Speech #930120972

First. In response. I first suggest that we should not forget that our immigration law is designed to serve the interests of the United Statesnot to satisfy the desires of natives of foreign countries. Ours is a selective immigration system with two objectives: First. to reunify families through the admission of close relatives. and second. to attract skills which are needed in the United States because they are in short supply within our country. all this within the limitations of a statutory annual numerical maximum of admissions. our immigrations law is not designed to meet the demandthat is. to admit all who want to comebut to admit a selected limited number of aliens. Second. Geographic proximity provides no logical basis for preferred treatment. The founders of the Nation came from across the seas. yet we give no preferred treatment to those countries of origin. In 1965 we abandoned forever the most favored nation concept. Let us not retreat to a discriminatory favoritism for Canada and Mexico. countries which incidentally give no preferred treatment to U.S. citizens who wish to emigrate. Treatment of Canada and Mexico on the same basis as all other countries should have no harmful economic or diplomatic consequences for our country. For Canada. total immigration in 1973 was less than 9.000of which fewer than 3.000 were chargeable against the hemispheric numerical ceiling since the parents. spouses and children of U.S. citizens are admissible from all countries without numerical limitation. So obviously a 20.000 per country maximum should not result in any reduction in the admission of Canadians desiring to immigrate. The application of the preference system to the Western Hemisphere will take care of the Canadians who have been somewhat disadvantaged by the current hemispheric situation. Now skilled Canadians seeking admission will be able to secure preference visas. For Mexico a total of 43.511 natives chargeable to the hemisphere ceiling were admitted in 1973. Some 26.560 natives of Mexico were admitted as immediate relatives not chargeable to any numerical ceiling and would be unaffected by the provisions of H.R. 981. While a 20.000 limitation would appear to reduce Mexican immigration severely. this does not necessarily follow. It is the conclusion of the subcommittee which drafted the amended bill that a considerable number of the Mexican natives who apply for immigrant admission do so for economic reasons and without an intention to remain permanently. This apparently is borne out by the statistics revealing that aliens from Mexico have in past years had one of the slowest rates of naturalization. Additionally. another section of this bill is designed to provide increased opportunities for natives of Mexico and others to enter temporarily to take employment. Section 2 of H.R. 981 will permit aliens to enter for periods of up to 1 year. with a 1year renewable option. to take employment in permanenttype jobs whenever citizens will not be displaced or prevailing wage scales undercut. Thus workers will be available when needed to meet shortages In the labor market. It is anticipated that Mexican workers especially will be benefited by these provisions of the bill and a considerable portion of the economic pressure for admission to the United States will be met. Finally. it should be made clear that to provide special treatment for Canada and Mexico. as proposed. means either a substantial increase in the total number of immigrants admitted to the United States or a reduction in the numbers available to other countries in the Western Hemisphere. In view of the unemployment situation in the United States today. I am confident the American people do not favor an increase in the present rate of immigration. In reference to this possibility. it is interesting to note that the report of the Presidents Commission on Population Growth recommended that immigration levels not be increaseda position reached after strong internal arguments that the present numerical ceilings be substantially cut. The increase proposed for Canada and Mexico by Mr. RODINOs amendment represents a 25percent increase in the total hemisphere ceilingfrom 120.000 to 150.000. I submit such an increase is not defensible on the ground of foreign relations when the national interest would be so gravely harmed. The alternative. if the hemisphere ceiling is kept at 120.000. is that immigration from the other 24 hemisphere countries be reduced to a total of 50.000. More than half of the hemisphere ceiling for two countries. and less than half for all the remainder? The obvious discriminationthe obvious flagrant retreat to a mostfavorednation policyis totally unacceptable.