Page images
PDF
EPUB

ceding application for a visa been employed principally by religious organizations and are seeking entry to the United States to continue such employment; (b) aliens who establish that they will not seek employment in the United States or will not have to earn a living; (c) aliens who seek to enter the United States to invest capital, services, or techniques.

Nonpreference: 10% of the 250,000 visas plus any unused numbers from the first four preference categories are reserved for any other applicants who are not able to qualify for a preference. In addition, 25% of whatever is available to this category is reserved for persons under 25 years of age who would be exempt fom a labor certification.

Section 6. The petition procedure to accord preference status and special immigrant status is amended to conform with amendments in this bill.

Section 7. The Attorney General is given discretion to admit an alien to the United States who, through no fault on his part, arrives at a port of entry with an erroneous visa classification.

Section 8. Technical amendments to conform section 212 (a) (14) to the new preference system.

Section 9. A new refugee system is created without a numerical limitation, but which can be discontinued by a resolution of either body of Congress. The Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State and in order to promote United States interests, is authorized to parole certain defined refugees into the United States. After two years, the amendment provides for retroactive adjustment of status to that of a permanent resident. Applicability of the section is directed at refugees from Communism, refugees from persecution, and those victims of natural calamity or military operations. Furthermore, the Attorney General must report to the Congress semi-annually on the progress of this authority.

Section 10. Present law provides a waiver of exclusion for mental retardation if the alien is the spouse, unmarried son or daughter, minor unmarried adopted child of a United States citizen or lawfully admitted permanent resident. This amendment includes aliens who have a mental defect within the waiver possibility.

Section 11. Section 245 is amended to permit adjustment of status in the United States for all qualified aliens except aliens from countries contiguous to the United States and from adjacent islands.

Section 12. Obsolete sections of the Act of October 3, 1965 are repealed.

Section 13. Any alien eligible for fifth preference status on the basis of a petition filed prior to July 1, 1970, and who has retained the status accorded by the petition, and the spouse and children of such alien, shall be documented as special immigrants.

Mr. RODINO. I merely want to commend you for scheduling the hearings on this legislation which would amend the system by which the United States selects its immigrants. As you recall, Mr. Chairman, there are some of us who served on the Subcommittee on Immigration and Nationality when the Act of October 3, 1965, was under consideration. We realized at that time that that legislation would not be a final step, and we anticipated that perfecting amendments would be necessary. However, we had an avowed objective of enacting a fair, equitable and reasonable immigration policy. We have found with experience that there are some inequities that still exist and there are corrective measures that must and should be taken.

I, for one, have considered the Act of October 3, 1965, rather extensively and as a result of my research I have prepared a remedial bill which is not too far apart from bills which have been introduced by both you and Mr. Celler and others. I am hopeful that as a result of these deliberations we may agree on the kind of legislation which

will remove the inequities and reach the goal which we intended to reach in 1965.

My bill very simply has four major features: One, a worldwide ceiling on immigration, excepting Canada and Mexico; two, a more flexible provision for refugees; three, a realistic preference system; fourth, and importantly, the elimination of the existing backlog of the fifth preference for brothers and sisters.

With regard to this latter feature, it was intended by the drafters of the Act of October 3, 1965, that the transition period would completely eradicate the then existing backlogs. This has not been the case. For that reason I have given a great deal of attention to the fifth preference backlog and hopefully my proposal will be given serious consideration and the elimination of the backlog will be accomplished. With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for allowing me to make that statement.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you, Mr. Rodino.

Considerable interest in revising the immigration law has been manifested by Members of Congress. This morning the Subcommittee is privileged to have several of our colleagues as witnesses. The first witness will be our very able and distinguished colleague from New York, Frank Horton, who has expressed tremendous interest in immigration problems and has devoted much of his time and exceptional talent to the many perplexing problems and issues presented in the immigration field.

We are very pleased to extend to you a warm and cordial welcome, Mr. Horton. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK HORTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. HORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, it is with great pleasure and a great sense of hope that I testify before you this morning in support of your bill, H.R. 15093, which I cosponsored with you and other colleagues on December 4, 1969.

I would begin by saying that the consideration of this bill is both timely and necessary. Your initiative, Mr. Chairman, in drafting and introducing this legislation, and in holding these hearings, is evidence to me of your responsible national leadership in the field of immigration.

