Speech #830105976

C. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Millions of Americans were happy to note during the recent election campaign that as far as the two Presidential candidates were concerned. the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was not a controversial issue. Both you and Governor Stevenson agreed that it had to be amended. More recently. you have written to Senator WATKINS about that act calling his attention to a number of complaints which you had received about it. I am certain. though. that many of my colleagues would be interested in your thoughts and specific legislative proposals. It is for that reason that I am taking the liberty of forwarding to you a bill to amend the immigration law which I am introducing this week. My bill does not constitute a complete revision of the present Immigration and Nationality Act. It does not go as far as I would like it to go. In all probability. it does not go as far as you wish it to go. However. it seems to me to be a fair beginning bill on which reasonable men of both parties could agree at this time without the necessity of overhauling our immigration laws drastically. desirable as that may be. This bill would ameliorate some of the harsh and discriminatory provisions of the present law. It would make the law more flexible and adaptable to changing world conditions. It would aid us in carrying out our foreign policy objectives and thus help us to com.bat communism. It would also go far toward relieving the continuous pressure for emergency immigration legislation. More specifically. the bill accomplishes the following: 1. Section 1 restores to professors eligibility for nonquota status (which they enjoyed prior to the McCarran Act) if a university requests their services. This proposed change is based on a feeling of confidence that our universities will select only wellqualified persons for employment on their teaching staffs. It. therefore. abolishes the unnecessary red tape and delay involved in requiring universities to obtain clearance orders from the local employment service and then proving to the Immigration Service that the professor whose immigration is being sponsored is needed urgently in the United States. My amendment in no way changes the security requirements of our laws as they concern all who wish to enter the United States. 2. Section 2 would grant to certain adopted children the immigration status enjoyed by natural children. This change would have two important effects: (a) it would make it unnecessary for adopted children of American citizens. in many instances of servicemen. to wait their turn on the quota or. as happens so often. to require that Congress pass a special bill on their behalf. (b) it would make adopted children of aliens eligible for the same -quota status or quota preference as that enjoyed by natural children. thus avoiding the heartbreaking situations in which adopted children force their family to delay their trip to the United States or have to be left behind. As section 2 applies only to children adopted prior to their reaching the age of 14 years. and as it specifically excepts chitdren adopted solely for the purpose of obtaining immigration preference for them. the danger of abuse is avoided. 3. Section 3 repeals the provision of the present law under which some quotas. generally those which are needed most urgently. are "mortgaged" for decades. in some cases even for centuries. 4. Section 4 ends one of the racially discriminatory features of the present law. It abolishes the racial ancestry blood test for persons "attributable by as much as onehalf of [their] ancestry to a people or peoples idigenous to the AsiaPacific triangle." Henceforth. all visa applicants would be classified only according to their place of birth. 5. While section 4 still retains* the nationalorigins principle. sections 5 and 6 would go far toward ameliorating its harsh effects. They do that without raising the existing overall quota ceiling of about 154.000. They simply provide that if. in any given year. no takers are found for any portion of these 154.000 numbers. that portion is not declared forfeited. as under present law. but is made available during the followIng year. without regard to national origins to (a) persons of special skills. (b) close relatives of citizens or alien residents. (c) pqrsecutees. and (d) other groups of persons whose emigration to the United States would further our foreign policy. Another change effected by this section concerns the problem of family unification. Under present law. a person qualifying under the nationalneed preference may enter this country with his wife and minor children. all of whom are covered by the preference. A yerson qualifying for preference as the brother of an American citizen. however. must leave his wife and children behind and can get a preference for them only after he has arrived in this country. Under the change provided for by this section. the preference right shall apply not only to the person directly affected. but also to his spouse and minor children so as to enable families to enter this country as single units. 6. It has often been said that a man who tries to import a sack of beans into the United States ind finds that it has been excluded. has the right of appeal. but a man who wants to bring his mother over and finds that she has beendenied a visa. has no such right. Section 7 of my bill is designed to change that situation. It is designed to modify the anomaly of the present Immigration Act under which authority for the acts of the Immigration Service (which acts in many instances through the Board of Immigration Appeals) is concentrated in the hands of the Attorney General. while authority for the acts of the Consular Service is diffused among the numerous consuls. each of whom is the final arbiter in the visa application cases before him. Section 7 concentrates responsibility in a Visa Review Board appointed by the Secretary of State. to which the sponsors of prospective immigrants may be allowed to appeal. This board would assure that visa regulations are enforced uniformly throughout the world and would also safeguard against irresponsible and capricious acts by individual consular officers. 7. The concept of justice tempered with mercy is a part of our administration of law. It is deeply imbedded in our religious traditions. It was in conformity with that concept that Congress long ago gave the Attorney General discretionary authority to suspend deportation in deserving cases. That authority was severely curtailed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. the Senate majority report on which states harshly and cruelly: "Hardship or even unusual hardship to the alien or to his spouse. parent. or child isnot sufficient to justify suspension of deportation." Under section 8 of this bill the standards for suspension of deportation contained in the law in effect prior to the adoption of the McCarran Act are restored. As suspension of deportation will only be granted in the discretion of the Attorney General and only with the concurrence of Congress. I am certain that there is no danger of this humanitarian provision being abused. 8. Sections 9 and 10 are purely procedural.