Speech #890120609

I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. the immigration policy of the United States is of great Importance and of much concern to many people. The economic health of our country. the orderliness of our society. the general wellbeing of the Nation. our national securityall are deeply involved. The object of our immigration policy is to preserve and maintain the United States as a land of liberty and opportunity and to provide a haven. consistent with our economic and political philosophy. for qualified people from otner nations of the world. The record of the United States has been most generous in the admission of immigrants. In the decade 195564. a total of 2.619.246 residents from foreign lands were taken in. The annual average of immigrants admitted to the United States has been approximately 300.000 for the last 5 years. Among those so admitted have been over 700.000 refugees and displaced persons. The generous and compassionate heart of the United States was made evident to the world when over 32.000 Hungarian victims of Communist tyranny were given refuge during the administration of President Eisenhower following the 1956 uprising in Budapest. The Secretary of State. the Honorable Dean Rusk. complimented the Congress for its record. since World War II. In the field of immigration legislation. However. he pointed out that only onethird of the immigrants who came to the United States in the last decade were quota immigrantsthat is. about twothirds of our immigrants since the passage of the WalterMcCarran Act have been admitted outside of the national origins quota system established by that act. Nonetheless it was Mr. Rusks contention that many people both at home and abroad erroneously believed our immigration policy to be one of discrimination. which selects prospective immigrants strictly on their national origin. Whether the present law discriminates depends upon what is meant by discrimination. It is my position that discrimination. as applied to our immigration policy. means selection. and the only question is whether the selection should be made by the legislative or the executive department of Government. I am of the opinion that the Congress must retain its historic responsibility for the immigration policy of the United States. H.R. 2580 as originally drafted. surrendered. at least in part. that responsibility to the executive department. The amended bill now before us retains that responsibility in the Congress. where it should be. Because the bulk of our immigration since World War II has not been related to national origins. it is now time to reexamine that system. This bill. as amended. recognizes that our Immigration policy should be selectivewith emphasis upon qualitative and quantitative controls. In 1960 the Republican platform declared that the guidelines for our immigration policy should be based upon the individual merit of each applicant for admission and citizenship. This bill. H.R. 2580. as amended. does that. In 1964 the Republican platform urged that our immigration policy should place first emphasis upon the reuniting of f amilies and the continuation of a humanitarian refugee program. This bill does just that. H.R. 2580. as amended. will. first. eliminate discrimination based upon race. seeond. establish more restrictive provisions upon the admission of aliens seeking employment in the United States. to safeguard the American workingman from unfair competition and a lowering of wages and working standards. third. replace the national origin system with a new immigration system emphasizing the reuniting of families and the individual merit of each applicant. fourth. remove from an international organization and restore to the Congress control over the selection and number of refugees to be admitted. and. fifth. set a numerical limitation upon the number of immigrants to be admitted each yearexcept for the Western Hemisphere. from which aliens may be admitted without numerical limitation. It is this exception to our numerical control over immigration that gives me much concern. It is illogical and inconsistent to retain a form of discrimination by not including the Western Hemisphere under a numerical ceiling concept. Despite our close and continuing ties with our friends in the Western Hemisphere. I do not believe that the citizens of the 24 independent countries of the Western Hemisphere should remain in a highly preferred position to that of the citizens of the more than 100 countries in the rest of the world. If immigration from the Western Hemisphere should grow sharply. and every sign indicates that it will. we will be faced with great pressures to halt the sudden flow of immigrants. We should place the Western Hemisphere under a fair. just. and reasonable numerical limitation now as a logical part of this comprehensive revision of our immigration laws. It will be more difficult to place a numerical ceiling on Western Hemisphere immigrants in 5 or 10 years than it would be now. My able colleague from Minnesota will offer such an amendment at the proper time. I expect to support it.