Mr. ANDERSON. You see, my point is, if I may continue for just 1 minute longer: The law now provides, and I am quoting from the statute, that: Upon the favorable recommendation of the Secretary of State, pursuant to the request of an interested U.S. Government agency, or of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, after he has determined that departure from the United States would impose exceptional hardship upon the alien's spouse or child, the Attorney General may waive the requirement of such 2-year foreign residence abroad in the case of any alien whose admission to the United States is found to be in the public interest. Mr. CHELF. He has this power in all cases, but I was just trying to get your thinking with respect to this particular aspect involving the foreign government's consent. Mr. ANDERSON. I see. I frankly had not given that too much thought. But I am hopeful that by introducing this new element that I am suggesting, getting the approval of the country that originally sent the foreign student to this country, we might get some better action from both the Secretary of State and the Attorney General's Office in looking at these hardship cases. Mr. CHELF. It is advisable, generally, to have a waiver from the foreign country from whence the young boy or girl came, so that there will not be any diplomatic involvement or bad feeling. After all, if we are going to make friends, let us make them, and not turn around and clobber them in the same effort that we have made to create friendship and sympathetic understanding between our Nation and theirs. Mr. ANDERSON. I certainly agree. Mr. FEIGHAN. You would still feel, too, would you, that in the event a student came to this country, who was single, remained single, and had no children, the same waiver of principle should apply? Mr. ANDERSON. Well, theoretically, Mr. Chairman, he would be eligible for a waiver, yes, but under the bare facts of the kind of case that you outline, I seriously question whether or not a waiver would be granted. I question whether the Attorney General would find that in the public interest, or the Secretary of State. So I doubt very much whether that kind of case, that kind of student, would be excused from returning and observing the 2-year requirement of the statute. Frankly, I am just interested in this case, the kind of case I have been talking about, where there is a marriage and there is an infant child, where the father is an American citizen, to require him to take his wife and the child and go off to some other country for 2 years, simply because he has been unlucky enough to fall in love. I do not think that is good law. Mr. FEIGHAN. If this student fell in love with the alien in this country, would you feel the same way? Mr. ANDERSON. Would I feel the same way? Well, you are talking about an alien marrying an alien, in other words, a student coming from another country on an educational visa. Yes; I suppose I would. Mr. FEIGHAN. Then we would adjust the status of the two aliens. Mr. ANDERSON. I do not know that my particular bill would touch that situation. Mr. FEIGHAN. If both got letters from their respective governments, that there was no objection to their returning to fulfill their Mr. ANDERSON. Yes; but I understood your hypothetical case to involve one alien already in this country who was not here on an educational visa, who was simply here in some other status. Mr. FEIGHAN. Assuming that another alien, other than the student, was or was not under the student program. Mr. ANDERSON. But one was? Mr. FEIGHAN. Well, assuming that both spouses are students under the student exchange. Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. Mr. FEIGHAN. They are both from foreign countries. You would have your bill apply to both? Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. I think logically it would. I do not know how frequently that situation occurs, understand, whether or not it really represents much of a problem. Maybe, Mr. Chairman, as a practical matter, if they were both aliens, they would not consider it any hardship to go back to their own country, and maybe that is what they want to do, and probably would. What I am primarily concerned with, again, I repeat, is the case involving an American citizen, native born, who has to pack up and leave because he wants to be with his spouse and child for 2 years. Mr. FEIGHAN. I just wanted to get the record clear as to your thinking, and I think you have made it clear. Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you very much. Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Mr. FEIGHAN. The next witness will be our able colleague from Michigan, Congressman Ryan. Will you step forward, please, and proceed? STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD M. RYAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, my distinguished colleagues of the committee, I wish to thank you very kindly for this opportunity to appear before this distinguished Subcommittee on the Judiciary in order to speak on our immigration policy, and especially the national origins system of immigration selection. At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that I have introduced a bill previously on the subject matter, but other Congressmen also have introduced other bills on this matter of immigration, so rather than speak in behalf of my bill, I would like to say that I do wholeheartedly support the bill introduced by other Congressmen, which could be called the administration bill. In speaking on that bill, I would like to make the following remarks. For more than four decades, the United States has been operating under this antiquated, prejudicial system. Our quota allotments, under this nationality theory, are not distributed on the basis of qualification, nor on the basis of first come first served, but rather on the basis of where one is born. As you know, present legislation established a system of annual quotas to govern the number of immigrants from each country. Each year, 156,987 quota immigrants are permitted to enter the United States. This total allotment is distributed between the various countries according to the composition of our population in 1920. They picked 1920, when the law was adopted several years after 1920, which was within the last census. Consequently, this system is heavily weighted in favor of immigration from northern Europe, and severely limits immigration from southern and eastern Europe, the Asia-Pacific triangle, and other parts of the world. In addition to many other nationalities, I have thousands of people of Polish and Italian descent in my district, and a good sampling of