Speech #900235409

Mr. Speaker. I was pleased to join earlier this month with my distinguished colleague from New York in sponsoring H.R. 16593. to revise our immigration law. I wish to commend him for his action and associate myself with his remarks. My Interest in immigration law is a longstanding one. Having worked for some time on the need for revision of the progressive 1965 law. I am. of course. elated that we have reached the point of introducing and working for the passage of this important legislation. It is an unintentional and unforeseen result of the 1965 Immigration Act that we have seen a marked and undue reduction in immigration from certain countries that have historically provided the United States with outstanding friends and citizens. The negative effect of the 1965 act is epitomized in consideration of its effect upon immigration from Ireland. In 1960. 7.700 Irish immigrants were welcomed into the United States. In 1967. under the new law. Irish immigration had nosedived to 2.600. When one reflects on the important and lasting contributions made to the United States by our millions of Irish Americans it is easy to realize that this result of the new Immigration is regrettable and should be reversed. In order to equitably revise our immigration law H.R. 16593 would reverse the sharp drop in immigration from Ireland and other countries in the following manner. If the number of immigrant visas made available to any country after June 1968 is onefourth less than the average number received during the 10year period of 1955 to 1965. that country will receive an allotment to bring the number up to the threefourths level. In other words. if the countrys visas allotment during any year after 1968 Is no more than onefourth less than its average yearly allotment for the 195565 decade. it will receive no additional visas. The country would receive additional visas only if its annual allotment after 1968 is less than threequarters of that average. And then it would receive additional visas only to bring the number up to the threefourths level. not to the full average. We would guarantee. therefore. that the 1965 Immigration Act would not deprive any nation of more than onequarter of its previous visa allotment. H.R. 16593 phrases this guarantee with the following language: There shall be made available to Immigrants from such foreign state an additional number of visas for the succeeding fiscal year equal to the difference between the number of visas made available to them in the preceding fiscal year and threefourths of such average annual number [of the period 1955 to 19651. Forty percent of any countrys additional visas would be made available to the first five preference catagories. Those catagories include unmarried children and spouses of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. members of the professions and scientists of exceptional ability. married children of U.S. citizens. and brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens. No one category would receive more than 8 percent of the additional allotment. The 6th preferencethat is. skilled or unskilled laborwould receive 30 percent. Nonpreference applicants would receive the remaining 30 percent. H.R. 16593 makes the important exception. to quote directly. thatThe provisions of section 212(a) (14) [of the Immigration Act] shall not apply In the determination of an immigrants eligibility to receive any visa authorized to be issued under this subsection. Applicants who would enter for the purpose of work and who would receive the additional visas. therefore. would not be subject to the labor clearance provisions. That is. they would not be required to show that a shortage of their particular skill or capability exists in the United States. We all welcomed the 1965 Immigration Act as a great humanitarian measure because it provided for abolishing the arbitrary and discriminatory quota system. Under its wise provisions a nationality does not receive fewer visas simply because it is a minority in this country. The legislation I urge today merely perfects this landmark legislation by providing that as a consequence no nationalitys allotment is reduced by more than onefourth. I urge prompt favorable action on H.R. 16593.