5. Allowance for adjustment of status for Western Hemisphere immigrants. A number of other provisions of the bill are as much needed and as important as those mentioned, but in the interest of time I will confine my remarks to those I have mentioned. As the Subcommittee well knows, there is now a yearly ceiling on immigrants of 170,000 from the Eastern Hemisphere, and 120,000 from the Western Hemisphere. When the provisions of this bill become effective in 1973, these separate totals would be discontinued and a world-wide ceiling of 300,000 would be set. The preference system, establishing priorities for entrance, would be extended to the Western Hemisphere as well as to the Eastern. Simultaneously two desirable objectives would be accomplished: First, our visa allocation system will be placed on an orderly, equitable and humane basis; that is, first-come first-served, whatever the immigrant's country of origin may be. Second, immigrants in the Western Hemisphere will be granted the advantages of high preference in categories that Congress has deemed desirable; for example, to the spouse of a permanent resident who presently is required to wait on the same list with an applicant who may have no ties in this country. For the purpose of equity, the bill under consideration would extend the 20,000 annual ceiling to every country, in both hemispheres. This ceiling is presently applicable only to Eastern Hemisphere countries. The only exceptions would be Canada and Mexico, which would each have a 35,000 annual limit, in recognition of their contiguity to our country resulting naturally in a higher level of immigrant traffic. The bill also increases the annual number of immigrants from dependent areas from 200 to 600 persons. H.R. 15093 would also revise the preference system to help eliminate the tremendous backlog which has accumulated in certain categories. This will be accomplished by adjusting the percentages allocated to the various preferences. by redefining the boundaries of several of them, and by establishing a system of transferring unused visas from one category to another. As to refugees, the annual allocation is raised from 10,000 to 30,000. This will allow more persons to enter the United States who are suffering persecution because of their race, religion, or political views. Another important section of this bill would allow for along overdue adjustment of status for temporary residents originally from any country in the Western Hemisphere, except contiguous countries and adjacent islands. This provision is designed to eliminate the present requirement that Western Hemisphere aliens desiring an adjustment in status to that of permanent residence must first leave the United States. This section is similar to the provisions of a bill I introduced some time ago, and I particularly commend this section of the bill to the Subcommittee. It will establish an equitable world-wide adjustment-of-status system. Mr. Chairman, I urge the swift approval of H.R. 15093. TESTIMONY BY HON. PATSY T. MINK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY 22, 1970 Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I welcome this opportunity to urge the adoption of pending immigration legislation. As a Representative of Hawaii, I am speaking on behalf of persons of numerous countries of origin, who inhabit my State. Many of these people, as family members, would be affected by provisions of H.R. 9112, H.R. 15092, and H.R. 17370, omnibus bills which you are considering in these hearings. I am particularly concerned with the plight of relatives of natives of the Philippines who are residing in Hawaii. Many are United States citizens and others are permanent residents awaiting citizenship. Last year the State Department informed me that the Philippines had a backlog of 94,000 applicants, second only to the 104.000 Italian applicants. Combined, they are the bulk of those now being excluded. Of the Philippines total, some 32,000 are brothers and sisters of United States citizens who have approved petitions but are awaiting visas. To correct this situation I have introduced H.R. 17909 which would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to classify brothers and sisters of citizens as immediate relatives and therefore outside of the quota limitation. I note that Chairman Celler's bill, H.R. 9112, has the same objective, although it appears to limit the non-quota immigration of brothers and sisters to a threeyear period starting on July 1, 1969. This is designed to remove the backlog by reuniting these families who have been waiting so long to get together. While I support this objective of H.R. 9112, it seems to me that we should make the non-quota status permanent so that all brothers and sisters of United States citizens will be able to come to this country. My bill in effect would eliminate the fifth preference category, which is now reserved for brothers and sisters. It would allow them, and their spouses and children if accompanying them, to enter without quota. The existing 24 percent of visas allocated to this category would be split up among the other six categories, which would be re-numbered, by awarding 4 percent more to each and allowing unused numbers to drop to lower categories. Coupled with this amendment, I would urge the Subcommittee to make a further change to benefit the many Philippine residents waiting to enter the United States. I propose that the parents of permanent residents be admitted also under the second preference category. Ordinarily aging parents come over to live with their employed sons or daughters, so the primary effect of this change would be to reunite families now separated by the arbitrary requirements of existing law, and would further meet the humanitarian purposes of this law. I congratulate the Subcommittee for considering legislation to implement our national immigration objective of family unification, and urge that your proposals include the changes I have outlined. Your efforts to help remove the backlog and remedy inequities in other respects are deeply appreciated. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. Moss, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 15093, JULY 15, 1970 Mr. Chairman: I rise today in support of H.R. 15093, legislation to revise the Immigration and Nationality Act. This amendment seeks to incorporate into our present Immigration and Nationality Act certain revisions which will greatly increase the equity of our policies regulating those who wish to immigrate to the United States. The subject of these hearings are certain provisions of the bill which encompass the areas where reform is most needed in order to correct deficiencies in the present law. Section 4 of the act deals with the establishment of a worldwide ceiling on immigrants, set at 300,000 annually which would go into effect on July 1, 1973. During the interim period, the present 170,000 limit on immigrants from the Eastern Hemisphere would remain in effect but this new reform would set a more realistic ceiling of 130,000 for the Western Hemisphere, an increase of 10,000 immigrants annually over the present law. Because the present Western Hemisphere ceiling of 120,000 is inadequate to meet the demand for visas, quite an extensive backlog of visa applicants has developed. Section 5 of the bill continues in our effort to create a system that is more fair by affording equal treatment to persons from all areas of the world. This section provides for the extension of the system presently operating in the Eastern Hemisphere which sets an annual per country limit on immigrants at 20.000, to the Western Hemisphere. It would also raise the number of persons entering the United States from dependent areas from 200 to 600 annually. One very important and necessary provision of this section sets the number of immigrants entering from countries contiguous to the United States at 35,000 per year. This higher limit allows for the naturally higher flow of persons across our borders from Canada and Mexico. This movement of persons can be very worthwhile to the country but requires regulation. If this regulatory legislation is designed properly, as I believe this portion of the revision of the Immigration and Nationality Act is, it will facilitate beneficial immigration and at the same time protect against undesirable entrants. Section 6 of the act extends the preference system, now in effect in the Eastern Hemisphere to operate on a worldwide basis. Certain changes have been made in the percentage system for the allocation of visas within the different preference categories. These changes allow greater flexibility in allocation of visas 52-013-71-15 because there have been certain slight alterations made in the percentages in each category and the supply and demand for visas in each category should be closer to the same level. This provision continues in the effort to reunite families by facilitating the entry of parents of permanent resident aliens. It also provides that unused visas in one category may be used to meet the demand in the category that follows, and that any additional visas may be issued to nonpreference immigrants. The percentage of refugees has been expanded and they are now issued regular immigrant visas rather than "conditional entry" as has been the case. I also believe that a much more equitable system is created by the extension of the preference system to include the Western as well as the Eastern Hemisphere on a first-come, first-served basis. These new revisions to the Immigration and Nationality Act clarify and strengthen the system set up by the 1965 act for the allocation of visas. Sections 4, 5, and 6 are important to this legislation because they place alien natives of the Western Hemisphere on the same status as natives of the Eastern Hemisphere. These much needed reforms would greatly improve the process of allocation of visas to applicants in all countries. It is time that these changes be incorporated into the law and I strongly urge their adoption. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. MICHAEL A. FEIGHAN, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Chairman, Subcommittee No. 1, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your recent letter with regard to the hearings to be held by the Immigration and Nationality Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere immigration. I am pleased and encouraged to learn of these hearings and very much appreciate your calling them to my attention. Enclosed herewith is a statement I have prepared on the subject and I would be grateful if you would have it included in the hearing record. Warm regards, Sincerely, RICHARD L. OTTINGER, STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD L. OTTINGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, TO THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY SUBCOMMITTEE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WEDNESDAY, JULY 1, 1970 Mr. Chairman, I am very encouraged by the hearings you are holding this week on the improvement of our immigration laws and I appreciate this opportunity to express my views. Last week it was my sad duty to advise a young lady from a Western Hemisphere country-the daughter of a permanent resident alien living in New York-that she would have to wait for over a year before being reunited with her family as her priority date is more than 13 months behind the date for which visas are currently being processed. Earlier in the year, a Canadian businessman, bound for a two week business sales trip to New York City, was reportedly prohibited from boarding his flight at Montreal because the number of shirts in his suitcase seemed to indicate that he might have been attempting to enter permanently. Although the U.S.-Canadian and U.S.-Latin American borders have historically been the world's most open, the annual limitation imposed on Western Hemisphere immigration by the 1965 Immigration Act has drastically changed this and has raised a chorus of protest. The ceiling of 120,000 placed on this area by the Congress five years ago has caused incredible personal hardships and has had very serious effects on business and commercial relations. Although the 1965 Act removed many inequities and represented the first major overhaul of the immigration law in some 40 years, the foregoing represents one of the major loopholes which must be filled and an inadequacy which has to be corrected. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Hon. MICHAEL A. FEIGHAN, Washington, D.C., July 16, 1970. Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Nationality, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN FEIGHAN: I am happy to have this opportunity to commend you on your leadership in scheduling hearings on proposals to update and revise the Immigration and Nationality Act. In fully supporting the major immigration law reform in 1965, and in introducing H.R. 7345' in the present 91st Congress, I have continued to express my strong commitment to the cause of equity and fairness in America's immigration statutes. Of particular concern to me, and to our citizens in the Southwestern States, is the urgent need to treat residents of the Western Hemisphere, and especially those with family relationships with United States citizens and residents, on an equal basis with residents of all other areas of the world. I believe the present discriminatory treatment of aliens residing in the Western Hemisphere must be eliminated at the earliest opportunity. Let me again reiterate my appreciation for your outstanding efforts to provide a public forum for the development of a worthwhile Congressional initiative toward long-overdue revision of our immigration laws. Sincerely, EDWARD R. ROYBAL, Not only are families needlessly separated and commercial activities disrupted. but this Western Hemisphere quota unfortunately recalls the era of the national origins quota system and the Asia-Pacific