AMENDMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290005-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 17
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 30, 2003
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: September 17, 1965
• Content Type: OPEN

?
'V *It Approved For Release 2004/01/15_: CIA-RDP671309446R000100290005-5
64itentber 17, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
The distinguished Senator from Ver-
mont was at that fateful meeting in the
White House when the President in-
formed us of the situation then develop-
ing in the Dominican Republic. Because
we are both bound by the executive na-
ture of the meeting, we cannot say too
much, but we were aware of what hap-
pened at the time, and we both gave our
full endorsement to the policy under-
taken in connection with the President's
announcement to us in the Cabinet
Room.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, let me ex-
press the hope t expressed for the Do-
minican Republic, that it will apply to all
the Latin American countries in the
Western Hemisphere. I do not believe
that we should undertake to dictate to
them just what kind of government they
should live under, or whom they should
have to head that government so long
as it does not actually threaten the se-
curity of the United States.
I am still not convinced that what
went on in the Dominican Republic in
April threatened the security of the
United States. It seemed to me that
there would have been more bloodshed
during that rebellion had the President
not intervened. However, as I said be-
fore, I believe that he received some ad-
vice, as has been pointed out by the
chairman of the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee, which caused us to make more
mistakes than we otherwise might have
made, and which delayed plans for the
establishment of a popular government
in that country.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
to some extent the discussion relates to
events in the past.
Now we are faced with the present.
It seems as though there is a good
possibility?although nothing is sure in
this world any more?of a reasonably
good government coming out of the sit-
uation in the Dominican Republic.
I thank the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY] for yield-
ing to me, and if he will allow me just
this once, to suggest the absence of a
quorum, without his losing the right to
the floor, Mr. President, I suggest the
absencb of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HAR-
Firs in the chair) . The clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to ca
the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President.,
ask unanimous consent that the orde
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
reading clerks, announced that the
House had agreed to the report of the
committee of conference on the disagree-
ing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the bill
(H.R. 9221) making appropriations for
the Department of Defense for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1966, and for other
purposes; that the House receded from
Its disagreement to the amendments of
the Senate numbered 16 and 31 to the
bill and concurred therein, and that the
House receded from its disagreement to
the amendments of the Senate numbered
8, 10, 24, and 62 to the bill, and concur-
red therein, severally with an amend-
ment, in which it requested the concur-
rence of the Senate.
The message also announced that the
House had agreed to the report of the
committee of conference on the disagree-
ing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the bill
(H.R. 10323) making appropriations for
military construction for the Depart-
ment of Defense for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1966, and for other pur-
poses.
ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED
The message further announced that
the Speaker had affixed his signature to
the following enrolled bills, and they
were signed by the Vice President:
HR. 948. An act to amend part H of the
District of Columbia Code relating to divorce,
legal separation, and annulment of marriage
in the District of Columbia;
H.R. 5883. An act to amend the bonding
provisions of the Labor-Management Report-
ing and Disclosure Act of 1959 and the Wel-
fare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act:
H.R. 10014. An act to amend the act of
July 2, 1954, relating to office space in the
districts of Members of the House of Rep-
resentatives, and the act of June 27, 1956,
relating to office space In the States of
Senators; and
H.R. 10874. An act to amend the Railroad
Retirem t Act of 1937 and the Railroad
Retirem T x Act to eliminate certain
provision h reduce spouses' annuities,
to provide overage for tips, to increase the
bas o ich railroad retirement benefits
and s are computed, and to change the
rail retirement tax rates.
MENDMENT OF IMMIGRATION
AND NATIONALITY ACT
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 2580) to amend the Im-
migration and Nationality Act, and for
other purposes.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE President, the bill we are considering
A message from the House of Repre- today accomplishes major reforms in our
sentatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its immigration policy. This bill is not
23349
concerned with increasing immigration
to this country, nor will it lower any of
the high standards we apply in selection
of immigrants. The basic change it
makes is the elimination of the national
origins quota system, in line with the
recommendations of the last four Presi-
dents of the United States, and Members
of Congress from both parties.
For 41 years, the immigration policy
of our country has been crippled by this
system. Because- of it we have never
been able to achieve the annual quota
use authorized by law. We have dis-
criminated in favor of some people over
others, contrary to our basic principles
as a nation, simply on the basis of birth.
We have separated families needlessly.
We have been forced to forego the tal-
ents of many professionals whose skills
were needed to cure, to teach and to en-
hance the lives of Americans.
The present law has caused thousands
of instances of personal hardship, of
which every Senator is aware. Several
times Congress has tried to correct the
twisted results of the national origins
system through emergency legislation.
Six times between 1948 and 1962 laws
were passed for the admission of refu-
gees. Four times between 1957 and 1962
we have made special provisions for rela-
tives of American citizens or orphans.
In addition, each year we are called upon
to consider thousands of private bills to
accommodate persons caught in the
backwash of this origins system.
These efforts at circumvention are fur-
ther proof that the national origins sys-
tem is in disrepute. We cannot continue
to respect a law we constantly seek to
circumvent. To continue with such a
law brings discredit upon ourselves as
legislators. The national origins system
has even failed in the purpose for which
It was intended: to keep the ethnic bal-
ance of our country forever as it was in
1920. In 1920, 79 percent of our white
population was of northern and western
European origin. During the first 30
years of the national origins system, only
39 percent of our total immigration came
from such areas. Since 1952, some 3.5
million persons have been admitted to
this country as immigrants. Two-thirds
of them came outside the national
origins quota. Since 1952, we have au-
thorized 2.1 million national origins
quota numbers. Only one-half of these
numbers were used.
I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD a statistical sum-
mary of immigrants admitted from.
June 30, 1953, through June 30, 1964.
There being no objection, the summary
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
23350 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 17; 19654
Immigrants admitted to the United States, by classes under the immigration laws, years ended June 30, 1953-54
Class
1953-64
1953 I
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1861
1962
1963
1961
Total immigrants admitted
3, 197, 857
170, 434
208, 177
237, 790
321, 625
326, 867
253, 265
260, 686
265,398
271,544
283, 763
306, 260
292, 248
nota immigrants (total)
1, 140, 479
84,175
94,098
82,232
89,310
97, 178
102, 153
97, 657
101,373
96,104
90.319
103, 036
102,844
Immigration and Nationality Act
1, 124, 863
78, 053
88,018
79,657
88,825
97, 084
102, 077
97, 651
101, 352
96,074
90,305
102,995
102,814
1st preference quota:
Selected immigrants of special skill or ability_ _ _
30,690
77
1,429
1,776
1,946
2,992
3,941
3,518
3,385
3,460
3,313
2,288
2, 475
Their spouses and children_
28, 676
45
1,027
1,236
1,420
2,759
3,197
3,199
3,681
3,758
3,721
2,374
2,387
Skilled agriculturists, their wives and children
(1924 act)
321
321
Parents or husbands of U.S. citizens (1924 act)._
4, 290
4,290
2d preference quota:
Parents of U.S. citizens_
35, 847
983
2,788
2,394
2,843
3,877
2,608
3,406
3,451
3,381
3,252
4,006
4,563
Unmarried Sons or daughters of U.S. citizens 2
2,499
376
931
341
392
369
Wives and children of resident aliens (1924 act) __
4,133
4,133
3d preference quota:
Spouses of resident aliens
28,450
291
3, 180
2,804
2,902
2,848
2,719
3, 409
2, 767
2, 132
1,788
1,832
1, 980
Unmarried sons or daughters of resident aliens 4-
36, 618
220
2,824
2,831
4,064
3,783
2,668
4, 134
3, 225
3, 265
2, 419
3,266
3, 929
4th preference quota:
Brothers Or sisters of U.S. citizens
22,406
83
1,556
1,955
1,600
1,715
2,903
2,162
1,956
2,348
2,162
2,187
1,711
Married sons or daughters of U.S. citizens 2
7,928
22
374
1,120
431
1,443
2,029
1,275
425
244
205
199
161
Spouses and children of brothers or sisters, sons
or daughters of U.S. citizens 4
11, 580
1,044
2,572
2,048
2,587
2,520
Adopted sons or daughters of U.S. citizens 2__
137
55
62
16
1
3
Nonpreference quota
911,468
67,608
74,848
65,711
7529
77,887
82,030
76,638
80,007
73,923
71, 512
83,983
83,207
Special legislation (quota immigrants)
15, 616
6, 122
6, 082
2,615
485
94
76
6
21
30
14
41
30
Displaced persons (Displaced Persons Act of 1948
(quota))
15, 121
5,709
8,082
2,615
485
84
715
6
3
I
Skilled sheepherders (act of Apr. 9, 1952 (quota)).__
363
363
Foreign government officials adjusted under sec. 13,
(act of Sept. 11, 1957 (quota))
132
..,
21
30
11
40
30
Nonquota immigrants (total)
2, 057, 378
86,219
114,079
155,558
232,315
229,689
111,112
163,029
164,025
175,240
193,444
203,224
189,404
Immigration and Nationality Act
1, 681, 286
85, 015
112, 854
126, 135
156,808
147,243
125, 591
111,341
133,087
152, 382
169, 346
183, 283
178, 200
Wives of U.S. citizens
236,980
15,918
17,145
18,504
21, 244
21,794
23,517
22,820
21,621
20,012
17,316
17,590
19,701
. Husbands of U.S. citizens
73, 418
3, 359
7, 725
6, 716
5,788
5, 767
5,833
8,913
6, 140
6,050
6,646
6,035
6,417
Children of U.S. citizens
70,896
3,268
5,819
5,662
4,710
4,798
5,970
6,869
8,414
6,480
6,354
6,081
7,531
Natives of Western Hemisphere countries
1, 227, 778
58, 985
78, 897
92, 620
122, 083
111, 344
86, 523
66, 386
89, 566
110, 140
130,741
144,677
131,816
Their spouses and children
27,482
2, 114
1, 629
1, 654
1, 949
2, 144
2, 052
1, 810
2, 135
2,696
2, 764
3,067
3,468
Persons who had been U.S. citizens
902
104
427
87
44
58
43
22
36
15
25
23
18
Ministers of religious denominations, their spouses
and children
5, 107
387
385
307
350
403
435
558
485
406
451
462
478
Employees of -U.S. Government abroad, their
spouses and children
205
2
4
9
2
s
23
24
27
10
3
32
61
Children born abroad to resident aliens or subse-
quent to issuance of visa
12, 117
326
358
348
412
701
926
1,228
1,458
1,411
1,495
1, 611
1,843
Ahens adjusted under sec. 249, Immigration and
Nationality Act 4
22, 7954,
321
4,773
5,037
3,399
2,680
2, 585
Other nonquota immigrants
3,605
I 554
465
' 228
226
226
269
590
392
116
152
125
262
Special legislation (nonquota immigrants)
376,093
1,244
1,225
29,423
75,507
82,448
25,521
51,688
30,938
22,858
24,098
19,941
11,204
Displaced persons (Displaced Persons Act of 1948
(nonquota))
1,030
1,030
Orphans (act of July 29, 1953)
466
398
67
Refugees (Refugee Relief Act of 1953)
189, 021
821
29,002
75,473
82,444
1,012
198
43
9
15
3
1
Skilled sheepherders (act of Sept. 3, 1954 (non-
quota))
385
354
31
Immigrants (act of Sept. 11, 1957)
61,948
24,467
24,834
6,612
3,982
1,809
213
31
Hungarian parolees (act of July 25, 1958)
30, 701
38,424
5,067
122
51
20
17
Azores and Netherlands refugees (act of Sept. 2,
1958)
22,213
1,187
8,870
8,472
4, 796
1,888
Immigrants (secs. 4 and 6, act of Sept. 22,1959)
29,337
10,314
13,255
5,488
280
Immigrants (act of Sept. 26, 1961)
15, 525
11,912
2,648
765
Other nonquota immigrants (special legislation)___412
214
6
3
2
42
45
32
18
27
12
12
Refugee and escapees (act of July 14, 1960)
6, 111
2,005
4,100
Immigrants (act of Oct. 24, 1962)
18,944
12,672
5,272
1953 figures include admissions under Immigration Act of 1924.
rPrior to act of Sept. 22, 1959, all sons or daughters of U.S. citizens over 21 years of
age were classified as 4th preference quota under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Adopted sons and daughters with petitions approved prior to Sept. 22, 1959, remained
4th preference.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, from these figures, it was ob-
vious to the Judiciary Committee that
the current system is as much a failure
as a device as it is an embarrassment as
a doctrine. The bill now before .the
Senate abolishes it altogether.
The new policy in the bill before us
was developed under the administration
of President Kennedy by experts both in
Congress and the executive branch. Ex-
tensive hearings were held, both last
year and this, in the Senate and the
House. The Senate Immigration Sub-
committee has sat regularly since last
February. We have heard over 50 wit-
nesses. I can report, Mr. President, that
opposition to this measure is minimal.
Many of the private organizations who
differed with us in the past now agree
Prior to act of Sept. 22, 1959, included only children under 21 of resident aliens.
Adult sons or daughters of resident aliens were classified as nonpreference quota.
Prior to act of Sept. 22, 1969, classified as nonpreference quota.
Not reported prior to 1959.
Includes 321 professors of colleges and universities their wives and children.
the national origins system must be
eliminated.
The current bill phases out the na-
tional origins system over a 3-year peri-
od. Beginning July 1, 1968, our immi-
gration policy will be based on the con-
cept of "first come, first served." We
no longer will ask a man where he was
born. Instead we will ask if he seeks to
join his family. or if he can help meet
the economic and social needs of the
Nation. Favoritism based on national-
ity will disappear. Favoritism based on
individual worth and qualifications will
take its place.
When this system is fully in effect,
170,000 quota numbers will be available
to the world, exclusive of the Western
Hemisphere. Parents, spouses, and chil-
dren of U.S. citizens will be considered as
"immediate relatives" and, as such, will
be under no numerical limitation at all.
Due to the existence of backlogs of ap-
plicants in those nations discriminated
against by the national okigins system,
an annual limitation per country of
20,000 quota immigrants is established, so
that in the short run no one nation will
be able to receive an unduly dispropor-
tionate share of the quota numbers. It
is anticipated that after 3 years, these
backlogs of intending immigrants will be
eliminated in all instances but for one
category of Italians, and that situation
will be rectified shortly thereafter.
The total number of authorized quotas
Is not increased substantially by this
bill. Currently, we authorize the use of
158,561 numbers per year; but this is
exclusive of refugees. Under the new
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
Approved For. Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
September 17, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 23351
law, provision is made for the acceptance
of some 10,200 refugees. This is what ?
accounts for the increase in total num-
bers under this bill from 158,561 to
170,000.
? Under our new "first come, first
served" system, while all immigrants will
be in worldwide competition, we will re-
tain certain preferences and, of course,
our traditional stringent safeguards.
The preferences under this bill reflect
our strong humanitarian belief in family
unity as well as personal merit. The
170,000 numbers will be made available
in the following. order of preference:
First, 20 percent, or 34,000 quota num-
bers, to unmarried sons and daughters
of U.S. citizens;
Second, 20 percent, or 34,000 quota
numbers, to the spouses and unmarried
children of permanent resident aliens;
Third, 10 percent, or 17,000 quota
numbers, will be available to persons
who can qualify as professionals or peo-
ple of ability in the arts or sciences who
will substantially benefit the United
States;
Fourth, 10 percent, or 17,000 numbers,
to the married sons and daughters of
U.S. citizens;
Fifth, 24 percent, or 40,800 numbers,
to the brothers and sisters of U.S.
citizens;
Sixth, 10 percent, or 17,000 numbers,
to qualified persons capable of perform-
ing permanent labor for which a short-
age of employable and willing persons
exists in the United States;
Seventh, 6 percent, or 10,200 numbers,
for refugees as defined in the bill. In
any given, year, one-half of these num-
bers may be used to adjust the status of
previously paroled refugees who can
qualify as permanent resident aliens.
