Speech #910033315

During the past 20odd years I have been privileged to know and to work with the leaders of this society at the national level. at the State level of Ohio and In my home city of Cleveland. That has been one of the most memorable and pleasant experiences of my public life. For that experience demonstrated for me that the society lives by its principles of "duty. justice. tolerance. and charity." All members of the Steuben Society can be proud of the constructive role played by its national officers in congressional reform of our immigration laws. It was my responsibility. as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Nationality. to establish the facts. bring reason to bear and win majority support for a system of immigrant admissions that was humane and in the national interest. In the emotionally charged atmosphere which attended the public hearings during two sessions of the Congress this was not an easy task. After 40 years of heated public controversy over immigration policy. the climax of change was reached. It became evident that the national origins quota system no longer governed immigrant admissions into our country. Contrary to popular belief the quota system accounted for no more than one third of our annual immigrant admissions. For the previous 10 years we had been admitting close to 300.000 immigrants per year in contrast to the 156.000 authorized by the quota system and which most people believed was a fixed numerical ceiling on admissions. The real problem grew out of the long waiting lists in many countries. made up of close relatives of U.S. citizens. Under then existing law persons with no relatives in the United States and with no skills needed here were being admitted from some countries while close relatives of our citizens in other countries or persons with needed skills had to wait in line for years. In our search for a new formula of immigrant admissions our subcommittee was confronted with sharply conflicting opinions. on the number we should admit each year. whether Congress should maintain control of policy through a clearcut. selfexecuting law or whether some of the congressional authority in this field should be delegated to a new Immigration Board. retention of the privileged status of natives of the Western Hemisphere for whom there had never been quota controls or numerical limits on their admission. the relationship of immigration to our labor market and the need to protect the rights and hardwon gains of American laborjust to mention some of the major issues in controversy. These problems confronting the Congress together with the remedies proposed were discussed at length with the national officers of the Steuben Society. This was a part of the process of working out a new system that would be fair to all and consistent with the needs of our country at this point in our national development. The position taken by the officers on all issues was clear and consistent. That position was: What is best for the United States? It was that same spirit which governed the decisions of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Nationality. That spirit is clearly reflected in our new selective immigration system signed into law October 3. 1965. by President Johnson. Legislation is never perfect. Experience with the act reveals that changes are necessary.