Speech #930120980

I rise in opposition to the amendment. I find myself today in the unenviable position of opposing my distinguished chairman. It is not often that I have disagreed with my chairman during the 5 years we have worked together on immigration problems. I was fortunate to serve under him when he was chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee and we closely collaborated on many legislative proposals designed to provide reasonable and equitable immigration policies. My opposition to his amendment today is based primarily on my firm belief that we should treat all individuals regardless of their place of birth on an equal basis. In 1965 we repealed the pernicious national origins quota system which for four decades represented the concept that some individuals because of their ethnic background or native country are better than other individuals. In 1965 we repudiated this concept and established a firstcome. firstserved preference system for natives of the Eastern Hemisphere which emphasized family reunification and the admission of individuals who possess needed skills. In the bill which we have presented to the House today we have extended these principles by establishing a preference system for the Western Hemisphere. In an effort to establish a uniform system of immigration. we have also provided a per country limitation of 20.000 immigration visas for every country in the world. In other words. this bill represents a reaffirmation and extension of the principle that the ability of a person to immigrate to this country should be based upon his family ties in the United States and his personal qualifications and not on his place of birth. In short. by establishing a uniform preference system and per country limitation. the committee bill attempts to remove the last vestige of national origins discrimination. It has been suggested that equal treatment for all countries discriminates against Canada and Mexico.