Speech #900325297

Mr. Speaker. our late beloved President John F. Kennedy once wrote: Immigration policy should be generous. It should be fair. it should be flexible. With such a policy we can turn to the world and to our own past with clean hands and a clear conscience. Such a policy would be but a reaffirmation of old principles. It would be an expression of our agreement with George Washington that the bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger. but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions. whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges If by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment. The enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was consonant with the policy so eloquently affirmed by President Kennedy. In place of the national origins quota system with its defects and inequities. the 1965 act rightly laid emphasis on the humanitarian policy of reunification of families and the pragmatic policy of securing skills and talents urgently needed in our developing society. I firmly believe this law is a sound basis on which our country can build an Immigration policy which serves the national interest and which renews our heritage as a democratic and humanitarian people. Nonetheless the fact must be recognized that the law as it now stands still falls short of attaining our laudable objectives. Experience gained during the 3 years since its enactment demonstrates the need for continuing reform in this vitally important field. I should like to address myself at this time to one particularly troubling problem that I have repeatedly urged this Congress to act upon at this session. This problem concerns the failure of the new .law to provide adequate opportunities for "new seed" immigration. that is. applicants without the close family ties or without the specified skills and talents required for preference for admission. These "new seed" immigrants have traditionally come from the Western European countries which have made such an invaluable contribution through the generations to the growth of our Nation to its present preeminence as the strongest. most powerful. and richest Nation in the history of the world. Now. immigration from those countries has drastically declined due to the restrictive family and labor provisions. The backbreaking work. the dogged determination. the zest. pluck. and ability of these nation builders merit the gratitude of those who have benefited so immeasurably from their proud role in our glorious history. It is clearly in our national interest to continue to give young men and women of this caliber an opportunity to come here. I have. accordingly. joined with the Honorable WILLIAM F. RYAN. of New York. and some 40 other concerned colleagues in sponsoring legislation to correct the unforeseen and inequitable effects of the 1965 act by establishing a floor under the immigrs.tion levels from every nation. The floor would be equivalent to 75 percent of a countrys annual average level of immigration during the 195665 base period or 10.000. whichever is less. To the extent that immigration falls below the floor for a given year. extra numbers will be provided the following year so that total immigration equals the established floor. For example. in relation to Ireland. this formula would establish the annual limit at 5.390. to Germany. 10.000. to Great Britain. 10.000. It should be stressed that this proposal is in no wise a reversion to the old national origins quota system nor would it impair in any way the purposes of the new law. It would merely equalize the standing of all nations and insure a fair chance to each applicant. It should also be pointed out that this emergency measure would not be necessary had the projections made in 1965 by the State Department proved accurate. It was then believed that the new plan would not measurably impede immigration from those countries that had enjoyed the largest quotas under the national origins quota system. For example. it was estimated that Ireland would have 5.200 places which would compare favorably with the number of visas issued under the old law. Unfortunately. this proved not to be the case: in 1967 only 2.665 visas were issued. Again. Germany. which has 28.691 visas Issued in 1964. had only 16.863 In 1967. Disturbing as these developments have been during the 3year transitional changeover period from the old to the new quota system. the situation Is now truly acute. For the next 2 or 3 years there willbe very few visas available to natives of Western and Northern European countries since the quota numbers must be reserved to those on the waiting lists of the less favored nations under the national origins quota system. Clearly it was not the intent of Congress in its admirable efforts to eliminate discrimination from our immigration policy to close the door on applicants from Northern and Western Europe. The only feasible method of rectifying this unforeseen inequity is the passage of the pending legislation. The present situation frustrates our objective of a nondiscriminatory policy and adversely affects our relations with countries with which we have been closely bound.