Speech #890138271

President. this is not just my own understanding of the effect of this provision of the new bill. as a similar interpretation has appeared in an official State Department memorandum. Mr. President. the proponents of H.R. 2580 have placed a great deal of emphasis on the pattern of immigration since the Immigration and Nationality Act became law in 1952 in attempting to demonstrate the necessity for changing the present quota law. As I previously pointed out. 3.108.538 immigrants have entered the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Of that number 1.082.833 entered as quota immigrants and 2.025.705 as nonquota immigrants. It is the large number of nonquota immigrants which gives rise to so much concern by the sponsors. It is alleged that because of the inequities in the national origins system. Congress was forced to enact special legislation during the period since the Immigration and Nationality Act became law to alleviate the hardship cases. and as a result the admission of 2.025.705 aliens in a nonquota status clearly establishes the national origins quota formula to be outdated and out of step with reality. This is not so. because they fail to recognize that only 382.045 of the total of 2.025.705 nonquota immigrants entered under special enactments. The bulk of those nonquota immigrants. or roughly 1.643.660. entered under the permanent nonquota provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Those are the provisions which the framers of the Immigration and Nationality Act recognized as desirable to include in the permanent law. although it was known that they would Increase total immigration. For obvious compassionate reasons. it was accepted as necessary to permit wives. husbands. and children of U.S. citizens to enter without restriction. For reasons of "good neighborliness." it was agreed to permit natives of independent countries of North. South. and Central America to enter free of the quotas. Likewise. quota restrictions were not imposed upon the free movement of ministers of religion and their families. These policies are imbedded in the national origins quota law and it is under them that the bulk of the nonquota immigration has entered the country. There is Just no Justification for saying that the quota law must be scrapped because a significant number of aliens were admitted outside of the quotas under special enactments of Congress. Those enactments were special acts of generosity in response to appeals to grant relief in particular situations after careful study and I feel that they should only be treated as such. Now. Mr. President. let us take a look at the new quota formula provided in H.R. 2580. It is said that enactment of this quota scheme will remove "the 1952 acts wellknown restrictive provisions against immigrants from eastern and southern Europe." but I defy anyone. from reading the Immigration and Nationality Act. to find any special restrictive provisions against immigration from those areas. Certainly. the law embodies a policy of restriction. but as we have seen. restriction has been the accepted policy of this Government for decades. The quotas of each quota area are established under a formula which is applied in identically the same fashion to all other quota areas in the world without mentioning any country by name. and yet it is said that the law restricts immigration from particular areas. The truth is that it restricts immigration from all areas. under a uniformly applied rule. and that is as close as any law can get to being nondiscriminatory. Quotas for one country may be larger than quotas for another under the national origins formula. but the same will be true under the formula provided in H.R. 2580. Thus. basically. it boils down to the question of whose ox is being gored. It is said that the new formula would be based on equality and fair play. but would it? In the eyes of the smaller country is it equal and Just to give the larger share to the larger country? In the eyes of the newer country is it fair and just to give the larger share of the quota to the older countries because they have had immigration opportunities for many years and have longer waiting lists? It seems to me that the answers to those questions are quite obvious. It Is inevitable that the quotas will be different. and as long as they are. some will say they discriminate and. unfortunately. most of these charges originate in our own country. Quite obviously. the only quota law which could possibly treat all Nations equally is one which would provide an identical quota for each country. Such a law would not be subject to a charge of discrimination. but I doubt seriously whether it would receive any support. The test of whether the law Is fair or just. Mr. President. is not whether it discriminates. for all quota laws will. but whether the law discriminates unreasonably or unjustly. The national origins quota formula is applied in the same manner to all without qualification. and as long as it is so applied it is certainly not subject to a charge of unreasonable or unjust discrimination. One may disagree with the policy of the law. but I fail to see how any workable quota could provide any more uniformity of treatment of the nations of the world. There is another interesting aspect of the system provided in H.R. 2580. In allocating visa numbers. this Nation would look first to the desires of the people of other countries to come to the United States. and visas would be allocated on a firstcome. firstserved basis. Under the national origins quota. we look first at the composition of the population of this country. then we say that each country shall have a quota fixed on the basis of the ratio of the number of persons in the United States in 1920 attributable by nationality to a given country to the population of the United States. or reduced to the mathematical formula of onesixth of 1 percent of the persons of the nationality of that country in the United States in 1920. In other words. we hold up a mirror and look at ourselves and base the quotas of those who wish to join us on what we see. Mr.