The numbers stated in these prefer-
ence categories are fixed for the profes-
sionals, the laborers, and the refugees.
Any other preference category dealing
with family relationships receives the
unused quota numbers of the preference
category before it. Finally, all numbers
unused in all the preference categories
flow in the end for the use of nonprefer-
ence or "new seed" immigrants.
Mr. President, the foregoing is a gen-
eral description of our immigration pol-
icy on July 1, 1968. On that date no na-
tion will have a quota number assigned
to ,it?except for the equalizing limit of
20;000 per nation?and no immigrant
will be penalized by his birth or ancestry.
Between now and then, we have adopted
a simple and equitable phasing-out sys-
tem. For the 3 years beginning July. 1,
1965, each nation will maintain its na-
tional origin quota, but the quota num-
bers unused by any nation will be placed
in an immigration pool for redistribution
to other nations the following year. We
will start the pool out with the 55,600
numbers-unused last year. During the
3 years certain parts of the new system
will be in effect; no one nation can re-
ceive more than 20,000 numbers per year.
The immigration pool will be available
only to immigrants qualifying under the
new preference system. The total num-
ber available to the world will be the new
total of 170,000. Because refugees are
No. 172 5
Included in our general immigration law
for the first time, both the Senate and
House committee intended that the 6
percent of our total immigration num-
bers, allocated to refugees, or 10,200,
will be available for use from the pool
during the phaseout years. Refugees
were never under the national origin sys-
tem and should not be now: thus the
numbers available for this purpose will
be present both before and after July 1,
1968.
Mr. President, in addition to eliminat-
ing the national origins system, this bill
makes other reforms in our immigration
policy that support the principles of
merit and of first come, first served. I
am especially gratified that we are wip-
ing out the Asia-Pacific triangle. Es-
tablished by the McCarran-Walter Act
of 1952, this geographic triangle is used
to identify those nations of the East to
which a specially discriminatory rule
applies. Any person, regardless of his
place of birth, whose ancestry can be
traced to a nation or nations within the
triangle is chargeable to the quota of
that nation, or to a general triangle
quota of 100. The elimination of this
crude device means that finally, after
almost 100 years, Asian peoples are no
longer discriminated against in the im-
migration laws of our country.
The plight of refugees has been of
special concern to us since the end of
World War II. Every outbreak of vio-
lence between nations leaves its toll in
the homeless and dispossessed. Our con-
cern for refugees was capped in 1960 by
the passage of the fair share law, un-
der which we agreed to accept up to 25
percent of persons displaced to other
lands in a prior 6-month period, if these
persons fell under the mandate of the
United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees. This law was passed in keep-
ing with World Refugee Year. By plac-
ing refugees under our general immigra-
tion law for the first time, the bill before
us will do away with the main provisions
of the fair share law, thus allowing the
United States to make its own deter-
mination of who is or is not a refugee.
As defined in this bill, refugees are
those persons displaced from Commu-
nist-dominated countries or areas, or
from any country in the defined area of
the Middle East because of persecution,
or fear of persecution, on account of race,
religion, or political opinion. They must
be currently settled in countries other
than their homelands.
The bill also will make quota numbers
available to refugees displaced by nat-
ural calamities, as defined by the Pres-
ident. This provision is designed to as-
sure the world- that we will remain a
haven for the displaced. It means that
when situations arise, like the earth-
quakes in the Azores in 1963, and floods
in southeastern Europe, we will be able
to assure that the cases of greatest need
can be processed at once, while special
legislation is being considered.
Another change brought about by this
hill relates to the controls exercised by
the Secretary Of Labor to protect our
economy from whatever harsh effects
immigration could create. Under cur-
rent law, aliens who enter to seek em-
ployment are excluded from the coun-
try only if the Secretary of Labor has
determined that their presence would
have an adverse effect on the employ-
ment or the wages and working condi-
tions of American citizens. Under this
procedure, the Secretary certifies that
aliens falling under certain occupational
or skill definitions should be excluded
because they will threaten domestic em- ?
ployment. The new bill reverses this
procedure. It places the burden of prov-
ing no adverse effect on the applying
alien. The intending immigrant must
receive a certificate from the Secretary
of Labor that his presence will not affect
U.S. employment, wages, or working con-
ditions.
Mr. President, this provision was in-
cluded in this bill to further protect our
labor force during periods of high un-
,employment. But it was included with
the intent that it be meaningful only
where it has some meaning. Section
212(a) 14 of the act which is amended
here relates only to those aliens who
come here for the purpose of perform-
ing skilled or unskilled labor. Hence
one would not expect a nonpreference
housewife to be forced to seek a specific
case clearance from the Secretary.
Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator is talk-
ing about aliens who come here seeking
to stay permanently under the immigra-
tion laws and not aliens who come here
for seasonal employment as temporary
supplemental agricultural workers?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
The Senator is correct.
Mr. HOLLAND, I thank the Senator.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
Moreover, Mr. President, it was not our
intention, nor that of the AFL-CIO, that
all intending immigrants must undergo
an employment analysis of great detail
that could be time consuming and dis-
ruptive to the normal flow of immigra-
tion. We know that the Department of
Labor maintains statistics on occupa-
tions, skills, and labor in short supply in
this country. Naturally, then, any appli-
cant for admission who falls within the
categories should not have to wait for a
detailed study by the Labor Department
before his certificate is issued. On the
other hand, there will be cases where the
Secretary will be expected to ascertain
in some detail the need for the immi-
grant in this country under the provi-
sions of the law. In any event we would
expect the Secretary of Labor to devise
workable rules and regulations by which
he could carry out his responsibilities
under the law without unduly interrupt-
ing or delaying immigration to this coun-
try. The function of the Secretary is to
increase the quality of immigration, not
to diminish it below levels authorized by
law.
The final major change brought about
by this legislation affects the nations of
the Western Hemisphere, The bill will
modify the current nonquota status of
these nations by placing a ceiling of
120,000 on the entire hemisphere, exclu-
sive of parents, spouses, and children.
This ceiling, effective July 1, 1968, will
place no numerical limit on any one
Approved For Release.2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP671300446R000100290005-5
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
23352 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE September 17, 190
country, however, nor will it incorporate
the preference system in force fdr the
rest of the world.
The bill also creates a Select Commis-
sion on Western Hemisphere Immigra-
tion. This Commission will conduct a
complete study of the demographic, eco-
nomic, and social changes underway in
this hemisphere and draw conclusions
pertinent to our immigration policy.
The Commission will make its first report
to the President and the Congress by
July 1, 1967, and its final report by Jan-
uary 15, 1968.
Mr. President, there are other amend-
ments to the Immigration and National-
ity Act in this important bill. Some are
of a technical nature, causing the law to
conform to the basic change in our pol-
icy; others are more substantive. For
example, the newly independent nations
of Jamaica and Trinidad-Tobago are in-
cluded within the definition of the West-
ern Hemisphere by a change in the defi-
nition of the Western Hemisphere to in-
clude any independent foreign country
In this hemisphere. This broad defini-
tion, rather than the current restrictive
one, will also encompass areas that might
gain their independence in the future.
Also, with regard to this hemisphere,
current law does not allow for the ad-
justment of status of _aliens who arrive
as nonimmigrants from the nations con-
tiguous to the, United States or the ad-
jacent islands. In the light of some
abuses, whereby Western Hemisphere
presons have come as visitors and then
sought an adjustment to permanent resi-
dents, the current restriction on adjust-
ment was extended to cover the entire
hemisphere. An important exception
has been made in the Senate committee,
however, to provide for those who have
fled, or will flee in the future, from a
hemisphere nation to escape persecution
because of race, religion, or political
opinion. This was devised to ease the
situation of many Cubans who have en-
tered the United States in recent years.
In general, the various exclusions that
exist in our current law have been re-
tained. This bill does, however, recog-
nize the advances made in the treatment
and control of epilepsy, and removes per-
sons so afflicted from the exclusions of
the law.
In addition, those who are classified as
mentally retarded, and those who have
suffered past mental afflictions will be
treated in the same manner as we cur-
rently treat those who are classified as
tubercular. That is, the conditions and
controls for the admission of such peo-
ple will rest with the Attorney General.
He shall establish the regulations for
admission in consultation with the Sur-
geon General of the Public Health Serv-
ice.
Section 8(c) of the bill is a consolida-
tion of the definition of "eligible orphan"
from different sections of the current
law. It was meant to merely restate the
definition while in no way changing it
from current usage.
Finally, alien crewmen who entered
illegally will no longer be treated dif-
ferently than other illegal entrants when
seeking an adjustment of status.
This is the bill before the Senate. It
was drafted in the belief that, in drafting
an immigration law, Congress should
provide our country with a source of
strength, not a source of problems. We
should be responsive to human needs, but
mindful of economic realities. We
should not add to the difficulties our
country is having, but rather try to aid
in the solution of these difficulties. I be-
lieve that a fair reading of this bill will
show that these responsibilities are dis-
charged.
There have been, however, certain
questions raised in the course of our
hearings that indicated certain fears or
concerns in the minds of some interested
people. I would like to set them straight.
First was the fear that this legislation
would result in a significant increase in
overall immigration. As I have previ-
ously stated, the number of quotas au-
thorized each year will not be substan-
tially increased. The world total?ex-
clusive of Western Hemisphere?will be
170,000, an increase of approximately
11,500 over current authorization. But
10,200 of that increase is accounted for
by the inclusion of refugees in our gen-
eral law for the first time.
There will be some increase in total
immigration to the United States?about
50,000 to 60,000 per year. This results
from changing the law from an individ-
ual country quota system to a worldwide
system. These are the numbers that go
unused each year because quota num-
bers given to a country that are not uti-
lized are wasted. By removing that ob-
stacle to use, all numbers authorized will
now be used, thus the increase in immi-
gration will be about the same as the
number of quotas now wasted. More
specifically, the future use of numbers
can be estimated as follows. Under this
bill, we will use the 170,000 numbers
given to the world, exclusive of the West-
ern Hemisphere, and about 60,000 more
for immediate relatives. Over the past
10 years we have averaged 110,000 per
year from the Western Hemisphere.
This should continue, along with ap-
proximately 15,000 immediate relatives.
Thus we will admit an estimated total of
355,000. This is but a 60,000 increase in
total immigration over our average total
for the last decade.
We are talking about 60,000 people,
in a population nearing 200 million, that
is growing, without immigration, at a
rate of 3 million per year. The percent-
age increase that immigration will rep-
resent is infinitesimally small. This leg-
islation opens no "floodgate." Rather it
admits about the same number of immi-
grants that current law,pould allow, but
for the national origins restriction.
Another fear is that immigrants from
nations other than those in northern
Europe will not assimilate into our so-
ciety. The difficulty with this argument
is that it comes 40 years too late. Hun-
dreds of thousands of such immigrants
have come here in recent years, and their
adjustment has been notable. At my re-
quest, many voluntary agencies that as-
sist new immigrants conducted lengthy
surveys covering people who have ar-
rived since the late 1940's. The results
would be most gratifying to any Ameri-
can. I have only found five case of
criminal complaints involving immi-
grants in our studies of many thousands.
Unemployment rates among these people
are much lower than the national aver-
age; business ownership between 10 per-
cent and 15 percent higher; home own-
ership as high as 80 percent in one city
and averaging about 30 percent else-
where. Economic self-sufficiency after
approximately 41/2 months from the date
of arrival. By every standard of as-
similation these immigrants have ad-
justed faster than any previous group.
In whatever other defintion we wish to
give to assimilate, we would find our new
residents doing well. Family stability is
found to be excellent; cases of immi-
grants on public welfare are difficult to
find; 85 to 95 percent of those eligible
have become naturalized citizens, and
so forth.
The fact is, Mr. President, that the
people who comprise the new immigra-
tion?the type which this bill would give
preference to?are relatively well edu-
cated and well to do. They are familiar
with American ways. They share our
ideals. Our merchandise, our styles,
our patterns of living are an integral
part of their own countries. Many of
them learn English as a second language
in their schools. In an age of global tel-
evision and the universality of American
culture, their assimilation, in a real
sense, begins before they come here.
Finally, the fear is raised that under
this bill immigrants will be taking jobs
away from Americans at a time we find
It difficult to lower our unemployment
rate below 4 percent. Mr. President, I
have already described the more strin-
gent controls that this bill gives to the
Secretary of Labor to insure against any
adverse effects of immigration on Ameri-
can labor. I would also point out that
this measure has the complete support
of the AFL-CIO; support that would not
be forthcoming if the fear of job loss
for Americans were real.
The fact is that most immigrants do
not enter the labor market at all?they
are consumers and create demands for
additional labor. Since 1947, only 47
percent of our total immigration entered
the labor force, while 53 percent became
consumers only, providing a net increase
In the demand for goods and services.
Of our total immigrant work force since
1947, approximately one-third entered
professional and technical occupations?
a ratio higher than that for our own
domestic labor force. Last year alone,
some 20,000 immigrants entered jobs de-
fined as critical occupations by the Selec-
tive Service System. These are the peo-
ple whose creativity makes more jobs,
not fewer. In this connection, I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in the
RECORD two tables summarizing occupa-
tional distribution of recent immigration,
which bear this out.
There being no objection, the tables
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290005-5
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
September 17, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 23353
TABLE 1.-Number and percent distribution of immigrants by broad occupational groups, for fiscal years 1947-64 and for selected years
Occupational groups
Total, 1947 through 1994
1964
1954
1947
Number
Bement
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Total admitted
4, 424, 460
100. 0
292, 248
100. 0
208, 177
100. 0
147, 292
106 0
With occupation
2,077, 594
47.0
131,098
44. 9
96, 110
46. 2
65, 583
44. 5
No occupation
2, 346, 866
53.0
151,076
51.7
1 112,067
53.8
1 81, 709
55. 5
. No occupation reported
(I)
10,074
3.4
(1)
(1)
With occupation 2
2, 077, 594
100.0
131,098
100.0
96,110
100.0
65,583
100.0
Professional, technical and kindred workers
343, 414
16. 5
28, 756
21.9
13, 817
14. 4
10,891
16. 6
Farmers and farm managers
92, 180
4.4
1, 732
1.3
3,846
4.0
3, 462
5.3
Managers, officials and proprietors, except farm
101, 708
4. 9
6, 822
5. 2
1,236
5.5
5,886
9.0
Clerical, sales, and kindred workers
367, 845
17.7
30,015
22.9
16,018
16.7
13,691
21.3
Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers
321,453
15.5
17,565
11.4
15, 396
16.0
8,720
13. 3
Operatives and kindred workers
279,646
13.5
14,243
10.9.
16, 755
17.4
10,580
16. 1
Private household workers
157,300
7.6
8,451
6.4
8,096
8.4
4,922
7.1
Service workers, except private household
125, 063
6.0
10,395
7.9
5,203
5.4
3,882
5.9
Farm laborers and foremen
78, 044
3.8
3,988
3.0
1,622
1. 7
442
.7
Laborers, except farm and mine
210, 945
10. 2
9, 127
7.0
10, 061
10.5
2,831
4.3
I "No occupation" includes "no occupation reported" group.
a Includes immigrants 14 years of age and over.
NOTE.-Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Annual reports of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. De-
partment of Justice.
TABLE 2.-Number of immigrants in selected critical occupations admitted each year,
scat years 1954-641
Total,
1954-64
1964
1963
1962
1061
1960
1959
1958
1957
1956
1955
1954
Biological scientists
601
112
81
49
48
53
57
56
51
35
36
23
Chemists
6,335
825
814
474
551
504
645
626
668
494
351
383
Dentists
1, 429
160
177
115
119
110
99
129
132
159
113
116
Engineers
36, 461
3, 660
3, 966
2, 909
2, 868
3,338
3, 936
4,008
4, 524
2, 794
2, 067
2,391
Geologists and geophysicists
659
85
73
88
66
42
69
58
62
51
41
34
Mathematicians
345
50
56
39
24
31
29
32
35
17
18
14
Nurses
36, 858
4, 230
4,355
3, 700
3,449
3,828
3, 620
3,729
3, 517
3, 064
1,864
1,502
Physicians and surgeons ?
