TO AMEND THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 1970 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The Subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m. in room 2226, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael A. Feighan (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Feighan, Rodino, Eilberg, and Dennis. Staff members present: Garner Cline, counsel, and Donald Benn, associate counsel. Mr. FEIGHAN. The Subcommittee will come to order. We are privileged to have with us this morning the very able and distinguished senior Senator of Massachusetts, a member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the Honorable Edward M. Kennedy. Senator Kennedy is chairman of the Subcommittee on Refugees and has devoted a considerable amount of his time and exceptional talents to the very serious problems of refugees which exist in many areas of the world. Senator Kennedy has shown deep concern in the problems of immigration. On the floor of the Senate, he managed the Immigration Act of 1965. On the whole, the operation of the 1965 act has been an improvement. However, problems which were not anticipated prior to the enactment of the 1965 act have occurred with regard to certain aspects of the Immigration and Nationality Act. I have introduced a bill in the House with 50 cosponsors and Senator Kennedy has introduced a bill in the Senate with 24 cosponsors to correct deficiencies in the present law. Bills were also introduced by Messrs. Celler, Rodino, and Eilberg. Our present hearings are considering various aspects of Western Hemisphere immigration and the operation of the preference system on the Eastern Hemisphere. On behalf of the Subcommittee, I want to extend to you, Senator, a very warm and cordial welcome. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee. I want to say how much I appreciate personally the opportunity to be with you this morning and to commend this committee for the very careful diligence that it takes in the matters of immigration and also concerns itself with the problems of refugees. I have had an opportunity in the past to visit and talk with many members of the committee on immigration matters, as well as to attend different kinds of international symposia with the members of the committee. I feel that there is an extraordinary degree of expertise and concern with the whole problem that we face in terms of immigration. I particularly appreciate the chance to appear before you, Mr. Chairman, and the Committee, this morning. I would like, with the indulgence of the Committee, to have my full statement included in the record. There is a certain limited appendixes which I think would also elaborate on some of the views that I hold on matters which I know are of concern to this Committee and it might be of some interest to the other members of the Committee, and also to the staff personnel. If that is agreeable, I would summarize just briefly the points that I would like to make. Mr. FEIGHAN. Without objection, it will be inserted. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY ON IMMIGRATION REFORM BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION July 22, 1970. MR. CHAIRMAN: I am delighted with the opportunity to be here this morning to support needed reforms in a significant area of public policy and concern. If I may, I would like to give a brief statement summarizing today's principal issues in the immigration field, which I feel deserve the close attention of the Subcommittee and I would like to sbmit additional information for the record, including an article I recently prepared for the summer issue of the International Migration Review. On October 3, 1965, President Johnson signed into law the Immigration Act of 1965, which eliminated the national origin quota system from the statute books. This act broadened a central theme in American history-equality of opportunity. It stands today with legislation in other fields-civil rights, poverty, education, and health-to reaffirm our Nation's continuing pursuit of justice, equality, and freedom. But the Act of 1965 was only the beginning of an important task. It did not include a number of additional and needed reforms. It failed to resolve a number of important issues relating to immigration from Western Hemisphere countries. And it fell short of the desired flexibility in immigration policy initially recommended by President Kennedy and President Johnson. Along with many Members of Congress, I strongly feel that new legislation is long overdue. Several items are on the agenda for action. First, we need to refine the immigration system established in 1965. As the Subcommittee knows, under current law, visa applicants in the Eastern and Western Hemispheres are treated separately, and subject to different regulations and procedures. The chaotic situation in the allocation of visas to applicants in Western Hemisphere countries is especially tragic, and is not meeting immigration needs today, or what we can anticipate in the future. For different reasons--and to a lesser degree-a similar situation exists in the Eastern Hemisphere, especially among applicants in Ireland, Germany, and other countries of northern and western Europe. Without changing the first-come, first-served principle established in 1965– and without increasing the number of immigrants currently provided for from both hemispheres-I urge the Subcommittee to consider establishing a worldwide annual ceiling on immigration, with a uniform preference system applying to visa applicants in all countries. In this connection, I strongly recommend that Cuban refugees now counted in the immigration ceiling of the Western Hemisphere, be eliminated from all ceiling considerations-and