and the Far East. Of course, the intent of the law was to substitute a preference system for flat numerical ceilings. But five years of operation have now revealed inequities that we did not anticipate in 1965.

In eliminating the flat national ceilings, we brought into being a system of entry based upon family relationship, and occupations. We also placed both preferences on a first-come, first-serve basis. All seemed to be well. But experience has been a harsh teacher. We now have a backlog of applicants from the Western Hemisphere of 12 months duration. Moreover, by placing relatives on the same basis as persons with no family ties, we have created a vast reservoir of heartbreak.

For example, brothers and sisters of naturalized citizens from Italy now must wait more than four years to obtain visas. Skilled workers from Italy, on the other hand, have no hope for entry in the forseeable future because that preference category is swamped with applications. Elsewhere, the lack of professional skills to fill job vacancies in the United States works to bar many would-be immigrants.

Clearly, these accumulated inequities cry out for redress. That is why I have joined with a substantial number of my colleagues in the House to sponsor legislation which would revise the 1965 Act. The bill I am co-sponsoring creates a world-wide ceiling of 300,000 visas a year. Although the preference system is retained, more visas would be allocated to skilled and unskilled workers and to the relatives of naturalized citizens. The bill also liberalizes the refugee provision of the law so that we may increase by three-fold the entry of victims of political, racial, and religious persecution.

Aside from the continuing disparity of immigration from the Eastern Hemisphere, there is additionally a very serious problem along the entire United States border with Mexico, largely as a result of an immigration fiction that permits more than 40,000 aliens to enter the United States on a daily basis for the purpose of employment-returning at the end of the work day, presumably with paychecks in hand to their actual residence in Mexico. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, in a January 17, 1966 survey, counted 43,687 Mexican aliens who legally crossed into the United States for employment on that one day. There are no reliable statistics to show the extent of illegal entries for employment.

It seems to me that our immigration policy should be based on positive acts by the Congress. It should not be allowed to grow like "Topsy" solely because Congress has failed to take note of a problem that creates unemployment for bona fide residents of the United States at a time when unemployment is reaching major proportions. Surely, this Committee will want to take note of the commuter problem not only along the Mexican, but the Canadian border as well, to ensure that no residents of the United States are thrown into unemployment by a loosely administered immigration policy which permits aliens to take away the jobs of those seeking to make a better life for themselves within our own borders. We welcome immigrants from our bordering countries, but we should tighten our immigration policy in a way that will help aliens make the transition from a haphazard commuter life to that of a permanently residing participant in our family of immigrants.

I strongly urge the revision of the Immigration and Nationality Act to encom pass these amendments I have mentioned so that we, in practice, will have a more equitable immigration policy that does not discriminate against the longwaiting immigrants we had intended to help by major revision of the Act in 1965.

AMERICAN COUNCIL OF VOLUNTARY AGENCIES FOR FOREIGN SERVICE, INC., NEW YORK N.Y.

STATEMENT FOR PRESENTATION TO THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Mr. Chairman: I am John W. Schauer, Director of the Immigration and Refugee Program of Church World Service and Chairman of the American Council Committee on Migration and Refugee Affairs. I am privileged to present a statement on behalf of the Council voluntary agencies, many of which have been vitally concerned and directly involved in the field of assistance to migrants, refugees and escapees throughout the world-in some instances, since the 19th century.

Legislation to enable the United States to participate in the resettlement of refugees has been part of immigration practice continuously since the close of World War II. The State Department has reported that well over a million refugees have come to the United States in the past 25 years. This has been achieved through the sponsorship of voluntary agencies and private agencies. There is no area of the American private sector which has not contributed directly to the agencies' resettlement programs. The vast majority of these persons were assisted in their migration by the voluntary agencies, whose work abroad is linked to the resettlement communities across the nation by a network of national and local cooperating churches, Jewish social service agencies and other cooperating organizations and committees. This is an expression of the basic principle of person to person concern which has characterized the work of the Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and non-sectarian voluntary agencies and nationality organizations.

Based on the agencies' vast experience with refugees, migrants and escapees, their views are respectfully submitted for consideration in the current hearings of your Subcommittee.