18, 424
2, 249
2, 093
1, 797
1, 683
1, 674
1, 630
1,934
1, 990
1, 388
1, 046
1, 040
Physicists
1, 610
242
216
187
151
162
155
145
128
75
75
74
Professors and instructors
4, 767
839
761
689
500
367
340
352
372
290
173
184
Teachers not specified
27,218
4,086
3,727
3,182
2,686
2,532
2,870
2,471
2,304
655
1,549
1,356
Technicians
17, 209
2,448
2, 197
1,838
3,635
1,632
1,821
3,346
1, 663
1,095
840
804
Machinists
10, 252
969
867
681
819
993
1,476
836
1,393
1, 106
694
488
Toolmakers, &makers, and setters
7,354
423
473
369
460
706
654
868
1,110
894
587
760
1 The occupational categories listed in this tab e are those which immigrants reported
on their arrival in the United States. It was not possible, in a few instances, because
of lack of sufficient occupational detail to make a precise match with the occupations
which appear on the list of currently critical occupations as determined by the Tech- ?
nical Committee on Critical Occupations of the U.S. Department of Labor. For
this reason, totals are not shown.
?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. In
effect then, immigration benefits our
economy and labor force, as long as it
Is selective and controlled. This bill will
allow greater selectivity and greater
control.
Mr. President, what we are about to
consider is the fruit of the efforts of
many people over many years: volun-
tary organizations, who year after year
raised their voices against the hardship
of the quota system; members of the
other body, such as Representative CEL-
LER of New York and Representative
FEIGHAN of Ohio, who have vigorously
pursued reform; and many others. May
I say that my efforts on this subject have
been brief in comparison with theirs.
If this is an historic occasion, if we are
about to take a long awaited step, there
are many Senators, here now and with
us in the past, whose efforts made them
far more worthy of the honor of guiding
this bill to passage than those of the
junior Senator from Massachusetts.
I think of the late senior Senator from
New York, Herbert Lehman, who intro-
duced the first bill to repeal the national
origins quota system after the report
of President Truman's Commission in
1953.
r think of our distinguished Vice Pres-
ident, who cosponsored such -13. bill in
each Congress, and spoke for it around
the country.
Source: 1959 through 1964, annual reports of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, U.S. Department of Justice; 1954 through 1958. data furnished by the Immigra-"
tion and Naturalization Service, U.S. Department of Justice.
I think of President Kennedy, who as
a Senator sponsored much of the legis-
lation that breached the quota system
to unify families and who first proposed
the principles of this bill in 1963. I
thank the Senator from Michigan, [Mr.
HART] , who has introduced his own bills
in the past, as well as this bill on behalf
of the administration.
And I think of all their colleagues who
joined with them, year after year, to
make this fight. Without their efforts
we would not have this opportunity.
Mr. President, George Washington
prescribed an immigration policy almost
200 years ago saying:
The bosom of America is open to receive
not only the opulent and respectable stranger
but the oppressed and persecuted of all na-
tions and religions; whom we shall welcome
to a participation of all our rights and
privileges, if by decency and propriety of
conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.
This bill is in keeping with the wish
of our first President, and with the wiser
strains of our immigration policy that
run through most of our history. After
40 years we have returned to first princi-
ples. Immigration, more than anything
else, has supplied America with the
human strength that is the core of its
greatness. Let us keep the strength
renewing.
Mr. KTJCHEL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I
yield.
Mr. KUCHEL. The presentation just
made by my able friend from Mas-
sachusetts is excellent. He need not
apologize for the manner in which he
will guide the proposed legislation suc-
cessfully through the Senate.
I recall that when the Senator's late
Illustrious brother occupied the White
House, he made recommendations to the
Senate in this field, and I supported him.
I recall that when President Kennedy's
predecessor, General Eisenhower, was
our Chief Executive and made recom-
mendations in this field, I supported him.
Years ago, legislation tending toward
what the able junior Senator from Mas-
sachusetts has now presented was passed
by the Senate, only to suffer an unkind
fate in the House.
In my judgment, the junior Senator
from Massachusetts and other members
of the Committee on the Judiciary have
reported a bill of which all of us may be
proud.
Specifically, is it not true that the
manner in which the bill applies to the
problem of refugees is simply and solely
a continuation of the policy first estab-
lished in the administration of President
Eisenhower, carried forward in the ad-
ministration of the late President Ken-
nedy, and now recognized for the first
time, as the able Senator from Mas-
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
23354 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE September 17, 1965
sachusetts has said, in the bill to provide
f or the amendment of the Immigration
Act, which he has presented to us?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
The Senator from California is correct.
As he has stated, the bill includes a pro-
vision specifically for the consideration
of the refugee problem. This is the first
time that refugee provisions have been
placed in our permanent immigration
law.
The bill contains a definition of the
refugees that we will accept, of hQw they
will be admitted, and from what partic-
ular parts of the world they may come.
I refer the Senator from California to
page 35 of the bill, which establishes
quite clearly what we mean by ref-
ugees?those fleeing from Communist
domination, from the effects of natural
calamity, or from the defined areas in
the Middle East.
Mr. KUCHEL. I thank the Senator.
I shall watch the debate closely.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Massachusetts yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I
yield.
Mr. ERVIN. Before I take the floor
in my own right, as I shall do in a few
moments, I take occasion to pay tribute
to the floor manager of the bill, the able
junior Senator from the Commonwealth
a Massachusetts.
The late President Kennedy was deep-
ly interested in this field, and many of
the provisions of the bill represent a
realization of a dream entertained by
him. So it is quite fitting that the bill
should be guided to passage through the
Senate by his able brother.
The junior Senator from Massachu-
setts presided over the hearings of the
subcommittee which began last February
and continued until comparatively recent
days. Throughout that time, he always
presided with courtesy, with tact, with an
understanding of the problems involved,
and with an eloquent presentation of
his own views on the subject.
I pay tribute also at this time to the
distinguished junior Senator from Mich-
igan [Mr. HART], who is now presiding
over the Senate, and who introduced the
bill which formed, in large measure, the
blueprint for the consideration of the
Committee and has culminated in the
reporting of the bill now before the Sen-
ate.
In paying tribute, I should also say
that the subcommittee labored hard on
this subject. High commendation is due
to the distinguished senior Senator from
Hawaii [Mr. FoNal for his interest, ef-
forts, and untiring devotion to the work
of the subcommittee. His amendments
considerably improved the bill.
The distinguished minority leader [Mr.
DIRKSEN], the distinguished senior Sena-
tor from New York [Mr. JAVITS], and the
distinguished Senator from Nebraska
[Mr. HRUSKA], who is not a member of
the subcommittee, but is of the full com-
mittee, deserve much credit for the work
which has resulted in the presentation
of the bill to the Senate today.
I compliment the distinguished junior
Senator from Massacbusetts for the elo-
quent presentation and his excellent
analysis of the bill.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I
appreciate the comments of the Senator
from North Carolina. More than any-
one else, he was in constant attendance
at the committee hearings, and labored
long and hard in bringing this measure
to the floor today. To a great extent,
his exhaustive probing, questioning, and
analyzing brought many worthwhile rec-
ommendations for the improvement of
the bill. So I appreciate particularly the
'kind comments of the distinguished Sen-,
ator from North Carolina.
Mr. President, I desire to mention one
additional matter. The distinguished
junior Senator from Florida [Mr. &TATE-
Ells], a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary, who is absent from the Senate
at this time on official business, brought
to my attention certain language that
appears in the third paragraph on page
26 of the report, pointing out to me that
this was not the language that was
agreed to by the committee. With his
point of view, I thoroughly concurred.
Let me now read the language about
which the Senator from Florida expressed
concern:
The attention of the committee was di-
rected to the situation which exists with
reference to the practices and procedures
controlling the importation of aliens to per-
form temporary services under section 214(c)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act, both
as it relates to the importation of actors and
other performers and as it relates to other
types of employment.
Further, there appears in the report
the following language in the last sen-
tence of the same paragraph:
The Attorney General will be requested to
study this matter of consultation with the
Secretary of Labor in those cases involving
the importation of nonimmigrant aliens
under section 101(a) (15) (H) (1) and (11)
and report seasonably to the committee the
results of his study.
The Senators from Florida expressed
concern that the words "and as it relates
to other types of emplokment" which
appear in the first sentence of the third
paragraph and the words referring to
section 101(a) (15) (H) in the last sen-
tence of the same paragraph was not the
language approved by the committee,
and could conceivably include nonimmi-
grant farm labor which the committee
had no intention of including in the
report.
I informed the Junior Senator from
Florida that it was the intention of the
committee that the language in the re-
port refer solely to the importation of
actors and performers of exceptional
ability and related employees in the?en-
tertainment field, such as theatrical
technicians, electricians, wardrobe per-
sonnel and so forth.
There is a clear understanding between
myself, the Junior Senator from Florida,
and other members of the committee
with respect to this language that the
committee had no intention of including
nonimmigrant farm labor in the language
agreed to.
I regret that this language is in such
a form that it could be misconstrued
and want to say very definitely now that
the committee makes no change or re-
ference to nonimmigrant farm labor
either in the report or the bill before us.
As a matter of fact this was made clear
in the committee in connection with the
colloquy that was had between the Jun-
ior Senator from Florida, myself, and
other members of the committee.
The language that I have referred to
was added to cover those temporary
workers who accompany theatrical per-
formers to assist them in their perform-
ances and again was not included to
refer to nonimmigrant farm labor.
Let me make it abundantly clear that
no change is made in existing law with
respect to nonimmigrant farm labor and
that the language in the report was
meant to be confined as I have previous-
ly stated to the importation of actors
and other performers of exceptional
ability and related employees in the en-
tertainment field. I can assure the mem-
bers of the Senate that had this report
not been printed that most certainly the
words in the first sentence of the third
paragraph on page 26 and those words
in the last sentence referring to section
101(a) (15) (H) would be deleted from
the report, so that there could be no pos-
sible misconstruance.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. TcP.NNEDY of Massachusetts. I
yield.
Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator
for making so clear the point which has
just been clarified relative to the inclu-
sion of certain unfortunate wording in
the committee report.
The Senator will recall, as will oth-
er Senators, that the Senate recently had
a rather sturdy debate on this question
relating to the importation of temoorary
workers for agricultural labor from for-
eign nations, which workers are not ad-
mitted as applicants for permanent resi-
dence.
In that debate the Senate was even-
ly divided, as the Senator will recall.
The controlling vote was cast by the dis-
tinguished Vice President, which made
a total vote, as I recall, cf 46 to 45.
Shortly after that action, and after the
amendment sponsored by the senior Sen-
ator from Florida and by my distin-
guished colleage the junior Senator from
Florida [Mr. SMATHERS], and the distin-
guished Senator from California [Mr.
MURPHY], had been omitted from the
farm bill then pending, by the vote of
the Vice President, we had heard that
there would be included in the immigra-
tion bill a provision relating to the same
subject and applying in a different way,
of course, from that which was pursued
by our amendment.
The senior Senator from Florida in-
quired at once of the committee and the
committee staff and found that, just as
his friend has now stated, no such pro-
vision was included in the bill. It had
been agreed in the committee that the
bill should make no reference to nonim-
migrant farm labor. It had also been
agreed in the committee that there
should be no reference to the subject
matter in the report. However, when
the report was available, immediate anx-
iety was created in certain agricultural
circles by the wording to which the Sen-
ator has referred.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
September 17 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
The senior Senator from Florida at
once took up this matter, first with his
distinguished colleague the junior Sen-
ator from Florida, and later with the
chairman of the full Committee on the
Judiciary [Mr. EASTLAND], with the dis-
tinguished Senator from North Carolina
[Mr. EaviN], and with other members
of the committee, and found that the
wording of the report, if it applied to
agricultural labor, was unfortunate be-
cause it had not been approved by the
committee.
? Later we found that was exactly the
understanding of my distinguished friend
who has so ably explained the provisions
of this bill, the junior Senator from Mas-
sachusetts.
I appreciate the fact that he has
cleared up this matter so thoroughly by
his statement.
As I now understand it, there is no
reference in the bill itself to the subject
matter of supplemental agricultural labor
from foreign countries coming to this
country to help harvest or to Nap pro-
'duce our crops, and there is no reference
contained in the report. The words
quoted by the distinguished Senator from
the report were meant to relate and do
relate solely to actors and persons in the
entertainment field and technicians and
specialists who accompany them when
they come to this country. Is that a cor-
rect statement?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
The Senator is correct in his understand-
ing. This legislation before us is a very
Important, but limited, adjustment to the
McCarran-Walter Act. This bill takes a
particular part of existing law, as I men-
tioned in my speech, relating to immigra-
tion factors such as the national origin
quota system, the Asia-Pacific triangle,
and the preference categories, and modi-
fies them to remove a longstanding form
of discrimination in our immigration
laws.
This specific legislation does not con-
sider in any way, nor does the report, the
matter which the Senator from Florida
has mentioned, though certainly the mat-
ter which the Senator from Florida has
mentioned is included generally within
the total framework of the McCarran-
Walter Act.
Mr. HOLLAND. It is included within
the framework of existing law, but not
included in any way within the proposed
changes in the existing law nor within
the purview of the report of the com-
mittee
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
That is correct.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I
thank the Senator. I am not surprised
that that is the case.
The Senator and I had a short con-
ference on this subject generally as we
were going back to our respective offices.
I remember that I assured the distin-
guished Senator that the suggestion
might not be presented by those of us who
think differently from himself on this
subject. I had felt from what I had
heard from the committee that a similar,
situation existed in the committee.
I was particularly impressed that that
must be the case when I noted the deci-
sion of the committee and the voting in
the Senate on the amendment to which
I have referred. I found that the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary was evenly di-
vided in its vote. Eight members of the
committee voted for the position taken
by my distinguished colleague and my-
self, and seven members voted against
that position. The absent member of the
committee, making up the 16 in all, de-
clared for that position. So there was a
division of 9 to 7 in favor of the position
taken by my colleague and myself.
It seemed to me impossible in that
situation for the committee to have taken
any affirmative position on this issue.
I thank the Senator for having made it
abundantly clear by his statement that
the committee neither in the bill nor in
the report intended to or has taken any
position whatever on the question of the
admission of nonimmigrant agricultural
labor.
I thank the distinguished Senator.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I
yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rus-
SELL of South Carolina in the chair) .
The Senator from Michigan is recog-
nized.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I join the
able Senator from North Carolina [Mr.
Eavric] and the distinguished minority
whip [Mr. KUCHEL] in commending the
junior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr.
KENNEDY], who has opened the debate on
this historic bill in a fashion which will
do great credit to the Senate, quite aside
from the distinction which it will bring
to him. With him, I hope that the hour
is at hand when we may achieve a goal.
which many of us shared with his bril-
liant brother. I am very grateful for the
kind words he has spoken.
I reassure the Senator from Florida
that I heard the colloquy with respect to
agricultural labor, and I share the view
of the floor manager of the bill that there
is nothing, in the new legislation which
we hope will be enacted, that would
change existing law or procedures with
respect to the admission of migrants or
anybody else. The same procedures and
clearance requirements which exist today
will remain after enactment of this bill.
I join the Senator from Massachusetts
also in the deserved high praise he gave
the distinguished senior Senator from
North Carolina [Mr. Eavnq], whose keen
mind and persuasive speech we all ad-
mire, who applied those rich gifts to the
development of a record upon which the
Senate may confidently act.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I
yield.
Mr. HOLLAND. Do the remarks of
the Senator from Michigan concerning
nonimmigrant agricultural labor apply
equally to the report of the committee?
Mr. HART. Yes. We are again con-
fronted with the problem that whatever
the report might have contained, the bill
does not change a line of the existing
law with respect to the admission of that
category of agricultural labor, or others.
Mr. HOLLAND. The wording in the
report which might be construed as ap-
plicable to that field was not so intended,
23355
and does not in fact apply to nonimmi-
grant farm labor.
Mr. HART. That is correct. It should
not be so construed.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I have
been involved, as a member of the Com-
mittee on Immigration and Naturaliza-
tion since February, with the processes
which have led to the presentation to the
Senate of the pending bill. I believe I
can truthfully say that the bill in its
present form is a result of the legislative
process working in its finest fashion.
The bill represents the combined efforts
of many men who entertain divergent
views upon many aspects of the legisla-
tion; and it represents a compromise of
those divergent positions of interested
members of the subcommittee on vari-
ous features of the bill. In its present
form, it is a bill which I can support with
good grace.
I do not know whether I could have
said that in February, because I frankly
concede that I believe in the national
origins quota system of the McCarran-
Walter Act; and had I been permitted
to have my way in the framing of the
bill, I should have retained the national
origins quota system of that act.
I wish to say a few words as to the
reason why I believed?and still be-
lieve?that the national origins quota
system of the McCarran-Walter Act
presents a desirable formula for the ad-
mission of immigrarits for permanent
residence and ultimate citizenship in the
United States.
I disagree with the view that the na-
tional origins quota system devised by
those two great American legislators,
Senator Pat MeCarran and Representa-
tive Francis Walter, is discriminatory
either in purpose or in effect. To be sure,
the national origins quota system pre-
scribed by the act which bears the names
of those two eminent Americans gave
larger quotas to certain of the countries
of western and northern Europe than to
countries elsewhere in the Eastern Hemi-
sphere. It did so for what I conceive to
have been a very good reason, that is, be-
cause the people who originally came to
the United States from those dountries
and their descendants constituted the
major portion of the population, and
thus had made the greatest contributions
to the culture and development of
America.
In making that statement, I do not
assert that the people from northern or
western Europe, notably from the British
Iles, Ireland, France, The Netherlands,
Germany, and the Scandinavian coun-
tries, are superior to persons in other na-
tions. To the contrary, I assert that
anyone who believes in the equality of
man should share my views, because if
men are truly equal, the people who con-
stitute the most numerous part of the
population of any nation are necessarily
those who contribute most to that coun-
try and its development.
The purpose of the national origins
quota system under the McCarran-
Walter Act was to receive for permanent
residence in America, and for eventual
citizenship, immigrants who had cultural
backgrounds similar to those of the peo-
ple already here, and who for that reason
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
Approved For Release 2004/01/16: CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
23356 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE September 17, 1965
were most readily assimilable into our
way of life.
When the committee report was filed.
I incorporated certain additional views
which appear on pages 56, 57, and 58.
These additional views set forth in more
detail the reasons why I accept as wise
the national origins quota system of the
McCarran-Walter Act.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the additional views be printed
In full at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the addi-
tional views of Mr. ERVIN were ordered
to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. ERVIN
While I support H.R. 2580, as it is reported
by this committee, and while I subscribe to
much of the majority report, I must take
exception to parts of the purpose of the leg-
islation, as stated by the majority, and am-
plify the reasons immigration reform is nec-
essary.
As long as I have served in the Senate,
there have been constant and consistent
harangues?from lobbyists and well-mean-
ing humanitarian organizations, from poli-
ticians and Presidents?to the effect that the
national origins quota system, as embodied
In the McCarran-Walter Act, constitutes a
most invidious and evil discrimination
against all the people of the world living out-
side of northern and western Europe. It
has been declared in political pamphlets and
in congressional hearings that the Congress
in 1924 and that two-thirds of the House
and two-thirds of the Senate in 1952, de-
clared through legislation that the people of
northern and western Europe are superior to
those of the rest of the world.
To me, this is mischievous nonsense and
sanctimonious propaganda.
The national origins system, just as the
system which is encompassed in the present
bill, recognizes the necessity for placing re-
strictions on immigration to the United
States. Present law undertakes to assign to
each nation in the Eastern Hemisphere a spe-
cific quota of immigrants in proportion to
the number of Americans whose national
origin is traceable to such country.
However philosophers or anthropologists
may differ over the correctness of the thesis,
the national origins system is based on the
proposition that all men are created equal,
and that the peoples of various nationali-
ties have made contributions to the develop-
ment of the United States in proportion to
their nutnbers here. The McCa.rran-Walter
Act is, therefore, based on conditions exist-
ing in the United States, and is like a mirror
reflecting the United States, allowing the ad-
mission of immigrants according to a ra-
tional and uniform mathematical formula.
Those who oppose the system do so because
relatively larger quotas than they feel are fair
are assigned to the United Kingdom, Ireland,
France, Germany, Holland, and the Scandi-
navian countries. This is true, however,
only because these countries constitute the
most numerous groups in our population
and, therefore, have made the greatest con-
tributions to America. In support of this I
cite the British Isles, which, in addition to
supplying us with a substantial part of our
inhabitants, has given us our language, our
law, and Much of our literature.
When it adopted this definite and uniform
rule of law with the view to maintaining the
historic population pattern of the United
States, Congress did not act upon the theory
that the people of one nation are superior
or inferior to those of another. Rather, it
recognized the obvious and natural fact that
those immigrants can best be assimilated
into our society who have relatives, friends,
or others of similar backgrounds already
here. Again, to use the British Isles as an
example, it is abundantly clear that their
citizens are quickly and easily assimilable
into our life and culture.
As the Christian Science Monitor has edi-
torialized;
"It is no reflection on the many fine Amer-
ican citizens of all races, creeds, and national
origins to recognize realistically that some
nations are far closer to the United States
In culture, customs, standards of living,
respect for law, and experience in govern-
ment."
In spite of the endless protestations
against the much maligned national origins
system, there is absolutely nothing unjust in
it. On the contrary, it admits immigrants
from all areas of the earth on an exact
mathematical basis having no relation to
political pressures.
On the other hand, the bill which was
originally presented to this committee. S. 500,
was manifestly unjust, both to the American
people and to those from other lands who
would like to join us. Badly conceived and
badly drafted, every provision was sufficiently
complex to induce an acute case of Mental
indigestion. Almost all of the witnesses de-
fending it differed among themselves over
the meaning of several sections.
Other than poor draftsmanship, there were
two fatal defects in the bill. First, the
mathematical forumIa by which immigration
is theoretically determined under the Mc-
Carran-Walter Act would be destroyed, and
in its place immigration would be managed
in the virtually uncontrolled discretion of
officials of the executive department, subject
to political pressures. Second. S. 500 would
have done nothing to control Western Hemi-
sphere immigration. To me, the lack of
hemispheric' restrictions is the one major
defect of the McCarran-Walter Act.
In a speech before the Senate on March
4, 1965, I recognized that the present law is
not perfect. But I stated then that "I shall
not vote to abandon the national origins
quota formula until someone devises a better
rule sufficiently strong and certain to in-
sure that immigration to the United States
is controlled by the rule of law and not by
the caprice of men."
For the reasons outlined in the majority
report, I now think such a law has been
devised and reported by this committee. As
the report states, the McCarran-Walter Act
has been largely nullified by amendments
and special legislation and no longer effec-
tively restricts immigration. New legislation
is now in order for both the Eastern and
Western Hemirpheres?legislation which will
restrict immigration within predictable
limits.
This has been accomplished by the com-
mittee through adoption of a clear and in-
telligible bill utilizing a mathematical form-
ula with a numerical ceiling applying to the
Eastern Hemisphere, with preferences given
to the members of famliles now in the United
States and to members of the professions and
arts who can make the greatest contributions
to our society. We owe a great debt to the
House Immigration Subcommittee and its
staff for the creation of this system.
The amendment which I offered and was
adopted by the Senate subcommittee, and
which would place a ceiling on total Western
Hemisphere immigration, must be retained
if we are to have a fair, restrictive immigra-
tion law. This should be the heart of any
reform of our immigration laws. The pres-
ent rate of immigration from the independ-
ent North American countries is already
alarmingly high, and, coupled with the pop-
ulation explosion in South America, our duty
is clear. It is inconceivable to me that we
could enact a law with the alleged purpose of
eliminating discrimination and, at the same
time, continue the most aparent discrimina-
tion of all?that is, the nonquota status of
the Western Hemisphere.
Retention of my amendment in the bill
will finally bring us to the point at which we
no longer discriminate in favor of the people
of Chile over the people of England, or the
people of the Dominican Republic over the
people of France, our traditional allies since
our fight for independence.
There are, of course, other efficacious
amendments to present law, some added by
the House and others by the Senate subcom-
mittee; and there are other important rea-
sons for reporting H.R. 2580 than those I
have mentioned. However, these are ade-
quately covered in the majority report.
In closing these separate views, I would
like to acknowledge my personal gratification,
which I am sure is shared by all members of
the subcommittee, to the staff of the Senate
Subcommittee on Immigration and Natu-
ralization, for the devotion and tireless ef-
forts which they gave to us oyer these months
of hearings and executive session. Without
their dedication, we could not have accom-
plished our task of processing an intelligent
and effective bill.
SAM J. ERVIN, Jr.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I knew,
however, as the subcommittee began its
work ypon the immigration bill original-
ly intMduced by the able and distin-
guished junior Senator from Michigan
[Mr. HART], and various cosponsors, that
the McCarran-Walter Act had been the
subject of prolonged attack, and had
fallen into disfavor with a majority of
the Members of Congress, and that those
who did not entertain my view about the
wisdom of the provisions of the McCar-
ran-Walter Act relating to the national
origins quota system had sufficient votes
to eliminate that formula from the pend-
ing legislation.
That discovery presented to me two
possible courses of action. The first was
that I might concentrate my efforts in a
forlorn fight to preserve the national
origins quota system and suffer defeat in
such fight without rendering any service
to my country, other than that of loyalty
to an ideal which I cherished.
The second passible course of action
which confronted me was to join with
other members of the subcommittee in an
effort to present to the Senate the best
possible obtainable immigration law,
curing the defects of present law, with-
out the retention of the national origins
quota system.
I felt that I could serve my country
best by adopting the second alternative.
That is the reason which prompted me
to join the other members of the subcom-
mittee, and particularly those whose
names I enumerated in my colloquy with
the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr.
KENNEDY], in fashioning the present bill,
which in my judgment represents the
best immigration law obtainable at pres-
ent.
Also, as the Senator from Massachu-
setts has stated?and he has cited statis-
tics which support his statement--the
number of imigrants received in this
ccuntry in recent years from the Eastern
Hemisphere has exceeded the number of
imigrants we have received under the
quotas established by the national origins
system. This has been due, among other
things, to the necessity for admitting
many refugees who were fleeing religious
and political oppression. The fact is, as
the Senator stated, that the system is
simply not working.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16: CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
_ Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
Septegthe' , 065 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
The House subcommittee, and its
members dserve the thanks of the coun-
try for devising an intelligent, intelligible
and precise mathematical formula for
the Eastern Hemisphere by which immi-
grtion will be impartially determined.
Under it, the most important and ad-
mirable purposes of the administration
will be accomplished far more effectively
than would have been true under the
original bill. The reunification of fam-
ilies will be achieved, and we will be as-
sured of receiving the best qualified im-
migrants. The preference system
adopted by the House will assure America
of receiving the most easily assimilable
and most desirable prospects for citizen-
ship.
The House also imposed new labor re-
strictions on all prospective immigrants
which will have the effect of removing
their threat to increasd unemployment.
Too, it added new and greatly needed
security measures without removing any
of those presently existing.
? This is not to say that H.R. 2580 as it
was reported out was a perfect bill, or
even one which I could support, for it still
lacked the key ingredient of any mean-
ingful reform?that is, a lir.nitation on
Western Hemisphere immigration. How-
ever, the genesis of good legislation was
there, and the Senate Subcommittee pro-
ceeded with the same resolve and dedica-
tion as did the House subcommittee.
Several substantive, as well as tech-
nical and clarifying, amendments were
added which improved the measure.
Among these, is one I offered, to allow
alien seamen who entered the United
States illegally the same opportunity to
apply for an adjustment of status for
reasons of hardship after 7 years resi-
dence as have other immigrants who en-
tered the country illegally. I have al-
ways felt that like people in like circum-
stances should be treated by the law in
a like manner, and I see no reason to
treat seamen differently from other
aliens. Also, it seems to me that if a
man has found a job and a home here
and has been assimilated into our so-
ciety, he should be allowed to remain.
This is an elementary proposition, and
I am confident the amendment will be
retained. However, this is not the
amendment which has aroused the con-
troversy concerning the bill in its present
form.
There was one serious defect in the
bill before us, and in the McCarran-
Walter Act; and that defect arose out
of the fact that while existing immigra-
tion laws placed a limitation upon the
number of immigrants receivable from
countries of the Eastern Hemisphere,
they placed no limitation whatever upon
the number of immigrants admissible
from the Western Hemisphere.
I know of no one in Congress at the
present moment who favors unrestricted
immigration. I am satisfied, from my
work with them, that all of the other
members of the Subcommittee on Im-
migration and Naturalization of the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary favor
reasonable restrictions on immigration,
and that such disagreements that may
have existed in the past in respect to
this point were concerned only with ways
in which that objective could be hest
attained.
I felt that it was unjust to all the
people of the Western Hemisphere for
the United States to say, "We are willing
to have all of you move into the United
States," and at that same time place in
the immigration laws provisions which
would deny them admission, after such
a broad invitation had been extended,
because of their failure to meet certain
labor requirements of the laws. To my
mind, there was a certain amount of
hypocrisy in the immigration laws which
made that proclamation and had that
effect. It seemed to me that it was like
inviting a man to have dinner, and then
digging a pit for him to fall into before
he could get to the dinner table.
Accordingly, I thought that, in order
to abolish the hypocrisy which our exist-
ing immigration laws practice, telling
the people of the Western Hemisphere
that they are all welcome to move into
the United States immediately, we
should place a reasonable limitation
upon immigration from the countries of
the Western Hemisphere, as we did in
the case of immigration from the coun-
tries of the Eastern Hemisphere.
I felt that in addition to there being
something in the nature of legislative
hypocrisy in the existing immigration
laws in this respect, it was also a gross
discrimination against all the people of
the Eastern Hemisphere for us to have
immigration laws which specified that
only a limited number could come in
from the Eastern Hemisphere but that,
on the contrary, unlimited numbers could
move into the United States from the
Western Hemisphere.
For that reason, I submitted an
amendment to provide a limitation on
Immigration from the Western Hemi-
sphere. As the distinguished Senator
from Massachusetts has stated, the
pending bill, with that amendment,
would place a limitation on immigrants
from the Western Hemisphere of 120,000
annually, plus the spouses and the chil-
dren of American citizens who may come
from those countries outside and above
the limitation.
To enable the immigration authorities
to adjust their action to this new lim-
itation, the bill would provide that it
would not become effective until the 1st
day of July 1968.
To me, it is vitally important for the
amendment to be retained in the Senate
and for the Senate conferees to insist
upon its retention, in the event it should
become necessary to have a conference
with the House upon the bill.
Those who disagree with the wisdom of
my amendment contend that special
privileges are warranted by the special
relationship which exists between us and
our hemispheric neighbors.
I submit that there is no relationship
which is closer or more special than
that which our country bears to England,
our great ally, which gave us our lan-
guage, our law, and much of our liter-
ature. Yet, under the pending bill, those
who disagree with me express great shock
that Britain, in the future, can send us
10,000 fewer immigrants than she has
sent on an annual average in the past.
