Speech #890018323

In my judgment. greater Cleveland is reflective of the majority of the metropolitan centers of our country. It represents a cross section of the people who have built our country and whose hopes. ideals. and aspirations sustain us in these troubled times. The results of the questionnaire survey pointed at the major issues are as follows: The first question was whether there should be a limit to the number of immigrants we admit each year. This is pertinent because under the present law and the pending proposal of the administration. there is no limit set on the number of immigrants to be admitted89 percent held there should be a limit set while 11 percent held no limit should be set. The second question was whether the present rate of 300.000 immigrant admissions a year was about right. too high. or too low. This is pertinent because there is disagreement on how many immigrants we should admit each year and many people hesitate to estimate how many we can assimilate at this advanced stage of our national development55 percent held that the present rate Is about right. 13 percent felt it was too high and 32 percent held it was too low. The third question was whether Congress should set the limit by law on the number of Immigrants we admit. This is pertinent because as I have said previously neither the present law nor the pending administration proposals sets a limit. Further. Congress is responsible for regulating immigration into the United States and thereby has responsibility for quantitative as well as qualitative controls79 percent held that Congress should set a limit by law on immigration admission while 21 percent felt Congress should not set a limit by law. The fourth question was whether the President should be delegated authority to decide the limit and how visas should be distributed between countries and classes of aliens. This is pertinent because the pending administration proposal calls for a delegation of this authority from the Congress to the President64 percent held that Congress should not delegate that authority while 36 percent felt Congress should so delegate. Among the 36percent group there were a number who qualified their answer with such statements as. "to meet emergencies only." or. "to cut down when unemployment is high." and similar qualifiers. The fifth question was a multiple choice type. between preferences which should regulate Issuance of visas. Five choices were offered with the request they be marked 1 to 5 based on priority to be given. This is pertinent because there is disagreement as to what criteria should be used to determine how visas should be allocated among the various classes of aliens applying for admission. Here 67 percent held that relatives of U.S. citizens should have first preference while only 10 percent felt Communist oppressed should have first preference while only 10 percent felt skilled workers should have first preference. The other choices. relatives of aliens living in the United States. and semiskilled workers were not rated as a first preference by any of the respondents. Further details on the breakdown of this multiplechoice question are appended to my remarks. The sixth question was whether the Individual receiving the questionnaire was aware that nonquota immigrant visas had doubled quota immigrant visas during the past 10 years. This is pertinent because of the public confusion on quota immigration and the popular but false belief that the quota system regulated immigration into the United States--63 percent stated they were not aware of the fact that nonquota immigration has doubled quota immigration while 37 percent said they were aware of this fact. The seventh question was whether the national origins quota system should be repealed or retained in law. This is pertinent because President Johnson has called for repeal as the basic and overriding purpose of his message to Congress for immigration reform88 percent held for repeal and 12 percent for retention of the national origins quota system. The eighth question was whether we should continue open and unrestricted immigration by natives of countries of the Western Hemisphere or whether they should be treated like all other alien applicants for admission. This is pertinent for several reasons. First there is the basic question of discrimination. When the quota system was adopted 40 years ago. natives of countries of the Western Hemisphere were made nonquota. that is. except from the quota system based upon national origin. This exemption was based strictly on the accident of place of birth just as the limit set for quota countries is today criticized because of the controlling factor of accident of place of birth. President Johnson has called upon Congress to remove from the law those factors which prejudge an applicant for admission based upon the place where he was born or how he spells his name. Further. nonquota immigration from the Western Hemisphere has been averaging 110.000 admissions a year for the past 10 years. with the prospect that this figure will continue to rise in the years ahead91 percent held that natives of countries of the Western Hemisphere who seek admission should be treated like all other alien applicants. while 9 percent favored a continuation of the present nonquota privileges. However. almost half of the 9 percent favoring a continuation of nonquota status. qualified their reply by stating some special arrangement should be made for Canada. The ninth question was whether there should be a limit to the number of refugees we admit each year. This Is pertinent because the administration proposal calls for broad authority from Congress to admit refugees under a questionable "parole" status. with no indication as to how many will be admitted and who specifically would qualify as a refugee. Further. there appears to be some reasonable concern that bona fide refugees might get lost in the maze of administrative determinations forecast by calm observers should Congress grant to the Attorney General this broad authority on refugee admissions84 percent held that there should be a limit set on the number of refugees we admit while 16 percent favored no limit. The 10th question was whether Congress should provide safeguards in law to prevent immigrants from competing for jobs which American workers can fill. This is pertinent because of present unemployment. our job retraining programs to help native Americans meet the demands of automation and the expressed concerns of rankandfile workers. many among the unemployed. that newly arrived immigrants will compete with them for employment opportunities. Further. there are the concerns of native Americans who are now preparing themselves for skilled occupations and who will have their first real chance to compete on an equal basis for the better paying jobs57 percent felt Congress should provide safeguards to prevent job competition from newly arrived immigrants. while 43 percent held that Congress should not provide such safeguards. Mr. Speaker. it is no secret that immigration reform is an emotionally charged public issue. The advocates of farreaching reforms. though well Intended. are frequently blind to the realities which Congress must face up to in meeting its obligation to regulate immigration into the United States. Moreover. I have found that very few of the reformers have a full grasp of the implications of the reforms they advocate. Similarly. opponents of any reform in the present program. though well intended. are frequently blind to the need to correct abuses and inequities which have "termited" their way into the program over a period of years. Moreover. I have found that very few. if any. of the advocates of status quo have any clear conception of the manner in which their opposition to change is being used to prevent Congress from establishing an immigration policy based upon the governing directives of clearcut law. To illustrate my point. I offer these rather elementary examples: Those who oppose the national origins quota system have been molded into advocates of open and largely unrestricted immigration. I do not charge they are aware of their predicament. I only state the reality of their position. Those who advocate maintaining the national origins quota system have been molded into opponents of reasonable efforts to establish a selective immigration policy with both quantitative and qualitative controls. under directives of law which recognize the practical demands of life in the United States in the 1960s. The irony is that those who fight for a status quo in the immigration field are in fact fighting for an extension of nonquota immigration which means a policy of open and unrestricted immigration. I do not charge that all advocates of the status quo are aware of their predicament. I only state the reality of their position. Mr. Speaker. because of the interest expressed by many Members of Congress in the questionnaire I utilized to canvass opinion on the major issues related to pending immigration legislation. I include a copy of the form used together with a tabulation of the replies thereto: