would go into effect. In addition, there would be a per-country ceiling of 20,000, with the exception of 35,000 for Canada and Mexico in recognition of the heavy travel over our common and undefended borders. Only with a worldwide numerical ceiling and a unified global preference system will we truly achieve the abolition of the national origins quota system which was the legislative intent of the 1965 amendments, though not, as it turns out in practice, its actual effect. I urge that we enact the corrective measures provided by H.R. 15092 as quickly as possible. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY, A REPUBLICAN IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE, BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIARY, SUBCOMMITTEE OF IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I would like to present to you my views on the need for establishment of a preference system for the Western Hemisphere and a per county limitation as proposed in bill H.R. 15093 of which I am a co-sponsor.

Specifically, the most significant provision of this proposed legislation, I believe, is that it would create a unified worldwide preference system and numerical ceiling. For three years from the date of enactment, the Eastern and Western Hemispheres would have separate numerical limitations of 170,000 and 130,000 respectively with a preference system applying to both Hemispheres. After a three-year transition period, a worldwide ceiling of 300,000 would be imposed upon both Hemispheres.

I believe the key phrase here is ". . . a preference system applying to both Hemispheres". And to this I would particularly like to address myself.

In my own State of Maine, the heaviest flow of immigrants who enter the United States are Canadians. Maine industry, such as The Bates Manufacturing Company in Lewiston, and many of the paper industries have been the greatest users of Canadian manpower in the State. Now, because of the ceiling of 120,000 on immigrants allowed to enter the United States from the Western Hemisphere,

the Canadians have found themselves in competition with Mexico and South America. What used to be a six or seven day wait for a visa some six years ago, has now become a thirteen to fifteen month wait.

The present ceiling and a lack of a preference system for the Western Hemisphere has created great shortages in manpower for Main industry. It has also created painful difficulty for those immigrants who have established themselves in northern Maine and wish to unite their families and settle in the United States permanently. The slowdown of processing and the lack of a preference system are responsible for these difficulties. The most frequent reason for Canadians entering the United States is to be united with their families.

Another very serious problem has arisen because of the present ceiling and lack of a preference system. In the last five years or so, a shortage of doctors and professional in the medical field has seriously hampered the delivery of medical services in the State of Maine. The Immigration and Naturalization Service has indicated that there are a vast number of doctors and professional medical people who are most anxious to enter the United States and settle in Maine. The problem is critical to the point that a person may have to travel 150 to 200 miles to receive professional medical care. A preference system established for the Western Hemisphere would place the professional person at a third preference priority and would allow these doctors to enter the United States and alleviate the shortage that we are experiencing.

My constituency has indicated to me that they are feeling the effects of the slowdown of Canadian immigration in their businesses and also the need for professional services in the area of medical treatment.

I present to you today two very specific reasons that clearly show the need for establishment of a preference system, based on relationships or skills, to be applied to the Western Hemisphere as it does to the Eastern Hemisphere. I feel that a unified system would greatly decrease the slowdown and complications that we are presently experiencing with our immigration procedures and would be a more equitable system benefiting not only those individuals and families who are waiting to be reunited but also the production and output of our industries and service-oriented professions.

The bill H.R. 15093, I believe, is a worthwhile and workable solution to these problems and I respectfully urge your favorable consideration of this proposed legislation.

STATEMENT OF HON. SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII, BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 15093; AMENDMENTS TO THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY. ACT, THURSDAY, AUGUST 6, 1970

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee I thank you for the privilege of testifying in support of H.R. 15093, a bill which would revise and update the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The esteemed Chairman of this distinguished Subcommittee, the Honorable Michael Feighan, deserves the highest commendation for his role as prime mover behind this bill and many other bills which have made our country's immigration and naturalization laws among the most enlightened in the world. His efforts for the benefit of those whom he himself calls "my second constituency" will be long remembered after his retirement. I wish to be numbered among his host of friends who will miss him in the next Congress.

It is, in fact, the Chairman's bill which brings this Subcommittee together this morning, and as one who joined in co-sponsoring it, I am pleased that this legislation is sweeping in scope and equitable in application.

I think we can safely say that the major revisions carried out in our immigration laws in 1965 have proved successful. The proposed legislation would update and refine the laws to meet the problems that have surfaced since the enactment of the 1965 revisions.

The most important provisions of this farreaching piece of legislation are as follows:

1. The establishment of a world-wide preference system and a numerical ceiling of 300,000 visa numbers a year;

2. Extension of the present 20.000 annual per country limit now in effect in the Eastern Hemisphere, to Western Hemisphere countries as well; 3. Elimination of the cumulative backlog in certain categories;

4. Liberalization of refugee provisions; and