STATEMENT OF JOHN E. MCCARTHY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MIGRATION AND REFUGEE SERVICES, UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE, TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION and NATIONALITY, NOVEMBER 12, 1970 In 1920, the Roman Catholic Bishops of the United States manifested their pastoral concern for the care and welfare of the waves of newcomers to our shores by establishing the Bureau of Immigration of the then National Catholic Welfare Conference (N.C.W.C.). During the years that followed, hundreds of thousands of aliens were assisted with problems of immigration, emigration, deportation, assimilation, integration and naturalization as citizens of their adopted country. In the era of persecution under Adolf Hitler, the Catholic Committee for Refugees was founded to assist refugee priests and professionals fleeing from Nazi Germany. In the aftermath of World War II, new challenges were faced by the emergence of refugees who were forced by the upheavals of war to seek asylum in new countries and to establish homes there. To meet this emergency situation, the Church established the National Catholic Resettlement Council to resettle throughout the United States the refugees of the World War II hostilities and later those fleeing from communist persecution in Soviet occupied or dominated areas of Eastern Europe. In 1959 came the upheaval in Cuba, with the emergence of Fidel Castro and the first Marxist government to be established in the Western Hemisphere. Thousands of Cubans sought refuge in the United States which for the first time became the country of first asylum. The Church met this challenge by developing new resettlement techniques and becoming a major participant in the Cuban Refugee (Resettlement) Program. In 1965 the Catholic Bishops in their endeavor to refine and improve services to the newcomer, reorganized and expanded the program of assistance to all immigrants, refugees and orphans by establishing the Migration and Refugee Services of the United States Catholic Conference (the successor to the National Catholic Welfare Conference), which operates on an "open-door policy" without regard to race, religion or national origin. We have today within this structure the experience and expertise developed over the past fifty years. Since World War II, 400,000 European refugees and 163,000 Cuban refugees have been resettled, homes for over 6,000 orphans have been found while during the past year over 100,000 persons of all categories have been served. It is with this background that we address ourselves to the present inadequacies and problems of our current immigration laws. Upon the adoption of the Act of October 3, 1965, the discriminatory National Origins system of selecting immigrants was abolished and replaced by a firstcome-first-served formula. There was provided in the Act a system to phase out the old law and the new law became fully effective on July 1, 1968. It soon became apparent that the primary objectives of the system-reunification of families, admission of needed professionals, of skilled and unskilled workers in short supply and providing a haven for the uprooted-were not being reached. There presently exist serious backlogs in the third and sixth preferences of fourteen months and ten months respectively; the fifth preference for Italy is backlogged for four and a half years and the Italian sixth preference is unavailable and has been unavailable for the past few years. Visas for the Philippines are available only through the third preference, which itself is oversubscribed, and in a number of dependent areas only the first preference is available. For the Western Hemisphere there is a waiting period of fifteen months for all applicants under the numerical ceiling. The facts point out the need for a refinement of the present law to assure the basic objectives of the 1965 Act, which are sound, can be attained. We recommend an examination of the allocation of visas within the preference structure under the 170.000 ceiling for the Eastern Hemisphere with a view of making the allocations more responsive to the demands of each preference. Additional visas should be allocated to the third, sixth and seventh preferences and a drop-down of unused visas from the higher ot lower preferences should be adopted throughout. Particularly troublesome has been the fifth preference available to brothers and sisters of United States citizens where the demand over the years has exceeded the supply. Proposals have been made to eliminate the married brothers and sisters from this preference and such a step would undoubtedly solve this recurring problem. (If such a change is made, those who presently are the beneficiaries of approved fifth preference petitions should be permitted to enter outside the numerical ceiling). Another approach might be a re-alignment of the categories by dropping the fifth to the seventh in order of preference. We wish to voice special concern on behalf of those who can not speak for themselves the refugee and the uprooted. Our present law does not contain the flexibility required to meet emergency situations which produce the homeless who must seek a new life in another country. The present law provides for the annual admission of up to 10,200 refugees from communist controlled areas, those whose lives have been disrupted by political upheaval in the Middle East and refugees