History reveals that the building of our great Nation rested in the hands and mentality of these millions perservering people who, without invitation, under unsurmountable handicap of language, unskilled and uneducated, steeped in continental customs, traditions, and folklore, traveled to the distant shores of a strange and vast land without funds to make their fortune. The sacrifices to be endured the fierceness of competitive tribulations-the cruel sufferings in a hos tile climate, the struggles and deprivations to be suffered in the beginning-did not dim the bold spirits of the new adventurers. They came on, they stayed and prevailed. Their success contributed to the Nation's wealth and established her place among the great nations of the world.

Yet today, we the citizens of our beloved country, have forgotten American history and now examine with a critical eye any proposal to revise our strict and unbending immigration, naturalization, and refugee laws which in effect contradict American ideals and relegate certain alien petitioners for entrance as undesirable individuals, merely because the quota system is based on a narrow national origin formula.

The problem created by the quota system based on national origin must not be confused as the result of the numerical total volume of immigration to America. And, of course, no authority on this subject would recommend the total admission of would-be immigrants to the United States-unregulated immigration limitstions would not be the answer. But, on the other hand, the specific limitations for each nation is not the realistic approach-for it renders ineligible the majority of those who are qualified of talent and ability to contribute benefits to our Nation.

It is unfortunate that the unused quotas of Great Britain, 65,361; Germany, 25,814; Ireland, 17,756; are not made available to Poland, 6,488; Italy, 5,666, Netherlands, 3,136; France, 3,069; Czechoslovakia, 2,859; Norway, 2,364; Switzerland, 1,698; Sweden, 1,698; Denmark, 1,175; Austria, 1,405; Belgium 1,297; Yugoslavia, 942; Hungary, 865; Portugal, 438; and Greece, 308.

As the leader of the freedom-loving nations of the world, the American image created by the quota-origin formula refutes every logical argument that basically we recognize the equality of all nations, in their relationship as to human values established by our free institutions. The quotas set for the Asian, African, and island nations are an insult to human reasoning-fractions equal to a hundred or more. Also, nations with vast populations-India, Australia, Japan, Formosa, and African Republics are given a ridiculous quota of 100-excepting Japan (185). Such reasoning is beyond the realm of honest thinking.

The law is cruel at many levels-it does not provide for the unification of families divided through its arbitrary operative effects. It disregards our public policy in its complete disregard for emergency world refugee problems.

Its provisions are inadequate to permit the entrance of immigrants with needed skills at the industrial trades level-also in the scientific and medical fields.

It is interesting to study the changes in American policy from the period before World War I-purely regulatory as to quality prescriptions only. The only persons refused were those who failed to pass minimum tests of health, literacy, and behavior records (criminal).

The drastic changes were enacted in 1921 (quota law) and the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 that limited the immigrant quota to 150,000, and provided for the national origin quota system-that the annual quota for any nationality should bear the same ratio to 150,000 as the number of inhabitants of that nationality bore to the "total number of inhabitants of the United States in 1920." Thus the formula was fixed to the existing national structure of our population. It further excluded the descendants of slave immigrants from total population figures-a sad commentary upon honest thinking to disclassify in citizenship almost the entire Negro population.

The Johnson-Reed Act was a national indictment against the southern Europeans including Italy and Greece and the nonwhites from Asia and Africa, as well as a negation of the Emancipation Proclamation.

The Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and its distinguished chairman, Michael Feighan are to be complimented in determining that hearings sould be held to give an opportunity to those interested in the subject to present their views. It is my intention to support the administration position in this matter as recommended by our martyred President, John F. Kennedy, President Lyndon B. Johnson, and our Speaker, John McCormack, as incorporated in H.R. 7700 My companion bill is II.R. 7798. A number of alternative proposals have bee introduced, each with approaches that have for their basic proposal the ultim elimination of the quota system.

But, these proposed reforms, although deserving meritorious consideration, would become more controversial and no doubt create a stalemate however, H.R. 7700 through the unified action of those seeking to support reform and the present favorable public reaction to its acceptance would have the best chance of being enacted into law.

President John F. Kennedy's message, including the endorsements of the then President of the Senate, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, and Speaker John W. McCormack on July 23, 1963, sets out in pointed terms the history of the question including the precise weaknesses of the present law in its inapplicability to meet present conditions and changes in Government policy. The work was a monumental contribution to the solution of these problems in a practical and efficient manner-it appears at the conclusion of this presentment.