Ukrainians, Greeks, Lebanese, and other persons of southern European and Asiatic ancestry. Many of them have relatives or loved ones overseas who have been waiting for years to come over to this country. It is quite difficult to explain to one constituent who wants to bring his parents to America why his mother and father must wait at least 18 months and sometimes years to gain admission, while another constituent can obtain almost immediate entry for his family. I have often asked myself: Why should the Italian brother of an American citizen, or a refugee from behind the Iron Curtain, or a highly skilled Ukranian craftsman-or, for that matter, why should any man be denied equal consideration under the U.S. immigration laws? It is unfair it is unjust-it is pure discrimination for us to stamp a "second best" rating on any individual because of his birthplace. The United States must not support a doctrine of favoritism. We cannot preach the ideals of democracy, and, at the same time, judge the qualifications of men because of their race or national ancestry. At a time when our Nation is striving to correct domestic inequities, I urge Congress to provide a sound basis for the development of an immigration code that complements the national interest and reflects the principles of equality and human dignity to which we subscribe. This new immigration code has my complete support because it entirely abolishes the principle of national origins. The fundamental feature of this bill, is the elimination from our laws of the erroneous belief that the place of birth or the racial origin of an individual determines the quality or the level of his intellect, or his moral character, or his suitability for Americanization. A simpler way of stating this objective would be: We will not ask any immigrant, "Where were you born?" We intend to ask him only, "Who are you and what can you do for the country in which you have chosen to live?" I believe our immigration formula should take into account these three things: First, the skills of the immigrant, and their relationship to our needs. Second, the family relationship between immigrants and persons already here, so that the reuniting of families is encouraged. Third, the priority of registration so that those with the greatest ability to add to our national welfare, no matter where they were born, are granted the highest priority. Under the present system, relatives and highly skilled persons are given priority-but only within a national origins quota. Accordingly, I recommend the following steps: First, that existing quota allotments be reduced at the rate of 20 percent a year. The quota numbers released each year would be placed in a quota reserve pool, to be distributed under the new system. Second, the natives of no single country shall receive over 10 percent of the total quota numbers authorized in any 1 year. Third, during each of the first 5 years, the "pool" created by the annual 20-percent reductions, together with all unused numbers from the previous year, will be allocated to immigrants from oversubscribed areas. Fourth, at the end of the 5-year period, all national quotas will have been abolished, and all quota numbers will be in the "pool." Numbers from the "pool" will then be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis, within preference categories: (a) First preference will be given to those whose skills are "especially advantageous" to the United States. Sometimes I think perhaps that should be the second basis, and the first one should be given to close relations of the U.S. citizens and resident aliens. And then, again, the remaining visas will be allocated as follows: Up to 50 percent among other relatives of U.S. citizens and resident aliens, and up to one-half of the remaining visas to immigrants filling a particular labor shortage, and the remainder to "new seed." The measures which I have recommended will not solve all the problems of immigration. Many of them will require additional legislation. But the legislation I am submitting will insure that progress will continue to be made toward our ideals and toward the realization of humanitarian objectives. Certainly, the measures I have recommended will help eliminate discrimination between peoples and nations on a basis that is unrelated to any contribution that immigrants can make and is inconsistent with our traditions of equality. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I do urge that you report this immigration bill out of committee. That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you very kindly for this opportunity of being present before you this morning. Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Ryan, did I understand you correctly, that you stated that you felt that the uniting or reuniting of families should be given the first preferential treatment or priority? Mr. RYAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I do believe in that, because I think that should have higher priority than immigrants that have certain skills to contribute to this country. Otherwise, those who have skills could come to this country, and they in turn could proceed to bring their close relatives here. On the other hand, I believe that first priority should be given to the people here who have close relations abroad, so that families can be united. Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Ryan. The subcommittee will recess for the time that will be required for the next witness to appear, which we hope will be within 5 or 10 minutes. (Short recess.) Mr. FEIGHAN. The subcommittee will come to order. It is now a few minutes after 11, and there are no Members of Congress who have made themselves available to appear today. It had been our intention to continue the hearings this afternoon so that we could complete the hearings for Members of Congress by Tuesday next. The Chair wishes to state that it is not encouraging to this committee in the fulfillment of its duties at hand that the Members of Congress have not made themselves available to testify as they have requested. It is the intention of this committee, as I said, to conclude the hearings for the Members of Congress at the end of Tuesday. We have scheduled the Secretary of State, the Honorable Dean Rusk, to appear Wednesday morning, July 1, and the Attorney General, Mr. Robert F. Kennedy, to appear on Thursday morning, July 2d. It is my hope that Members of Congress will make themselves available so that they may be heard Monday and Tuesday. The subcommittee will now adjourn until 10 o'clock, Monday morning next. (Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Monday, June 29, 1964.) |