Speech #890136552

Mr. President. I knew. however. as the subcommittee began its work upon the immigration bill originally introduced by the able and distinguished junior Senator from Michigan . and various cosponsors. that the McCarranWalter Act had been the subject of prolonged attack. and had fallen into disfavor with a majority of the Members of Congress. and that those who did not entertain my view about the wisdom of the provisions of the McCarranWalter Act relating to the national origins quota system had sufficient votes to eliminate that formula from the pending legislation. That discovery presented to me two possible courses of action. The first was that I might concentrate my efforts in a forlorn fight to preserve the national origins quota system and suffer defeat in such fight without rendering any service to my country. other than that of loyalty to an ideal which I cherished. The second possible course of action which confronted me was to join with other members of the subcommittee in an effort to present to the Senate the best possible obtainable immigration law. curing the defects of present law. without the retention of the national origins quota system. I felt that I could serve my country best by adopting the second alternative. That is the reason which prompted me to join the other members of the subcommittee. and particularly those whose names I enumerated in my colloquy with the Senator from Massachusetts . in fashioning the present bill. which in my judgment represents the best immigration law obtainable at present. Also. as the Senator from Massachusetts has statedand he has cited statistics which support his statementthe number of nonquota immigrants received in this country in recent years from the Eastern Hemisphere has exceeded the number of immigrants we have received under the quotas established by the national origins system. This has been due. among other things. to the necessity for admitting many refugees who were fleeing religious and political oppression. The fact is. as the Senator stated. that the system is simply not working. The House subcommittee. and its members deserve the thanks of the country for devising an intelligent. intelligible and precise mathematical formula for the Eastern Hemisphere by which immigration will be impartially determined. Under it.- the most important and admirable purposes of the administration will be accomplished far more effectively than would have been true under the original bill. The reunification of families will be achieved. and we will be assured of receiving the best qualified immigrants. The preference system adopted by the House will assure America of receiving the most easily assimilable and most desirable prospects for citizenship. The House also imposed new labor restrictions on all prospective immigrants which will have the effect of removing their threat to increased unemployment. Too. it added new and greatly needed security measures without removing any of those presently existing. This is not to say that H.R. 2580 as it was reported to the Senate was a perfect bill. or even one which I could support. for it still lacked the key ingredient of any meaningful reformthat is. a limitation on Western Hemisphere immigration. However. the genesis of good legislation was there. and the Senate Subcommittee proceeded with the same resolve and dedication as did the House subcommittee. Several substantive. as well as technical and clarifying. amendments were added which improved the measure. Among these. Is one I offered. to allow alien seamen who entered the United States illegally the same opportunity to apply for an adjustment of status for reasons of hardship after 7 years residence as have other Immigrants who entered the country illegally. I have always felt that like people in like circumstances should be treated by the law in a like manner. and I see no reason to treat seamen differently from other aliens. Also. it seems to me that If a man has found a job and a home here and has been assimilated into our society. he should be allowed to remain. This Is an elementary proposition. and I am confident the amendment will be retained. However. this is not the amendment which has aroused the most controversy concerning the bill in its present form. There was one serious defect In the bill before us. and in the McCarranWalter Act. and that defect arose out of the fact that while existing immigration laws placed a limitation upon the number of immigrants receivable from countries of the Eastern Hemisphere. they placed no limitation whatever upon the number of immigrants admissible from the Western Hemisphere. I know of no one in Congress at the present moment who favors unrestricted immigration. I am satisfied. from my work with them. that all of the other members of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the CXI1528 Senate Committee on the Judiciary favor reasonable restrictions on immigration. and that such disagreements that may have existed in the past in respect to this point were concerned only with ways in which that objective could be best attained. I felt that it was unjust to all the people of the Western Hemisphere for the United States to say. "We are willing to have all of you move into the United States." and at that same time place in the immigration laws provisions which would deny them admission. after such a broad invitation had been extended. because of their failure to meet certain labor requirements of the laws. To my mind. there was a certain amount of hypocrisy in the immigration laws which made that proclamation and had that effect. It seemed to me that it was like inviting a man to dinner. and then digging a pit for him to fall into before he could get to the dinner table. Accordingly. I thought that. in order to abolish the hypocrisy which our existing immigration laws practice. telling the people of the Western Hemisphere that they are all welcome to move into the United States immediately. we should place a reasonable limitation upon immigration from the countries of the Western Hemisphere. as we did in the case of immigration from the countries of the Eastern Hemisphere. I felt that in addition to there being something in the nature of legislative hypocrisy in the existing immigration laws in this respect. it was also a gross discrimination against all the people of the Eastern Hemisphere for us to have immigration laws which specified that only a limited number could come in from the Eastern Hemisphere but that. on the contrary. unlimited numbers could move into the United States from the Western Hemisphere. For that reason. I submitted an amendment to provide a limitation on immigration from the Western Hemisphere. As the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has stated. the pending bill. with that amendment. would place a limitation on immigrants from the Western Hemisphere of 120.000 annually. plus the spouses and the children of American citizens who may come from those countries outside and above the limitation. To enable the immigration authorities to adjust their action to this new limitation. the bill would provide that It would not become effective until the 1st day of July 1968. To me. it is vitally important for the amendment to be retained in the Senate and for the Senate conferees to insist upon its retention. in the event it should become necessary to have a conference. with the House upon the bill. Those who disagree with the wisdom of my amendment contend that special privileges are warranted by the special relationship which exists between us and our hemispheric neighbors. I submit that there is no relationship which is closer or more special than that which our country bears to England. our great ally. which gave us our language. our law. and much of our literature. Yet. under the pending bill. those who disagree with me express no shock that Britain. in the future. can send us 10.000 fewer Immigrants than she has sent on an annual average in the past. They are only. shocked that British Guiana cannot send us every single citizen of that country who wishes to come. Those who disagree with me on this point say that there is nothing invidious in the discrimination in favor of the Western Hemisphere. because the discrimination "is not based on race. religion. or ethnic origin." They fail to note that every witness at the hearings agreed with me that there was also no discrimination based on race. religion. or ethnic origin in the national origins quota system of the McCarranWalter Act. Yet. those who disagree with me never failed to take the opportunity to castigate that system as discriminatory. Mr. President. a man born in England. be he Catholic. Jew. or Protestant. is charged to the British quota. The system allows immigration according to place of birth. just as the present bill does. Under it. a person born in the Western Hemisphere would be charged to the Western Hemisphere ceiling. A man born In the Eastern Hemisphere would be charged to the Eastern Hemisphere ceiling. This bill creates a commission to study the Western Hemisphere problem. among others. I suggest the possibility that this commission might find that the ceiling which the bill establishes for immigration from the Western Hemisphere is still too discriminatory. since it allows 45 percent of immigrants to come from only 15 percent of the worlds population. I have also heard it said that the ceiling will somehow adversely affect the Alliance for Progress. This is a perverse argument.