An analysis of the bill presented by the Department of State, Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, in a prepared summary was very helpful in this study. Even though some of its provisions were modified by the McCarran-Walter Act-the basic concepts inimical to sound policy today remain in the law. The total quota figure in itself is not a problem, but the application of the distribution formula again violates our concepts and run contrary to our understanding and our ideals.

The figures released by the Government indicate that in the last decade 21⁄2 million persons entered as immigrants-yet only about 11⁄2 million of these entered through the McCarran-Walter Act controls. The others were the recipients of some eight or nine special statutory acts passed by the Congress as well as under special regulations and other arrangements. These facts in themselves dictate a reformation of the present regulatory provisions.

Presidents Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson have demanded positive legislation in party platforms and political campaigns including messages to the Congress. Each called to our attention the injustices of the quota theory based on the national origin system-and pointed out its negative effect on foreign policy. At our very doorstep, the nations of South America, numerous citizens of those nations remember that their progenitors seeking entry into the United States were barred by our antiquated and conciliatory immigration policy-our good will policy at other levels of our relationship with these nations have never been too fructuous.

Yet Congress has had to circumvent the present act many times through the legislative process to reflect its honest decisions on pertinent policies dealing with immigration questions. Every Member of Congress is personally identified with many perplexing problems every session because of the inadequate provisions of our present laws.

To be sure, our Nation can and should relate its immigration numerical absorption quotas to the rate of our economic growth, for the protection of our labor market against unemployment, a wide open policy of unlimited immigration could be disasterous to our economy.

But the changes in H. R. 7700 primarily effect the granting of—

(1) Nonquota preference to the parents, spouses, and children of U.S. citizens having a minor effect on quotas. These are now subject to second preference, always exhausted. The resulting separation is a travesty. The same category should include parents of permanent resident aliens.

(2) Nonquota preference to natives of the independent island nations of the Western Hemisphere. Present law grants this privilege only to those islands independent at the time of its passage-excludes those who gained their independence since its enactment.

(3) Establishes a fouth preference category for those aliens with needed occupational talents such as tailors, stonemasons, etc. A special Immigration Advisory Board is established having jurisdiction over these matters. Members appointed-Three by the President, two by the Speaker of the House, and two by the President of the Senate.

Another interesting problem presents itself specifically to the Italian-American Veterans of World War I who as alien residents served with the U.S. forces and later returned to their homeland-married and had offspring born there certainly these offspring should be given a nonquota classification. An American Legion mandate in this regard has been introduced by me-H.R. 6931.

The study of the deportation question of those losing their citizenship is not only challenging but promulgates a practice of a twisted philosophy of legal standards based on an illogical premise that no equities inure to the benefit of the deportee or his family.

I learned of several cases where the individual citizen was deprived by court order of their rights and privileges as citizens and also expunging the order of court of many years standing granting them citizenship status. Both individuals had sons who served in the military forces during and after World War II, were honorably discharged and received both Presidential citations and citations of the command. Also in one instance a son-in-law as a commissioned officer served honorably.

In one of these matters the President of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, weighing these facts, canceled the order of deportation giving as his reason that the separation of the family head from his loyal patriotic sons who served with distinction as members of the Armed Forces during the war in itself was a sufficient reason for his action.

In the other matter an interesting question developed where the country of his birth refused to accept him on the grounds that the swearing of allegiance to the United States (in taking citizens oath) relieved it of any responsibility to him or the United States. This reasoning was based upon the premise that such proceedings granting citizenship represent, as to his native land, a permanent separation from his native citizenship, and regardless of a subsequent cancellation of the order granting citizenship in the proceeding the question of his allegiance to his newly adopted country has been determined. The recalling of the citizenship grant does not restore him to the status of being a subject of the land of his birth.

There are split legal contentions on the part of authorities in these matters and the law should be explicit in the consideration of these problems. The further practice of banishing one to any other land accepting him-upon the refusal of his native land to permit his entry is purely an illegal device to dump him anywhere, just to get rid of him, disregarding what vested rights inure to him or his family that equity and good conscience dictate. The separation from family is of momentous importance to one's kinfolk as well as to the individual and must be considered important enough to spell out the law to prevent injustice. The principal purpose of H.R. 7700 is to abolish the national origins system and to permit entrance to those filing within preference categories on a first-come, first-served basis.

