Speech #820209658

I assume. that this construction would be an unreasonable interpretation of the language of the section. In response to such a contention. I assert that if an alien from the United States cannot quickly establish a residence in Canada for purposes of readmission. then a refugee from Prague is similarly restricted in establishment of a residence in Paris. This thesis finds ample support in the proposed definition of "residence" in section 101 (a) (33) as ones "principal. actual dwelling place in fact. without regard to intent." In place of the present preexamination techniques. section 245 of S. 2550 substitutes a procedure known as "adjustment of status" which drastically curtails the authority of the Attorney General to grant relief in deserving cases. Where preexamination is available to aliens who did not legally enter as nonimmigrants or who lost their nonImmigrant status. adjustment of status is limited to legally admitted and bonafide nonimmigrants who at all times preserved their original status. Thus. an alien who lost his nonimmigrant status for reasons beyond his control would be barred from relief regardless of the merits of his case. In addition. for the alien to qualify for adjustment of status. a quota immigrant visa must be immediately available to him both at the time of his application and at the time the application is approved. In the case of oversubscribed quotas. these requirements are obviously impossible to meet. I wish my colleagues would bear me out on this next point. because I think it is a rather important phase which should be discussed. A second unreasonable provision of S. 2550 is section 212 (a) (25). which. for purposes of immigration. abolishes the present exemption from literacy requirements accorded the victims of foreign religious persecutions. and also accorded close relatives of legally admitted aliens and citizens of the United States. The proposed restrictions would adversely affect only our friends. those who have ties in the United States and look to us for sympathy because they are being hounded in totalitarian lands. At this time. when we are seeking to assist oppressed peoples throughout the world. I do not understand why we are asked to eliminate a provision which is founded upon a noble and wholesome humanitarian philosophy. A third major provision of S. 2550. which I believe worthy of condemnation. is section 101 (a) (26) (F). which drops college and university professors from the class of nonquota immigrants. Actually. the educators who have chosen America as their home have made invaluable contributions to our national economy and culture. indeed. without them we would never have been able to achieve the tremendous advances in technology which have characterized our production in recent years. When we strive by selective immigration to increase American strength. we should not erect new barriers against those who could do most to accomplish that end.