that the allocation of visas in a uniform preference system be made as flexible as possible, to meet changing immigration needs over the next several years. The materials I submit for the record will elaborate my views on this issue. A second item on the agenda is the need to further strengthen our country's traditional immigration objective to re-unite families. We need a board of visa appeals to review the denial of an immigrant visa whenever the family interests of a United States citizen or permanent resident alien is involved. We need to give preference status to parents of permanent resident aliens. We should try to be more flexible and compassionate in admitting the relatively few mentally retarded children of immigrant families. And, finally, we should make an effort to clean up the backlogs in Italy and elsewhere for the fifth preference brothers and sisters of United States citizens. Third, there is an urgent need to revitalize our asylum policy for refugees. As Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Refugees, I know how generous the United States has been in providing resettlement opportunities to refugeesbut I also know there is much more that needs to be done for the world's homeless, and much more that our country can do. A comprehensive asylum policy for refugees is long overdue. We should increase the number of visas allocated to refugees within the preference system--and, most importantly, broaden the definition of a refugee from its present European and cold war framework, to include the homeless throughout the world-in South America, southern Africa, and elsewhere. I would strongly suggest a definition similar to that contained in the convention relating to the status of refugees of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Its inclusion in the basic immigration statute is a logical extension of accession, by the United States, to the United Nations protocol relating to the status of refugees in 1968. To complete a new asylum policy and provide maximum flexibility in the reception of refugees, the Attorney General should have a permanent authority, under section 212(d) (5) of the basic immigration statute, to parole additional refugees into the country in times of emergency. The needless hesitancy of the present administration to parole refugees from Czechoslovakia and Poland earlier this year-many of whom were joining relatives in this country-strongly suggests the need for such authority. In the case of refugee parolees, we should also have in our laws a permanent authority to adjust their status to that of permanent residence. This will avoid the need for special legislation of the kind required in the past for refugees from Hungary and Cuba. A fourth item on the agenda is the need to further implement the democratic concepts of human dignity and equal opportunity under law. Long overdue, for example, is a statute of limitations in deportations. Moreover, there is little doubt that many provisions of nationality and naturalization law are products of a harsher period in America's history, and should have no place in the public policy of a free society. I have outlined some of the principle immigration objectives which I feel deserve the close attention of this Subcommittee. In the absence of any initiative by the present administration, a few months ago some 24 Senators-from both parties-joined me in introducing a congressional alternative-S. 3202-to accomplish these objectives. A companion bill, H.R. 15092, was simultaneously introduced by the distinguished Chairman of this Subcommittee. Other bills are pending as well. An additional immigration objective-and one which cries out for immediate action-is the urgent need for legislation and administrative rulings to better regulate the flow of workers from Mexico. Among the pending bills is S. 1694, which I introduced last year, and its companion, H.R. 9505, which, again, was introduced by the Chairman of this Subcommittee. The grinding poverty, high unemployment, and low wages in many of our communities along the Mexican border is well known and a national disgrace. The readily available and generally low-paid work force from Mexico is an important factor contributing to this distressing situation. Some measure of relief is needed now-and I strongly urge that the Subcommittee give this matter top priority in its deliberations over the coming weeks. In conclusion, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that it is difficult at this time in our Nation's life-when we are faced with convulsive problems at home and abroad-to concentrate effort and concern on the currently less dramatic aspects of our country's progress and pursuit of justice. But certainly there is much to do in perfecting the policy which governs the oldest theme in our Nation's history. And unless informed citizens, the Congress, and the administration give immigration issues the attention they need and deserve, much chaos will result in a significant area of public policy, which will shorten the hopes of many and needlessly injure America's relations with countries throughout the world. Senator KENNEDY. First of all, as pointed out by the chairman, the changes that were made in the 1965 act did a great deal to move us to a more enlightened immigration policy, in eliminating the national origin quota system in the Asian Pacific triangle. I think all of us were aware at that time that there were going to have to be adjustments and changes made. I think now that we have at least seen this act in operation, the areas for concern for change spring out to us, and I do think we have an obligation to try and make these adjustments. First, as the Subcommittee knows, under current law, visa applicants in