It is the belief of the agencies that consistent with traditional humanitarian regard of the American people for the individual and for his right to a life of dignity and self-fulfillment, the United States should continue to express in a practical way its humanitarian concern and friendship for individuals who are persecuted or uprooted as a result of political, social, religious or other reasons and who are unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin or nationality. Continuation of the policy of asylum and assistance to the oppressed and persecuted is an integral part of this concept of freedom.

In no period of history has there been such massive dislocation of persons because of religious and political persecution and other critical events as in the period through which we are now passing. The outlook is for a continuation of refugee problems, if not an increase due to the ongoing flow of refugees from Eastern European countries, as well as from Asia, Africa, Latin America, Far and Near East.

It is heartening, therefore, that your Subcommittee is holding hearings for renewed consideration by Congress of support for both current refugee programs and emerging needs.

The Chairman of your Subcommittee, Congressman Michael A. Feighan, stated in the Congressional Record of July 6th, 1970 that "the subject of refugees will be considered as it pertains to the preference system" in the current hearings. Another member of your Subcommittee, Peter W. Rodino, stated in the Congressional Record of May 5th, 1970 that "shortly after the refugee provisions became effective as part of the permanent law, it was obvious that those provisions were inadequate." It is the belief of the voluntary agencies that the position of the United States as a world leader bespeaks the necessity for a broad flexible policy in offering asylum to the oppressed. This leadership should be expressed by providing compassionate and adequate authorization for the admission of refugees and migrants to the United States. Thus, in addition to establishing a definite minimum number of refugees for annual admission by a preference system for all refugees, Congress should provide that the Attorney General exercise his authority for parole of refugees as dictated by emergency situations, humanitarian concern and national interest, with the additional provision that such paroled refugees will have the right to adjust their status after two years, outside of the ceiling for the Eastern Hemisphere. It is recommended that provision be made for Cuban refugees to adjust their status outside of the ceiling for the Western Hemisphere. We also urge that the family relationships now contained in the preference provisions of the law be retained and that there should be added a preference category for parents of legally admitted aliens.

It is difficult to define a refugee because of the changing pattern of political, social, geographic and economic conditions prevailing in the world. It is the agencies' belief that a refugee is a refugee, no matter what his country of origin or area of the world from which he comes. It is hoped, therefore, that the definition of refugee within the immigration law will be not only as inclusive as possible, but will be interpreted with the utmost flexibility and compassion in line with humanitarian principles.

This statement does not single out any section or provision of the bills now before your Subcommittee. It is anticipated that in the review of the immigration law, provision would be made so that a refugee from any part of the world might be given an opportunity to resettle in our country. Therefore, the voluntary

agencies wish to underscore not only the recommendation for a definite minimum number of refugee admissions annually, but for provision in the law for use of the parole authority.

Mr. Chairman, the voluntary agencies commend the record of Congress and of the United States as a nation in programs carried out for assistance to refugees, migrants and escapees. They wish to express appreciation for the leadership provided during a period unequalled in mankind's history and especially for the role of your Subcommittee in furthering our mutual objectives. They look forward with anticipation to the results of the deliberations of your Subcommittee.

STATEMENT BY GAYNOR I. JACOBSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, UNITED HIAS SERVICE, BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY SUBCOMMITTEE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SEPTEMBER 23, 1970 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Gaynor I. Jacobson, Executive Vice President of United Hias Service, a voluntary agency established as a membership corporation under the laws of the State of New York. We and our predecessor organizations have aided over four million Jewish men, women and children to resettle in the United States and other free lands since our inception in 1884. The world headquarters of United Hias Service is in New York City and we have branch offices, cooperating committees and cooperative community relationships in Canada, Australia, West Europe, North Africa, Israel, Latin America and the Far East. In the United States we work with approximately three hundred Jewish social service agencies in communities across the nation in the resettlement of refugees and migrants. In 1970 we estimate that we shall assist over six thousand refugees and migrants from East Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and Cuba to find new homes in lands of freedom.

