Speech #910181727

Chairman. Members of the Congress. we believe were entitled to a better day and a better law. We regard each of you distinguished members of the Congress as being sympathetic to the plight of the prospective Irish immigrant. We beg you now to channel that sympathy into an effective solution. That solution is offered by H.R. 165. which I will detail briefly. H.R. 165 assures that no nation would suffer a severe reduction in its level of immigration to the United States as a result of the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The bill provides that a "floor" would be established for every nation. based on its average level of immigration to the United States during the decade prior to the enactment of the 1965 actthat is. during the years 1956 through 1965. This "floor" would in no way be based on the former quota. but only on the actual numbers which came in during these years. It is equivalent to 75 percent of the annual average level of immigration during the 195665 base period. or 10.000 individuals. whichever is less. To the extent that immigration falls below the "floor" for a given fiscal year. extra numbers of visa spacesabove and independent of the worldwide quotawould be provided the following year. so that total immigration reaches the established "floor." One point should be very clearH.R. 165 is not in any way a return to the old national origins quota system. abolished in 1965. But it is an attempt to correct the inequities of the new law. Reform which. in turn. creates inequity must. in turn. be reformed. In the case of Ireland. which sent an average of 7.000 individuals during the base period 195665. about 5.300 placesthat Is. 75 percent of 7.000would be established as the floor for Irish immigration. Clearly. this reform would. therefore. be of benefit to Irish citizens seeking to emigrate to the United States. On the other hand. the bill insures that no country whose immigration levels had improved as a result of the 1965 actthe contrary case to that of Irelandwould be adversely affected. H.R. 165 also resolves the problem created by 8 U.S.C. 1182(a) (14). which establishes the labor certificate requirement. This resolution is achieved by providing that the provisions of section 1182 (a) (14) shall not apply to immigrants entering under the category established by the bill. An explanation of section 1182(a) (14) shows the need for this reform. Until December 1965. an unskilled immigrant could enter the United States unless the Secretary of Labor refused to approve his entry and made a specific finding that there were sufficient workers available at the aliens proposed destination. or that the wages and working conditions of workers in this country would be adversely affected. The burden was. therefore. on the Secretary of Labor to foreclose entry. Under the revised section 1182 (a) (14). the immigrant now shoulders the burden. He or she must demonstrate why his petition for entry should be approved. The difficulty presented an unskilled young man or woman. situated in Dublin or in some small Irish village. in making his case. acts as a significant bar to emigration. And yet this bar is really unnecessary. since it applies to only a comparative few. Comparative by our standards. that is. To the potential immigrant seeking entry. the bar is a very personal one. foreclosing his opportunity for a new life. According to the Department of Labor. immigration accounts for about oneeighth of the annual additions to the total labor force. So. the effect of immigration on our labor market is not overwhelming in any event. Moreover. more than 150.000 immigrants in the preference categories can enter the United States each year. free of any labor restrictions. Only the small remainder of immigrants in the third preference. sixth preference. and nonpreference categories must pass the barrier erected by section 1182(a) (14). Clearly. the hurdle set up to bar these immigrantsfew in number. but each one an eager individual intent on reaching our shores and creating a new life for himselfis unnecessary. given the small number it bars. Thus. by virtue of H.R. 165s lifting the bar of section 1182(a)(14). many more young men and women will be able to take advantage of available visa spaces. Thereby. new seed immigrationbeneficial to our own countrywill be enabled from every nation which has suffered a decline in emigrants as a result of the 1965 act. Mr. Speaker. I again urge. as I have done in the past. that the Subcommittee on Immigration and Nationality of the Judiciary Committee give highest priority to this reform of the 1965 act. and that it take immediate and effective action to deal equitably with the unanticipated. but all too real. effects of the 1965 act. At this point. I include in the RECORD the list of 77 Representatives who have sponsored H.R. 165 and companion bills: Joseph P.