Speech #890136568

As a consequence. the distribution of U.S. population is weighted more heavily in urban areas than in other nations. As the population expands. the increased population density falls almost entirely in urban areas. Even in the absence of any immigration in the next half decade. the population of the United States will shortly pass the 200 million mark. And only shortly thereaftera matter of not more than 2 or 3 yearsthere will be 200 million people in the urban areas alone. Our present rate of population growth. even exclusive of immigration. is the highest of any industrial nation. It is the population density in the urban areas of the United States. therefore. on which the need for further major immigration should be judged. From this perspective. it becomes readily apparent that it is not advantageous to the United States to continue to encourage the massive immigration which prevails under present law. much less increased immigration. as would be the case under the proposed changes. The wise course for the United States to follow is to limit immigration to special cases based on such factors as family reunification and some forms of political refugee accommodation. These factors could be accommodated within an overall immigration ceiling of certainly not more than 50.000 per year from all sources. Populationwise. the United States has reached maturity. The time has come for our immigration policy to reflect a corresponding maturity. This is not a harsh judgment. merely a realistic one. Most of the countries of the world have problems stemming from expanding populations. We cannot solve the population problems of one of these other countries by permitting immigration to the United States. even if we concentrated immigration favoritism onany particular one of them. without exceeding by far any maximum level of immigration yet seriously proposed. We cannot help other nations by weakening ourselves. nor should we if we could. Without the necessity for balancing the merits of the formulas in existing and proposed laws. therefore. I must conclude that neither is responsive to the national needs. The McCarranWalter Act was designed to meet needs for immigration which clearly existed before the turn of the century. diminishingly so thereafter. and not at all in the circumstances of the last two decades. The changes here proposed are based on the assumption that the immigration needs of the country threequarters of a century ago remain the same. The contrary is true. For these reasons. I cannot support H.R. 2580. Perhaps the realization of the requirements stemming from the increased population density and necessarily uneven population distribution in the United States in the past few decades is not sufficiently prevalent to permit drastic changes toward limitations on immigration at this time. Under no circumstances. however. can the Nation afford an updating of the official acceptance of the myth that we can still benefit from a continuation or increase in the current level of immigration. I hope that the Senate. in the best interest of the country. will reject the 19th century concept on which this bill Is premised. and take no major action until the Congress is at least willing to meet the needs of the 20th century. not to mention the future.