For any Member of Congress whose district includes significant nationality group population, or whose constituent industries have, over the years, sought admission of skilled aliens, it becomes obvious that this bill was drafted with an objective view of the problems which, while mainly unanticipated, have grown out of the adoption of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. In that landmark bill, also passed under your able leadership, Congress finally ended a long era of American history where nationality quotas and implied discrimination were the keystones of American immigration law.

52-013-71-5

The result of the present law has been overwhelmingly positive in its overall effect. However, some serious problems were created, or left unresolved, and it is these problems at which our bill is aimed.

One of the worst after-effects of the 1965 act resulted from a provision added to that bill which, while originally rejected in the House, was adopted in the Senate version. I am referring to the overall quota of 120,000 immigrant visas per year placed on the entire Western Hemisphere. The most serious effect of this limitation has been to substantially curtail immigration from Canada and to impose, as a result, an intolerable waiting period for all Canadians seeking to come here permanently.

Without taking too much of this Subcommittee's time, Mr. Chairman, I would direct your attention to an extensive statement I included in the Congressional Record on December 4, the date H.R. 15093 was introduced. In this statement, I have detailed the adverse effects of this quota provision on our country's special relationship with Canada-particularly on the free exchange of skilled and technical talent between the United States and Canada. For the past 2 years, I have served as a participant in the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Conference. I have heard firsthand from Canadian members of Parliament their extreme unhappiness with the present backlog and quota system which immigration from Canada has been subjected to. I might add that individuals and companies in my district, which is on the south shore of Lake Ontario, have also complained about this situation.

I have included in my record statement much of the correspondence I have had from Canadian M.P.'s, along with extensive statistics on the trend in immigrant visas issued to Canadians over the past several years and with a discussion of some exemplary cases which arose under the present law. I ask unanimous consent to include this statement in the hearing record, Mr. Chairman. I would urge that this Subcommittee consider and review the facts it contains during deliberation on this bill.

It is a rather lengthy statement but I have included some statistics and also letters from Members of Parliament about specific situations which I think would be of help to those reading the Record. I think perhaps it would be of help to the members of the Committee. Mr. FEIGHAN. Without objection, that will be done. (The material referred to follows:)

INTOLERABLE QUOTA SYSTEM STRAINS UNITED STATES-CANADA RELATIONS

(Mr. Horton asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the Record and to include extraneous matter.)

Mr. HORTON. Mr. Speaker, the relationship between the United States and our neighbor to the north, Canada, is unique in the world community. Throughout the entire world there are no two countries more similar in character and national values.

No other countries are the product of such a common heritage and mutual interests which span the entire spectrum of international associations.

Canada and the United States have grown up together. They share the longest unguarded international boundary in the world which is dramatically demonstrated by the free flow of ideas in both directions.

Today, Mr. Speaker, that tradition of neighborliness is being threatened. For the first time in our history a barrier is being thrown up. This barrier-an intolerable immigration quota system-is placing a severe strain on the business and political relations between our countries.

This quota, which was established July 1, 1968, allows only 120,000 persons from Western Hemisphere countries to immigrate to the United States in any year. The effect on Canadian immigrants is dramatic. In the first year the number of Canadians coming into the United States has dropped from 30,000 to 16,000.

As a participant of the United States-Canada Interparliamentary meeting last summer, I have seen firsthand the great effectiveness of the formal and informal exchanges of information and views between our administrations, legislatures, and military. Similar exchanges take place continuously between American and Canadian business, labor, academic, and cultural leaders.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to join with the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Nationality of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Feighan, in a bill to substantially revise and update the Immigration and Nationality Act.

In my estimation this measure would eliminate the serious problem affecting our neighbors to the north and end the unfairness in the present law.

The most significant provision of Mr. Feighan's legislation is that it would create a unified worldwide preference system and numerical ceiling.

After a 3-year transition period, a worldwide ceiling of 300,000 would be imposed on both hemispheres. During the transition period, the Eastern and Western Hemispheres would have numerical limitations of 170,000 and 130,000. Each foreign country would have a limitation of 20,000 except Canada and Mexico which would have 35,000.

This measure would allow the traditional interchange between United States and Canadian firms. It would establish a nonimmigrant category to permit executive, managerial, and specialist personnel to enter the United States to assume employment with an international corporation for whom he had previously been employed abroad.

