Speech #890120799

There is one discrepancy in the pending bill which does give cause for concern. I believe. While. on the one hand. eliminating the national origins quota system. the committee bill fixes a limit of 170.000inclusive of 10.200 refugeesimmigrant admissions annually from former quota countries. This limit. according to the committee report. "will permit immigration within the absorptive capacity of this country." As reasonable as this appears to be. it certainly is inconsistent with the portion of the bill applied to the countries of the Western Hemisphere. Although I am glad to see that the public charge provisions of the law must be satisfied by a prospective immigrant from any part of the world. no numerical limitation is placed on immigration from Western Hemisphere nations. I understand that in the past Congress has followed the policy of recognizing the common bond uniting the Americas by exempting from any quota restrictions those immigrants who were born in independent countries of our hemisphere. but I cannot help but question the advisability of continuing that policy. Certainly no one will deny that conditions are now. and will continue to be for the indefinite future. much different from the days of yore. There is every reason to expect that continually increased numbers of natives of this hemisphere will decide to come to the United States to live. An average of 110.435 such immigrants received visas annually over the past 10 yearsand that Is just 60.000 less than we propose to limit each year from the rest of the world. I was greatly impressed by the statement on this subject made by Chairman FEIGHAN of the Immigration and Nationality Subcommittee. earlier this year. He said. in regard to the proposed new policy of immigrant admissions: First and foremost Is the question whether people who are natives of che independent nations of the Western Hemisphere are to be considered superior to and therefore preferable to people born in Europe or elsewhere in the world. That is precisely what retention of the nonquota status for natives of countries of the Western Hemisphere. under provisions of the basic 1924 law. would clearly imply. If we eliminate the theoretical quota system for countries outside the Western Hemisphere. which system has been labeled with being racial and prejudicial. how can we continue to justify the nonquota status for natives of independent countries In the Western Hemisphere? That certainly seemed to make a lot of sense. and I regret that Mr. FEIGHAN was apparently overruled on this point within the Judiciary Committee. But. Mr. Chairman. it has taken so long to get this basic bill before us to correct inequities of our immigration laws. Dare we proceed without due consideration of further improvement along the lines I have just quoted? Among the amendments being offered to this bill is one. sponsored by the gentleman from Minnesota . who is a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. which would place a reasonable ceiling on the number of Western Hemisphere Immigrants just as we are placing one on immigrants from Europe. Asia. and Africa. Indeed. it is difficult to see how what Mr. MAcGREGOR calls the "double standard" of immigration as now provided in the pending bill can serve to improve our foreign relations. Rather. the policy of more equal treatment for all would seem to cause far fewer hard feelings. The potential future complications of any mass influx of immigrants from one or more of the Western Hemisphere nations well could necessitate belated legislation that would be more resented than if we do the job right. here and now. I hope. therefore. Mr. Chairman. that this Congress will seriously weigh the importance of amending H.R. 2580 so as to establish an appropriate limitation on immigration from the independent nations of the Western Hemisphere as well as from the independent nations of the rest of the world. With that we will be enacting what will give us the type of wellrounded new immigration laws that so long have been needed.