Speech #970099055

There are also important reasons for not attempting to rely on existing emeraency legislation. While the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (TEEPA). 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.. gives the President broad powers and could conceivably be nvo1.ed In a situation where there is an actual or threatened mass migration of visaless aliens to the United States. to exclusively rely on IEEPA would be unsatisfactory. Under TEEPA. an emergency can be declared only when there is "any unusual and extraordinary threat ... to the national security. foreign policy. or economy of the United States." It is conceivable that some situations which would merit the declaration of an Immigration emner rency. would also meet the criteria of IMEPA. Honever. there are other situations whIch would lustifv the declaration of an Immigration emergency but which would not clearly be a threat to the national security. foreign policy or economy of the United States. and thus the provisions of IEEPA could not be invoked. While IEEPA would authorize some of the actions which could be pursued under this Immigration emergency legislation. such as the travel restrictions. it probably would not authorize such procedures as those designed to expedite exclusion and asylum claims. the detention of aliens pending deportation proceedings. and the Interdiction of aliens comIng to the United States. IEEPA was primarily designed to regulate international economic transactions and not to control noneconomic aspects of international intercourse. IEEPA gives the President greater powers than would be needed to take care of an immigration emergency. IEEPA was drafted broadly so as to encompass a wide range of situations which would threaten the national security. foreign policy or economy of the United States. An Immigration emergency. on the other hand. is a limited type of emergency for which specific powers can be delineated to respond to the situation. The public and the Judiciary would more readily understand and uphold actions taken in the course of an immigration emergency if there is a specific statute authorizing such actions. rather than If supports for those actions must be sought from the statutory provisions of legislation such as IEFPA. which is not tailored to the precise problems that would arise during an immigration emergency. The "Emergency Interdiction Act" states that the President can enter into agreements with foreign countries for the purpose of preventing illegal migration to the United States. Under such an agrreement. the Coast Guard could stop a foreign flag vessel on the high seas if there is reason to believe that the vessel Is destined for the United States and carrying undocumented aliens who are not entitled to enter the United States. The basic legal framework covernng Immigrant admissions to the United States was established by the 1165 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act. These amendments retained the policy of numerically restricting certain preference categories of immigration. For the first time In our history. immigration from Western Hemisphere countries was limited. to 120.000 annually. Annual per country ceilings of 20.000 were extended to the Western Hemisphere in 1976. With regard to refugee admissions. the Congr es first dealt comprehens..ely with the question only recently. Tn the Refugee Act of 1980. Congress nrecribed a uniform definition of "refugee" without geograpblc or ideological limitation. and established a process for the annual determination of refugee admissions by the President. after consultations with Congress. Imposition of country ceilings of 20.000 annually. In conjunction with the new preference system and labor certification requirements added by the 1965 amendments. resulted In a drastic reduction in immigration from Canada and Mvexico. The ceiling on immigration from the United States closest neighbors should be increased. "The Tmmigrant Visas for Canada and Mexico Act" would create separate annual ceilings for nsmerically restricted immigration from Mexico and Canada raising the totals from the present 20.000 to 40.000 for each country. The unused portion of either countrys allotment would be available to citizens of the other nation. The numerically restricted immigration from other countries of the world would be adjusted so as not to be affected by this change. Under "The Immigrant Visas for Canada and Mexico Act". any unused visas in Mexico or Canada in a fiscal year would be allotted to the other country during the next .Iscal year. The overall limitation on immigration from the rest of the world would be reduced from 270.000 to 230.000. Historically. the demand for immigrant visas by nationals of Mexico has exceeded the demand by nationals of Canada. For example. in fiscal year 1978 there were 17.000 immigrants from Canada as opposed to 92.000 from Mexico. These figures include both numerically and nonnumerically limited immigrants. Based on this. we would assume that Mexico would use all of their 40.000 visas in the first year and Canada would use no more than 15.000 to 20.000 visas. in subsequent years the unused visas for Canada would be allocated to Mexico and would probably result in 60.000 to 65.000 visas being available each year to Mexico. Essentially there would be no increase In immigration from Canada and there would be a substantial increase in immigration from Mexico. "The Omnibus Immigration Control Act" will allow the United States to continue as a nation that is open to immigration and that does Its share to assist and resettle the refugee. This bill is necessary if this nation is to continue to provide for our people. while welcoming others who desire to contribute to this nations continuing experiment in liberty. I look forward to the prompt attention of Congress to this legislation.