uprooted by natural calamity. The number has proven insufficient as illustrated by the fact that in fiscal 1970, the Attorney General, with consent of Congress, had to approve 9,000 additional admissions by use of his parole authority. We recommend that the annual number of refugee admissions be increased more in keeping with past demands. We also recommend that the definition of refugee be broadened to include all refugees whether they are fleeing persecution in the Eastern Hemisphere or in the Western Hemisphere. In addition to the above stipulated number of annual refugee admissions, we urge that Section 212 (d) (5) be amended not only to authorize in emergency situations the admission of refugees on parole in the numbers necessary to achieve humanitarian and foreign policy objectives but also to provide for adjustment of status after two years residence in the United States. Such adjustments, however, should not be charged against hemispheric ceilings. We strongly support the proposals contained in H.R. 15092 and H.R. 18923 for the admission of religious functionaries as special immigrants. The services carried on by members of religious denominations-staffing of schools, hospitals, orphanages, day-care centers, engaging in social work and community organization are more and more in demand especially in the urban and inner city areas of the United States. The entry of such personnel is most beneficial to the health, welfare and cultural interests of our nation. Turning to the Western Hemisphere we are faced with another set of problems-dearth of numbers, lack of a preference system, no provision for the admission of refugees as such and the inability of natives of the Western Hemisphere to adjust status while in the United States. The Western Hemisphere applicant must wait fifteen months for an immigrant visa. Furthermore, no distinction is made between the nonpreference type of immigrant and the family members of lawful resident aliens. A bona fide refugee must take his place in line along with any other applicant for an immigrant visa. We would, therefore, hope that a uniform preference system be devised for both Hemispheres and one which included special status for the uprooted. It would seem prudent, however, that separate ceilings be maintained at least for the present to allow applicants from the Western Hemisphere to adjust to the new system. We suggest retention of the favored status for our neighbors in contiguous territory-Canada and Mexico-due to our close cultural, economic as well as physical ties. It is appropriate that adjustment of status be reinstated for natives of the Western Hemisphere but in the case of Canada and Mexico, the privilege might be restricted to immediate relatives. To enable the basic system for the Western Hemisphere to function in a normal fashion, we urge that the Cuban refugees, who are permitted by the Act of November 2, 1966, to apply for adjustment of status after two years residence, not be counted against the numerical ceiling for the Western Hemisphere. Furthermore the primary purpose of this special legislation, that is, to enable the Cuban refugee not only to obtain permanent residence but also expeditious naturalization so he will have a better opportunity to become self-supporting and assimilated into the American stream of life is being thwarted by the fifteen month delay in obtaining a visa number. There is also a pressing need for a complete re-examination of our nationality and naturalization laws and policies. H.R. 18923, the Administration bill, suggests some thirty odd amendments, many of which have resulted from administrative experience over the past eighteen years when the Congress codified the then existing laws as well as from a number of court decisions which have altered the statutes. In view of the immensity of the problem we endorse the approach contained in H.R. 15092 of establishing a Select Commission on Nationality and Naturalization whose function would be to examine, evaluate and make legislative recommendations for improvement. Our national immigration policy has been under almost constant review for over the past fifty years. This is as it should be in light of ever changing world conditions and of our social and economic developments. However, it should always be kept in mind that on the whole, our immigration policy should and does reflect our outlook for the future. If we have faith in our nation, its economy and world leadership, we should recognize that immigration is not only part of our heritage but essential to our future. STATEMENT OF FILINDO B. MASINO My name is Filindo B. Masino, and I am a lawyer, having been admitted to practice since 1932, in the city and county of Philadelphia, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and thereafter in the Federal courts in the Philadelphia area and the United States Supreme Court. After spending about three and a half years, from August, 1942 to January, 1946, with the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the United States Department of Justice, my practice has related principally to the disciplines of immigration and nationality. The Philadelphia Bar Association, The American Institute for Italian Culture, and the Philadelphia Men's Apparel Industry, have authorized and commissioned me to review and comment on legislative proposals for updating, improving and correcting inadequacies in the current immigration