Surely we can assume that our markets can absorb a labor source which is so small a part of the total supply. Yet. because now the alien must prove that a market for his labor exists. section 212 presently is based on the opposite assumption. Countries which depend most heavily on labor preference for immigration. rather than. for example. preference for U.S. relatives. are at an unfair disadvantage. Statistics for immigration during 1968 when compared with those for 1965 illustrate that disadvantage. Until the end of 1965. "labor clearance" was granted as my bill would provide. for examplethe labor preference applicant automatically secured clearance unless the Secretary of Labor specifically found that his employment in this country might add to a surplus of his particular skill. During that year. the last in which. as just stated. the burden of proof for labor clearance. lay with the Secretary. and not the alien. 5.400 Irishmen immigrated to this country. During 1968. the Irish immigration rate was 3.600. or in other words. almost 33 percent below the rate for 1965. The 1968 figures show that German immigration has decreased from the 1965 rate by almost the same percentage. I cite the German and Irish figures because they represent countries which rely heavily on the labor preference. as opposed to the preference for relatives of U.S. citizens. This amendment is the same that I introduced in the 89th and 90th Congresses. I say now. as then: Our countrys greatness has been built on the contribution of its immigrants. Continued reduction of labor immigrants can only result in restricting the growth and prosperity of our Nation. The provision of the old law which I ask to be reinstated has survived the test of timeit has worked and worked welland only by returning to it can we further strengthen our new immigration law.
Keywords matched
immigration immigrants immigrated