23357
They are only shocked that British
Guiana cannot send us every single citi-
zen of that country who wishes to come.
Those who disagree with me on this
point say that there is nothing invidious
in the discrimination in favor of the
Western Hemisphere, because the dis-
crimination "is not based on race, re-
ligion, or ethnic origin.", They fail to
note that every witness at the hearings
agreed with me that there was also no
discrimination based on race, religion, or
ethnic origin in the national orig?ns quota
system of the McCarran-Walter Act.
Yet, those who disagree with me never
failed to take the opportunity to castigate
that system as discriminatory.
Mr. President, a Greek or German born
in England, be he Catholic, Jew, or Prot-
estant, is charged to the British quota.
The system allows immigration accord-
ing to place of birth, just as the present
bill does. Under it, a person born in the
Western Hemisphere would be charged
to the Western Hemisphere ceiling. A
man born in the Eastern Hemisphere
would be charged to the Eastern Hemi-
sphere ceiling.
This bill creates a commission to study
the Western Hemisphere problem, among
others. I suggest the possibility that this
commission might find that the ceiling
which the bill establishes for immigra-
tion from the Western Hemisphere is
still too discriminatory, since it allows 45
percent of immigrants to come from only
15 percent of the world's population.
I have also heard it said that the ceil-
ing will somehow adversely affect the Al-
liance for Progress. This is a perverse
argument, indeed, since under the labor
restrictions imposed, we will take only
the best of those we are helping to train.
I hope that those in charge of adminis-
tering the Alliance for Progress will
understand the necessity of keeping the
best qualified where they are most
needed, which is in the Latin American
countries.
The substance of my amendment has
been endorsed by the New York Times,
the Christian Science Monitor, the
Minneapolis Tribune, the St. Paul
Pioneer Press, and the distinguished
columnist Charles Bartlett.
On July 17, 1965, the New York Times
published an editorial entitled "Progress
on Immigration." I wish to read this
portion:
Secretary Rusk urges that Latin-American
nations remain outside any ceiling, as they
are now outside of the quota system. But
this well-intentioned position could lead
to trouble and ill will in the not so distant
future if immigration from Latin America
and the Caribbean should grow sharply?as
there are signs that it will?and pressure
were then built up to limit a suden flood of
immigrants for which the country was un-
prepared. While the entire law is being over-
hauled, it would be better to place all the
nations of the world, including those to the
south of the United States, on exactly the
same footing.
I ask unanimous consent that the edi-
torial from the New York Times may be
printed at this point in the body of the
RECORD as a part of my remarks.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Approved For Release 2004/01/16; CIA-RDP671300446R000100296005-5
Approved For Release 2004/01/16: CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
23358 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE September 17, 196S
PROGRESS ON IMMIGRATION
The Johnson administration has inter-
vened to unsnarl the tangled threads of the
immigration reform bill in the House.
Personal animosity between Representative
EMANUEL GELLER, chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, and Representative MICHAEL
A. PEIGHAN, the ranking member, has previ-
ously made agreement impossible on a meas-
ure to repeal the national origins quota sys-
tem. In a letter from Secretary of State
Rusk, the administration discloses that it
does not regard adoption of major provisions
of the Feighan bill as too high a price to pay
for his support.
The national origins quota system would
be abolished immediately, as Mr. PEIGHAN
suggests, rather than phased out over the
next 5 years. The administration has also
softened its opposition to Mr. PEIGHAN'S pro-
posal for an annual ceiling on immigration.
It set at 235,000 persons, the ceiling proposed
by Mr. PEIGHAN, this figure would be ttnta-
mount to a cut of 55,000 from the existing
rate. If a ceiling is to be set, it should not
be lower than the present level.
Secretary Rusk urges that Latin-American
nations Imain outside any ceiling, as they
are now outside of the quota system. But
this well-intentioned position could lead to
trouble and ill will in the not so distant
future if immigration from Latin America
and the Caribbean should grow sharply?as
there are signs that it will?and pressure
were then built up to limit a sudden flood
Of immigrants for which the country was
unprepared. While the entire law is being
overhauled, it would be better to place all
the nations of the world, including those to
the south of the United States, on exactly the
same footing.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, the Chris-
tian Science Monitor for August 17, 1965,
carried an editorial entitled "New World
Immigration." I wish to read these
words from that editorial:
It would seem that a reasonable, legal limi-
tation on migration from Latin America, if
adopted today, could prevent the need to
adopt more stringent legislation tomorrow.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy
of the editorial from the Christian Sci-
ence Monitor be printed at this point in
the body of the RECORD as a part of my
remarks.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
NEW WORLD IMMIGRATION
Applying intense pressure, the adminis-
tration struck from the immigration reform
bill a measure which many experts believe
will have t? be faced in the near future.
This was a provision which would have
placed a limit on migration into the United
States from the rest of the New World.
Administration opposition centered on
the claim that to impose such a limit would
endanger diplomatic relations with several
Latin American states. This seems like an
Inadequate excuse for several reasons. We
find it hard to believe that any government
believes its citizens have a right per se to
migrate to any other country. In the sec-
ond place, certain of the New World lands
themselves place high hurdles before many
U.S. citizens where Immigration is con-
cerned. Thus Mexico virtually demands
that a newcomer, including one from the
United States, be financially independent
before going to Mexico to live, and there
are signs that Canada unofficially discourages
Immigration of nonwhites, among them
American Negroes.
But all such considerations aside, Wash-
ington must surely realize that, at any mo-
ment, it could face a deluge of would-be
Latin American immigrants. The flood of
Puerto Ricans which has poured into New
York, and the wave of Jamaicans which has
flowed into Britain during the last 15 years
are but tokens of the vast numbers who
might someday wish to leave underdeveloped
homelands.
For two crucial facts must be faced. The
first is that the population of Latin America
Is growing more rapidly than that of any
other large area in the world. The second
is that, on the whole, the Latin American
nations are failing to solve their economic
problems. Thus the pressure on resources
grows and grows. Eventually Latin Amer-
icans from many lands may decide to do
what Puerto Ricans and Mexicans have done
In such large numbers: go to the United
States.
It would seem that a reasonable, legal
limit on migration from Latin America, if
adopted today, could prevent the need to
adopt more stringent legislation tomorrow.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, on August
25, 1965, the St. Paul Pioneer Press
carried an editorial entitled "New Im-
migration Danger." In the course of the
editorial, the Pioneer Press made this
observation:
For example, no more than 20,000 persons
could be admitted from the United Kingdom
in 1 year, but such countries as El Salvador,
Paraguay, Nicaragua, and Argentina could
send unlimited numbers.
This editorial proceeded to take the
position that the better part of wisdom
at this time required the placing of a
limitation, as this bill does, upon immi-
gration from the Western Hemisphere.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy
of the editorial from the St. Paul Pioneer
Press be printed at this point in the body
of the RECORD as a part of my remarks.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
NEW IMMIGRATION DANGER
Under the flimsy and foolish pretext of
making a friendly gesture to Central and
South America, the State Department and
the Johnson administration propose to revise
but maintain numerical limits on immigra-
tion from all the rest of the world, but to
leave the doors wide open for a flood of Latin
Americans.
A revolt against this dangerous and un-
justified favoritism is forming among House
Members. One of the leaders is Representa-
tive CLARK MACGREGOR, of Minnesota, backed
by many Republicans, but also supported by
numerous Democrats. Their efforts deserve
backing from the public and from Congress.
What has happened in the House is that
the bill to abolish the national origins quota
system for regulating immigration has been
twisted into a vehicle for a new form of dis-
crimination. While an overall limit of 170,000
immigrants a year is set for all the nations
outside the Western Hemisphere, including
England, West Germany, the Scandinavian
nations and Italy, no limits whatever are
provided for the Latin American countries.
Furthermore, there is an individual national
quota maximum of only 20,000 for each na-
tion outside the hemisphere, but no national
limit in Latin American.
For example, no more than 200,000 per-
sons could be admitted from the United
Kingdom in 1 year, but such countries as El
Salvador, Paraguay, Nicaragua, and Argen-
tina could send unlimited numbers.
To call this bill nondiscriminatory is hy-
pocrisy. It discriminates against the nations
that have traditionally supplied America
with desirable immigrants.
Such a policy does not make sense. If we
are to replace the national origins principle
with the theory that immigrants should be
judged on their character and ability, re-
gardless of nationality, then the Latin Amer-
icans should come under the same rules, and
there should be a maximum quota for them
as well as for others.
This is especially important now because
Latin America is rapidly becoming one of
the world's biggest surplus population areas.
Latin America has milieus more people than
it can support or educate at decent levels,
and is doing nothing to control its popula-
tion explosion. In Salvador 'alone some 700,-
000 people have overflowed into neighboring
Honduras. In Colombia the politicians are
talking of wholesale exportation of emigrants
into other countries because of unemploy-
ment and poverty.
The situation obviously could develop into
a serious U.S. immigration problem if no
checks are provided. Congressman MACGRE-
GOR proposes to antend the House bill to put a
yearly ceiling of about 140,000 on all Latin
American imigrants, which would be in addi-
tion of the 170,000 to be permitted from
other parts of the world. This is a generous
allowance.
The flood of Puerto Ricans that has poured
Into New York in recent years, with all their
problems of language and poverty, should
be sufficient warning to the United States.
Without reasonable restrictions, the rest of
Latin America and the Caribbean islands
could in .the future provide a deluge of im-
migrants that would be difficult to assimilate.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, on August
25, 1965, the Minneapolis Tribune, of
Minneapolis, Minn., carried an editorial
entitled "Immigration and the Popula-
tion Problem." This editorial com-
mented upon an amendment then pend-
ing to the House bill which had been of-,
fered by Representative MACGREGOR to
place a limitation on immigration from
the Western Hemisphere, and it referred
to the opposition of the State Depart-
ment to the placing of any such limita-
tion upon immigration. It said this on
that point:
The State Department argues that a limi-
tation would be an affront to Latin America.
MacGregor answers more soundly that the
time to set restrictions is now, rather than
when the problem becomes more acute.
His view is reinforced by an estimate from
the international family planning confer-
ence at Geneva this week that the popula-
tion of Latin America will increase 9.6 times
by the encl,df this century. The pressure
to escape th a more moderately expanding
United States is likely to grow.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy
of the editorial from the Minneapolis
Tribune be printed at this point in the
body of the RECORD as a part of MY
remarks.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
IMMIGRATION AND THE POPULATION PROBLEM
Representative CLARK MACGREGOR, Repub-
lican of Minnesota, and House Republicans
are trying to put a limit on the number of
Immigrants from other Western Hemisphere
nations. At present there is no quota for
them.
The State Department argues that a limi-
tation would be an affront to Latin America..
MACGREGOR answers more soundly that the
time to set restrictions is now, rather than
when the problem becomes more acute.
His view is reinforced by an estimate from
the international family planning conference
at Geneva this week that the population of
Latin America will increase 3,6 times by the
end of this century. The pressure to escape
Approved For Release 2004/01/16: CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
Approved For Release 2004/01/16, : CIA-RDP671300446R000100290005-5
September 17, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
to a more moderately expanding United
States is likely to grow.
Indeed, in an era when overpopulation
looms as one of the world's toughest ques-
tions, there is doubt about the United States
undertaking an enlarged role as safety valve
for nations which do not control their own
numbers.
Present legislation bases immigration
quotas on the ethnic makeup of this country
in 1920. Quotas for western and northern
European countries seldom have been filled.
Applications from southern Europe and other
areas far exceed openings. Thus some jug-
gling of qualifications is needed.
But the effect of the pending bill would
be to boost total immigration from the pres-
ent 300,000 to about 350,000. About 130,000
now arrive annually outside the quotas from
other western hemisphere nations. Without
the limitation MACGREGOR seeks, this number
could jump sharply.
Regarding U.S. growth rates, the Popula-
tion Reference Bureau remarked: "At pres-
ent we are on a collision course that could
lead us to catastrophe, timed to arrive only a
few decades after our sister nations (if they
do not alter their growth rates) have crashed
on the Maithusian reefs."
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, the Wash-
ington Evening Star for August 24, 1965,
carried a column by Charles Bartlett en-
titled "Revolt Brewing on Immigration,"
In which he had some comments to make
on this point._ I shall read this portion
? of the column:
Since most Latin governments do not cur-
rently recognize their population problems,
the imposition of a quota will provoke 'less
diplomatic tension now than it will later
When overpopulation becomes acute. Con-
gress enactment of the quota may actually
jolt the Latins into more realistic attitudes.
The arguments for establishing the quotas
now are so compelling and the diplomatic
consequences are so nebulous that some Con-
gressmen suspect that Rusk and Mann are
resisting it purely in terms of diplomatic
expediency. Their stand on immigration is
Certainly inconsistent with their refusal to
endorse preferential trade arrangements
Within the Western Hemisphere.
I ask unanimous consent that the en-
tire column of Charles Bartlett, be
printed at this point in the body of the
RECORD. ?
There being no objection, the article
vat ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
REVOLT BREWING ON IMMIGRATION
(By Charles Bartlett)
There are signs of revolt by the House of
Representatives against the intermingling of
immigration policy and short-term diplomacy
in the stand taken by Secretary of State Dean
Rusk on the new immigration bill.
Rusk is urging Congress to abolish the in-
dividual country quotas that have controlled
migration to the United States since 1924.
He echoes the widespread sentiment that
these quotas are discriminatory and damag-
ing to the Nation's reputation for fairness.
But Rusk also urges that the Latin American
Republics continue to be excluded, as they.
have since 1924, from the overall limitation
that the new bill will place upon migration
to this country.
Representative MICHAEL PEIGHAN, Demo-
crat, of Ohio, leading the move to revamp
immigration policy, has doggedly questioned
the special access of Latin immigrants. Why
is it fair, he has asked, for people all over
the world to stand in line for quota numbers
while South Americans enter the United
simply by showing that they are unlikely to
become public charges?
No. 172-6
FEIGHAN hoped to end this special status
in the new immigration law but he met ob-
jections from the State Department after the
crisis erupted in the Dominican Republic.
Rusk and Under Secretary of State Thomas
Mann argued earnestly that this move would
weaken the U.S. standing in Latin America
at a critical moment. Further persuasions
by President Johnson induced FEIGHAN to
agree to a compromise.
The Feighan bill now before the House
requires the President to notify Congress
when immigrations from the Western Hemi-
sphere start to rise sharply. Latin immi-
grants will be subject, like all others, to the
Labor Department's certification that they
possess needed skills nOt already available
in the pool of unemployed.
But this compromise has not allayed the
alarm of some Members at demographers'
projections that the population of South
America will multiply in this century from
69 to 600 million. The growth of Latin mi-
grations to the United States in this decade,
from 95,701 in 1960 to 139,282 in 1964, has
added substance to warnings that the time
is ripe to erect a dam against a possible flood
of immigrants.
The Latin political leaders, with a few
exceptions, are so hesitant to acknowledge
their population problems that a strong in-
itiative by the Ecumenical Council will be
necessary to prod them into a population
control campaign. Most observers doubt
that the council will produce a fulsome en-
dorsement of birth control this fall. Mean-
while, about 700,000 Salvadorans have quietly
overflowed into neighboring Honduras, and
the Colombians talk of exporting masses of
unemployed workers to Europe.
Representative CLARK MACGREGOR, Repub-
lican, of Minnesota, who proposes to estab-
lish an annual limit of 115,000 immigrants
from the 24 nations of the Western Hemi-
sphere, points out that the State Department
merely wants to postpone the action. Rusk
said during the hearings, "I am suggesting
that Congress wait until there is a need to
do it."