and naturalization laws and procedures. Each organization views the problem in different perspective, but all are sensitive to and share concern with the involved legal, social, and economic dimensions. To this end they find common ground in the following proposals, and importune your Honorable Committee to sponsor creative legislation, oriented to social and ethnical equality, and at the same time prospectively designed for the social and economic welfare of our country, the due process of law, and rational and humane governmental administration. The Philadelphia Bar Association is the oldest society of lawyers and judges in the United States, and numbers over 4,200 members of approximately 5,000 lawyers enrolled and licensed to practice law in the county of Philadelphia. The American Institute for Italian Culture, which numbers about 300 members, is a nonprofit educational organization whose primary objective is to foster a better understanding of, and a greater appreciation for, all disciplines of Italian culture, to which end the organization has presented a fairly extensive cultural program within metropolitan Philadelphia and the so-called Delaware Valley, which comprises Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The Philadelphia Men's Apparel Industry includes leaders in retail, manufacturing and sales throughout the Greater Delaware Valley market, of all segments of the men's wear industry. It is the largest in the United States, with a gross annual product of over a billion dollars; and all segments work in close harmony and cooperation for the benefit of the industry, labor and the community. The 1969 "Report of the Visa Office" effectively summarizes the features of the October 3, 1965 Amendment, and the latest State Department Bulletin on current availability of visas indicates the general over-all workability of the law. But, any formula to effectively and rationally structure the future allocat ing of visas numerically should be viewed with the purpose of wiping the slate clean of currently over-subscribed categories, so that there will be no carry over of any backlogs. It is therefore suggested that the current backlogs in the Third, Fifth and Sixth Preferences be cancelled, by providing numerically-exempt visas for intending immigrants who are the beneficiaries of appropriate visa petitions filed on or before July 1, 1970; that backlog Fifth Preference beneficiaries be exempt from the provisions of Section 212(a) (14); and that backlog Sixth Preference beneficiaries under the Italian and Filipino Quotas be exempt from new or current labor certifications. We hail the provisions of H.R. 17370 as being the most realistic and effective innovation which will substantially benefit, prospectively, the national economy, cultural interests, welfare, and reunite families; and since all proposals before your Honorable Committee are revision-oriented, we suggest the following additional changes: 1. Under current procedures, minor citizens may petition for and accord Fifth Preference Status to their alien brothers or sisters. It therefore seems just and fair that the same privilege be accorded to citizen sons and/or daughters petitioning for an alien parent, who, otherwise, is obliged to qualify under another relative category, or as a skilled worker, or wait until the child becomes 21 years of age. 2. Parents of lawfully admitted aliens should be included in the Rodino Bill First Preference Category, and the restriction to unmarried brothers and sisters of United States Citizens be removed. 3. The annual ceiling on a world-wide basis should be raised to 300,000 with annual restriction for each foreign country of 30,000. 4. Grant the Secretary of State authority to review the decisions of consular officers in all visa matters, with final appeal to either a court or statutory board of immigration visa and passport appeals. To this extent, it is suggested that the present Board of Immigration Appeals be enlarged to embrace four members from the State Department, two from the Passport Office, and two from the Visa Office, with its present authority extended to review decisions of the State Department, in visa and passport matters, and with additional jurisdiction on appeal from the Regional Immigration Commissioners and District Directors, in all decisions affecting visa, immigration and citizenship problems. 5. Amend Section 360 (b) to grant a person outside the United States equal right to litigate in our courts his claim to citizenship, without the necessity of establishing prior physical presence here; and make the issuance of a certificate of identity, to him, to enable him to enter the United States to prosecute his claim, mandatory upon the commencement of appropriate court proceedings. 6. Provide a statute of limitations of 10 years to prevent deportation; and vest discretionary power in administrative officials to waive, as distinguished from suspend, deportation in hardship cases, on a showing of sufficient cause, subject to full and impartial administrative and judicial review. Public hearings such as this on proposals to revise and modernize the already. established procedural laws on Immigration and Citizenship, bids fair to humanize and conform our policy and philosophy with modern concepts and recent decisional trends. This is healthy and should be given top-drawer attention. (Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.) |