Speech #980214515

I think that this would actually result in a reduction because what is being done now is including in the 450.000 immediate relatives and others that could come into the United States under another process. This amendment would put in place a fixed and firm ceiling that would in fact result in a reduction. Now the reduction in legal immigration will hurt most of those countries with the largest backlog. Some of those countries were discriminated against by low quotas under the national origin quota system that was in effect in 1968. For example. the Philippines. Hong Kong. and Korea were penalized. The cap would also worsen the backlog problem for Mexico because Mexico at the present time has a country limitation of 20.000. Now a reduction in legal immigration affects countries disproportionately and would lead to the perception that we are again reverting to racial and national discrimination in our immigration policy. I do not think that we as a country should return to that position. It is my understanding that under the existing bill that the formula is much different and that in conference with the other body there will be an extensive discussion with regard to this particular problem. I oppose the gentlemans amendment as I firmly believe that it is not in keeping with the intent of rational immigration in the United States.