MACGREGOR argues that it will be wiser
and more realistic to meet the problem
during this reform of immigration policy
than to wait until the crisis develops. Com-
munists will maintain that the limitation
is new evidence of Washington's detach-
men from the hemisphere's problem, but
their charges will be softened by the present
scope of this country's contributions to the
Alliance for Progress.
Since most Latin governments do not
currently recognize their population prob-
lems, the imposition of a quota will provoke
less diplomatic tension now than it will later
when overpopulation becomes acute. Con-
gress' enactment of the quota may actually
jolt the Latins Into more realistic attitudes.
The arguments for establishing the quotas
now are so compelling and the diplomatic
consequences are so nebulous that some Con-
gressmen suspect that Rush and Mann are
resisting it purely in terms of diplomatic
expediency. Their stand on immigration is
certainly inconsistent with their refusal to
endorse preferential trade arrangements
within the Western Hemisphere.
The key virtue of the new immigration
bill is that it has been drafted in a practical
and unsentimental spirit of fairness toward
all nations. The preferential treatment of
South America cannot be maintained if the
United States is to boast truthfully that
its new policy does not put one nation or
region ahead of another.
Mr. ERVIN. The Christian Science
Monitor for September 3, 1965, contained
a column by Richard L. Strout entitled
"Immigration and Quotas," which makes
some significant comments in urging the
23359
imposition of limitation upon immigra-
tion from the Western Hemisphere.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that there be printed in the RECORD
at this point in my remarks the article of
Mr. Strout.
The PRESIDING 0.101,1C.bli.. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
IMMIGRATION AND QUOTAS
(By Richard L. Strout)
WASHINGTON.?It seems a bit odd, doesn't
it, that the United States should cut immi-
gration from England by a third while it
jumps immigration from Trinidad-Tobago
from a limit of 100 a year to no limit at all?
The House of Representatives has just
passed its version of the new immigration
law, scrapping the old national origins sys-
tem and substituting a new system. There
has never been a quota system for the West-
ern Hemisphere, and under the House ver-
sion this situation will continue.
Trinidad-Tobago is only used in this arti-
cle for the purpose of illustration. Trinidad-
Tobago used to be a British colony and as
such got the minimum of 100 immigrants a
year in the old, "bad" national origins sys-
tem. However, Britain has made Trinidad-
Tobago independent, along with Jamaica.
Independent nations in the Western Hemi-
sphere are entitled to send as many immi-
grants to the United States as they wish,
subject, however, to sharp administrative
checks by the Labor and Justice Depart-
ments.
The generous United States, with 414 per-
cent unemployment, is throwing open its
doers to these two countries at a time when
the Socialist Labor government in England
is cutting immigration from the Caribbean
from 20,000 a year to 8,500. England has
decided that immigration is not a cure-all
for national problems, even among Com-
monwealth countries.
Nothing that I write is meant to be criti-
cal of either Jamaica or Trinidad-Tobago.
The two new nations are delightful islands
discovered by Columbus, with mixed popu-
lations, the one of about 1,700,000 and the
other of around 900,000.
Theoretically, so far as fixed quotas go,
their entire population will be able to move
en masse to New York City. Actually, how--
ever, sharp restrictions are applied to im-
migration administratively, to protect the
American economy from job competition.
The pass?ld national origins quota sys-
tem is assailed on all sides today as being
discriminatory. But isn't it a bit discrimina-
tory to put a quota of 20,000 a year on Eng-
land, which last year sent over about 30,000
people, and no quota on Trinidad-Tabago?
The Western Hemisphere has always been
exempt from quotas. Under the House ver-
sion of the new bill it would stay exempt.
Some Senators say, however, that it is time
to bring the Western Hemisphere under the
same rules as the rest of the world, that
"nondiscriminatory" means what it says;
Secretary of State Dean Rusk wants the
Western Hemisphere exempted, however, be-
cause it has a "special relationship" with
the United States. The United Kingdom
does not have this special relationship, it
appears.
The proposed new bill puts an overall
ceiling of 170,000 on immigration from all
non-Western Hemisphere countries. This
will be allocated on a first come, first served
basis, with preferences to families of immi-
grants already here, and with no nation get-
ting more than 20,000. No nation, that is,
outside of the Western Hemisphere.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
23360 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE September 1, 1965
Latin America currently has the highest
growth rate in the world. Famine and the
population may be on a collision course.
Can the United States, with all the sym-
pathy and pity in the world, really hope to
solve foreign problems by taking in immi-
grants?
Mr. ERVIN. During hearings on the
bill many outstanding Americans ap-
peared before the committee. One of
them who impressed me most was a dis-
tinguished and eloquent attorney of
Wilmington, Del., Joseph A. L. Errigo.
Mr. Errigo is the national chairman of
the Sons of Italy.
Mr. Errigo disagreed with me in re-
spect to retaining the National Origins
Quota System of the McCarran-Walter
Act.
After my amendment, limiting immi-
gration from the Western Hemisphere,
had been adopted by the subcommittee
and aproved by the full committee, I re-
ceived from Mr. Errigo a fine letter en-
dorsing the proposal.
With his consent, I quote the follow-
ing words from the letter:
I am-writing to congratulate you and to
thank yot for the excellent position you
have taken relative to the immigration bill.
Since we have established a ceiling for the
rest of the world, it is altogether fitting and
proper that we should establish a ceiling for
the Western Hemisphere as well. This is in
accord with our philosophy of equal justice
under law for all.
Those of us on the Immigration Sub-
committee know Mr. Errigo to be a per-
sistent foe on all he considers to be un-
just law. We. know him also as a con-
sistent champion of equal application of
law.
Mr. Errigo knows we must eliminate
the most apparent discrimination of all?
that which gives preference to the people
of Chile ovbr the people of Italy, and the
people of Cuba over the people of France,
our historic allies since the time of our
independence.
Although equal application of the law
to all nations is my principal reason for
proposing the amendment, there is an-
other reason. There is a growing demand
for immigration from our hemispheric
neighbors.
Immigration from the Western Hemis-
phere increased by 50 percent in the past
decade to our present average of almost
150,000 a year. As Senators know, our
own population is also increasing alarm-
ingly; yet 5 percent of the annual ad-
ditions to our total population comes
from Western immigrants, and the per-
centage is going up.
Of all the countries in our hemis-
phere, demographers tell us that only
Mexico's rate of immigration?and be-
tween 30,000 and 50,000 come to the
United States each year?will remain
stable.
The problem in Canada is so serious,
that officials of its Government have
considered establishing restrictions to
prohibit the great migration to the
United States, which like Mexico's has
averaged 30,000 to 50,000 a year. Pres-
ently, for every professional person who
migrates to Canada, two leave, the prin-
cipal reason being the higher salaries
paid in the United States. There is also
increasing pressure from the labor force
for Immigrant passports, this being the
product of Canada's greatest domestic
problem?unemployment. The unem-
ployment rate in Canada has averaged
6 percent in recent years. If we accept
the proposition that an increasing pro-
fessional force generates employment in
the labor force, then we must conversely
also assume that Canada's problem will
worsen and that migration to the United
States will increase.
As my friends who oppose the amend-
ment point out, "the majority of hemis-
phere immigrants come to us from
Canada and Mexico." Although it is
certainly true that the immigration from
these two countries will not decrease, it is
also clear that the time is fast approach-
ing when we will receive even more from
the other hemispheric countries.
The bill should not offend Canada and
Mexico, because of the distinction it
makes between the Eastern Hemisphere
and the Western Hemisphere. The bill
provides that no country of the Eastern
Hemisphere shall be allowed to send to
this country in any one year more than
20,000 immigrants, outside of members
of families.
The bill places no such limitation upon
the various nations of the Western hemi-
sphere, and for this reason Canada and
Mexico can continue to send into this
country their immigrants free from any
limitation other than the overall hemi-
spheric limitation of 120,000.
I spoke a moment ago about the prob-
ability?indeed, I say the certainty?that
immigration from South America, Cen-
tral America, and the Caribbean Islands
will increase with the passage of years.
Undoubtedly it will become unmanage-
able unless we place realistic limitations
on immigration from the Western Hemi-
sphere.
Immigration from South America has
Increased by a fantastic 230 percent in
the last 5 years, and by almost 400 per-
cent in the last 10 years. It is approach-
ing the point where it will double each
year. The figures for Central America
are almost as high. This is not just a
trend; it is a threatened avalanche.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. ERVIN. I yield.
Mr. GORE. I find the able address
of the distinguished Senator interesting
and informative.
I wonder if the Senator would be so
kind as to give the actual figures on
Immigration from South America, as
well as percentages?
Mr. ERVIN. I will have my assistant
mark the figures for me and I will give
them to the Senator from Tennessee in
just a few minutes. While he is doing
that and to expedite matters, I will con-
tinue with my discussion.
The reason why the immigration from
South America, Central America, and
the Caribbean Islands is increasing is
not hard to find. It is a population ex-
plosion unequaled in any other area of
the world.
In 1900, the population of Central and
South America was approximately 60
million. By the end of the century it
will be 600 million. In 1900 1 of every
50 human beings who inhabited the
earth lived in the nations of Central and
South America; today the ratio is 1 in
15. This great, new mass is not shifting
to the broad uninhabited expanse of the
continent, but to the overcrowded cities,
and then, often to America.
The situation is substantially the same
in the Caribbean Island nations, except
for the fact that there is less room.
There, the population is increasing at a
rate of 25 percent every 10 years, al-
though the density of population is al-
ready too high for adequate support of
the present inhabitants. To use one is-
land as an example, if the present popu-
lation growth rate of Barbados is main-
tained, in 200 years there will not be
room for all the inhabitants to stand on
the island.
The junior Senator from Massachu-
setts [Mr. KENNEDY], the junior Sena-
tor from Michigan [Mr. HART], and the
senior Senator from New York [Mr.
Tsvirs] say there is no real hemispheric
Immigration problem now. They are
correct insofar as their separate views
were filed on September 15, 1965.
But the problem is coming fast and
hard. Both the Attorney General and
the Secretary of State testified to this
in the hearings before the House sub-
committee; and the Members of the
Senate should make no mistake about it.
Attorney General Katzenbach and
Secretary Rusk stated their preference
for waiting until a later date to meet the
problem. But a later date we would be
enacting special restrictions for a special
area. The wrath of the hemisphere
would be upon us.
,I say the time is now?now, when we
are broadly revising our whole policy;
now, when we are supposedly abolishing
discrimination; now, when it is politic-
ally and practically possible.
With my amendment. this is a good
bill. To strike the amendment or to
emasculate it would be to perform heart
surgery on healthy legislation.
Without my amendment, or without its
substance, it would be difficult for me to
support the pending bill with any en-
thusiasm whatsoever. But with this
amendment, I can support the pending
bill with enthusiasm, because I know
that it is the best bill upon immigration
that can be obtained for our Nation at
present.
First Timothy, verse 8, gives us some
advice that we should follow in enact-
ing an immigration law. It is more
timely than the great poem by Emma
Lazarus, which is inscribed upon the
monument on Ellis Island. This world is
confronted at this moment by a popula-
tion explosion, and soon millions of im-
migrants will be begging for, indeed de-
manding, admission to the United States.
The United States will have trouble pro-
viding employment for its own expand-
ing and increasing population. There-
fore, this is the opportune time to enact
an immigration law which is based upon
the theory that we should restrict im-
migration to immigrants whose presence
here will reunite families already par-
tially in America and immigrants who
have some real contribution to make by
reason of their skills to the economic
welfare of America.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
, Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
SepteMler 17, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
We should fashion our immigration
law in accord with the interests of the
'United States, and the interests of the
United States alone, and not our sup-
position as to what the thoughts or de-
sires of some people in foreign countries
may be, I believe the writer of First
Timothy had this in mind when he said,
In chapter 5, verse 8:
If any provide not for his own, and spe-
ciallV for those of his own house, he hath
denied the faith, and is worse than an
Infidel.
In advocating the passage of the bill
In its present form, I am appealing to
the Senate to look after those of our own
household by enacting an immigration
law which takes cognizance of matters
of the heart insofar as it will result in
uniting families now divided, and which
takes cognizance of the best interests of
the United States in restricting other im-
migration to those who have something
to contribute to the economic and cul-
tural development of our Nation.
Mr. President, in answer to the earlier
Inquiry of the senior Senator from Ten-
nessee [Mr. GORE], page 48 of the annual
report of the Immigration Service shows
that immigration from South America
in 1955 was 5,500. In 1960, the number
jumped to 13,000. In 1964, it jumped to
31,102. While these figures in and of
themselves are not alarming, the trend
which they reflect is greatly alarming.
In many nations of South America,
moskof the land is owned by persons who
can only properly be called land barons.
They show no interest whatever in tak-
ing a course of action which would pro-
vide for wide diffusion of ownership of
the land among their people. If the
United States placed a limitation upon
immigration from those countries, notice
would be served on land barons that they
would have to do something like what is
suggested in the eighth verse of the fifth
chapter of First Timothy; namely, to
look after some of their own household.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICAR. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. THUMVIOND. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OrriCER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THUR,MOND. Mr. President,
much has been said and written in con-
nection with proposed changes in the
Immigration and Nationality Act to the
effect that there is something intrinsi-
cally evil about the national origins
quota system on which the McCarran-
Walter Immigration Act is based. In-
deed, many have sought to picture the
national origins quota system as"a prod-
uct of prejudice, bias, and racism, and,
as such, an affront to many nations of
the world constituting a detriment to the
conduct of our foreign relations.
Such allegations indicate a lack of
understanding, to put it charitably.
There is nothing in the national ori-
gins quota system which has any con-
notation of the idea of racial superiority
or racial inferiority. This system is, in-
deed, inconsistent with any such concept.
The national origins quotas are based
on the ethnic proportions of the Amer-
ican population in 1920, and are so con-
stituted with the express and acknowl-
edged purpose of preventing immigra-
tion from changing the national or
ethnic composition of the American
population.
The wish to preserve one's identity and
the identity of one's nation requires no
justification?and no belief in racial or
national superiority?any more than the
wish to have one's own children, and to
continue one's family through them, need
be justified or rationalized by a belief
that they are superior to the children of
others. One identifies with one's family,
because it is one's family, and not be-
cause they are better than other people.
For no other reason, one identifies with
one's national group more than with
others. This is the sole basis of the pref-
erence which is inherent in the national
quota system.
There is no merit in the contention
that the quota system is racist or morally
wrong. Individuals, and groups, includ-
ing nations, have an absolute and un-
challenged right to have preferences for
other individuals or groups, and nothing
could be more natural than a preference
based on a sense of identity.
No apology is necessary for an immi-
gration law based on the national origins
quota system, and I make none.
Having so stated, I would add that I do
not consider the existing law without de-
fect, nor do I believe that the immigra-
tion formula in the proposal now before
the Senate, if properly administered, will
result in drastic or undesirable changes
In the patterns of immigration into the
United States. The preferences which
would be established by this proposal are
based, I believe, en sound reasoning and
meritorious considerations, not entirely
dissimilar in effect from those which un-
derlie the national origins quotas of ex-
isting law. Blood relationships and fam-
ily ties stem front the same sense of
identity and preference, and it is most
desirable that unification of families be
a major consideration in our immigra-
tion formula. The bill before the Sen-
ate also wisely provides protection for
American workers against job displace-
ment by immigrants.
I think the bill has been improved by
the amendment added by the Senate Ju-
diciary Committee which provides for a
maximum limit on Western Hemisphere
Immigration. If passed, it would con-
stitute a badly needed improvement in
the existing law which has no numerical
limitation on Western Hemisphere
immigration.
It is inescapable, however, Mr. Presi-
dent, that the major changes proposed
are in the formula for immigration and
mechanics of selection. There is a
larger, and I believe, a far more signifi-
cant consideration, which has been ig-
nored in considering what changes are
needed in the Immigration and Nation-
ality Act.