The passage of the Act of October 3, 1965 was a great step forward in eliminating discrimination from our immigration law. However, it was only the beginning of what must be considered a continuing task in an important area of our national life. Now that we have had five years experience with this law, the time has come to review its provisions in the light of the experience which has been gained and the situation in the world today so that the intent of the original law to bring about a fair, humane and flexible method of allocating visas may be carried out. Since our agency is concerned primarily with the movement of refugees to all countries of asylum, including the United States, I will address myself first to the subject of refugees.

The United States government has established a proud record in its generous efforts in behalf of refugees, not only by means of funds, but also through the passage of legislation granting admission to the United States to refugees. These programs have been enacted by Congress and administered with great sensitivity by the relevant agencies of government, particularly the Department of State, Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

We strongly urge the continuation of the United States policy of giving asylum and assistance to refugees who leave their countries because of persecution or fear of persecution. We therefore recommend that any legislation enacted contain a provision for at least a guaranteed minimum number of refugees to be admitted annually. This number should not be less than ten percent of the total numerical limitation for each hemisphere.

In addition to a guaranteed number of refugees to be admitted annually, provision should also be made for the parole of refugees in the event of an unforeseen emergency which creates a large number of refugees. Experience demonstrates that major refugee problems develop virtually overnight, and that grave political consequences as well as acute human need follow in their wake. We were faced most recently with just such a crisis when the aftermath of the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia and other unrest in East Europe produced a sizable group of refugees who felt the necessity to leave their countries. The 10,200 refugee numbers now in the law proved insufficient to deal with the emergency and countries of asylum in West Europe were faced with overcrowded camps and other substandard facilities in which thousands of refugees were awaiting resettlement opportunities. In order to meet this kind of pressing human need, and its international implications, it was necessary for the House Judiciary Committee to ask the Attorney General to parole these persons into the United States. In agreeing to invoke Section 212(d) (5) for a

short period of time the Attorney General, in a January 2, 1970 letter to Congressman Celler, stated the following:

"Since Congress is not in session to deal with this genuinely troublesome situation, I have instructed the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization to continue beyond the date of the anticipated exhaustion of the refugee quota authorized by section 203 (a) (7) his examinations of applicants for refugee status at the seven locations where the Immigration and Naturalization Service now operates. I shall invoke section 212(d)(5) of the Act for a very short period of time following the exhaustion of available numbers to authorize the parole into the United States of the current rate (approximately 1,500 per month) of those applicants who would have met the statutory requirements in administrative criteria of section 203(a) (7), if numbers had been available. I do this in spite of the doubt I entertain as to my authority on this score, because I share your concern for the plight of these refugees."

He went on to say that should Congress desire the Attorney General to have the authority to parole classes of refugees into the United States in a special situation, "those changes should be incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act-."

In order to provide an efficient means to handle emergencies, and to avoid the rather unwieldy situation which prevailed in the instance cited, we believe that there should be a specific provision in the law authorizing the Attorney General to parole refugees into the United States. Such persons admitted under these parole arrangements should not be charged against any numerical limitation since the nature and scope of the unforeseen emergencies which this provision would be designed to meet would undoubtedly exhaust all numbers available for authorized refugee movements.

In this context we feel it is important to state that the proposal in one of the bills requiring that a refugee prove that he does not have firm resettlement is introducing a concept that has proven to be unworkable in the past. There are many variables which bear on such a determination, and the term lends itself to subjective interpretation. "Firm resettlement" is interpreted differently depending on the laws of the particular country where the refugee is residing. In our past experience we had observed that some aliens were admitted to countries which did not specifically offer permanent residence. They were admitted for an indefinite stay or with residence cards of limited duration, in either case requiring periodic renewal. Such persons were also excluded from obtaining naturalization. It renders great hardship to disqualify such persons from refugee status.

United Hias Service is also concerned with certain aspects of our overall immigration laws, and several bills have been introduced which have many good features in this regard. I am not addressing myself to any particular bill before this committee, but would like to strongly endorse the following additional general principles which we believe should be embodied in any new legislation. We believe that eventually it will be necessary to have a worldwide ceiling with equal preferences throughout the world. However, since there has been insufficient experience to determine the effect of a worldwide ceiling on the total immigration picture, we would recommend that at the present time the preference system now applicable to the Eastern Hemisphere should also be applied to natives of the Western Hemisphere.

