Speech #930120980

Ireland. Germanywho have not received favorable treatment under this legislation. Furthermore. this amendment would allow two countries in the Western Hemisphere to utilize the majority of visas allocated to that hemisphere. thereby. requiring the other 24 independent countries to compete for the remaining 50.000 visas. It has been suggested that a 20.000 ceiling on Mexico would substantially reduce lawful immigration from that country and thereby may be considered as an affront to the people of that country. as well as Mexican Americans in the United States. These arguments should be rejected for two primary reasons. First of all. there was testimony before my subcommittee that Mexicans were not concerned with the numbers who were permitted to immigrate. but rather with the fact that natives of Mexico were treated differently than natives of countries in the Eastern Hemisphere. In other words. the resentment of Mexicans under the present immigration system is based upon the disparity in treatment between the two hemispheres. Their concern was not one of numbers. but of equality of treatment and this objection will be eliminated by the passage of H.R. 981. Second. there is generally agreement that the vast majority of Mexicans who enter this country illegally or. in many cases legally. do not intend to reside permanently in the United States. This fact is demonstrated *by the commuter program which enables over 40.000 Mexican natives who choose to reside in Mexico to commute daily to their jobs in the United States. Furthermore. the large numbers of Mexicans who participated in the old bracero program is additional evidence of the fact that the main desire of Mexicans is to work temporarily in the United States and then to return to their families in Mexico. When Chairman RoDINo and myself were in El Paso 2 years ago holding hearings on the illegal alien problem. we visited a detention center and spoke with a large number of illegal aliens who were about to be deported. During our discussions with these individuals we were surprised to learn that none desired to immigrate to the United States and that their sole desire was to enter temporarily for employment in order to send money back to their families in Mexico. In addition. Mexican natives possess one of the lowest naturalization rates of any country in the world and this would seem to indicate that a substantial percentage of those who obtain immigrant visas return to Mexico after they have achieved some degree of economic stability. Further. the present restrictions on the admission of aliens for temporary employment has caused many Mexicans to seek a permanent residence visa when. in fact. they do not intend to remain in the United States. I would also like to point out that notwithstanding a 20.000 limitation on Mexico. it will continue to be the primary source of immigration to this country for many years to come. Although they immigrated approximately 64.000 in fiscal year 1972. 23.000 of these individuals were immediate relatives and. therefore. would not be affected by the 20.000 limitation in this bill. In fact. I would estimate that. assuming a 20.000 limitation. approximately 40.000 to 45.000 natives of Mexico will immigrate to the United States in future years and this figure closely aproximates the average number of immigrants from Mexico for the last 8 years. In other words. this means that immigrants from Mexico will more than double the number from most other countries in the world even if a 20.000 ceiling is imposed. Another primary reason for opposing special treatment for these countries is the simple fact that Canada and Mexico do not provide special treatment for U.S. citizens desirous of immigrating to those countries. Therefore. although geography and contiguity may be raised in support of favorable treatment. reciprocity cannot be asserted as such a justification. Additionally. although it has not been expressly stated. it is apparent that increased ceilings for these countries. particularly Mexico. is an effort to respond to the socioeconomic problems in these countries. I submit that immigration policies for this country should be designed to promote the interests of our citizenry and not to react to the problems of unemployment. poverty. and overpopulation in other countries. Certainly these are urgent matters which should be taken into consideration when preparing our foreign aid bills. but not when establishing our immigration policies. In other words. we should not attempt to solve international problems with immigration policy nor should foreign relations be the prime concern when considering amendments to our immigration laws. Another matter which cannot be ignored in view of the extensive study which has been given to the illegal alien problem is the respect given to our immigration laws by natives of foreign countries. Because of our liberal granting of voluntary departure to Mexicans and the lax enforcement of our immigration laws. an attitude has developed in border areas that our immigration laws "are not to be taken seriously." Therefore. by giving special treatment to Canada and Mexico. we may contribute to this attitude that they are not subject to the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act to the same extent as natives of other countries. In 1965. in order to achieve a nondiscriminatory immigration policy. we did away with the national origins quota system. notwithstanding the fact that immigration from Ireland and Great Britain was sharply curtailed. This same reasoning should apply with respect to Canada and Mexico and the idea of a special relationship with these countries should be rejected in favor of the concept of equal and uniform treatment on a worldwide basis. Mr.