Speech #890138283

I have searched the record in vain to find out why. Certainly it cannot seriously be founded on the premise that the present law embarrasses our diplomats. The nations to which our diplomats are accredited. and with whose representatives they come in contact. have more restrictive immigration laws than we have. So why should we be embarrassed? It is not apparent to me that we are in such desperate need of "skilled technicians "from abroad that we must pass this bill. In fact. I can tell Senators that not one single employer of the State of Arkansas has asked me to find him a skilled foreigner to work in his factory. Perhaps the situation is a little different in other areas of the country. but it would be interesting to know how many Members of Congress have received requests from the major employers in their States seeking skilled immigrants. I might also note that I am a bit puzzled by the professed support of this measure by our labor leaders. How. in the face of unemployment. can they justify support for increased immigration? If I were a union member. a worker who belonged to a union. I would want some explanation of that detrimental policy. Aside from the immigrant. I still have not found out to whom the alleged benefits of this bill will flowto pressure groups. to foreign governments. to immigration lawyers. to embarrassed American diplomats? It seems that this administrationwhich is noted for its proclivity for survey and is often termed "consensusconscious"-s a way off base by offering the bill now before the Senate bill to liberalize our immigration program in the face of majority opposition of the American people. I am aware of no clamoring for this legislation. indeed. as indicated. widespread public opinion runs counter to this bill. if we can believe a Harris survey conducted May 31. 1965. I quote from that survey. entitled: "U.S. Public Is Strongly Opposed To Easing of Immigration Laws": The American public. although largely descended from people who came to a new land to escape the persecution. famine. and chaos of other lands. today by better than 2to1 opposes changing immigration laws to allow more people to enter this country. What is more. President Johnsons proposal that immigrants be admitted on the basis of skills rather than by country quotas meets with tepid response. In fact. a survey of public opinion reveals that Americans prefer people from Canada and Northern and Western Europe as immigrants and tend to oppose immigrants from Latin America. Southern and Eastern Europe. Russia. the Middle East. and Asia. The American people have a right to know just whose interests we seek to serve by passing this legislation. Are we. by passing this bill. acting in the national interest? Do we really need added hordes of new immigrants to further multiply the many acute domestic problems we face today? Or are we just being magnanimous in slavish addiction to some strained concept of altruism? I am well aware that all Americansaside from the native Indiansare descended from immigrants and that it can be -truly said that we are a Nation of immigrants. But there comes a timeas with most thingswhen a saturation point is reached and moderation should be practiced. I think we have long since reached the point in this field where moderation is needed. America. the worlds great melting pot. already runneth over. We need no increase in immigration. We need no change in our immigration law. and we should tell those who criticize our policies to direct their complaints at the other countries of the world whose immigration programs are far more restrictive than our liberal laws and practices. This measure should be defeated. and I shall vote against it. Mr.