We strongly urge that the present preference system for brothers and sisters be continued in any newly enacted legislation. One of the traditional immigration objectives of our country has been to reunite families. The current provision which includes married brothers and sisters is aimed at achieving this objective. In many instances, the potential immigrants are in countries which have denied the right of emigration for many years. This is of particular relevance in countries where there is little freedom of movement and in our experience these governments are somewhat more inclined to grant the right of emigration on the basis of family reunion. This was demonstrated by the Soviet Union when, in December 1966, Premier Kosygin announced that his government would not stand in the way of family reunion for Soviet Jews. This situation still exists, and when such persons are able to emigrate, they should not be denied the opportunity to join brothers and sisters in the United States from whom they have been long separated.

With specific reference to Cuban refugees now in the United States, special legislation has been enacted to enable them to adjust their status to that of permanent residents. We were very much pleased when this legislation was enacted, but we are of the opinion that provision should be made so that Cuban refugees who adjust status in the United States are not charged to any numerical limitation. The present chargeability of this large group to the Western Hemisphere allocation has created a considerable backlog for immigrants from the Western Hemisphere.

Among one or more of the proposals before this committee there are certain additional specific suggestions which we believe would serve to strengthen the objectives of the immigration system established in 1965. We would therefore strongly endorse the suggested amendments which would:

1. Grant preference status to parents of legal resident aliens, in line with the principle of reunion of family.

2. Amend the definition of a child to include an adopted child who has been in the custody of adoptive parents for one year, rather than two years as in the present law. This would serve to better protect the rights of the adoptive child by shortening the period before such a child can be accorded the right, privilege and status of a natural born child.

3. Provide a statute of limitations on certain grounds of ineligibility, giving the Attorney General discretion to waive grounds of ineligibility where the basis for ineligibility occurred more than 10 years prior to the date of application for a visa.

4. Make possible the adjustment of status in the United States of persons born in the Western Hemisphere. While this restriction was justified when unlimited numbers were available to the Western Hemisphere, there is no reason for this kind of discrimination now that the Western Hemisphere is also subject to numerical limitation.

5. Set up a Board of Visa Appeals to review denials of immigrant visas. This would reflect a concern for human dignity and equal opportunity under law which is a traditional part of the American system.

6. Provide a statute of limitation on deportation proceedings. It is a recognized principle of law that justice requires a time limit within which proceedings must commence against an indivdual for any alleged wrongdoing.

7. Amend Section 212(a) (14) so that the availability of workers to fill certain positions should be determined at the place to which the alien is destined, rather than nationwide, thereby providing a more realistic assessment of the labor situation.

8. Provide special immigrant status for religious functionaries rather than only for ministers of religion, because they too have special training and perform services essential to the carrying out of religious life.

9. Provide for visa numbers unused by "higher preferences" to fall down to the third and sixth preferences. Under present law, numbers not used in higher preferences are lost altogether. The third and sixth preferences continue to be oversubscribed because of lack of numbers and this would alleviate the situation somewhat.

Finally, in one of the bills before this Committee criminal sanctions are imposed on employers who knowingly employ aliens who are illegally in the United States or in an immigration status in which such employment is not authorized. “Knowingly" in this provision is construed to mean if the employer did not inquire whether the prospective employee is an alien or a citizen, and request production of an alien registration card. It is inappropriate and an undue burden to expect employers to enforce the immigration law or suffer consequences by invoking criminal statutes. Similarly, we are opposed to the concept of making it a criminal offense for a non-immigrant to accept employment. Non-immigrants who do accept employment to which they are not entitled can be deported and this meets the issue. While we recognize that there are problems with regard to the employment of illegal aliens, we are of the opinion that criminal sanctions in the immigration law are not the proper instrument for their solution.

I should like to conclude by thanking the members of this Committee for giving comprehensive attention to the wide range of immigration issues which face our nation. This exhibits a sensitivity to the broad implications of our immigration law, and a responsiveness to the need for effective leadership in resolving immigration problems in an equitable manner.