Speech #930120752

While our response to specific situations has generally been humanitarian. it has always been ad hoc. I believe that the provisions in this bill are sufficiently flexible and generous to provide for all contingencies. However. unless there is full consultation by the Department of State and Justice with the Congress regarding use of the flexible refugee parole authority. we will necessairly have to return to a more restrictive position. H.R. 981 also extends the 20.000 percountry limit now in effect in the Eastern Hemisphere to all countries in the Western Hemisphere. For reasons which I have outlined in detail in additional views appended to the committee report on this legislation. I will at the appropriate time introduce an amendment to increase the percountry allotments for the 2 contiguous countries to 35.000. This is also the limitation for Canada and Mexico provided by H.R. 9409. the administrations immigration bill. The primary argument which has been used against such special treatment of Canada and Mexico is that it is analogous to the special treatement afforded countries in Northern Europe by the odious national origins quota system. In my opinion. such a comparison is pure sophistry. The words used may be the samespecial relationship. unique position. et ceterabut their meaning in the two cases is vastly different. The unique or special relationship which existed between us and those countries favored by the National Origins Quota System was based on historical and sentimental considerations. combined with strong elements of racial prejudice and pseudoscientism. The unique relation we have with Canada and Mexico is geographical and physicalwe live together on the same continent with miles and miles of unguarded common border. and until July 1968. these were open borders. We are involved in the practical daytoday process of working and living together. we have factories which lie half in Canada. we have reciprocal trade agreements of all kinds with both countries. we have railroad lines weaving in and out of Canada. and we have innumerable social and cultural ties with both countries. Canada is our most important trading partner and we are theirs. and until recently we enjoyed thoroughly cordial relations. In view of the current high volume of Mexican immigration. I foresee the primary problem with the 20.000 per country limit as arising there. rather than with Canada. Having disturbed ou northern neighbor with our immigration policy. we now appear to be embarking on the course of similarly alienating our neighbor to the south. In its final report of January 15. 1973. the Special Study Group on Illegal Immigration from Mexico. appointed by the President after discussions with the President of Mexico. urged that there be no reduction in the present level of lawful immigration from Mexico. Yet H.R. 981 would accomplish an immediate reduction of over 50 percent in the number who could immigrate lawfully under the numerical ceiling. In fiscal year 1972. there were 64.040 immigrants from Mexico. of whom 41.707 were subject to the Western Hemisphere numerical limitation. Without question. the imposition of annual limitations of 20.000 each on Mexico and Canada would result in a Mexican backlog of such proportions that within a very short period we would be forced to enact special legislation to absorb it. This is the Inevitable and unpalatable alternative to establishing a realistic limitation at this time. With this one exception. I believe H.R. 981 in its present form to be excellent and critically important immigration legislation. We are well launched in this historical reform of one of the oldest and most important of our laws. I urge your support.