Each country's quota will be reduced 20 percent the first year and 40 percent the second year, 60 percent the third year, 80 percent the fourth year, and 100 percent in the fifth year. The present total annual quota of 157,000 will be increased to 165,000. The increase of 8,000, as a result of increasing the minimum quotas from 100 to 200. Thus this gradual elimination of the national origi quota system is accomplished without disturbing by abrupt action the operative quality of procedures.

The bill also contains a special provision granting the President to reserve up to 50 percent of the pool after consultation with the Board.

(a) To avoid undue hardship resulting from quota reductions.
(b) In the national security interest.

The President may also retain 20 percent of the pool for refugees.

Also provided that no more than (10 percent of the total) 16,478 visas may be allocated to any nation's quota area except under the President's authority to reserve numbers from the pool.

Under the present regulations as much as 50,000 unused quota numbers are lost to the system annually.

The immigration figures for a test year ending June 30, 1963-about 306,000 immigrants were admitted. The quota was 157,000, but only 103,036 were admitted under the McCarran-Walter Act. Thus, two-thirds of those admitted were outside the act. The same is true as to other years. Thus the national policy must operate outside its proscribed act through the passage of special legislation and other procedures. Therefore, in its practical application, the set is a nullity and its purposes outmoded. It is not only offesnive to friendly foreign nations, but is discriminatory-an insult to our preachments of racial equality. It is interesting to note that the Johnson-Reed Act determined the basic quota numerical computation of national origin on population figures of 1890, certainly prejudicing the people of southern Europe, Asia, and Africa. The McCarran Walter Act in accepting population figures of 1920 also paralleled this bias built into the Johnson-Reed Act.

But even so, under public pressure, the Congress has amended and modified the Johnson-Reed Act from time to time.

Finally in 1952 over President Truman's Presidential veto, the Congress passed the McCarran-Walter Act. It codified under one act all laws affecting immigra tion, incorporating the old statutes and early conceptions of the Nation's policy

in this field. As herein before stated, the Quota Origin Act computation was adopted as the operating formula for the unit national admission of immigrants. It reflects in its applicability and formula racial discrimination against our very allies in a sensitive area of national policy. The token quotas of 100 per year assigned to nations numbering millions in native population is a senseless and asinine system. The administration bill is more realistic and reasonable. After 5 years, with the fading out of the national origin system, immigrant visas would be available to any alien meeting the qualifications without regard to the country of his birth. The qualifications, rigid as they may be under the McCarran-Walter Act, are preserved in H.R. 7700 with certain modifications.

Again the 10-percent limitation visas issued in any 1 year to any one nation prevents monopolizing the visas available under other visa prescriptions in the

bill.

The bill thus meets the critical needs and balances out the inequities and impractical controls now prevalent in the law. In specific terms it eliminates the false conception that the bars to limited immigration are down.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I shall support H.R. 7700, and urge the subcommittee to report H.R. 7700 favorably to the full committee for passage.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. MCFALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of legislation I have introduced to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

Two bills before Subcommittee No. 1 are of special importance to the people of my congressional district. They are the broad revision of the Immigration and Nationality Act sponsored by both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations and special legislation to permit the entrance of 1,500 refugees made homeless by earthquakes in the Azores Islands early this year. H.R. 7951 is my bill calling for a general modification of the Immigration and Nationality Act, identical to that introduced by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Azores relief bill is H.R. 10302.

The

Since introduction of these two pieces of legislation, I have had favorable response from scores of residents who see the need for congressional action to bring together separated families and to rekindle the flame of hope that America represents to millions around the world.

Let me first discuss H.R. 7951, the administration's proposal.

The bill would completely revamp the quota system to eliminate many diseriminatory provisions. It would make present unused quota numbers available to areas of the world where quotas are heavily oversubscribed.

The present inequitable Asia-Pacific triangle provisions would be eliminated entirely, making it no longer necessary to attribute persons of Asian stock to quota areas according to their racial ancestry but according to their places of birth.

