Speech #890120610

Mr. Chairman. the rationale for the abolition of the national origins quota system is that that system deliberately discriminates against many of the peoples of the world. Mr. Chairman. let me make it clear from the outset that I strongly support the abolition of the national origins quota system In the context in which that system is abolished in the bill. H.R. 2580. The trouble is that in the bill as reported by the committee we will be perpetuating and even increasing a new form of discriminationdiscrimination based not upon race. which we eliminate In this bill and rightly sobut discrimination based upon national origin and the location of ones birth. The President in his Immigration message to the Congress on January 13 of this year stated that our national origins quota system is incompatible with our basic American tradition. that is. the fundamental American attitude to ask not where a person comes from. or to prejudge a person on the basis of his place of birth. but to evaluate his personal qualities. President Johnson. as did three of his predecessors. asked that our immigration law be amended to bring it in line with our basic American principle of nondiscrimination. The committee bill accomplishes only half of the task outlined by four Presidents. It does provide for the abolition of the nationalorigins quota system. but it fails to end discrimination based upon national origin. Under its operation a total ceiling and a maximum numerical limitation for any country would affect all who come or who seek to come to America from beyond the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. but natives of the Western Hemisphere and the Caribbean area would be admitted to the United States without numerical limitation. Natives of the 24 independent countries of the Western Hemisphere and any who subsequently acquire their independence would thus be placed in a highly preferred position to that of the natives of the more than 100 countries in the rest of the world who would be subjected to a limited numerical ceiling and a rigid system of qualifications called preferences. This result would be illogical. unwise. shortsighted. and inconsistent. To allow unlimited immigration from the Western Hemisphere and the Caribbean while imposing rigid ceilings on the number who could come in from the rest of the world. including our traditional friends and allies across both oceans. and this in the name of ending a quota system labeled as "discriminatory" and "racially prejudicial." is highly contradictory. A few examples will demonstrate this inconsistency. Under H.R. 2580. total immigration from the United Kingdom would be limited. after June 30. 1968. to a maximum of 20.000 people per year. However. in 1964 and in earlier years. immigration from that country was considerably greater than 20.000. Western Germany has also consistently exceeded the annual limit which would now be imposed upon West Germany. a close friend of the United States. At the same time. immigration from countries such as El Salvador. Nicaragua. Jamaica. and Paraguay would be subject to no numerical limitation whatsoever.