Speech #890120941

Chairman. I join with the distinguished chairman of the committee in opposing this amendment--but perhaps for a different reason. There is no valid reason at this time to move away from the special relationship which we have had with the Western Hemisphere for the past 40 years during which time we have granted nonquota status to natives of this hemisphere for immigration purposes. This special relationship. which has long existed between this Nation and our American sister republics. is based upon a mutuality of interest. ideals and aspirations. which first found expression in the Monroe Doctrine and was later reaffirmed by the founding of the Organization of the American States. the good neighbor policy and. more recently. the Alliance for Progress. Now to restrict immigration from these countries by the imposition of a quota system would be a significant departure from these historic policies. Some of those who support this amendment are the very people who worry about whether or not the Monroe Doctrine is still a cornerstone of our foreign policy. The foundation of the Monroe Doctrine rests in the special relationship that exists between the United States and Latin America. There is a certain inconsistency to say we no longer should adhere to this special relationship and should now terminate it. An overall ceiling on Western Hemisphere immigration would not eliminate any problem since none exists. Whatever the theoretical advantage. the imposition of a ceiling may well create problems in our foreign relations. Those nations in the Western Hemisphere which have been treated in a special way since 1924 may well regard unfavorably any move to change this particular demonstration of our special relationship with them. The favored position of natives of the Western Hemisphere who are permitted to immigrate to the United States on a nonquota basis was never intended to be discriminatory against any quota country. This distinction made in the Immigration Act of 1924. was not based on race. religion. ancestry or ethnic origin. It was simply a recognition of Western Hemisphere solidarity which has been and is the firm policy of the United States. Even though some may characterize this advantage accorded natives of independent Western Hemisphere countries as discrimination against quota countries. it most certainly is not an invidious discrimination any more than is the preference afforded by our law to relatives of U.S. citizens and to individuals with special skills. It does not raise racial or cultural barriers or distinctions which other nations find offensive. There has been no indication from any government of a quota country that this special position in immigration policy with respect to the Western Hemisphere is regarded as derogatory or unfair in relation to quota countries or that it is causing them hny problems or creating resentment. On the other hand. our sister republics would regret any move to change this particular demonstration of a special relationship in this hemisphere. Western Hemisphere immigration has not been out of proportion despite the absence of a numerical -ceiling. It has ranged between a peak of 147.000 In 1927 and a low of 41.000 in 1948. The annual average for the past 10 years has been about 110.000. If. in the light of experience. there should occur a farreaching change in the pattern of Western Hemisphere Immigration. the Congress will always be free to review the situation and. if necessary. to take appropriate measures. In other words. if there are changes in the trend of immigration. changes in economic circumstances. or other changes which raise a problem. this would be a proper subject for the attention of Congress. Section 11(d) of H.R. 2580 as amended assures the Congress that any abrupt change in the pattern of immigration from the Western Hemisphere will not go unnoticed and can be dealt with by congressional action. Qualitative restrictions governing all immigrants. which will remain in our law. and the administrative controls available to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Labor to cope with any appreciable increase in immigration from this hemisphere which might adversely affect the interests of American labor. have stabilized immigration from the Western Hemisphere to an average of 110.000 annually. The Secretary of Labors responsibility for protecting those interestssee section 212(a) (14) of the Immigration and Nationality Actis an effective safeguard. as is the consuls authority to refuse a visa on public charge grounds. Experience has demonstrated that these two provisions have been effective in protecting our economic interests and have resulted in the average annual immigration indicated above. Mr. Chairman.