Both the present law, based on a na-
tional origins quota system, and the pro-
posed changes now before the Senate,
23361
are based on the assumption that the
country is underpopulated and could use
substantial quantities of immigration to
advantage. This assumption, formerly
well founded, is no banger true or soundly
based.
From a superficial view, it would ap-
pear that the comparative population
density of the United States might justi-
fy a continuation, although hardly an
Increase, such as is likely under the pro-
posed bill, of the very substantial flow
of immigration into the United States.
A comparative approach based on over-
all population density is completely mis-
leading, however.
U.S. population distribution is unique,
and destined to become more so. A ma-
jor geographic proportion of the United
States is devoted to agricultural pursuits,
but the population density of this area
is significantly slight. At the present
time, less than 6 percent of the popula-
tion of the United States is, engaged in
agriculture, and both the percentage and
the number of persons so engaged is
steadily declining. Even this relatively
small percentage of the population is pro-
ducing a substantial surplus of food and
fiber for the Nation's needs. As the proc-
ess of mechanization continues, even
fewer people will be needed to farm this
given area and to produce sufficient food
and fibers for the rapidly growing pop-
ulation. In comparison to the 6 percent
of the U.S. population now engaged in
farming, other countries have the fol-
lowing percentages of their population
working to produce food and fiber on
the farms: France, 25 percent; Poland,
38 percent; Japan, 38 percent; Argen-
tina, 20 percent; Soviet Union, 57 per-
cent; and Canada, 12 percent.
As a consequence, the distribution of
U.S. population is weighted more heavily
in urban areas than in other nations. As
the population expands, the increased
population density falls almost entirely
In urban areas.
Even in the absence of any immigra-
tion in the next half, deeade, the pop-
ulation of the United States will shortly
pass the 200 million mark. And only
shortly thereafter?a matter of not more
than 2 or 3 years?there will be 200
million people in the urban areas
alone. Our present rate of population
growth, even exclusive of immigration,
is the highest of any industrial nation.
It is the population density in the urban
areas of the United States, therefore, on
which the need for further major immi-
gration should be judged.
From this perspective, it becomes read-
ily apparent that it is not advantageous
to the United States to continue to en-
courage the massive immigration which
prevails under present law, much less
increased immigration, as would be the
case under the proposed changes.
The wise course for the United States
to follow is to limit immigration to spe-
cial cases based on such factors as fam-
ily reunification and some forms of polit-
ical refugee accommodation. These
factors could be accommodated within
an overall immigration ceiling of certain-
ly not more than 50,000 per year from
all sources.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290005-5
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
23362 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE September lei, 1965
Populationwise, the United States has
reached maturity. The time has come
for our immigration policy to reflect a
corresponding maturity. This is not a
harsh judgment, merely a realistic one.
Most of the countries of the world
have problems stemming from expand-
ing populations. We cannot solve the
populiktion problems of one of these other
countries by permitting immigration to
the United States, even if we concen-
trated immigration favoritism on any
particular one of them, without exceed-
ing by far any maximum level of im-
migration yet seriously proposed. We
cannot help other nations by weakening
ourselves, nor should we if we could.
Without the necessity for balancing
the merits of the formulas in existing
and proposed laws, therefore, I must con-
clude that neither is responsive to the
national needs. The McCarran-Walter
Act was designed to meet needs for im-
migration which clearly existed before
the turn of the century, diminishingly so
thereafter, and not at all in the circum-
stances of the last two decades. The
changes here proposed are based on the
assumption that the immigration needs
of the country three-quarters of a cen-
tury ago remain the same. The contrary
is true.
For these reasons, I cannot support
H.R. 2580. Perhaps the realization of
the requirements stemming from the in-
creased population density and neces-
sarily uneven population distribution in
the United States in the past few dec-
ades is not sufficiently prevalent to per-
mit drastic changes toward limitations
on immigration at this time. Under no
circumstances, however, can the Nation
afford an updating of the official accept-
ance of the myth that we can still bene-
fit from a continuation or increase in the
current level of immigration.
I hope that the Senate, in the best
Interest of the country, will reject the
19th century concept on which this bill
Is premised, and take no major action
until the Congress is at least willing to
meet the needs of the 20th century, not
to mention the future.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I support
the pending legislation to amend the Im-
migration and Nationality Act of 1952.
The bill is modest and right. It falls
in America's mainstream of morality and
commonsense.
The bill represents a broadly based
consensus on the kind of reform that is
needed. It carries out goals sought by
33 Senators, from both political parties,
who joined with me to introduce this
legislation following President Johnson's
immigration message to Congress last
January.
The heroes, Mr. President, of this long
and historic struggle to achieve the aboli-
tion of the national origins system of se-
lectivity, are properly tens Of thousands
of Americans. They have organized
through community, religious and fra-
ternal groups to achieve the victory now
being consummated in the Congress.
It is to these Americans, who in years
past opened their homes, their commu-
nities, their businesses to welcome the
refugee, the relative and the homeless
of the world. These citizens conducted
community conferences and urged their
national organizations to press for im-
migration reform. Today is their vic-
tory.
It is impossible today to list each citi-
zen, each fraternal chapter, each religi-
ous society that shares in this achieve-
ment. But two national organizations
deserve special mention.
For many years the American Immi-
gration and Citizenship Conference has
led in education and information.
Through national conferences and com-
munity workshops the hopes of Ameri-
cans for this achievement were effectively
directed.
This year an additional citizens group,
the National Committee for Immigration
Reform, whose outstanding membership
is headed by former Presidents Harry S.
Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, has or-
ganized to insure passage of this leg-
islation.
Indeed, this proposal is supported by
the most distinguished of our citizens, as
well as the humble from every corner of
the Nation. It is as though each wants
to help brighten the light that shines
its welcome in the torch of liberty.
To the peoples of Europe chiefly, but
to others as well, the United States has
long been a haven of opportunity and
refuge. The stream of immigrants who
have passed through America's gates are
Indeed the Nation's true wealth.
Today, America's worth and strength?
morally, intellectually, politically, so-
cially, economically?rest upon the con-
tributions of people of many national
backgrounds and races. This is the un-
questioned genius of the American
experience.
Throughout most of our history, ac-
cepted national policy was to encourage
a free flow of immigration. And even
though, beginning in 1882, our immigra-
tion history reveals a slew evolution from
an open to a restricted policy, the gates
stoop open to most until after the end of
World War I.
Several thing's then worked to generate
a widspread demand for immigration
curbs. Among them were post-war ur-
banization, economic dislocation, waves
of fear, and suspicion, and the degenerate
nativism practiced by the Ku Klux Klan
and its allies. The Quota Acts of 1921
and 1924 followed.
This legislation of the 1920's marked
the turning point in America's immigra-
tion policy. A dual control system went
into effect, which continues to our time.
The first selection of immigrants was
through the application of such stand-
ards of admissibility as health, literacy,
security, and financial responsibility.
These are sound and right, and have been
retained in the pending bill.
The second control was restriction of
quota immigration to a specified maxi-
mum number per year based on nation
of birth.
No responsible citizen, Mr. President,
questions the rightness of any nation to
regulate immigration. But more than
an attempt to set a reasonable rate of
Immigration, with reasonable standards,
was involved in the dual control system.
It was framed by an irrational element?
the national origins quota concept, which
said in echoing words that the people of
some nations are more welcome to
America than others. We know the
story well. Unjustified ethnic and racial
barriers became the basis of U.S. im-
migration policy.
The end of World War II brought
hope for basic reform, especially follow-
ing America's welcome to thousands of
homeless and destitute people through
the Displaced Persons Act of 1948. But
this hope was short-lived. In 1952, over
President Truman's veto, Congress en-
acted the present basic statute, the Im-
migration and Nationality Act of 1952.
Revision and codification of immigration
law was overdue. But so far as the basic
selection of immigrants was concerned,
the 1952 act followed the discriminatory
policy of the twenties.
In his 1952 veto message, President
Truman said:
I am sure that with a little more time and
a little more discussion in this country, the
public conscience and the good sense of the
American people will assert themselves and
we shall be in a position to enact an im-
migration and naturalization policy that will
be fair to all.
That time has now come. Moral and
national interest reasons justify a new
immigration policy. Aside from its racial
and ethnic discriminations, the Immigra-
tion and Nationality Act of 1952 fails to
give sufficient recognition to the prin-
ciple of family unity. It fails to give suf-
ficient recognition to the great dimen-
sions of the world refugee problem and
the urgent need in this country for
special skill immigrants.
Little wonder President Kennedy
labeled the present law "an anachro-
nism," a system "without basis in either
logic or reason," a policy which "neither
satisfies a national need nor accom-
plishes an international purpose."
The major objectives of the pending
legislation are:
First, to restore equality and fair play
in our method of selecting immigrants.
Discriminatory provisions against immi-
grants from eastern and southern Eu-
rope, token quotas for Asian and African
countries, and implications of race supe-
riority in the Asia-Pacific triangle con-
cept, have no place in the public policy
of the United States.
A newcomer should not arrive at our
Nation's door apologizing for his paren-
tage and birthplace. Such a system is
blatantly un-American.
True, we need a careful selection of
immigrants. We should be selective?
but not with theories of racial or ethnic
superiority.
Congress must enact a statute that will
be discriminatory in the best meaning of
the word?on the grounds of individual
worth and capacity; on the grounds of
national security, and of economic and
scientific benefit; on the principles of
family unity and asylum to the homeless
and oppressed.
Such discrimination is tolerable and
in our Nation's interest.
On such grounds alone, I urge support
of the pending measure?for it removes
the purely arbitrary barriers to immigra-
tion on the basis of race and national
origins; it substitutes a new formula
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP671300446R000100290005-5
Ayyroved For Release 2004/01/16: CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
gepteniber 17, 65 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 23363
based on equality and fair play; it ap-
plies this formula without exception to
the people of all nations.
In referring to the national origins
system in his immigration message,
President Johnson said;
That system is incompatible with our basic
American tradition ? * * The fundamental,
longtime American attitude has been to ask
not where a person comes from but what are
his personal qualities * * * Violation of
this tradition by the national origins quota
system does incalculable harm. The proce-
dures imply that men and women ftom some
countries are, just because of where they
come from, more desirable citizens than
others. We have no right to disparage the
ancestors of millions of our fellow Americans
In this way. Relationships with a number
at countries, and hence the success of our
foreign policy, is needlessly impeded by this
proposition.
Mr. President, a compelling priority in
any reform bill is the urgent need to
facilitate the reunion of families. The
measure before us today stresses family
unity, and accords nonquota status to
the children, the spouses, and the par-
ents of 'U.S. citizens. There is little
doubt this measure goes a long way in
Solving the most pressing problem in
immigration matters?family reunion.
Mr. President, a third objective of the
pending bill concerns the economic value
of immigration. Selective immigration
can help meet urgent manpower needs.
This fact is recognized in the present
law which affords first preference to
immigrants with special skills. Experi-
ence indicates, however, that the national
origins quota system has inhibited the
full use of this preference.
Congress recognizes this situation, and
has passed special legislation to permit
the nonquota entry of selected immi-
grants. A good example is Public Law
87-885, to permit the rionquota entry of
several thousand specialized immigrants.
These were persons certified by the At-
torney General as having services ur-
gently needed in the United States be-
cause of their education, special train-
ing, or exceptional ability. The bill
cleared the way for a number of distin-
guished scientists whose special talents
are vital to the performance of important
defense work. Nearly 50 hospitals, uni-
versities, and research organizations in
all parts of the Nation are also benefiting
by this special enactment. Under the
national origins system these needed
persons were inadmissible to our coun-
try.
There is a sincere and quite under-
standable concern in some quarters over
the economic impact of the projected
change in our method of selecting immi-
grants. But, I submit to the skeptics, the
pending measure will continue the his-
toric value of immigration to our
economy.
Postwar immigration trends provide
a reliable barometer for the future. Of
the 4,400,000 immigrants who entered
this conntry between 1947 and 1964, only
47 percent, some 2,100,000, actually en-
tered the labor force. The percentage
figure for 1964 was below this average?
some 44 percent. The remaining immi-
grants were housewives, children, and
retired people. But they all have be-
come consumers in the economy.
Of this immigrant work force, some
16 percent, nearly 350,000, were profes-
sional and technical workers. Nearly
an equal number were skilled workers.
The record will show that the occu-
pational distribution of recent immi-
grants has coincided with the needs of
our economy. When these needs were
inadequately filled under the basic quota
formula, they were met by Congress with
special legislation.
In 1964 alone, over 20,000 immigrants
in critical occupations, and listed by the
Secretary of Labor, entered this coun-
try. Two out of every three professionals
were?in this category. Recent Labor De-
partment reports reflect a continuing
steady demand for qualified workers in
many areas. Selective immigration un-
der the pending legislation will help fill
these jobs.
In a recent report the National Sci-
ence Foundation investigated the con-
tribution made to America's professional
scientific manpower pool by foreign-born
scientists and engineers. The report is
directly related to the subject of immi-
gration, the integration of immigrants
into our society, and the continued need
for specialized personnel. The conclu-
sions stated in part:
Migrations to the United States have gen-
erally brought valuable numbers of scien-
tists and persons capable of being trained
as scientists * * * It is particularly interest-
ing that the percentage of immigrant scien-
tists in the United States has tended to in-
crease in proportion to the level of scien-
tific imminence.
The majority of immigrant scientists in
the United States probably settle down
quickly in their new environment and make
valuable contributions both to the cause of
American science and to the general good
of the Republic. Social and cultural mal-
adjustment among immigrant scientists ap-
pears to be quite slight.
Despite the fairly large influx of foreign
scientists during the 1950's, there is no
evidence that native American scientists have
been placed In any great disadvantage by
their presence. Since domestic institutions
of higher education do not yet produce the
country's annual needed aggregate of scien-
tists, it would seem reasonable to assume
that the American scientific community
could continue to absorb foreign scientists
at approximately their present rate of entry
for some time to come.
Under section 10 of the bill, there is
set forth a new directive to the Secretary
of Labor for determining the needs for
skilled and unskilled workers. Properly
administered, I believe these guidelines
will enable the American worker to be
assured that his job security is not
threatened by any new immigration.
And it ought not to be threatened. At
the same time it will permit a more pre-
cise determination of the availability of
employment for these particular skills
in a specific labor market area.
It is my understanding that when an
immigrant seeks admission under these
categories as special immigrants or
preference immigrants and a determina-
tion by the Secretary of Labor is required,
the Secretary will make a certification in
the case of the individual immigrant. He
must ascertain the prospective immi-
grant's skill and will match those skills
with the employment and manpower
reports he has available from the labor
market area where the immigrant expects
to reside. On the basis of such an
analysis the Secretary will be in a posi-
tion to meet the requirement of the law,
and provide the type of employment
safeguards sought in this legislation.
Mr. President, the fourth objective of
the pending measure reflects a sensitivity
to the continuing problem of refugees,
chiefly those from Communist dominated
areas. In striking contrast to the lack of
policy in present law, the legislation be-
fore us accords a preference status to
some 10,200 refugees annually. This
authority will provide a needed instru-
ment in our foreign policy, and be a true
reflection of all America's concern for
the homeless and oppressed.
The inclusion of a refugee preference
is progress, although I had hoped the bill
would also include a more flexible pro-
vision to permit a speedy American re-
sponse to emergency refugee situations
such as occurred in the Hungarian
revolution.
The parole provisions of present law,
section 245, have been used in the past.
This section is not repealed by the pend-
ing measure?and this is good. The
House report, in outlining the specific
use of the parole authority, might seem
to attempt to exclude its application to
large groups of refugees. At the same
time, I would expect this general rule of
thumb would not forego in all cases the
use of section 245 for the conditional
entry of refugees, if such were deemed in
the national interest of our country.