Triangle quota. Although these two outmoded and discriminatory aspects of earlier immigration policies were abolished some five years ago, the question as to "where were you born" still has not yet been eliminated from the questions which must be answered to establish eligibility for immigration. In an attempt to correct this undesirable situation I joined with a number of our colleagues late last year in sponsoring legislation providing for a worldwide, unified preference system with an annual numerical ceiling of 300,000 on a first-come, firstserved basis with no special consideration given to any one region or group and with the Western and Eastern Hemisphere receiving equitable treatment. As we know, Mr. Chairman, the imposition of the Western Hemisphere ceiling was an ill-conceived, last-minute addition necessary to assure Senate approval of the 1965 Act. It was clearly not the intention of the Johnson Administration to establish any such ceilings and these unnecessary restrictions have certainly not helped our image overseas and have led to strained relations with a number of countries. Although some progress has been made in recent years, I believe much more must be done, Mr. Chairman. A clear indication that such action is both necessary and desirable was the enactment, earlier this year, of Public Law 91-225, a measure which exempts certain business and managerial personnel from the Western Hemisphere limitation. We must once again examine our immigration policies and remove all vestiges of discrimination and bias in the practices and procedures of selecting immigrants. Further legislative efforts are required to demonstrate to the world our dedication to equal and just treatment of immigrants and I urge that favorable and expeditious action be taken on pending legislation to abolish the Western Hemisphere quota or ceiling and return us to our traditional policies and ideals by giving no one area or group special consideration. Thank you. STATEMENT OF HON. LOUIS STOKES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO, BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, JULY 20, 1970 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as one who feels a deep personal commitment to insuring equality for all peoples of the world, I am very grateful 1 To repeal subsection (c) of section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, to permit adjustment of status of persons from the Western Hemisphere on the same basis as other aliens. for this opportunity to offer my testimony on behalf of the proposed amendments which I have cosponsored to the Immigration and Nationality Act. Many of the amendments are long overdue, and it is with a great sense of relief that I at last see them under your consideration. For most of our history as a nation, our borders have been closed to certain nationalities and racial groups. The last Chinese Exclusion Act was only repealed on December 17, 1944. The Japanese detention centers finally were closed in six states (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming) on Octobr 15, 1945. But with the enactment of this legislation, we will rid our immigration laws of many remaining discriminatory practices. I particularly wish to endorse three provisions of Section Six of the bill which form the basis of my strong support for this legislation. 1. The unused numbers in any preference would be added to the next lower preference. While still observing the set ceilings, this provision allows for more flexibility in the preference system. Further, it recognizes the greater needs of those preferences which grant visas to qualified immigrants who are capable of performing specified skilled or unskilled labor and to refugees from natural catastrophes, communist oppression, and radical, religious, or political discrimination. 2. The percentage of the total for preference 6 is increased from 10 to 15. Preference 6 is designed to bring those persons who can perform specific types of labor for which a shortage of persons exists in the United States. I will only note the necessity of this provision; the value of the contribution made to our country by this group of immigrants should be obvious to all. In the city of Cleveland, for instance, we have been most fortunate to welcome several hundred Eastern Europeans under the sixth preference since World War II, and they have not only provided badly needed manpower in critical areas, but also have become some of our city's finest and most responsible citizens. I should add that the increase in numbers available under the sixth preference provided by these amendments will greatly reduce the need for private immigration bills. 3. The percentage of the total for preference 7 is increased from 6 to 10. This provision recognizes the great number of persons who cannot remain in or return to their homelands because of natural catastrophies, totalitarianism, communism, or various forms of racial, religious, and ethnic repression. The need for resettlement among these refugees, especially those from Poland and Czechoslovakia, continues to grow. Since many of these refugees immigrate to the Cleveland area, I am especially pleased to note the increased opportunity this legislation offers. Most importantly, this legislation would make it possible for any refugee to register with the nearest American Embassy or Consulate Office. Under the present law, refugees are required to present themselves at one of several centers, all located in Europe. The inclusion of this provision opens our doors to refugees from all areas of the world and makes refugee status more readily available for all. This provision is especially important in that it allows Africans to claim refugee status for the first time in our history. The broadening of the definition of "refugees" and the issuance of refugee visas at all American Consular Offices will give relief to numerous peoples who have suffered persecution at the hands of governments and societies which are not necessarily communistic, but equally as oppressive. I believe that this legislation will correct the present inequities in the immigration laws, and I sincerely hope for the expeditious enactment of these amendments. STATEMENT BY HON. FRANK THOMPSON, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, TO THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY SUBCOMMITTEE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, ON H.R. 15093 JULY 16, 1970 Chairman Feighan, I thank you for the opportunity of testifying in support of legislation to revise the Immigration and Nationality Act. As you know, last year I sponsored H.R. 15093, a bill that would revise the Act to more equitably distribute the allowable immigration visas among those people wishing to reside in our country. When Congress rewrote our basic naturalization law four years ago, it was my hope that we had effectively eliminated the national quota system which had discriminated against persons from southern Europe, Eurasia, |