EIGHTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S. EMANUEL CELLER, New York, Chairman MICHAEL A. FEIGHAN, Ohio WILLIAM M. TUCK, Virginia ROBERT T. ASHMORE, South Carolina BASIL L. WHITENER, North Carolina ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Wisconsin WILLIAM M. McCULLOCH, Ohio PATRICK MINOR MARTIN, California BESS E. DICK. Staff Director MURRAY DRABKIN, Counsel HERRERT FUCHS, Counsel WILLIAM P. SHATTUCK, Counsel WILLIAM H. COPENHAVER, Associate Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE No. 1 GENERAL JURISDICTION OVER ASSIGNED JUDICIARY BILLS SPECIAL JURISDICTION OVER IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY MICHAEL A. FEIGHAN, Ohio, Chairman FRANK CHELF, Kentucky RICHARD H. POFF, Virginia WALTER M. BESTERMAN, Legislative Assistant II GARNER J. CLINE, Associate Counsel Estimated admissions for first 5 years under H.R. 7700__- Additional information supplied by the Department of Labor... III TO AMEND THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT THURSDAY, JULY 2, 1964 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a.m., in room 346, Cannon Building, the Honorable Michael A. Feighan (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Messrs. Feighan, Chelf, Rodino, Poff, and Moore. Also present: Walter M. Besterman, legislative assistant and Garner J. Cline, associate counsel. Mr. FEIGHAN. The subcommittee will come to order. Today we open the second phase of our hearings on pending immigration legislation with testimony from the executive agencies of Government. We are honored to have with us as our first witness, the Secretary of State, the Honorable Dean Rusk, who, I am sure, will provide this subcommittee with important testimony on the foreign policy implications of the administration's proposal. Mr. Secretary, on behalf of the subcommittee, I extend to you a most cordial welcome. You may proceed. STATEMENT BY HON. DEAN RUSK, SECRETARY OF STATE Secretary RUSK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a very great privilege, indeed, for me to have a chance to meet with this distinguished subcommittee to talk about a very important problem. I refer to the effect on the operation of our foreign policies of the national origins system, which is the basis of our immigration laws. The administration has proposed in H.R. 7700 and S. 1932 the progressive elimination of the national origins system from our immigration laws. I should like to discuss with you the foreign policy aspects of our immigration laws and of the administration's proposals from the point of view of the Department of State. Others will discuss internal or national aspects of the administration's proposals. Under the national origins system, the primary objective was to maintain the ethnic balance among the American population as it existed in 1920. This system preserves preferences based on race and place of birth in the admission of quota immigrants to the United States. This results in discrimination in our hospitality to different nationalities in a world situation which is quite different from that which existed at the time the national origins system was originally adopted. Since the end of World War II, the United States has been placed in the role of critical leadership in a troubled and constantly changing world. We are concerned to see that our immigration laws reflect our real character and objectives. What other peoples think about us plays an important role in the achievement of our foreign policies. We in the United States have learned to judge our fellow Americans on the basis of their ability, industry, intelligence, integrity and all the other factors which truly determine a man's value to society. We do not reflect this judgment of our fellow citizens when we hold to immigration laws which classify men according to national and geographical origin. It is not difficult, therefore, to understand the reaction to this policy of a man from a geographical area or of a national origin, which is not favored by our present quota laws. Irrespective of whether the man desires to come to the United States or not, he gets the impression that our standards of judgment are not based on the merits of the individual-as we proclaim-but rather on an assumption which can be interpreted as bias and prejudice. Inasmuch as our immigration laws are regarded as the basis of how we evaluate others around the world their effect on people abroad and consequently on our influence, can readily be seen. There have been times in the past when we have been accused of preoccupation with the peoples of the West to the neglect of Asian peoples in the Far East. Unfortunately, the national origins system gives a measure of support and credence to these observations. Actually, Mr. Chairman, we are not quite as prejudiced as we sometimes appear. Congress has progressively liberalized our immigration laws to permit the reunion of families. We admit the native born from our sister Republics in the Western Hemisphere on a nonquota basis without discrimination as to origin or place of birth. Congress has also found it desirable over the years to pass special laws providing for the admission, generally on a nonquota basis, of immigrants of different races and circumstances who have been uprooted and displaced by political upheavals. In these special laws we have exhibited a generosity of spirit and a complete absence of concern about the origin, race, and place of birth of the refugees whom we have admitted to our shores under circumstances of need. I don't have to remind you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the committee, of the fine record Congress established in passing the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, the Refugee Relief Act in 1953, and the "Fair Share" Refugee-Escapee Act in 1960. These acts for all practical purposes, exempted refugees from the quota restrictions which would have delayed their entry into this country for many years. More recent legislation has clearly reflected the intent of the Congress to relieve pressures created by quota restrictions. On five separate occasions since 1957 the Congress granted nonquota status to quota immigrants who had been waiting for visas for an extensive period of time. While I shall not indulge in a statistical presentation, I should like to remind this committee that, as a result of this liberalizing policy of the Congress, only 34 percent of the 2,599,349 inmigrants who came to the United States from 1953 through 1962 were quota immigrants. |