Emphasis would be placed on immigration of persons having skills needed in the United States, giving them first priority. Second priority would be granted to those persons who have relatives already living in the United States. All others would be admitted on a first-come, first-served basis. At the end of 5 years after enactment, the bill would establish a world pool of 164,500 prospective immigrants annually from present quota countries.

Of greatest interest to the people of my congressional district, judging by the correspondence received and voluminous files built up within the past few years, is the provision of the measure which would give priority status to those who have close relatives already residing in this country, either as citizens or as aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

Under the present law, families have been split, some having been able to come to America and enjoy the freedom and opportunities which may be found here while their sons, daughters, or parents have been barred.

There is a section in the broad bill which gives the President the right to disregard priority of registration under certain circumstances for the benefit of refugees. This is especially important to provide relief for thousands who occasionally must flee their homelands due to natural disaster or political persecution.

In this regard I wish to call the attention of this subcommittee to a second bill I have introduced, H.R. 10302. This is the proposal to allow the immediate entrance of 1,500 refugees from the Azores Islands who were made homeless by this winter's earthquakes.

There are no quota numbers presently available for these victims of calamity, even though many of them have relatives and friends in this country who could assist them in finding a new start in life. The present Portuguese quota, which applies to the Azores, is greatly oversubscribed.

There is a large number of persons of Portuguese descent who have made their homes in Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties of California, the area I represent Many of them have contacted me about the suffering of the earthquake victims, urging that arrangements be made to allow their immigration. Unless legislation is enacted, however, there is no present way that these unfortunates can be assisted.

There is need for a general revamping of our immigration laws to make America's opportunities available to more deserving people throughout the world. I hope that this subcommittee will take decisive action in this direction now.

STATEMENT OF HON. TORBERT H. MACDONALD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee on the Judiciary, I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you and testify on behalf of H.R. 7700 and the related bills that have been introduced, including one by myself, to amend the Walter-McCarran Act. The legislation we are considering today seeks to remedy a situation which is considered by many, both in this country and abroad, to be one of the greatest inequities which exists today in the laws of our Nation. I personally feel that there is good reason for these changes. I would submit that rarely has the body of which we are all privileged to be Members-the Congressproduce a law so basically wrong-headed in its fundamental approach as the Walter-McCarran Act; and I say this despite the high esteem in which I genuinely hold its coauthors.

My objections to the existing act in large part refer, of course, to the use of the ethnic proportions of this country's population in 1920 as a base for the immigra tion quotas of today. Many proofs can, and no doubt in the course of these hearings, will, be adduced to illustrate the point I am making here. May I be allowed to add to these the alarming possibility that under less fortunate circumstances than have in fact existed in the past, a good number of our own colleagues in the Congress might well have been excluded from becoming citizens of our United States, under the limitations of the existing immigration legislation and therefore deprived of the right to hold their deserved seats in the House and the Senate.

On the other hand, the bills that are before you now seem to approach the problem, if I may be permitted to say so, in a truly realistic manner. I particularly stress the fact that the remedy here sought would not apply further patches to a quilt which is already sufficiently patchwork. Rather this legislacion sees injustice in the very heart of the existing law, and it addresses itself to righting this wrong. The "quota system" as it is called is not "compensated for" again; under this legislation it would be abolished.

Moreover, in marked contrast to the existing immigration law, that here proposed is of a high degree of internal consistency. I cite in this connection, especially, those sections of the recommended legislation which relax the heretofore overly rigid requirements for prospective immigrants with so-called specialized skills, and those which facilitate the keeping together of parent and immigrant child when the latter qualifies to come into this country.

I also draw the special attention of the committee to the flexibility of the proposed law as it pertains to the gradual transition from the old to the new basis of determining who shall be permitted to come to this country. And in particular I would underscore those provisions which serve to protect against a situation where one country's quota, as is currently the case, could be oversubscribed, while her neighbor's was undersubscribed, and a portion of her quota remain unused. I would lastly point out to the committee, before making way for the distinguished persons who follow me today, that, far reaching as the proposed law is in its approach, it does not purport to answer all of the problems in the minigrstion field. However, it does handle many of them. It is no panacea; but it does attempt to lay a base-a solid base-which will reflect to our friends abroad and to our own consciences, in President Kennedy's words, "the principles of equality and human dignity to which our Nation subscribes."