We cannot predict accurately what the
future holds. But neither can we ex-
elude a new Hungary and the terrible toll
it will bring in human suffering and
refugees. This will test the leadership of
our country. The base provision in sec-
tion 245 of existing law will continue to
let our Nation respond quickly in dire
emergency situations where freedom and
lives of individuals are at stake.
Some 250,000 Cubans have fled to this
country since 1959. It was while I served
as chairman of the Judiciary Subcom-
mittee on Refugees that much of this ac-
tivity occurred. Their presence here
was, and is, a new experience for Amer-
ica. For the first time America found
itself the country of first asylum for a
large group of refugees. The usual con-
cerns associated with a sudden and ab-
normal influx of new people which were
voiced in those first days have not mate-
rialized. The resettlement program for
the victims of Castro's tyranny have
proved successful. They will stand to
the credit of the people of our own
country.
The measure before us includes a pro-
vision affording the Cuban refugees the
opportunity for adjustment of status
from parolee to permanent resident.
This provision is along the lines of a bill
I introduced earlier this year. This is
an important and needed provision for
many who seek permanent asylum in our
country.
The United States has also had a posi-
tive experience with the more than
30,000 Dutch-Indonesian refugees ad-
mitted to this country, under special leg-
islation, following their expulsion from
Indonesia in the late fifties. Today
some of these expellees remain in upset-
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP671300446R000100290005-5
Approved For Release 2004/01/16: CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
23364 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE September 17,105'
tied status in the Netherlands. These
people also are deserving of additional
resettlement opportunities in this coun-
try. The record on this bill should indi-
cate there is a general awareness of the
Dutch-Indonesian refugee problem, and
that every effort should be made to pro-
vide resettlement opportunities within
the framework of the pending legis-
lation.
Mr. President, I have discussed briefly
the desirable goals this bill will achieve.
There is still another reason why I sup-
port the legislation. It is a basic reason,
but one which too often escapes consid-
eration. A plain and simple fact is this:
the national origins quota system has
never worked.
The statistical record of immigration
presented in this debate, and in the
hearings, demonstrates conclusively that
the national origins system is unwork-
able and out of step with reality. Even
on its own terms, and quite apart from
any special legislation, the system failed
in its purpose to select and admit immi-
grants in accordance with a basic racial
and ethnic ratio.
Some will argue the special measures
have brought refinement to our immigra-
tion policy. Have they really, Mr. Presi-
dent? I think not. For these efforts
stop far short of a stable and permanent
policy to which the people of this
Nation can point with pride and
aecomplishment.
A brushfire approach to immigration
and refugee problems does not satisfy
the requirements of a useful immigration
policy. The national origins quota sys-
tem is widely and unfavorably known.
The temporary exceptions which modify
It beyond recognition, and make it con-
temporarily workable, are not known.
Thus America suffers needless stigma
abroad, which blemishes the leadership
we claim is ours; which hampers .our re-
lations with other countries.
The pending legislation sets the record
straight by updating our basic statute to
cOnform more fully with our actual prac-
tice in the last several years.
Mr. 15resident, the national origins
quota system was conceived in a radical
period of our history?a period of bigotry
and prejudice. Thirty years later the
System was reaffirmed?again in an at-
indsphere of fear and suspicion.
A measure of greatness for any nation
Is its ability to recognize past errors in
policy, and its willingness to reform.
Today is a time for such action on the
Oldest theme of, our Nation's history.
Even among those who favor the bill,
there are many perspectives. Each per-
son sees it through a different window
and through prisms colored by prejudice,
personal increase, idealisM, and logic.
To a Polish-American housewife in
Detroit, the bill means an opportunity
to bring her father and brothers to this
country, thus reuniting the family.
To a Coldwater, Mich., manufacturer
of medical supplies, the bill means the
ranaortunity to import a skilled East
Indian skeleton assembler, a man whose
_skills cannot be found in this country.
To pressors at a midwestern u.ni-
Versity, the-bill means that they may be
able to enlist the help of a highly-trained
lapanese heart disease researcher.
To State Department officials, the bill
represents a public relations coup that
will relieve them of the necessity of ex-
plaining away what to many nations
must seem an inconsistency in American
thought.
To those of us in Congress who have
pressed for this legislation, enactment
may represent the chance to point out-
the fulfillment of a campaign promise.
And there is an Italian gentleman in
Boston?whom I know through corres-
pondence?who is delighted with the bill
because it will let more Italians in and
he thinks Italians are better than any-
one else?exactly the sort of thinking
that the bill seeks to get us away from.
And, of course, there are those thou-
sands who are eager for enactment be-
cause current immigration policy serious-
ly offends their sense of fair play, their
loyalty to the treasured philosophies of
Jefferson.
Yet, all of these viewpoints?favorable
to the bill as they may be?must be con-
sidered subordinate to a greater per-
spective?the view that history will take
on our actions here.
The viewpoint must necessarily be a
very benign one. Because here is what
this bill says:
It says that we have the right to limit
the numbers who may come here.
It says we have the right to set quali-
fications to insure that newcomers will
be loyal, law abiding, sound of mind and
body.
It says that the unification of families
Is clearly desirable.
It says we have the right to say that
those who come should bring a skill
that will be useful to our society.
But what it says most clearly is this:
The desirability of any immigrant does
not depend on his place of birth.
And that is why history cannot but ap-
plaud this action.
Because this bill confirms the notion?
so often cherished in words but too sel-
dom practiced in deed?that a man's
ability to serve, to contribute, does not
depend on his race, color, or birthplace.
When history counts the steps that
were taken toward human dignity, to-
ward world understanding, toward good
feeling among men, when history counts
the measures this Nation took to estab-
lish the principles of equality, to set an
example of compassion, and to treat all
men with equal grace, this legislation,
this immigration bill, which I am proud
to have introduced, will not go unmen-
tioned.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HART. lam glad to yield.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I
wish to express my great appreciation for
the comments of the Senator from Mich-
igan this afternoon. I believe they will
provide Members of the Senate with an
understanding and enlightenment which
will be extremely important during the
next few days of debate.
I believe every Senater realizes that
it was the Senator from Michigan who
introduced administration bill S. 500.
So this is a matter in which he has been
deeply interested. He has served well as
a member of the Immigration Subcom-
mittee and he has displayed his deep in-
terest by following the hearings closely
and by making a major contribution to
the development of this bill. I have al-
ways looked to him for guidance and
understanding in meeting the many
problems that we faced in revising the
Immigration laws.
I believe his statement this afternoon
will be most helpful to the Senate. I
commend the Senator from Michigan for
his fine presentation and thank him
again for his great assistance.
If this bill is successful in the Senate?
and I am confident it will be?we can
trace one of the important lines leading
to the acceptance and adoption of the
measure by the Senate to his personal
interest and commitment to this ques-
tion.
Mr. HART. I am grateful for the kind
words of the Senator fr.= Massachu-
setts. I shall share with him an excite-
ment and sense of joy when the happy
hour arrives and the roll is called and
the bill becomes law under his manage-
ment.
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. President, it
gives me a great sense of satisfaction
to vote for H.R. 2580, the immigration
bill. For those of us who have had to
work with the existing laws and to wit-
ness the little tragedies the national
origins test has caused to so many, it is,
Indeed, a fine day and a fine opportunity.
The real strength of our country comes
from the diversity of our citizenry, joined
by common goals, not common pasts.
We are a nation of people devoted more
to the future than preservation of what
has gone before.
We have drawn upon the history of
every nation and people to form our
country and shape our thoughts, but we
hate gone beyond them all to mold a
single, distinct culture.
The bill before us now promises
greater opportunity for all of us to bene-
fit from the thoughts, ideas, and desires
of the rest of the world. As a nation we
shall benefit far more from the removal
of the national origins test than will any
single immigrant, or all of them together.
Fears that this .bill is an "Open,
Sesame" are unfounded. In many re-
spects it tightens the law. It gives the
key to the golden door, primarily to fam-
ilies of Americans and to those others
whose talents and skills we need.
I am proud, Mr. President, to vote for
this bill. It does not do all I should want
it to do, but I support it strongly never-
theless. I submitted for myself and
Senators INOUYE, BREWSTER, GRITENING,
HARTKE, MAGNUSON, MCGEE, MORSE,
RANDOLPH, and YOUNG of Ohio, Amend-
ment No. 56 to S. 500, the Senate version
of the pending legislation. This amend-
ment would have permitted people from
Bermuda, the Bahamas and certain of
the Antilles to be considered in respect
to our immigration policy as citizens of
the Western Hemisphere instead of as
citizens of subquota areas. From 1921 to
1924 the adjacent islands to the United
States were excluded from those coun-
tries which had quota restrictions.
These Islands were, in fact, given the
status which the bill before us accedes to
the new republics such as Trinidad-
Tobago.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5
September 17, 19G5 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 23365
The present bill contemplates, under
the Western Hemisphere rule, only those
oountries which are independent and
thus continues the hardship on the sanall
island areas which can never become in-
dependent because of their accident of
location, size and lack of natural re-
sources. Yet, from 1921 to 1924, these
adjacent islands enjoyed the same bene-
fits as the rest of the Western Hemi-
sphere These islands will be grouped
now ultimately into the world quota and,
as a consequence, fate a potential of no
possibility of immigration to the United
States.
It does seem incongruous that less than
one-half of 1 percent of the total West-
ern Hemisphere population should be ex-
cluded from consideration with the other
99 Y2 percent.
I do not propose to offer my amend-
ment from the floor at this time. Noth-
ing should impede the progress of this
legislation, / intend, however, to intro-
duce legislation in the next session to
allow people from the adjacent islands
to immigrate as do all others from the
Western Hemisphere nations. We should
not permit such petty inequities to con-
tinue. I hope others will join me in this
effort.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, I suggest the absence of a
CAlOralit.
The PRES/DENG OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, a parlia-
mentary inquiry. Is the rule of germane,
nese still in effect?
The - -: flING OFFICER. The
time und rule of germaneness ex-
pired co.
bEINICAN REPUBLIC
CLARK. Mr. President., I rise in
se f the position taken with re-
to the actions of the United States
the Dominican Republic by the dis-
nguished chairman of the Committee
n Foreign Relations [Mr. FlThalloarli.
To my deep regret, this puts me Ln op-
position to my good friends the Senator
from Florida (Mr. Bstaximasl, the Sena-
tor from Louisiana [Mr. Lows), and the
Senator from Connecticut Mr. Douai.
I had occasion to call to the attention
of Senators earlier this week a most in-
teresting article which appeared in the
Sunday magazine section of the New
York Times, written by the able and vet-
eran reporter, Tom Wicker, the principal
Capitol Hill reporter for the New York
Times, entitled "Winds of Change in the
Senate."
In his article Mr. Wicker commented,
and / think with reason, that the art of
debate appears to have been more or less
lost in this body to which I am 90 proud
to belong.
Possibly even by speaking to a com-
pletely empty Chamber on a Friday
afternoon?which I regret to state is
usually the case when I rise to address
the Senate?I hope I can do a little to
revive the tradition of debate which down
through the years has made our legis-
lative body an institution of which I hope
the American people a.re still proud.
Before addressing myself to the sub-
stance of the disagreement between the
Senator from Arkansas 1MT. FULWAJOBT 1
and the three other Senators whom I
have mentioned, I &hated like to make
four preliminary remark'.
First, nobody?I repeat nobody?least
of all the Senator from Arkansas?has
attacked the President of the United
States for what he did in the Dominican
crisis. The position of the Senator from
Arkansas. with which I agree, is that
the President got bad advice?very bad
advice. But having received that advice
from individuate in his administration
whom he had good reason to trust par-
ticularly advice with respect to blots
which turned out to be wrong, the Presi-
dent had no alternative except to 4o
pretty much what he did. Therefore, I
would make it clear that neither the
Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Fuseareurrl
nor I, despite what the three Senators
have said to the contrary, have said one
single word in erttictem of the President
My second point is that what May or
may not have happened when the Presi-
dent called certain legislative leaders to
the White House to discuss the crisis in
the Dorninicen Republic, after he had
decided to send the Marines in, but be-
fore they had actually gone, is entirely
irrelevant to the points raised by the
Senator from Arkansas. The Senator
from Arkansas has no responsibility
whatever for the decision made at the
White House. He was in no position at
that point to disagree with what the
President recommended, because his
sources of information were no different
from those of the President. I believe
It grossly unfair for the Senator from
Florida (Mr. Smsnonis and the Sena-
tor from Louisiana Mr. Lowe] to criti-
cize the Senator from Arkansas for hav-
ing remained silent at the White House
after the President announced he was
going to send in the troops.
in feet the Senator from Arkansas
said in his speech that he agrees that it
was probably necessary to send a small
force of Marines into Santo Domingo to
prutect, American lives, particularly in
view of the Intelligence information,
much of it inaccurate, which had come
to the White House at that time. I agree
with that, too. I believe we were under
an obligation, despite our treaty obliga-
tions to the contrary, to send in a small
force to protect American lives.
Incidentally, it is interesting to note
that no American lives were lost. De-
spite the gross exaggeration with respect
to the alleged danger under which
Americans and other foreigners found
themselves in Santo Domingo in those
critical days toward the end of April, not
one single American life was lost.
So I reiterate that, in my opinion, the
Senator from Arkansas is subject to no
just criticism because he del not object
when the President, at the White House,
announced that he had decided to send
in the Marines. This argument is mope-
deny Irrelevant to any issue raised by
the Senator from Arkanaas in his care-
fully thought-through and closely rea-
soned speech I hope we shall hear no
more in criticism of the Senator from
Arkansas for what he did or did not do
at the White House conference
My third preliminary comment is that
the Senator from Arkansas based his
speech on 6 weeks of testimony in execu-
tive session before the Committee on
Foreign? Relations, at which practically
every witnees from the administration
who participated in the Dominican crisis,
with three exceptions, was heard and
examined at some length by members of
the committee. The speech was based
also on newspaper articles, weekly news
magazine articles, and other informa-
tion from reputable American journal-
ists, information which was available to
the Committee on Foreign Relations as
well as to the three Senators I have
mentioned.
I sat through those hearings. I either
heard the testimony?and I usually did
hear the testimony and the cross-exami-
nation?of each of the witnesses, or, if
I could not be present, I went to the
committee room later and read the testi-
mony, including the cross-examination.
I can testify from my own perms&
knowledge that the comments of the
Senator from Arkansas are fully and ac-
curately documented by the ebusifled
record in the files of the Committee on
Foreign Relations. II any Senator
doubts what I say, I urge him or her
to read that record.
I do not know whether the Senator
from Connecticut (Mr. Dom), the Sen-
ator hem Florida Mx. Simenzest, or the
Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Lowe) have
read that record. Perhaps they will tell
us in due course. However, I do knot,
that, with the possible exception of a to-
tal of approximately one-half hour, when
one of those Senators may have been
present at one of those hearings, they
did not show UP at all. Therefore, their
criticism of what the Senator from Ar-
? has said is not based on any
knowledge of that record In the Corn-
mittee on Foreign Relations.
This is not necessarily a cause for seri-
ous criticism. No doubt the Senators
have other sources of information than
those which were avallsble to me arid
to the Senator from Arkansas iutti to the
members of the committee. They are
certainly entitled to come In ori the floor
of the Senate and say whatever they
think about it
The point I want to make is that every
single statement of the Senator from Ar-
kansas is carefully documented in the of
record of the hearings over which
he presided. I raise several questions al
to whether these other three Senators
can document what they have said.
The fourth preliminary point that I
&mild like to make is that the real issue
with respect to the Dominican Republic
Is not; "Did we do the right thing or
did we not do the right thing? Did we,
as the Senator from Arkansas says, re-
act too slowly in the inert place and then
overreact in the second *see? Were
our aettvttess on the whole In the boa
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67600446R000100290005-5