the Eastern and Western Hemispheres are treated separately, and subject to different regulations and procedures. The chaotic situation in the allocation of visas to applicants in Western Hemisphere countries is especially tragic, and is not meeting immigration needs today, or what we can anticipate in the future. For different reasons and to a lesser degree-a similar situation exists in the Eastern Hemispheres, especially among applicants in Ireland, Germany, and other countries of Northern and Western Europe. Without changing the first-come, first-served principle established in 1965 and without increasing the number of immigrants currently provided for from both hemispheres-I urge the Subcommittee to consider establishing a worldwide annual ceiling on immigration, with a uniform preference system applying to visa applicants in all countries. In this connection, I strongly recommend that Cuban refugees, now counted in the immigration ceiling of the Western Hemisphere, be eliminated from all ceiling considerations. I feel that that is a separate concern. It is a separate program, a separate obligation, and I would hope that they would be eliminated from all ceiling considerations, and that the allocation of visas in a uniform preference system be made as flexible as possible, to meet changing immigration needs over the next several years. The materials I submit for the record will elaborate my views on this issue. A second item on the agenda is the need to further strengthen our country's traditional immigration objective to reunite families. We need a board of visa appeals to review the denial of an immigrant visa whenever the family interests of a U.S. citizen or permanent resident alien is involved. We need to give preference status to parents of permanent resident aliens. We should try to be more flexible and compassionate in admitting the relatively few mentally retarded children of immigrant families. A few of them have been admitted, but they have been very few. I do think that we ought to at least consider this adjustment. And, finally, we should make an effort to clean up the backlogs in Italy and elsewhere for the fifth preference brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens. Obviously, in terms of our 1965 act one of the fundamental principles was reunification of families. There are still many families which are separated and, hopefully, we could make that adjustment in any new immigration consideration. Third, there is an urgent need to revitalize our asylum policy for refugees. As chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Refugees, I know how generous the United States has been in providing resettlement opportunities to refugees-but I also know there is much more that needs to be done for the world's homeless and much more that our country can do. A comprehensive asylum policy for refugees is long overdue. We should increase the number of visas allocated to refugees within the preference system-and, most importantly, broaden the definition of a refugee from its present European and cold war framework, to include the homeless throughout the world-in South America, Southern Africa, and elsewhere. I would strongly suggest a definition similar to that contained in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. Its inclusion in the basic immigration statute is a logical extension of accession, by the United States, to the U.N. protocol relating to the status of refugees in 1968. To complete a new asylum policy and provide maximum flexibility in the reception of refugees, the Attorney General should have a permanent authority, under section 212(d) (5) of the basic immigration statute, to parole additional refugees into the country in times of emergency. You are familiar with the instances where they have taken that opportunity in the past. Hopefully, we could establish it by statute, which would clarify it once and for all. There has always been a question as to the authority of the Attorney General in this area and matter. I don't think it has been abused in the past. I think it would be helpful if we could at least identify it in statute form. Mr. RODINO. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question? Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Rodino. Mr. RODINO. Senator, would you favor a provision limiting the number of refugees specifically, or would you rather that we had a more flexible provision and some safeguards against any possible abuse? Senator KENNEDY. The latter would be my preference. I think, realistically, in terms of attempting to make these other kinds of adjustments which I have mentioned in here-which I think would really bring out immigration policy into a much more favorable and equitable system-I would, I think, make the adjustments of retaining a worldwide ceiling if we could get these other adjustments. I naturally sympathize with the kind of flexible program which you have mentioned and which you have long advocated. I think realistically that it would be extremely difficult, not just speaking in terms of the kinds of support we could gain, I am sure in the Senate, to have more flexible numbers coming into this country, but I think if we were able, at least for a period, to make these other kinds of adjustments which there is a crying need for and retain those basic ceiling numbers, that there is some hope for this kind of program. When we are able to bring our immigration policy up to the more fair and equitable system, then I think as our population gradually expands, as we are able to make economic kinds of adjustments and move back into a full employment situation, then I think we can take a look and see how it could possibly be expanded. Mr. RODINO. Thank you, Senator. |