The United States and Canada have traditionally had extremely close social, cultural and economic relations. Canadian and American business firms and industries have operated freely in both countries. Many American firms have subsidiaries or affiliates in Canada and numerous Canadian concerns have established offices or have affiliates here.

Canadian and American corporations have grown accustomed to transferring executive, managerial, and specialized technical personnel to and from offices in the other country without regard to the nationality of the individual.

In addition, a large number of workers in both countries are members of binational unions and have taken jobs in the other country while retaining their union membership and seniority rights.

This phenomenon exists as well in fields other than business and industry. For example, the American Medical Association and its Canadian counterpart have reciprocal agreements, which are officially honored, concerning the recognition in the one country of medical degrees conferred by medical schools in the other country.

Canada is the only country in the world with which the United States has such an agreement.

Until July 1, 1968 both Canadian and United States immigration policy were such that no restrictions were placed on this flow of people in either direction. Each country imposed certain qualitative restrictions on immigration but neither imposed a quantitative restriction on immigration from the other. Canadian immigration policy remains today as it has been.

There is no numerical restriction on immigration to Canada from the United States. On the other hand, the imposition by the United States of a numerical limitation on immigration by persons born in independent countries of the Western Hemisphere has had the unintended effect of seriously curtailing immigration to this country from Canada.

Section 21(e) of the Act of October 3, 1965 provided that, unless legislation inconsistent therewith were enacted on or before June 30, 1968, a 120,000 per annum ceiling on immigration by persons born in independent countries of the Western Hemisphere would enter into force on July 1, 1968. This was the first time in the history of U.S. immigration policy that a quantitative limitation was imposed on intra-hemisphere immigration.

As H.R. 2580, the bill which was to become the Act of October 3, 1965, was reported to the House of Representatives, it did not contain a Western Hemisphere immigration limitation. However, the Senate amended the bill to include section 1 which, in addition to establishing the numerical limitation, provided for a

Select Commission to study Western Hemisphere immigration. The conferees approved the Senate amendment and the bill was passed by both Houses in its amended form.

The Select Commission recommended that the imposition of the Western Hemisphere ceiling be postponed for 1 year to allow further study of the effect of the labor certification procedure on Western Hemisphere immigration.

The State Department representative on the Commission expressed his individual views in the report pointing out that the limitation as contained in the Act of October 3, 1965, would not permit us to fully satisfy the immigration demand from the Western Hemisphere. In spite of the recommendations of the Select Commission, the Western Hemisphere limitation did enter into force on July 1, 1968, and without an exception for Cuban adjustees.

Unlike the selection system set up under the limitation applicable to immigrants in the Eastern Hemisphere, no preference system was established for Western Hemisphere applicants. Such applicants are processed in the chronological order of their priority date, namely the order in which they become entitled to immigrant status by obtaining a labor certification or establishing that the labor certification requirements do not apply to them. In other words, this is a first come, first served basis.

The demand for immigration from the Western Hemisphere is greater than can be satisfied within the 120,000 limitation. To date, during the current fiscal year visas have been issued only to applicants with a priority date prior to December 15, 1968. Thus as of November 1969, applicants who have been waiting 11 months will be receiving visas. Longer waiting periods may be expected in the future. Although the waiting period is uniform for all Western Hemisphere applicants, the strongest impact has been felt by Canadian immigrants. During the 5 fiscal years preceding July 1, 1968, Canadian immigration averaged over 31,000 per year, whereas in fiscal year 1969 less than 16,000 immigrant visas were issued to persons born in Canada.

By contrast, about 40,000 visas were issued to persons born in Mexico in fiscal year 1969, which is in line with the average Mexican immigration of about 40,000 in fiscal years 1964 through 1968. The difference in the impact on immigration from these two countries is caused in part by the fact that more Mexican immigrants are able to establish exemption from the labor certification requirements because of relationship to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Also, the pattern of immigration from many Western Hemisphere countries other than Canada has been for the head of the family to proceed to the United States first and bring his family after he has established himself here. Since the spouse and children can take as their priority date for immigration purposes the priority date of the principal applicant, the family members are often able to immigrate ahead of those who have been waiting their turn on the basis of approved labor certifications.

This has resulted in a dramatic change in the countries from which Western Hemisphere immigrants come, as illustrated by the following statistical table:

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »