THE IMMIGRATION BILL

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 44
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 30, 2003
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: September 22, 1965
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2004/01/16: CIA-RDP67B00446R00010
September '22, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA
contrast, the jewelry and landscaping-nur-
eery departments had no gains.
Some of the money, however, will go for
increased prices, at least in this west Florida
area. "Six months ago I paid 10 cents in a
local cafeteria for,.a dish of grated carrots.
Now I pay 18 cents," complains Clarence
Wahlers, a retired toolmaker of 79. "A
year ago I could get a decent meal for $1;
tod it costs me $1.25."
Eggs in the favorite restaurant of William
Luth, a 73-year-old former construction la-
borer, now are 14 cents, up from 12 cents a
week ago, he says. And Mr. and Mrs. Fred
Weber complain that the "budget bacon"
that cost them 35 cents a pound a few
months ago now costs 70 cents.
The owner of a grocery store confirms that
prices have been inching up the past few
months because of higher costs to us. A
restaurant owner says he has raised prices be-
cause of an expected minimum-wage law
governing the restaurant business.
Not all the elderly, of course, are living
such a hand-to-mouth existence. For the
nonimpoverished, the new social security
money will just mean a windfall, to be frit-
tered away in one manner or another. "It's
nice, sure," says William Wright, a 71-year-
old with a scampish grin. "But I didn't need
it. I have a nice pension from Bethlehem
Steel and a few bucks tucked away." Mr.
Wright feels he is so sound financially that
he recently married, even though his 42-year-
old bride isn't old enough for social security.
But for others, it will, as Mr. Souza says,
make life a little easier. For Manly Corbin,
68, the money will mean "my first new suit in
years." For John Morrow, 71, a $40 retro-
active check will help buy an old car.
For still others, however, the money won't
be enough, especially to cover medical ex-
penses. These people, though, look to medi-
care to help solve their problems and gen-
erally figure their ailments can wait to be
treated next July, when the Government pro-
gram of medical care for the elderly takes
effect.
I have a tumor on my back but I figure
both it and I can last until next year when
medicare goes into effect," says John Doran,
a gravel-voiced man of 70 who used to buy
food for a Buffalo, N.Y., restaurant chain.
"I just can't spare the dough so Uncle
Sam is going to pay for most of the opera-
tion."
Harvey Jackson, 79, concurs. "Several of
my friends are putting off' kidney and bladder
operations until medicare goes into effect,"
he says. "Some don't have the money and
others don't want to spend what they have."
ATLANTA CONSTITUTION NAR-
RATES HOW EXPERIENCE POINTS
TO NEED FOR NEW GI EDUCA-
TION BILL
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
the unparalleled success of the GI bills
of World War II and the Korean con-
flict provided the necessary financial
impetus to enable some 10 million vet-
erans to enroll for education and train-
ing at a cost to this Government which
has been more than repaid. Indeed, in-
formation supplied by the Department
of Labor and the Department of Com-
merce indicates that incomes of veter-
ans who received GI bill assistance in
education averaged from $1,000 to $1,500
a year more than the incomes of those
who failed to take advantage of this
.educational aid. If we do not grant our
approval to a new GI bill this session
this Congress will be rejecting one of the
No. 175-13
greatest opportunities to provide for the
future intellectual and economic strength
of America.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that an article by the widely read
Mr. George Boswell, which appeared in
the September 17, 1965, issue of the in-
fluential and prestigious Atlanta, Ga.
Constitution be printed at this point in
the RECORD. The article is entitled "GI
Bill Helped Build a Stronger Nation."
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
GI BILL HELPED BUILD A STRONGER NATION
(By George Boswell)
The proposed cold war GI bill is a reminder
of the remarkable results of the original GI
bill of World War Ii. The bill was un-
precedented. It was motivated largely by
fears of what might happen to the country
and its economy by the rapid dismantling of
our military force, which a'; its peak.num-
bered about 16 million men and women.
This was accompanied, of course, by the re-
conversion of our gigantic industrial com-
plex from a war basis to peace.
Whether or not it was justified, there was
great worry about how these veterans-with
average time in service of 21/2 years-would
readjust to civilian life. It was recalled that
Mussolini and Hitler had risen to power with
the support of disgruntled veterans. Ameri-
can veterans did not react that way, of
course, but turned themselves into a mighty
force to create a greater America. How much
was due to the GI bill is impossible to meas-
ure but by any yardstick its cost was negli-
gible compared to the benefits which have
accrued to the Nation because of it.
No other country had ever attempted to
aid veterans Is.. readjustment on such a scale.
Millions were put on the road to becoming
self-reliant citizens and leaders of the Nation
and their communities. Under its educa-
tional program, almost 8 million took ad-
vantage of opportunities to improve skills
or to learn new ones.
More than 6.7 million home loans and 300,-
000 other loans with a face value of $65 bil-
lion were made undcr guaranteed VA loans
under the World War II and Korean GI bills.
About 3 million of these already have been
paid in full. Less than 3 percent have been
terminated with claims.
To aid in the adjustments, the original
GI bill allowec: payments to veterans of $20
per week for 52 weeks. This so-called "52-
20" club was the most controversial feature
of all, its critics claiming it would result in
millions of loafers. They did not understand
the returning GI. Among all veterans, an
average of only 19 weeks of the allowance
was used. Most were too busy finding better
jobs, improving their future opportunities
through education and training, creating
new businesses and entering expanding trade
fields.
Perhaps the greatest achievement was in
the educational field. As a group, veterans
who entered the Nation's schools and colleges
proved themselves to be the best students
in their respective institutions. They did not
waste their opportunities and as a result
the Nation was enriched by millions of col-
lege-trained leaders in business, science,
skilled trades, and the professions with earn-
ings that exceed those of nonveterans of the
samo age group.
The performance of these veterans con_
founded the critics who called the GI bill a
senseless handout and socialism. They re-
sponded to the aid with individual zeal to
become more independent and productive
citizens in an economy that had to grow.
The feared class of dependent veterans did
not materialize.
THE IMMIGRATION BILL
President, yesterday I inserted in the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD five editorials
which appeared in West Virginia news-
papers in support of my opposition to
the immigration bill. I have now re-
ceived a sixth editorial, this one having
appeared in the Weirton, W. Va., Daily
Times on Tuesday, September 21.
I call attention to the following para-
graphs taken from the editorial:
Certainly it is difficult to understand why
we would want to encourage massive migra-
tion to the United States at the very time
when our Nation is confronted with critical
problems of unemployment, poverty, de-
pressed areas, automation, integration, in-
creasing crime, and a skyrocketing welfare
bill.
The advocates of the change state that
under the proposed legislation it will be
easier for people "of special skills" to come
into the country and help the U.S. econ-
omy. Yet, under the new legislation
there would be an increase in quotas for
such countries as Trinidad, Jamaica, Tanzia,
Malawi, Yemen, and Nepal, and it would seem
that persons with special skills needed in
the United States might be very hard to find
in those countries. Besides, these countries
need the services of their talented and
trained people more than we do if they hope
to build a better economy.
The United States need make no apologies
for its immigration policies which already
are far more liberal than other countries and
in view of the fact that other advanced na-
tions are selective in dealing with immi-
grants ? ? S.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to insert in the RECORD at this point
.the entire editorial from the Weirton
Daily Times.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
HOLD THE LINE
U.S. Senator ROBERT C. BYRD has taken
a very reasonable and sound stand in op-
posing the administration's proposed new
immigration bill which would scrap the basic
national origins quota system first drawn
in 1924.
Admittedly there are some weaknesses in
the present system as it applies no limita-
tions on immigration from South America
and other Western Hemispheric countries,
yet it has served the interests of the United
States well in the past. The proposed legis-
lation now being considered, however, would
pose grave problems for our country and in
a way could lessen the effectiveness of cur-
rent U.S. policy to help other countries im-
prove their economic conditions.
Certainly it is difficult to understand why
we would want to encourage massive mi-
gration to the United States at, the very
time when our Nation is confronted with
critical problems of unemployment, poverty,
depressed areas, automation, integration, in-
creasing crime and a skyrocketing welfare
bill.
In many parts of the country, including
our own, joblessness remains a nagging prob-
lem. As stated by Senator BYRD, sooner or
later we are going to have to recognize the
realities of this situation and admit to our-
selves that our first responsibility in mat-
ters of immigration is to the people of the
United States and not to the entire popula-
tion of the world.
The advocates of the change state that
under the proposed legislation it will be
easier for people of special skills to come
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 23858
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE September 22, 1965
into the country and help the U.S..economy.
Yet, under the new legislation, there would
be an increase in quotas for such countries
as Trinidad, Jamaica, Tanzia, Malawi, Yemen,
and Nepal, and it would seem that persons
with special skills needed in the United States
might be very hard to find in those countries.
Besides, these countries need the services of
their talented and trained people more than
we do if they hope to build a better economy.
Under the present system, it is true that
relatively larger quotas are assigned to such
countries as England, Scotland, Ireland,
Germany, France, and Scandinavia, but this
is because the basic population of our coun-
try is made up largely of stocks which origi-
nated from those countries, and the reason-
ing back of the present system is that addi-
tional population from those countries would
be more easily and readily assimilated into
the American population. As pointed out by
the West Virginia Senator there are fine
human beings in all parts of the world, but
peoples do differ widely in their social habits,
their levels of ambition, their mechanical
aptitudes, their inherited ability and intelli-
gence, their moral traditions, and their ca-
pacities for maintaining stable governments.
The United States need make no apolo-
gies for its immigration policies which al-
ready are far more liberal than other coun-
tries and in view of the fact that other
advanced nations are selective in dealing
with immigrants.
The time is here when we must begin
thinking about our own national interest
without being influenced by foreign na-
tionals. We fully support the stand of Sena-
tor BYRD on this vital issue.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, I suggest the absence of a quo-
rum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
AMENDMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND
NATIONALITY ACT
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.E.. 2580) to amend the Im-
migration and Nationality Act, and for
other purposes. -
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I offer
an amendment which I send to the desk
and ask to have stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
On page 29, line 4, change the period to a
semicolon and add the following: "Provided,
That for all fiscal years after the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1968, said 170,000 shall be
reduced by the number of special immigrants,
exclusive of special immigrants defined in
section 101(a) (27) (A), and immediate rela-
tives admitted to the United States for per-
manent residence during the fiscal year.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, _ my
amendment would not affect the appli-
cation of the bill to the increased immi-
gration prior to June 30, 1968. It is my
understanding that there is a backlog of
immigrant applications which should be
taken care of. I understand from the
distinguished Senator from Massachu-
setts [Mr. KENNEDY], the Senator in
charge of the bill, that it is anticipated
that after 3 years the backlogs of im-
pending immigrants will be eliminated
in all instances except for one category
of Italians, and that the situation will
be rectified shortly thereafter. So dur-
ing the next 3 years, the backlog of im-
migrants can be substantially cleaned
up.
I believe we ought to focus our atten-
tion on what will happen after that.
What will happen on July 1, 1968? My
amendment is concerned with what will
happen after that date.
I am aware of how complicated the
whole subject of immigration is. Much
confusion exists with respect to it.
There are quota immigrants, there are
nonquota immigrants, and there are spe-
cially exempt categories. If one tries to
concern himself with these groups, he
may end by seeing only the trees, and
not seeing the forest. I believe we ought
to be concerned with the forest; namely,
the total number of immigrants, regard-
less of their quality, whether they are
called quota, nonquota, or exempt cate-
gories. The question should be, How
many immigrants are coming into the
United States, and how many will be
coming into the United States?
The national origins policy which has
existed for many years leaves much to
be desired. Probably the principal
thrust of the bill is to do away with the
national origins policy and to treat all
people alike, regardless of the country
from which they come, so long as they
can satisfy the category requirements
provided in the bill. My amendment has
nothing to do with that. It has only to
do with the total number of immigrants
that will be coming into the United States
starting on July 1, 1968.
The record shows that in 1960, the
total number of immigrants into the
United States was 265,000; in 1961, 271,-
000; in 1962, 283,000; in 1963, 306,000;
and in 1964, 292,000. To all intents and
purposes, it appears that the bill pro-
vides for 290,000 immigrants, 170,000
from the world at large and 120,000 from
the Western Hemisphere.
But the bill goes further: It provides
for certain exemptcategories in addition
to the 290,000. According to the record
it is estimated that over and above the
290,000, we can expect 50,000, 60,000, or
70,000 more immigrants a year. No one
knows with certainty what the number
in the exempt categories will amount to.
But as I recall, the Attorney General
estimated that 62,500 more immigrants
a year would come in starting on July 1,
1968, than are coming in now.
With respect to the confusion to which
I referred earlier, considerable point has
been made concerning the present an-
nual quotas which some countries have
and how low they are. For example,
Greece has been mentioned as having
an annual quota for 1964 of only 849.
However, the record should show, so
that the people will know exactly what
is taking place, that while 849 quota im-
migrants were authorized for Greece in
1964, there were 3,060 nonquota mini-
grants admitted from Greece. This im-
migration was entirely legal but was in
addition to the regular quota.
There are other examples. Last year,
Italy was authorized 5,950 immigrants;
yet 7,295 nonquota immigrants were ad-
mitted over and above the quota immi-
grants. So perhaps the way the present
program has been working, so far as
certain countries are concerned, there
may not be so much hardship as the
plain quota figures would indicate. The
total number of persons who have been
legally admitted is what really counts.
To return to my amendment, it seems
to me that if the policy of Congress is
to do away with the national origins
system and at the same time preserve the
total number of immigrants at about
the same rate at which they have been
admitted during the last few years, the
target ought to be somewhere around
290,000 to 300,000. Assuming that the
target is 290,000, I have left the figures
of 170,000 and 120,000 undistrubed; but
my amendment provides that the 170,000
quota immigrants for the world at large
shall be reduced by the number of special
immigrants who are exempted under the
bill; and that after the 170,000 is reduced
by the number of special immigrants
who are admitted into the United States,
the remainder would be quota immi-
grants.
My amendment is not intended to re-
duce the 120,000 total number of immi-
grants. The intention is to retain the
170,000 figure and to start by taking the
exempt categories off the top. Them,
after they have been admitted, we shall
know how many quota immigrants can
betaken in.
If the exempt categories amounted to
10,000 immigrants in 1 year, we would
have 160,000 quota immigrants. If the
exempt categories amounted to 20,000,
we would have 150,000 quota immigrants.
There is no intention of reducing the
number of immigrants in any one year
below 290,000-170,000 from the world
at large and 120,000 from Latin America.
On the other hand, if it is the intention
of the administration and the policy of
Congress not only to do away with the
national origins system, but also to in-
crease the total number of immigrants
coming into the United States by 50,000,
60,000, or 70,000 a year, starting on July 1,
1968, then my amendment should be re-
jected and the bill should be passed in
its present form.
Mr. President, I see no reason for any
further explanation of my amendment.
It is very simple. I believe that the issue
is clear.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from Iowa
(Mr. MILLER] to the committee amend-
ment in the nature of a substitute.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
Mr. President, I should like to review
with the Senator from Iowa the inten-
tion of his amendment. I believe I
understand from the remarks of the
Senator from Iowa what he is attempt-
ing to do in general, but I am not sure
that the language of his amendment is
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 Approved For Release 2004/01/.16: C IA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
'September 22, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL._ RECORD - SENATE
fully clear an its face. The amendment
reads in part:
Provided, That for all fiscal years after the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, said 170,000
shall be reduced by the number of special
immigrants-
Special immigrants have been defined
under the bill to apply to those coming
from the Western Hemisphere, which
number has been set at 120,000; T read
further from the amendment-
exclusive of special immigrants defined in
section 101(a) (27) (A), and immediate rela-
tives admitted to the United States for
permanent residence during the fiscal year-
It seems to me, if I read the amend-
ment correctly, that it would provide
that, for all fiscal years after the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1968, the figure of
170,000 shall be reduced by the number
of special immigrants-which, as defined
by this bill, would mean those from the
Western Hemisphere, as well as immedi-
ate relatives admitted to the United
States for permanent residence during
the fiscal year.
So as I .read the amendment, what the
Senator is attempting to do is to reduce
the figure of 170,000 by the number of
special immigrants. It would also in-
clude those defined in the McCarran-
Walter Act as having a particular im-
mediate family relationship, who would
be admitted to the United States for
permanent residence during the fiscal
year.
I wish to ascertain whether I read that
language correctly before I address my
comments to the relative merits of the
amendment of the Senator from Iowa.
I do so because I have not seen this
amendment before and received it but a
few brief minutes ago.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I appre-
ciate the statement of the Senator from
Massachusetts. I believe that we ought
to be in agreement on the language be-
fore we enter into a discussion of the
merits.
I would be the last one in the world to
suggest, in dealing with a complex sub-
ject such as this, that this amendment
is letter perfect. I believe that It is ac-
curate. The language which states that
the 170,000 shall be reduced by the num-
ber of special immigrants does not re-
late to Western Hemisphere people at
all.. The term "special immigrants" re-
fers to the special category born in the
Western Hemisphere, children, spouses,
and parents of immigrants previously
admitted to the United States for perma-
nent residence, but who have temporarily
been abroad, former U.S. citizens who
are now eligible to reapply for citizen-
ship, ministers, and their spouses and
children, employees, and retired former
employees of the U.S. Government.
Some people who have been born in
the Western Hemisphere are residents of
the United States and of other countries
in the world at large outside the Western
Hemisphere. However, this is the group
which is referred to and covered by the
phrase "special immigrants."
I have, in my amendment specifically
excluded.specfal immigrants defined in
section. 10.1(a) (27) (A). These are the
people ' from the Western Temisphere,
concerning which the 120,000 limitation
is placed in the bill.
I suggest to the Senator that my
amendment would provide that the
170,000 shall be reduced only by the spe-
cial categories to which I have referred,
and that it would not include the 120,000
Western Hemisphere people referred to
or covered by section 101(a) (27) (A).
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
Mr. President, I refer to the committee
report and the description contained in
the report concerning section 8 of the
-bill. It reads as follows:
Section 8 of the bill-amends section 101 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Section 101(a)(27) of that act, which de-
fines "nonquota immigrant," is amended to
eliminate the term "nonquota immigrant,"
and insert in lieu thereof "special immi-
grant." Therefore, natives of independent
countries of the Western Hemisphere, re-
turning resident aliens, certain former citi-
zens of the United States, ministers of re-
ligion, and certain retired employees of the
U.S. Government abroad previously referred
to as "nonquota immigrants," will hence-
forth be referred to as "special immigrants."
Before we get into the question of the
merits of this amendment, I wish to be
absolutely sure of what we are talking
about. Are we sure that under this
amendment we would not take the figure
of 170,000 and reduce it by the number
of special immigrants, which for the gen-
eral purpose of discussion includes West-
ern Hemisphere and certain others under
section 101. Are we sure that we would
not be taking the 170,000 and reducing
it by 120,000, because that number of
Western Hemisphere immigrants would
fall within the definition of special im-
migrants as defined by the legislation?
If that is not correct, I believe that
the amendment would be a bit unrealistic
at this point. If I correctly understand
what the Senator is trying to do-and
perhaps we could have a discussion of
it-it is the intent of the Senator to pro-
vide that those who have a special family
relationship may be included within the
170,000-sons and daughters, brothers
and sisters, and parents of American cit-
izens.
Mr. MILLER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I
believe that is the fundamental point of
the Senator from Iowa. I should like to
comment briefly on that point.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I
yield.
Mr. MILLER. I must insist that the
language contained in the amendment
which says "excusive of special immi-
grants defined in section 101(a)27(A)"
refers to the 120,000 Western Hemisphere
people.
If the Senator will look at section
101(a) 27 (A), I am sure that he will find
that this is the section that, covers the
Western Hemisphere people on which the
120,000 limitation is placed in the bill. I
fully intend to say, and I believe the
amendment does say, that we will. not
take those people into account at all.
They would be excluded from the cover-
age of my amendment.
We are not meddling with the Western
Hemisphere 120,000 figure at all. All I
23859-
want to do is to subtract or deduct from
the 170,000 those special categories to
which the Senator has just referred.
I invite the attention of the Senator to
page 28 of the committee report. Down
near the bottom of the page, there ap-
pears section 101(a) (27) which defines
special immigrants. However, section
101(a)27(A) would be specifically ex-
cluded under my amendment. So the
other categories are included. Those
would be the family-type relationships
to which the Senator has been referring.
If there is any difficulty over the legis-
lative drafting of this amendment, I am
sure that we can get together on it. How-
ever, I should like to have a little discus-
sion with the Senator about the objec-
tives.of my amendment. I assume that
we can get together on the legislative
drafting.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, the Senator from Iowa [Mr.
MILLER] has raised a point which is basic
and fundamental to the legislation the
Senate is considering this afternoon
whether we will have a figure of 170,000
numbers for the world, and whether it
will be 120,000 numbers for the Western
Hemisphere, all exclusive of immediate
relatives as deferred in the bill. These
are figures arrived at in a way that
should be reviewed and I shall review it
very briefly.
At the time of legislative consideration
prior to the passage of the 1924 Immigra-
tion Act, the figure of 150,000 was es-
tablished. It was based on an annual
total number of immigrants equal to one-
sixth of 1 percent of the population of the
United States in 1920. Quotas were then
assigned on the basis of the nationality
of the U.S. white population at that time.
The figure of 150,000 was gradually
raised as new independent countries were
recognized by the United States, until it
reached 158,561, which is the figure today.
The figure of 170,000 represents these
158,561 numbers plus the inclusion of
10,200 numbers set aside for refugees,
which would make a total of 168,761.
That figure was rounded off at 170,000.
For the Western Hemisphere countries,
the figure of 120,000, exclusive of imme-
diate relatives, was reached on the basis
of experience during the past 5 to 10
years.
Thus, Mr. President, we arrive at the
figures that we are talking about, 170,000
for countries throughout the world ex-
clusive of the Western Hemisphere, and
120,000 for countries in the Western
Hemisphere.
The Senator from Iowa raises the
question, Should not there immediate
family relationships be included in the
170,000?
Mr. President, that would attack the
very basis of the pending legislation, aside
from the elimination of the national
origins system and the Asian-Pacific tri-
angle.
The McCarran-Walter Act, under its
preference system, assigns 50 percent of
all quota members to skilled aliens who
have particular skills which are urgently
'needed. in the economy of the United
States.
That entire preference concept has
been changed in the pending legislation
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 23860
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE September 22, 1965
to one emphasizing the reunification of
families. The preferences in this bill
have thus been changed to provide that
preferential consideration shall be giv-
en to family reunification. The first
preference is for those who would come
to the United States as unmarried sons
and daughters of American citizens, the
second preference is for family relatives
of aliens, the third, and only the third
preference-and this is only 10 per-
cent-to those who have skills at the
professional level. The fourth prefer-
ence is given to married sons and daugh-
ters of U.S. citizens. The fifth prefer-
ence is given to brothers andsisters of
U.S. citizens; the sixth preference is
given to labor needed here because of a
short supply in certain types of labor,
the seventh to the refugees; and the
eighth is left for what are called new
seed immigrants.
In this legislation, therefore, those
who have particular skills are reduced
to third and sixth preferences. The bill
recognizes the basic human concern
which Americans have for the reunifica-
tion of families. We know, even looking
at today's situation under the McCar-
ran-Walter Act, referring to figures
from the Department of State, Bureau
of Security and Consular Affairs, that
there are numbers of instances of family
separation caused by our immigration
laws. For instance, in the Asia Pacific
triangle, under the second preference of
the McCarran-Walter Act, covering par-
ents of U.S. citizens 21 years of age or
over and unmarried sons and daughters
of U.S. citizens, there are 52 parents of
American citizens who would like to
come to the United States; there are
1,300 people of Chinese extraction; there
are 876 Greek family separation cases;
29 from India, 39 from Iran, 25 from
Iraq, 231 from Panama, 151 from Japan,
49 from Korea, 615 from the Philippines,
166 from Portugal, 318 from Turkey, and
so on.
These are typical examples. It was
because of these examples that such
serious consideration was given by the
subcommittees in both the House of
Representatives and the Senate to the
importance of the reunification of
families.
I recognize, as the Senator from Iowa
has stated, that with the exception of
some special family relationships-such
as those of certain categories of Italians,
we would in the next 3 years reunify the
families now awaiting reunification.
Nonetheless, under this amendment, the
problem would arise repeatedly in the
future. It is well to consider the basic
concept and philosophy of this legisla-
tion. It would be regressive to change
the special consideration for which the
bill provides, and I would hope that the
Senator from Iowa would reconsider his
proposal.
Mr. MILLER. Let me say to my
friend the Senator from Massachusetts
that I agree with him in all he has said
about reunification of families. How-
ever, I invite his attention. to the fact
that the figures he has quoted are figures
which have arisen under the backlog
created under the present law, which
should be taken care of In the next 3
years. I cannot believe that 3 years
from now he will be able to show any
such figures as he has given us, because
the intention of the bill is that these
cases be taken care of in the next 3 years.
My amendment has nothing whatsoever
to do with that period of time so far as
the bill is concerned.
I suggest further that another reason
why the figures the Senator from Massa-
chusetts has given us exist is the unfor-
tunate national origins policy under
which this country has been operating.
The pending bill would abolish that; and
there again, I cannot imagine that 3
years from now there will be any figures
of such magnitude available, because the
national origins system will be out, and
we shall have much more flexibility in
handling family reunification problems.
Are we going to make a decision on
the total number of people per year that
will be coming into the United States
starting July 1, 1968? If we are going
to make a decision on that total, what
is the total to be?
My amendment would leave the total
at 290,000, which is almost exactly what
the figure was last year, 170,000 for the
world at large and the 120,000 for the
Western Hemisphere.
The way the bill is now written, it
would not be 290,000, but, rather, 290,-
000, plus whatever number would come
in under the exempt categories. We are
told that this figure could be 40,000, 50,-
000, 60,000 or 70,000 a year. The Attor-
ney General has testified that his esti-
mate was 62,500 a year. However, no
one knows.
We do know, however, that it would be
More than we are taking in now.
I believe it would be better, if the Sen-
ator from Massachusetts believes that
290,000 is too low, to make the figure
180,000, instead of 170,000; and we could
make the Western Hemisphere figure
120,000 or 130,000. Then we would have
310,000 immigrants a year, and we would
know what the ceiling would be. We
could then adapt my amendment to that
situation, by providing that the various
exempt categories should come off the
top, and the other categories should be
divided. We are not talking about a
hardship situation. The bill is designed
to deal with the hardship situation.
What is involved is a policy decision
that should be faced. The American
people should know exactly what Is be-
ing done. I know of no one who is not
in favor of doing away with the national
origin system. I believe all Senators
are in agreement on that point.
The question is what we should do
about numbers. Let us not get down to
quotas, and so forth. Let us know where
we are going.
Under the bill we shall have perhaps
365,000 a year. It is roughly 290,000 a
year now. Perhaps that is what we
should do. I am not necessarily saying
that we should not do it, but I believe
it would be a good idea to get at the
figures that we have now and clean up
the figures in the next 3 -years, and say
that they ought to be cleaned up. Then
we could start on July 1, 1968, knowing
exactly where we are going.
At that time, if it Is decided to be in
the national interest to increase our im-
migrant total over 300,000 and make it
365,000, that is the time for Congress
to make that decision. I believe that
it is a little premature at this time, par-
ticularly in the case of such an impor-
tant piece of legislation, to make that
anticipation. It seems to me that what
we should do is to stay with the figure
of approximately 290,000, so that every-
one will know that the 290,000 immi-
grants will be admitted into the United
States, starting July 1, 1968; and that is
exactly what my amendment would do.
I ask the Senator from Massachusetts
if he is satisfied with the language of my
amendment. I would feel unhappy
about having the amendment go off on
the basis of a dispute over the drafting
of the amendment. I believe that it
really should go off on the basis of a
decision as to whether we are to have
a ceiling on the total number we are ad-
mitting now.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The
amendment offered by the Senator may
still be open to interpretation, but that
thought aside, we could certainly work
out language to include what the Sena-
tor from Iowa is attempting to do. It is
open to different interpretations, but it
would be fair to say that it could include
what the Senator from Iowa has men-
tioned.
I go back to the fact that through the
Bureau of Security and Conslar Affairs,
we have been able to determine that we
can expect over time, given the present
legislation which is now being consid-
ered by the Senate, between 50,000 and
60,000 people who will come in and take
advantage of our new immigration laws.
This is based upon similar conditions in
the past, the knowledge of present de-
mands, and anticipation for future de-
mands.
I do not believe that there is any Sena-
tor who does not recognize that this bill
establishes a worldwide quota, exclusive
of the Western Hemisphere.
There is also a number that will be
given to the Western Hemisphere, and
that has to be exclusive of those which
have close family relationships. Fam-
ilies are excluded by the announced
policy of those who have supported the
proposed legislation that they should be
given special consideration.
We recognize that there will be be-
tween 50,000 and 60,000 people-the best
figures we have been able to acquire-
who will come in. Thus, I would feel that
if the Senator from Iowa has an amend-
ment to restrict the total number-as I
would gather from the colloquy this aft-
ernoon by establishing a worldwide
quota-I believe that this would be some-
thing for Senators to study. I feel, how-
ever, that this question has been debated,
both by the proponents and the oppo-
nents of the bill. It has also been specifi-
cally determined, and defended in com-
mittee that those who have a particular
family relationship will not be consid-
ered the same as other immigrants.
This is the whole concept of the bill.
The reunification of families is pro-
vided for by the new preference sys-
tem and the immediate relative cate-
gory.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 September ,p~9v~5d For ReCONGRESSIONALCRECORD BOSENATE 100290006-4 23861
Thus, I submit, as worthy as the
amendment may appear to the Senator,
and notwithstanding the great respect I
have for the Senator from Iowa, I believe
that his amendment would attack the
fundamental concept of the bill-that is,
to guarantee the unification of families.
If the Senate is interested In putting a
fixed worldwide quota in our laws, that is
one thing, but I believe this amendment
would do a great disservice to the con-
cept embodied in the proposed legisla-
tion. I believe that that concept is good
and should continue. I would certainly
be opposed to any alteration of that very
basic and fundamental principle in the
proposed legislation.
Mr. MILLER. I am not particularly
interested in disrupting family relation-
ships. That is not the intention behind
my amendment. I take it that is the
basic difficulty the Senator from Mas-
sachusetts finds with the amendment.
As I understand, the bill would estab-
lish a list of seven preference priorities:
Unmarried sons or daughters of U.S.
citizens; husbands and wives, unmarried
sons or daughters of alien residents;
members of professions; married sons or
daughters of U.S. citizens; brothers and
sisters of U.S. citizens; skilled and un-
skilled persons capable of filling labor
shortages; and refugees from com-
munism.
I should like to ask this question of
the Senator from Massachusetts:
Assuming that we have the 170,000
world-at-large figure, and there are 170,-
000 people in the categories which are
set forth as preferences in the bill; would
he anticipate that those who did not
meet the preference categories would
come in under nonpreference?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
That is the final preference category.
Mr. MILLER. All right.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
There are provisions for visa numbers
to spill down from preference category
to preference category. Those that run
out of the first preference go to the sec-
ond. Those that run off the second go to
the forth. They do not go to the third,
which deals with the professionals.. In
the final analysis, all unused numbers
go to what is called the new seed
preference.
Mr. MILLER. If what the Senator is
concerned about is the family group and
some of the professions, for example, I
wonder whether we could not get into
the bill the purpose of my amendment,
by providing that the reduction shall
come only from the nonpreference
categories, so that if we had 170,000 for
the world at large, and we would subtract
from that the number that would come
in under the exempt category 20,000, if
150,000 were embraced in the seven pre-
ference priorities, in that way we would
have a total of 170,000 which would in-
clude the exempt categories and the
preference categories-the family rela-
tionship people, and the skilled and un-
skilled people, but there would not be any
preference people admitted in that
situation.
Would the Senator have any objection
to an amendment which would provide
that the categories in the preference see-
tion, which he is obviously concerned
about-and which I am also concerned
about-are protected, so that the only
result of my amendment is a given situa-
tion would result in a reduction of the
nonpreference categories.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Is
the Senator now referring to the last
preference category?
Mr. MILLER. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The
Senator would reduce the new need cate-
gory. May I ask to what extent?
Mr. MILLER. To the extent that the
exempt categories total-
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
How does the Senator know the situation
in any given country?
The Senator realizes, does he not, that
there is a restriction on each country?
Mr. MILLER. I know that there is a
restriction. It is a fairly liberal
restriction.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
Does the Senator believe that it could
possibly apply to Italy, with the great
emphasis on family relationships, with
the given restrictions which are even in
this bill. It is unrealistic.
Mr. MILLER. It would not apply at
all, because in my suggestion, all the
family relationships I am talking about
would be left unimpeded under the
170,000 figure. I would provide that with
respect to categories, that particular total
would be reduced, if necessary, by the
total number of the exempt categories
who are admitted over and above the
170,000.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, we have been having hearings
since February of this year, in which each
of these preference categories was con-
sidered in great detail. We worked them
out on the basis of experience, needs, and
demands. The Senate committee con-
sidered them. The House committee
considered them. I think what we even-
tually come down to in this dialog with
the Senator from Iowa is whether we
ought to be establishing - a worldwide
quota.
This question is basic to the subject.
We have had months of hearings on this
particular subject. Members of the
committee considered it in detail.
The amendment of the Senator from
Iowa takes us back to a fundamental de-
cision, and that is the particular relation-
ship of the available numbers to the world
and the Western Hemisphere, as well as
the considerations that we will give to the
close family relationships.
Now the Senator from Iowa comes in
at the final hour with a proposal to alter
the basic structure of the bill. I do not
believe the amendment should be favor-
ably considered. I oppose the amend-
ment.
Mr. KENNEDY of New York. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I
yield.
Mr. KENNEDY of New York. I have a
question to ask the Senator in charge of
the bill. Is it correct that in considering
this legislation the committee did look
into the figure of 170,000 and the figure
of 120,000 with respect to Latin America,
and the question of special Immigrants?
Is it not correct that those matters were
considered in great detail?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The
Senator is correct. Not only that, but
in considering the allocation under sec-
tion 203, we considered the question
whether those to be admitted were to be
unmarried. sons or daughters of Ameri-
can citizens, or unmarried sons or daugh-
ters of alien residents. We considered
how it would affect immigrants with spe-
cial skills, and how and whether they
should benefit from spillovers from sub-
sections (1) and (2). We considered the
question of what percent should be given
to ,refugees and so forth.
The whole question has been given a
great deal of concern and consideration
by the voluntary agencies which have
been concerned with these matters.
Members of Congress who are concerned
as a result of the constant examples be-
ing brought to the attention of their of-
fices in this field have considered it.
After reviewing all those factors, we
worked this matter out. In the final
hour, to alter the bill or to give different
priorities would not be the course of ws-
dom.
Mr. KENNEDY of New York. There-
fore, as the committee considered the bill,
instead of arriving at the figure of 170,-
000, it could have arrived at the figure of
120,000. However, it was decided by the
committee to arrive at the figure of 170,-
000, but that the other would be left flex-
ible. Was that factor considered?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. It
was considered. There was considerable
discussion as to whether there should be
a worldwide quota. We did not think it
would be worthwhile.
Mr. KENNEDY of New York. Is it an-
ticipated that any immigrant who comes
in under that category will be a charge to
the United States?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. No.
As the Senator from New York knows, be-
cause he testified on this matter, that the
labor provisions have been strengthened.
The public health charge provisions are
still in existence. The other broad provi-
sions which deal with security, health,
and all the rest, have been carried
through from the old McCarran Act.
They are worthwhile, and were retained,
and in some instances strengthened.
Mr. KENNEDY of New York. Was
there a feeling in the committee that the
United States, with a working popula-
tion of some 70 million, could not afford
to bring in this group of immigrants who
have special skills or special relationships
here in the United States? Was that
question gone into by the committee?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. It
was. As the Senator from New York
knows, the total number who will be
admitted into this country under the bill
will be a lesser percentage in relation to
our population in 1965 than the number
of people who came Into this country-in
1924, when this very restrictive legisla-
tion was adopted. So, for many reasons,
some of which I have gone into, the com-
mittee reached a certain figure. I be-
lieve it would be unfortunate to tamper
with it at this late hour.
Mr. KENNEDY of New York. What
the amendment of the Senator from Iowa
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B0 6R0001 2 000,64
23862 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA ep em er 22, 1965
actually amounts to, in substance, is the right now. If the Senator from Iowa Massachusetts that my comments were
reduction of the number of persons who says he wants to Include immediate rela- not directed at him in any form of criti-
may come into this country by 40,000 tives under the other categories, his cism regarding the increase under the
or 50,000 or 60,000. Is that correct? amendment would in effect cut down the pending bill.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. total number of people who will be But I point out to him that there are
That is what it amounts to. affected by H.R.2580. many Senators not yet familiar with this
Mr. KENNEDY of New York. This Mr. MILLER. And will come in under matter. He made the point that I came
question was considered. It was gone the bill starting in 1968. in at the last minute with an amend-
into in great detail, based on what we I wish to make it clear that my amend- ment.
have done in the past, and what we can ment is not designed to cut down any I want him to understand why. While
do in the future. There are restrictions numbers we have been admitting up I do not care if an amendment comes
imposed as to the people who will come through 1964, or that the amendment in at the last minute, a day before, or
into this country, so that they will not would reduce the figure to 290,000. a year before, the important thing is
become public charges but can con- I have no objection to making it 300,- the amendment. If it is a good amend-
tribute to and aid our economy, or who 000. I do not want to become bogged ment, it ought to be adopted. I do not
have close relatives in this country. The down with a feeling that we are cutting believe that the fact that it is brought
entire question was gone into by the 200,000 or 300,000-300,000 is all right in at the last minute necessarily means
committee. I do not think it appropri- with me. it is not a good amendment.
ate now to say that we should cut that The point is that we are going to in- I am sorry that because of the nature
quota by 25,000 or 30,000. crease the total number under this bill, of things, I did not know about this
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The starting in July 1968, by 40,000, 50,000, increase. My lack of appreciation of
Senator has touched on the funda- 60,000, or 70,000. I believe that is a point this fact is shared by many Senators.
mental point of the amendment offered that ought to be clearly brought out. This is not said in criticism of the Sena-
by the Senator from Iowa-the idea that I regret that I was not acquainted with for from Massachusetts. It Is in the
between 40,000 and 50,000 shall be cut the total increase that would come in un- nature of things that arise In compli-
out of the total number of people who der the bill until day before yesterday. cated pieces of legislation.
could come into this country. That Is It may be that these figures were all As I understand, in the contemplation
what the amendment of the Senator brought out in the hearings. Senators of the Senator from. New York [Mr.
from Iowa attempts to accomplish. As sitting in those hearings would be famil- KENNEDY], it is not envisioned that any
the Senator from New York mentioned, far with it, but I do not believe it is people coming in under this bill are to
the figures which are set forth in the easily found in the committee report. become public charges. They will have
bill have been carefully considered. I It can be found, but it takes quite a bit their skills; otherwise they will not be
believe they are basically meritorious and of digging to do it. admitted. I recognize that there is no
that they should be supported. The press releases and newspaper ar- intention to bring in people who will be
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the titles on this subject have all dealt with public charges.
Senator yield? the national origins system, and there This question is not at issue in this
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I has been discussion about putting a lim- amendment. All of this has been gone
yield. itation on the Western Hemisphere. All into in the course of this legislation and
Mr. MILLER. Three points should be I have seen in the press is the increase the Sentor from Iowa is satisfied on this
made. First, with respect to the ques- over and above what we are talking about point. It has nothing to do with my
tion of the Senator from New York, as now. amendment.
to whether this amendment would cut Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. But I would suggest that when it comes
anything, it ought to be made very clear President, will the Senator yield? to considering whether or not we can
that it is not going to cut anything from Mr. MILLER. I yield. absorb some of these people into our
what we are doing. My amendment Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I employment picture, there Is involved
would leave in all 290,000. We admitted would feel that I had performed a dis- only 10 percent of the 17,000 or 170,000
292,000 last year. We admitted fewer service to Senators unless I made clear people we are talking about.
before that. I have given the 5-year the implication of the bill. I would not find too much difficulty
average. The average for the past 5 We introduced the bill. It came before if only 17,000 people were involved. We
years Is well under 290,000. I do not see the Senate last Friday. I made a speech are talking about 290,000 plus another
how anyone can say that my amend- to enlighten the American people on the 65,000 people.
ment would cut anything. If the Sena- subject. During that speech I said that Finally, I wish to make it clear with
for tells me that we are going to admit there would be some increase in total im- respect to relatives, children, and spouses
65,000 people a year more than we are migration to the United States of 50,000 of our citizens, that my amendment has
admitting now, my amendment is calcu- to 60,000 a year. This would result by nothing to do with them, because they
lated to prevent that, but it is not going changing the law to a worldwide system come off the top; they are the first to
to out anything over and above what we from a nation-by-nation system. These come in under the 170,000. They are
are doing now, are the numbers that go unused each not the last ones, and they are not left
That is the first point. year. Many quotas are going to coun- off . Then, after that, there are those
The second point- tries where they are not utilized, other preference priorities who come in.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. We shall use about 60,000 more for im- As a result of our conversation, so that
President, will the Senator yield on that mediate relatives. It is the 60,000 for objections of the Senator from Massa-
point, before he goes to another point? immediate relatives that is the subject chusetts may be fully met, and so that
Mr. MILLER. Yes, of the Senator from Iowa. These are it may be made clear that other family
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. family people-brothers and sisters; relationships are not interfered with by
That point has been understood. It was husbands and wives; fathers and sons. my amendment, I modify my amendment
brought out by me, when I Introduced This subject was gone into by the com- by striking the period at the end of the
the bill. The Senator from North Caro- mittee. If the Senator from Iowa failed amendment and inserting a semicolon
lina [Mr. ERVINI has strong feelings on to appreciate that fact and did not rec- and adding the following: "and provided
the Matter. The Senator from Missis- ognize that fact I am sorry but, it is a further that such reduction shall only
sippi [Mr. EASTLAND] has opposed it in matter which has been clearly outlined affect the numbers admitted under see-
the past 4 or -5 days of debate during in the RECORD. tion 203 (a) (8)."
which the bill has been before the I believe we have examined this sub- The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
Senate-namely, that we are going to ject. I have no further comments to KENNEDY of New York in the chair).
have an increase of 40,000 or 50,000 make. The Senator so modifies his amendment.
immigrants under this bill. That is rec- If the Senator is interested in a vote, Mr. MILLER. This makes clear that
ognized, and if there is any Member of I am prepared to vote. if there are any reductions, they will
the Senate who is under the impression Mr. MILER. Before we vote, I would come only from the nonpreference cate-
that that has not been brought out, i like to continue with what I was saying. gory and have nothing to do with family
would like to clear the air on that point Before I do,, I say to the Senator from relationships whatever-with the sons
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 September 2 , 1965 For Release CRESSIONALCRECORD BOSENATE0100290006-4
and daughters, husbands and wives, or
any of the others about whom the Sena-
tor from Massachusetts and the Senator
from Iowa are concerned. Nor would it
affect members of the professions and
skills and refugees from Communists.
Mr. President, I believe that the
amendment is a fair amendment. I
would hope that the Senator from Mas-
sachusetts would see fit to take the
amendment to conference and see what
can be done about it, because I do be-
lieve it relieves the problems with which
he and I are both concerned.
Mr. KENNEDV7 of Massachusetts.
Mr. President, I have commented earlier
on the thrust of the amendment of the
Senator from Iowa. I am opposed to
it.
The percentages we are -discussing
were the subject of hearings and discus-
sions. They have been allocated as
mentioned in the bill, as follows: The
first category, 20 percent, or 34,000
members to unmarried sons or daugh-
ters of U.S. citizens; second category,
20 percent, or 34,000 for spouses, unmar-
ried sons or daughters of aliens; third
category, 10 percent, or 17,000 for pro-
fessionals; fourth category, 10 percent,
or 17,000 for married sons or daughters
of U.S. citizens; fifth category, 24 per-
cent, or' 40,800 for brothers and sisters
of 'U.S. citizens; sixth category, 10 per-
cent, or 17,000 for skilled or unskilled
labor in short supply; seventh category,
6 percent or 10,200 for refugees; the re-
mainder is for nonpreference or "new
seed" immigrants.
These are the percentages which have
been arrived at by the subcommittee and
the committee after extensive and ex-
haustive hearings.
I do not depreciate the importance of
bringing an amendment to the floor in
the final hour, if it is a worthwhile
amendment. However, one so basic to
the whole structure of the bill and the
allocations of visa numbers does a dis-
service to the concern and considera-
tion that the subcommittee and the full
committee gave to these allocations.
Therefore I urge that the amendment
not be adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the modified
amendment offered by the Senator from
Iowa [Mr. MILLER] to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The amendment to the committee
amendment was rejected.
-Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
.The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
AMENDMENT NO. 458
Mr. THUIMOND. Mr. President, I
send to the desk a revised version of my
amendment No. 458 and ask that it be
considered in place of the original
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
At an appropriate place in the bill, insert
the following:
"SEC. -. Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of law, no person involuntarily
brought physically into the United States by
the United States Government or its agents
shall subsequently be deported from the
United States, except prisoners of war as de-
fined by the Geneva Convention Relative to
the Treatment of Prisoners of War dated at
Geneva, August 12, 1949."
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President,
under this amendment, I propose to add
to the law the following provision:
Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no person involuntarily brought physi-
cally into the United States by the U.S. Gov-
ernment or its agents shall subsequently be
deported from the United States, except
prisoners of war as defined by the Geneva
Convention Relative to the Treatment of
Prisoners of War dated at Geneva, August
12, 1949.
The modification has added at the end
of the original amendment a provision
which excepts prisoners of War who may
be brought into the United States such
as occurred during the Second World
War. Other than this modification, the
amendment remains as it was originally
introduced.
This, amendment means precisely
what it says. No person, except a
prisoner of war, who is brought involun-
tarily into the United States by the U.S.
Government could be subsequently de-
ported. The amendment would not be
limited to cases of extradition, but would
be specifically directed at cases in which,
not extradition, but direct force is the
method used to bring persons into the
United States.
There is now nothing on the law
books which deals in any way with sit-
uations of this type. Insofar as I know,
there has been no occasion in past years
in which the U.S. Government has
engaged in activity which would be cov-
ered by this amendment. Unfortunately,
it appears from newspaper reports that
such an incident did occur on approxi-
mately September 8 of this year.
The incident, if accurately reported, is
one of the most shameful exhibitions
ever charged against the U.S. Govern-
ment.
According to press reports, the follow-
ing sequence of events occurred in the
Dominican Republic. A proposal ad-
vanced by the Organization of the
American States, which the press has
characterized as bearing the stamp,
"Made in U.S.A.," was signed by the rebel
forces in the Dominican Republic.
Those opposing the rebels refused to sign
it. This agreement, in addition to estab-
lishing an interim government under Mr.
Garcia-Godoy, provided that the rebels
turn in their weapons to the provisional
government. After the agreement was
signed, the rebels refused to carry out
the agreement so long as General Wessin
y Wessin remained in the Dominican Re-
public. General Wessin was commander
of the Armed Forces Training center of
the Dominican Republic. On September
8, the press reports revealed that an at-
tempt had been made by U.S. personnel,
identified as David Phillips, of the Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency, and Lt. Col.
Joseph William Wersick, U.S. Army, to
bribe Gen. Wessin y Wessin to leave
the Dominican Republic. According to
the press reports, General Wessin re-
jected the attempt and denounced it. On
the following day, the press reported that
General Wessin was arrested by Ameri-
can personnel and, while under arrest,
was taken to an American military air-
craft, by which he was transported first
to Panama and subsequently to Miami,
Fla. At the same time, the press re-
ported that General Wessin would be
Dominican Consul in Miami. Subse-
quently, in Miami, General Wessin re-
fused to accept the appointment as
Dominican Consul and charged that he
had been arrested by U.S. Army person-
nel and deported to the United States by
U.S. officials.
Mr. President, there has appeared no
convincing denial by the U.S. Govern-
ment of these press accounts.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that a series of news articles, which
I have briefly summarized, be printed in
the RECORD at the conclusion of my re-
marks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There
being no objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President,,
there are many factors surrounding the
recent events in the Dominican Repub-
lic, and the action taken against Gen-
eral Wessin y Wessin, which raise funda-
mental questions concerning the current
policy 'of the United States of America
on the Dominican Republic. One can-
not avoid the conclusion that the United
States is joining in a policy of appease-
ment of the rebel forces in the Domini-
can Republic, and is taking steps which
strengthen the hands of the Communists
in that island Republic. Quite obviously,
the policy of appeasement and accom-
modation of the Communist forces is
continuing to work to our disadvantage.
Despite General Wessin's removal, the
press still reports that the Dominican
rebels continue in their refusal to sur-
render their weapons.
Regardless of the wisdom or lack of
wisdom which characterizes our current
policies in the Dominican Republic, or
the degree of the incident's effect on
such policy, the heavy-handed treatment
of General Wessin constitutes a shame-
ful blot on the record of our Nation in
foreign affairs. The circumstances re-
ported, if the act had been committed
by private parties, would support a crim-
inal charge of kidnapping. There was
not even a pretense of legality under the
law of any nation or the law of nations.
The status of General Wessin in the
United States is a tenuous one. From
the press reports, it would appear that
General Wessin was brought into this
country prior to the issuance to him, or
for him, of any passport or visa. It
would appear that a diplomatic visa, if
one had been subsequently issued, would
have been in order had General Wessin
accepted the post of Consul in Miami.
This was invalidated, if, it ever existed, by
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 23864
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 22, 1965
the hands of civilians in the rebel zone of
Santo Domingo start immediately, and it did
not mention any condition.
Virtually no rebel arms have so far been
surrendered to the provisional government.
The rebels insist they feel threatened as long
as General Wessin and like-minded military
chiefs remain in command of well-armed
troops.
Last night there was some shooting in the
rebel zone but nobody appeared to have been
hurt. The Inter-American Peace Force re-
ceived a telephone call assuring it that the
rebels meant no harm and were just firing
their rifles into the air to celebrate their
"farewell to arms." However, the arms re-
mained in rebel hands today.
During the night it was rumored that
General Wessin had been or was about to be
arrested at his headquarters at the San Isidro
air base, 10 miles northeast of Santo Do-
mingo. The rumors were unfounded.
HE DISCLOSES OFFER
General Wessin had alleged that U.S. of-
ficials tried to bribe him to leave the coun-
try. This morning he disclosed that Dr.
Garcia-Godoy had summoned him to the
Presidential Palace during the night to offer
him "any diplomatic post abroad" if he was
ready to leave the country.
The General said that a U.S. official had
been present when the Provisional President
pleaded with him to go abroad. He added
that he had promised an answer today after
consulting with his troops.
Those consulted by President Garcia-Go-
doy during the day included Ellsworth Bun-
ker, the U.S. member of the OAS peacemak-
ing commission, and the U.S. Ambassador
W. Tapley Bennett, Jr.
In the rebel sector about 200 youngsters
demonstrated against alleged brutality by
Dominican Armed Forces officers.
The rebellion erupted April 24 with the
proclaimed " * * restoring Juan Bosch, who
had been ousted in 1963, to the Presidency.
The government of Donald Reid Cabral was
deposed during the revolt and the rebels and
their military opponents both set up regimes,
which resigned under the reconciliation ac-
cord in favor of the provisional government.
In the early days of the revolt the United
States landed troops in the Dominican Re-
public. The troops later were incorporated
into an Inter-American Peace Force.
his refusal to accept the post. Under the
circumstances, it would appear that he is
subject to a deportation action by the
U.S. Government, should the U.S. Gov-
ernment decide to initiate a deportation
procedure. The amendment which I of-
fer would prevent any deportation of
General Wessin, or any person in similar
circumstances, upon a showing by them
that they had been brought involuntarily
into the United States by the U.S. Gov-
ernment or its agents.
This amendment would in no way, of
course, prevent General Wessin, or other
persons similarly situated, from depart-
ing voluntarily from the United States.
If they should so voluntarily depart, the
amendment would not in the future ap-
ply if they subsequently also voluntarily
returned to the United States.
This amendment would, of course, be
little in the way of mitigation of the of-
fense which reportedly has been com-
mitted by the U.S. Government against
General Wessin. Its adoption, however,
would at least Indicate to the world
that the Congress of the United States
was not sympathetic to, and did not en-
dorse, the abusive type of activity re-
portedly committed by the U.S. Govern-
ment in this instance.
Mr. President, I do not know General
Wessin y Wessin. , I have never met him,
nor have I ever been in contact with him,
directly or indirectly. I do feel that the
Congress has an obligation to require
of the officials and agents of the U.S.
Government that the rights of in-
dividuals be respected, whoever the in-
dividuals are, and of whatever national-
ity they may be.
Mr. President, I urge that the Senate
adopt this amendment.
EsaIsrr 1
[From the New York Times, Sept. 10, 1965]
SHowDowN NEARS IN SANTO DoMINGo-Rz-
GIME AIDE CALLS WES$IN OBSTACLE TO NOR-
MALCY
(By Paul Hofmann)
SANTO DOMINGO, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC,
September 9.-Suspense gripped Dominicans
today as a showdown between the new pro-
visional government and armed forces chiefs
seemed to be approaching.
At the center of uncertainty was Brig. Gen.
Elias Wessin y Wessin, commander of the
controversial Armed Forces Training Center.
The center's brigade of firstline troops and
at least a dozen tanks were still a formidable
factor in the Dominican situation after hav-
ing fought the rebels In the civil war, which
formally ended last week.
Provisional President Hector Garcia-Godoy
conferred most of the day with U.S. officials
and Dominican military commanders at his
private residence, discussing how to assert
his authority over all the Dominican Armed
Forces.
An aide to Dr. Garcia-Godoy said that
"General Wessin is the obstacle" to normal
Government activity. The aide declared that
as long as the general's status was unde-
fined, "much Government business remains
at a standstill." The official suggested that
the Provisional President's "private talks"
might lead to an arrangement with General
Wessin.
Rebel leaders have served notice on the
provisional government that they consider
General Wessin's removal the price of their
collaboration in disarming civilians. The
reconciliation accord signed here last week
under Organization of American 'States aus-
pices provided that the recovery of arms in
[From the Baltimore (Md.) Sun,
Sept. 9, 1965]
DOMINICAN REPORTS U.S. BRIBE OFFER-
GENERAL SAYS -OFFICIALS WANT HIM To
GET OUT 07 COUNTRY
SANTO DOMINGO, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, Sep-
tember 8.-Gen. Elias Wessin y Wessin said
today two U.S. Embassy officials told him he
would lack for nothing if he agreed to leave
the Dominican Republic.
The rebels are trying to get Wessin, who
led the armed forces against them when the
revolution broke out last April, out of the
country.
The general said the Embassy officials of-
fered to purchase his home for $50,000, and
said he could have military attache jobs in
Paris or Madrid. He said he declined the
offer. -
The U.S. Embassy said there would be no
comment immediately but it might have
something to say later.
REBELS DEMAND REMOVAL
Wessin emphasized he would not retire
from the Army until the Dominican situa-
tion had become normal and an elected gov-
ernment was in power.
Wessin's remarks came amid speculation
the provisional government headed byPresi-
dent Hector Garcia-Godoy was about to re-
tire him or transfer him to some diplomatic
job abroad.
Rebel leaders and sympathizers are de-
manding the removal of Wessin, 42, claiming
he ordered the bombing of innocent civilians
at the height of the Dominican fighting last
April. Wessin has said only rebel military
positions were attacked.
DISARMING AT STANDSTILL
Top rebel officials recently have said the
success of the civilian disarmament pro-
gram under the Organization of American
States peace formula depends on Wessin's
future status. The disarming of civilians in
the rebel zone is reported to be at a stand-
still.
The general, who entered the service as a
private in 1944, said four different attempts
at what he called bribery were made by
American officials, the last one during the
past week.
Talking to reporters at his headquarters at
San Isidro Air Base, the general declined to
reveal the identity of the two persons in-
volved in the first two attempts because,
he said, he held them in the highest esteem.
IMPROPER HOUR
The persons calling him last week, he said,
were David Phillips, whom he identified as
an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency,
and Lt. Col. Joseph William Weyrick, Army
attache.
"They came at midnight," said Wessin,
"an improper hour to call on a humble Do-
minican home. Phillips did not say he was
with the CIA, but I checked that later and
was told that he was.
"He offered to purchase my home and said
I would be a guest of honor at the American
installations in Panama. He said I could
visit all U.S. Army posts and proposed that I
could be military attache in Madrid or mili-
tary attache in Paris. He assured me I would
lack nothing.
"It's interesting to point out that I am
quite willing to sell my home to anyone who
wants to give me $50,000 for it because it
isn't worth it. But with that money I would
immediately build another home in this
country."
[From the Baltimore (Md.) Sun, Sept. 10,
1965]
Wzssm OUSTED, REPORTED NAMED CONSUL IN
MIAMI
SANTO DOMINGO, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, Sep-
tember 9.-Gen. Elias Wessin y Wessin was
taken by armed escorts to a waiting U.S. mil-
itary plane tonight and flown out of the Do-
minican Republic.
President Hector Garcia-Godoy then took
to radio and television to announce he had
appointed the militant anti-Communist lead.
er consul-general In Miami, Fla.
IN LINE WITH OFFER
The new job appeared to be in line with
the President's offer yesterday to give Weesin
y Wessin, leader of the coup that ousted Pres-
ident Juan D. Bosch in 1963, any job he
wanted abroad if he would get out of the
country.
At the same time, Garcia-Godoy said there
would be no further changes in the country's
armed forces. This was taken to mean that
Comihodore Francisco Rivera Caminero had
been confirmed as Secretary of the Armed
Forces.
The provisional government had puzzled
all day over what to do with Wessin y Wes-
sin, who had refused the President's job
abroad offer.
The rebels had demanded his ouster as
commander of the armed forces training cen-
ter as part of their price for a peace settle-
ment. Rebel leaders said they could not un-
dertake disarmament on their side until he
left. -
The rebels accused Wessin y Wessin of hav-
ing ordered the bombing of Santo Domingo
during last April's fighting, and they called
it genocide. Wessin y Wessin denied the
charge.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 Approved For Release 2004/01/16:: CIA-.RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
September 22, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
ESCORTED TO CAR
The climax came during the evening when
the top officers of the inter-American peace
force here, Brazilian Gen. Hugo Panasco Al-
vin, and U.S. Lt. Gen. Bruce Palmer, 'r.,
called on Wessiny Wessin at his home.
They were accompanied by Commodore
Rivera.
They all talked together for about 60
minutes.
Wessin y Wessin emerged in his green fa-
tigue uniform, hatless and unarmed, and was
escorted to a waiting car filled with uniden-
tified Dominican army officers.
They drove him to U.S. 82d Airborne Divi-
sion headquarters at San Isidro Air Base and
from there he was whisked to the four-engine
transport which had been waiting 6 hours.
He tried to hide his face as he was escorted
to the plane. Four Dominican officers went
as far as the plane's door with him then
returned.
A spokesman said the plane's destination
was the Panama Canal Zone.
In his speech, Garcia-Godoy said Wessin y
Wessin had retired from the armed forces
and accepted the consular position.
RELUCTANT TO MOVE
Garcia-Godoy was reluctant to move
against the general because of his wide fol-
lowing among the military and among politi-
cians who regarded him as a bulwark against
communism.
Authorities sources said Ellsworth Bunker,
U.S. Ambassador, and General Palmer were
present when the President offered the dip-
lomatic job. Wessin y Wessin himself claimed
two members of the U.S. Embassy offered him
$50,000 for his home plus a job abroad if he
would get out of the country. He said his
home was worth only half that.
[From the Washington (D.C.) Star,
Sept. 13, 1965]
WESSIN BLAMES REDS FOR OUSTER
MIAMI, FLA.-Brig. Gen. Elias Wessin y
Wessin, charging that Communists were re-
sponsible for his ouster, has agreed to as-
sume duties here in a diplomatic post for
the Dominican Republic's provisional gov-
ernment.
Stripped of his command of the armed
forces training center, Wessin arrived Fri-
day night after an abrupt and unceremoni-
ous departure from his home in Santo Do-
mingo. He flew here in a U.S. Air Force
plane from Panama.
In his first meeting with newsmen since
the provisional 'government ousted him as
part of the price of peace, Wessin said his
removal was "a victory for the Communists."
He added, "They haven't knocked me out
yet.
"I will serve (as consul general) but in the
meantime we are not finished with the Com-
munists in the Dominican Republic, so I
can't be happy."
Wessin led the 1963 military coup that
overthrew President Juan D. Bosch. He
commanded the army during last April's
revolution.
Insurgent leaders accused him of ordering
the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in
the rebel sector of Santo Domingo. Wessin
denied the charge, saying military targets
only were bombed.
His ouster was demanded by the insur-
gents as part of their price for a peace
settlement.
[From the Baltimore (Md.) Sun,
Sept. 15, 1965]
WEs5IN BLASTS AMERICAN POLICY
can Republic's Gen. Elias Wessin y Wessin
said tonight he was expelled from his country
by a U.S. Army lieutenant who held a bayonet
at his back.
The militant anti-Communist said he was
not even given time to get his passport or
see his family.
In his six-page letter to the new govern-
ment in Santo Domingo announcing he
would not take a job as consul general here,
Wessin y Wesain also blasted U.S. policy in
his homeland.
"The American official who ordered my ex-
pulsion in such a humiliating way has given
the coupe de grace to the fight for democracy
in Latin America," said Wessin y Wessin.
"Can you imagine how the Latin military
men feel now?" Wessin y Wessin asked.
The letter was dated September 10, the day
he arrived in Miami on a forced trip from
Santo Domingo via Panama in a U.S. Air
Force plane.
"An elementary sense of honor as a mili-
tary man prevents me from accepting the
appointment of general consul in Miami
from a government which has used foreign
troops to exile me by force," he said.
He said he didn't want to criticize all
Americans, "but I hope and I trust that very
soon there will be a change in the American
policies concerning my country."
[From the New York Times, Sept. 11, 1965]
REBELS UNMOVED BY WESSIN's ExILE-THEY
REFUSE To YIELD ARMS TILL OTHER GEN-
ERALS LEAVE
(By Paul Hofmann)
SANTO DOMINGO, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC,
September 10.-Dominican leftist leaders
said-today that the departure of Brig. Gen.
Elias Wessin y Wessin from the country was
not a sufficient concession for the surrender
of their arms to the provisional government.
La Patria, newspaper of the rebel move-
ment, charged in an editorial that the provi-
sional President, Dr. Hector Garcia-Godoy,
had "rewarded" General Wessin by appoint-
him Consul General in Miami. General
Wessin has been the leftist' leading enemy
since last April and May, when he rallied
rightwing forces to combat the revolution.
La Patria criticized Dr. Garcia-Godoy for
his declaration, Issued last night In a broad-
cast to the nation, that for the time being
no other military leaders would be replaced.
General, Wessin left the country last night
aboard a U.S. transport plane. U.S. officials
and military officers had been increasingly
active in the last few days in persuading the
general to go abroad.
OTHER COMMANDS INTACT
The cooperation of other Dominican mili-
tary chiefs was obtained with an under-
standing that they would, at least provi-
sionally, retain their commands. Dr. Garcia-
Godoy and his advisers appeared to hope that
the departure of General Wessin would
prompt leftist civilians to give up their arms.
Under the reconciliation act that was
signed last week by the rebels and the Do-
minican junta, the provisional government
was charged with starting "at once" to re-
cover the many weapons in the hands of
civilians, most of them in the downtown
rebel sector of Santo Domingo.
In the last few days, public displays of
weapons in the downtown area have grad-
ually diminished. Some military and para-
military rebel formations have withdrawn
the arms from their members, but none of
the weapons have been handed over to the
new government.
In his broadcast, Dr. Garcia-Godoy
pledged to safeguard civil rights and dis-
closed that he had ordered the armed forces
to withdraw to their quarters. The order
Tecis especially the troops that were under
General Wessin's command. Some of the
forces have started leaving the northern
parts of the capital, where they had been
stationed a short distance from the rebel
zone. .:.
23865
While Communists and other extreme left-
ists kept pressing the provisional govern-
ment for more measures to curb the armed
forces, moderate leaders appeared willing to
give Dr. Garcia-Godoy credit for having tried
to assert his authority and bring about a
reconciliation. An attempt to stage an
anti-Government demonstration in the rebel
zone in the morning attracted only a few
dozen youngsters.
There are signs that the Dominican Rev-
olutionary Party of former President Juan
Bosch is appraising Dr. Garcia-Godoy's ef-
forts more positively than are the rebel ex-
tremists. Dr. Bosch was expected to return
from exile Sunday, but it is now suggested
that he may prefer to return September 25,
on the second anniversary of his ouster by
the armed forces.
[From the New York Times, Sept. 11, 1965]
WESSIN IN CANAL ZONE
BALBOA, CANAL ZONE, September 10.-Brig-
adier General Wessin arrived in the Canal
Zone from Santo Domingo today aboard a
U.S. Air Force plane. He later left for Mi-
ami after staying at a U.S. Army guest house
in Fort Amador, on the bank of the Panama
Canal near Balboa.
[From the Pompano Beach (Fla.) Sun Senti-
nel, Sept. 15, 19651
WESSIN SAYS OUSTER BACKED BY BAYONET-
UNITED STATES ROLE IN SWITCH BLISTERED
MIAMI.-Ousted Dominican Gen. Elias Wes-
sin, breaking a 4-day silence since his arrival
here, Tuesday night rejected the post of
consul in Miami and released a blistering at-
tack on the United States.
In a 6-page letter to provisional Presi-
dent Hector Garcia-Godoy, Wessin said he
was "deported from my country with a bayo-
net at my back" by American forces last
Thursday night.
"The American officials who ordered my ex-
pulsion from Dominican territory in such a
humiliating manner have given the coup
d'grace to the fight for democracy in the
Americas," the letter said.
"Can you imagine the impact this action
against my person on the part of the OAS
(Organization of American States) and the
U.S. Government will have on Latin Ameri-
can military men?" the letter asked.
The letter, dated September 10, was written
shortly after Wessin's arrival here last Friday
night aboard a U.S. military plane from the
Panama Canal Zone. Wessin had been mys-
teriously flown to the Canal Zone from Santo
Domingo in another U.S. military plane 24
hours before.
Wessin said he withheld release of the letter
until now to assure time for its delivery to
Garcia-Godoy by a personal courier.
Copies of the letter also were sent to Bra-
zilian Gen. Hugo Panasco Alvin, commander
in chief of the inter-American peace forces
in Santo Domingo; Lt. Gen. Bruce Palmer,
the top U.S. military commander there; Els-
worth Bunker, U.S. member of the special
OAS negotiating team, and to the command-
er of the U.S. airborne forces in the Domini-
can Republic.
Wessin said that Generals Alvin and Palmer
told him that he was to become consul in
Miami.
"An elementary sense of honor as a mili-
tary man prevents me from accepting the
post of consul general in Miami from a gov-
ernment which has allowed foreign troops
to send me into exile by force," he said in
the letter.
"I told this to Generals Alvin and Palmer
when they told me that I was consul in Mi-
ami.
"The afternoon when Generale Alvin and
Palmer informed 'me that I had to go and a
V.S. Army lieutenant prevented me from go-
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 23866
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE September 22, 1965
ing to my home to get my clothes and my
-passport I firmly decided not to serve your
government, not in the Miami Consulate or
in any other post."
By ousting him, Wessin said American
troops were guilty of "making common cause
with the enemies (the Communists) of de-
mocracy" and said the action did not befit
"those who say they are the leaders in the
fight for the survival of the Western World."
The general said he was here without
money and without passport. "But I main-
tain my dignity and my name."
"My departure from our country portends
grave happenings for the cause of democ-
racy," he warned. "What Dominican mili-
tary man, who respects himself, will be will-
ing to assume responsibilities when com-
munism launches its final attack against our
nation?"
To accept the consulate here, he said,
"would be to place myself at the service of a
government which has betrayed Dominican
democracy and would constitute disloyalty
to those brave soldiers and officers who stood
by me in those tragic days when blood soaked
the soil of our fatherland."
Despite his angry blast at the United
States, Wessin said he did not want to give
"ammunition" to the Communists to use
against the United States.
He said he "repudiates the action of those
bad Americans who are causing this great
nation to lose prestige, and I trust there soon
will be salutary rectification concerning the
mistaken policy which has been followed
in my country."
Wessin cautioned Garcia that any "in-
justices" against members of the Dominican
Armed Forces will bring two consequences.
[From U.S. News & World Report]
DOMINICAN PUZZLE-HAS UNITED STATES
TURNED OVER A NATION TO THE REDS?-Two
SIDES
(NOTE.-In April, President Johnson rushed
marines to the Dominican Republic to save
American lives, prevent Reds from taking
over a revolution. Five months later, a tem-
porary Dominican President is in office.
United States has exiled the leader of anti-
Communist military forces. The Commu-
nists continue to wield considerable power.
And American troops are still there to guard
an uncertain truce. This question is raised:
Who really won in the Dominican Republic-
United States or Communists? Howard
Randleman of U.S. News & World Report,
who has covered the Dominican crisis from
the start, gives the inside story.)
SANTO DOMINGO.-This is the story of the
first days under the new Government of the
Dominican Republic. That Government,
headed by Hector Garcia Godoy, was set up
on September 3 under a compromise arranged
by the Organization of American States.
During the days that followed, the rebels
seemed to be having things all their own way.
They retained control of their own zone-
downtown Santo Domingo. Government
police and troops didn't even try to get in.
They retained control of their arms-thou-
eands of rifles and machineguns that they
captured in the first days of the revolution,
back in April.
The antirebel station run by the military
at the San Isidro airbase was ordered off the
air. There was no other voice to counter the
Communist propaganda of the newspaper
Patria, published in the rebel zone.
Rebel officials got jobs in the Government
of Garcia Godoy, including Cabinet posts.
Rebels made demands on Garcia Godoy-
he made no public demands on them.
Brig. Gen. Elias Wessin y Wessin, dedicated
anti-Communist, was hustled out of the
country in an American Air Force transport
plane.
The General was put aboard under the
watchful eye of five armed FBI agents and
a large detachment from the 82d Airborne
Division.
The whole atmosphere was one of rebel,
or Communist, victory.
Downtown, in the rebel zone, people sang
revolutionary songs. Groups of rebel war-
riors marched through the streets chanting
revolutionary slogans.
In contrast, outside the rebel zone, there
were no such celebrations or victory claims.
Instead, there was gloom. Some American
businessmen pulled up stakes and left.
Others requested transfers, or tried to settle
their affairs so they could leave. Dominican
anti-Communists, too, were down in the
mouth. Some diplomats, from Europe and
Latin America, were convinced that all was
lost to the Communists.
As an example of the general gloom, an
American resident told me: "You are here
for a historic event-the first time that the
American Army occupied a country in order
to turn it over to the Communists."
A DIPLOMAT'S VIEW
One important Ambassador of a non-Latin
country said:
"Please tell me one single thing that is
better for your country now than it was last
April, when you sent in the marines. The
Communists are stronger now than they ever
have been in this country. They have come
out in the open, publish their own newspaper,
hold conventions, even call themselves Com-
munist, openly.
"All the concessions are being made to the
Communists-none to the other side. The
rebels signed the compromise agreement to
settle the civil war-but now they ask for
more concessions before they will live up
to their agreements. First it was Wessin y
Wessin. Next it will be the other military
chiefs. Already, the street mobs are demand-
ing that they go. They are calling your Am-
bassador, Mr. W. Tapley Bennett, a Nazi-
and demanding that he be kicked out.
"Their gall is enormous. In one edition of
Patria, the Communists bragged in one state-
ment that they were the power in the revolu-
tion-and, in another column, attacked Mr.
Bennett for saying in April that Communists
were threatening to seize control of the
revolution.
"In these months of revolution, the Com-
munists have built up their political and
military apparatus far beyond anything they
ever had here before.
"Also, the rebels now have the mystique-
the glamor and prestige that go with stand-
ing up to the giants of the hemisphere and
the world-the Yankees. They have the
heroes and the legends and the slogans and
the songs. They think they have won this
revolution.
"I am afraid they are right"
This Ambassador knows what the Ameri-
cans are trying to do here--divide the rebels
and then conquer them. He just doesn't
think it will work. The Americans believe
their formula does have a chance to work.
WHAT THE REBELS DIDN'T GET
To American officials, rebel gains at this
point seem more apparent than real. The
first job was to clean house on the right.
Now the rebel turn is coming.
Rebels have not been granted any one of
their fundamental demands.
The America's officials say this:
When talks about a compromise settle-
ment opened, the rebels plopped six basic
demands on the table. Not a single one was
accepted. The demands were:
Withdraw the Inter-American Peace Force
immediately.
Fire all Dominican military chiefs of staff.
Name a rebel officer as Dominican Army
Chief of Staff.
Let the military men who joinedthe rebels
return to their services with the advanced
ranks to which the rebels promoted them.
Restore the 1983 constitution of Juan
Bosch.
Reseat the Congress elected in the Bosch
sweep of 1962.
Acceptance of these demands would have
meant a rebel victory. The United States is
pleased that a compromise was signed-
without giving in on any one of these de-
mands.
The Inter-American Peace Force troops
stay, indefinitely. The military chiefs of
staff stay, at least for now. Wessin was not
a chief of staff.
The Juan Bosch constitution is not ac-
cepted-and a new one is to be written.
No rebel officer gets high command. Offi-
cers who fought for the rebels return to the
military-with the ranks they held on April
24, not with the ranks the rebels gave them.
A new Congress is to be elected.
Biggest thing working against the Commu-
nists, in the U.S. view, is the continued pres-
ence of 82d Airborne Division troops. Amer-
ican officials here, privately, express the hope
that the troopers will be kept here at least
for the 9 months that the provisional gov-
ernment of Garcia Godoy is in power.
A START BY GARCIA GODOY
American officials are pleased with the
start Garcia Godoy has made. He is anti-
Communist. He is consolidating his posi-
tion with the military and explained to offi-
cers in advance why he had to get rid of
Wessin. He is firming up ties with the in-
fluential "Santiago group" of businessmen.
Early in the summer, United States tried to
help this group form a provisional govern-
ment. Now the United States is pleased
that the group is helping Garcia Godoy.
Among the things U.S. officials like about
Garcia Godoy are:
His firm stand against General Wessin.
One U.S. official summed up American ob-
jections to Wessin by saying, "He is so rigidly
anti-Communist that he creates more Com-
munists than he destroys."
Garcia Godoy's efforts to weaken the rebel
side by giving good Government jobs to
rebels who show signs of concern about
Communist power downtown. These former
rebels are watched carefully during their
period of "rehabilitation." One already has
been kicked out of the job of running the
Government radio-TV station.
Garcia Godoy's care to avoid actions so
drastic that they carry too much risk of
touching off new fighting.
The U.S. objective is to destroythe Com-
munist power-without getting into another
shooting war. Idea is to break the rebel
hold on the downtown section, and have as
many guns collected as possible, before even
considering armed action. Garcia Godoy
shares these objectives.
United States is willing to wait a week or
two to break the rebel hold on downtown,
and collect guns. But it is recognized that,
in the end, it may be necessary to send in
Dominican troops and search every house
for weapons.
Possibility of a pitched battle between
Communist and non-Communist forces in-
side the rebel camp is not ruled out. There
have been gunfights between these forces in-
side the rebel zone from time to time.
ACE IN THE HOLE?
As a result, there now is a tendency among
American officials to look on the rebel "pres-
ident," Col. Francisco Caaniafio Deflo, as an
ace in)the hole, on our side.
Conviction is that Caamano doesn't want
the Communists to grab power any more
than Garcia Godoy does.
Caamafio pledged that he would begin de-
livering guns soon. He also, according to
U.S. officials, has gone back into the Army-
and accepts Garcia Godoy as his commander
in chief.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4 23867
September 22, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE lmost Others share the growing conviction that with the Castorite 14th of June movement- the me a Heais an 1 Yank ewers phe wants
its class
Caamafio will turn out to be an important even gave It arms.
factor against communism. During the first week in May, the U.S. against class. The bill of particulars against
A Dominican nationalist, prorebel and decided Imbert was the man to form an anti- him goes on and on. Right now, it is t
a anti-yankee,- says: "One of the strange Communist junta. Former Ambassador thought, BoscBut , h Bhas osch st a s otl t of poliwhotical
things about this situation is that the only John Bartlow Martin was sent in to persuade popularity.
man who can save this country from com- Imbert-who really was reluctant, wanted no the opinion his Uformer .S. diplomats, pcan win
with munism, for you Yankees, is Caamafio-and part of the mess. Mr. Martin denies it now, back uAlso disturbing popularity Americans
I think he will." but some U.S. officials believe that he few speeches. promised Imbert that the United States is the return of exiled revolutionaries.
A ROLE FOR REVOLUTIONISTS2 would recognize his junta, and help it. The Concern was centered on Maximo Lopez
The role of Caamafio is just one of the United States had no such Intention. Molina, president of the Chinese-line MPD,
things that make the Dominican problem so Once the junta was formed, Imbert and or Popular Dominican Movement. Lopez
complicated. Ambassador Ellsworth Bun- the military chiefs vowed to stand together Molina had spent some time in Japan, re-
ker, member of the OAS ad hoc committee to the end. Then, by accident, Imbert -cently moved to China, and had left China
that arranged the compromise settlement, learned the chiefs were talking to Mr. for the Dominican Republic when the pro-
has confided to several people that this has Bunker-the OAS negotiator-behind Im- visional government was formed-or seemed
certain to be formed. The Institutional Act
been the most complex problem which he 's back.
ever has tackled. Bert The rebels signed two cease-fire agree- of the provisional government, written
The reasons are multiple-and obvious. ments-and kept neither. jointly by the OAS ad hoc committee and
Thirty years of Trujillo's dictatorship, to The rebels signed the compromise peace- Dominicans of both sides, bans deportation
start with, sapped the spirit of the whole then made new demands before they would or exile. By September 7, Lopez Molina had
people. It was difficult to find anybody who live up to the agreement. reached Kingston, Jamaica. A way was
would make a decision or take a stand. It's a way of life in Santo Domingo-this found, next day, however, to block him.
The rebel forces were split into a number doublecross. Lopez Molina was shipped to Paris, where
of splinter groups-moderates and non-Com- The doublecross has to be stressed for one he maintains his permanent home in exile.
munist nationalists of various persuasions, reason. If the tradition of the doublecross Other key Communists, however, have re-
plus Communists who follows the Chinese, is not kept firmly in mind, too much weight turned.
Moscow or Castro lines and fight among Garcia Godoy is working hand in glove
themselves. might be given to the present promises and with the Americans, and his goals apparently
On the other side, there was a lack of po- agreements. coincide with the main U.S. goals-unless,
litical effectiveness. Ambassador Bunker and his OAS col- of course, there is another doublecross in
Old Trujillistas tried to muscle in, and did leagues found this out during the months the works.
gain influence over the junta president, Gen. that they worked to get a compromise U.S. officials here in Santo Domingo still
Antonio Imbert Barreras. Old militarists political settlement. Promises made one talk about the beating they took from some
jealously guarded their power and privilege. day were broken the next. of the U.S. press at the outset back in April,
Economically, the country is shot. For this reason, Americans discussing the when Ambassador Bennett Issued a call for
Cheating on the Government was a na- chances of getting a settlement in fact, as the marines.
tional pastime. Contraband was smuggled in well as on paper, always preface their its- They continue to point out newly revealed
by the military-and merchants. For politi- cussions with the assurance that the Amer- evidence of Communist power within the
cal reasons, leaders who came after Trujillo ican Army is in the country to protect rebel camp, to support their conclusion that
inflated wages. At the same time, the props 'American interests, if it has to. U.S. Intervention was necessary to save lives
were knocked from under the Dominican ex- U.S. officials make no bones about the fact and keep the Communists from grabbing
port business by the collapse of world mar- that they hope the American Army stays in power.
ket prices for sugar, coffee and cacao. the Dominican Republic for at least 9 U.S. Intelligence now can demonstrate that
To straighten out the mess, it now seems months-the full term of the Garcia Godoy nearly all the Communists who were listed
clear, the United States will have to remain government. Some say they hope the troops as active when the revolt started still are im-
deeply involved in Dominican internal af- stay even longer than that. portant in the rebel zone.
fairs for a long time to come. ANTICOMMUNISTS, TOO, COULD MAKE TROUBLE AN INTERVIEW WITH WESSIN
Economically, the United States is going to Elements of future trouble are present Now we come to the case of Gen. Elias
have to keep the country afloat. almost everywhere. Not only are. the Com- Wessin y Wessin. On Tuesday, September
Politically, the United -States already Is munists organizing action groups around 7, the story broke that American officials had
deeply involved. President Garcia Godoy al- the country, and stockpiling weapons, but so offered Wessin a bribe to leave the country.
ready is getting political advice from U.S. are anti-Communist followers of Wessin y That morning an anti-Communist Do-
officials here-although he does not accept Wessin. minican newspaperman got me in to see
it all. In this situation, President Garcia Godoy Wessin-when four carloads of other news-
As an example, U.S. officials have objected is moving slowly. He has to, in order to men were stopped at the outside gates.
to several appointments Garcia Godoy has avoid touching off new fighting that will blow The general said that two Americans had
made to his Cabinet, or to other high Gov- up the whole effort to restore law and order offered to buy his $18,000 home-at any price
ernment jobs. Garcia Godoy has rejected and set up a stable government. he named-if he would leave the country and
the U.S. protests, for the most part. He would like to crack down on the Com- take a tour, as honored guest, of military es-
One of his main explanations to American munist newspaper, Patria, for example. But tablishments in Panama and the United
officials who object is this: Non-Communists he can't risk it right now. Instead, he hopes States. Wessin said his reply was that he
'in the rebel camp must not be isolated, forced the two big papers, El Caribe and Listin would sell his home for $50,000, gladly, but
to side with the Communists. They must Diario, can resume publishing as soon as that he would use the money to build an-
be given another way to go. He wants to possible, so the people have something to other and better home, right in front of the
offer them that "other way." read other than Communist propaganda. old one.
Therefore, he says, he is appointing as The two big papers have not published since Later that day, another high-ranking Do-
many moderates and non-Communists, from the start of the revolution. Now the un- minican officer told me more about the case.
the rebel camp, as he can. Ions, presumably following Communist Or- He said that the CIA chief in Santo Domingo
American officials are not 100 percent satis- ders, are keeping them shut down by making and an American military attache went to
fled that this tactic will work-but are will- exorbitant demands. Unions are demand- Wessin's home at 2:30 a.m. on Sunday, Sep-
ing to let Garcia Godoy give it a try. After ing full pay for the four months that the tember 5, with the bribe offer.
all, American troops still are in the country, papers were closed and had no income. Ex- Next day,, high U.S. officials told me a dif-
as insurance against a Communist take- tremists in the unions also talk of handing ferent story. They said no bribe had been
over. the papers over to worker ownership and con- offered, that Wessin initiated the meeting-
The Garcia Godoy tactic is to divide and trol-although they call it "people's" owner- but it was not at 2:30 in the morning. "It
conquer-which is the U.S. tactic here, too. ship. was much earlier than that." There had
THE eomeiECROSS: A WAY OF LIFE Other things, too, bother U.S. officials. been other meetings, too. But Wessin asked
Involved in this tactic, of course, is the Asked whether the Dominicans would be for each of these, too.
grand old practice of the doublecross. And ready for elections in 9 months, one official Piecing these two stories together with
the doublecross is a grand old Dominican gave a one-word answer: "No." Juan Bosch some things American officials told later, I
habit, from way back. It is even contagious, bothers the United States, too. To the U.S. think the story is this:
Americans have caught the spirit, here, from Embassy people, Bosch is bad news. They United States through Garcia Godoy, put
time to time. blame him for much of what has gone on the pressure on Wessin to get out of the
Some examples of the doublecross in this this summer. To them, he was a poor ad- country. Wessin dickered, explained he was
revolution: ministrator, as president in 1963. He did a poor.man, would have to sell his home,
Before the revolution, Imbert feared that things that helped Communists, like letting liquidate other assets. During the negotia-
former President Joaquin Balaguer, his some of the most dangerous return from ex- tions Wessin initiated individual meetings.
political enemy, planned a coup. Imbert, ile. Officials say his constitution of 1963 is Wessin did tell me that he, himself, set the
though an anti-Communist, made a deal a horror, with wording so vague that it gives price of $50,000 on his home.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
23868 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 22, 1965
The story of the physical ouster of Wessin,
at 8:05 on the evening of Thursday, Septem-
ber 9, reads like a paperback egy novel.
Sometime during the night of September 8-
9, Wessin began moving his tanks from the
northern part of Santo Domingo back toward
his base. He did not inform the inter-
American military headquarters in advance.
There was panic. Ambassador Bunker was
pulled out of bed before 4:30 on Thursday
morning. He was out of the hotel before 7.
He didn't return until 5 In the afternoon.
Wessin's moves were confusing. On
Wednesday morning he went before NBC
cameras and made his bribe charges open-
ly-the same charges that he had confided
secretly to me only 24 hours earlier.
At the same time, Wessin seemed to be
yielding to Garcia Godoy's urging that he
accept a post abroad for the good of the
country. Godoy offered him his choice of
several posts. Wessin said, on Wednesday,
that he would consider them, and made a
date to visit Godoy and give his answer on
Thursday morning.
Wessin didn't show up for that date with
his commander In chief.
Somebody ordered the Inter-American
Peace Force into action-presumably Mr.
Bunker. Brig. Gen. John R. Deane, assistant
division commander of the 82d Airborne, was
sent to Wessin's office. By all accounts, there
was a scene. Then, Wessin was escorted to
General Deane's headquarters. He was
hustled out, an American officer on each arm,
and whisked back to his own headquarters,
a few miles away.
Later, in the afternoon, an American Air
Force C-130 landed at San Isidro. Some bag-
gage was put aboard. U.S. soldiers and plain-
clothesmen, presumably FBI, guarded the
plane. After dark, just before 8 p.m., Wessin
arrived by U.S. helicopter, was rushed aboard
the airplane, and flown off to Panama. His
family was left behind. One of his aides, a
major, was the only Dominican to see him
off.
The "bum's rush" for Wessin had some
bad effects.
American residents, as well as Dominicans,
began recalling how Wessin had led the forces
against the rebels In the first days. A legend
began to grow. Wessin was credited with
saving the country from communism in the
days before the marines landed. Wessin be-
gan to seem 9 feet tall.
American military officers have a more
solid, less emotional, objection. Most of
them had liked Wessin, and admired him as
a military man. Generally, they agree his
military did hold off the Communists in
April until the marines landed. It is the
diplomats who criticize his military actions
during the first days.
But the main concern the American mili-
tary men feel, as expressed by an officer who
was brought in for a special high-level job, is
this: For years, United States has been train-
ing Latin-American officers at Fort Gulick in
Panama. These officers are Indoctrinated
with the idea that the United States depends
on them as bulwarks against communism.
What, asks the officer, are these Latin-
American officers going to think about the
word of the United States now?
THE REBELS CELEBRATE "VICTORY"
?Meanwhile, as General Wessin was being
stripped of his military rank, retired from
the Army and forced out of the country by
the Americans, the rebels were celebrating
their "victory."
At rebel headquarters, In the Copello
Building on the main business street, El
Conde, I talked with Bill Bailes, an American
airplane pilot who has been with the rebels
almost from the start.
We commented on how the guns had all
but disappeared from the streets of the rebel
zone. Mr. Sailes said the guns were still
there-that the night before, when rumors
spread that Wessin was going to invade, guns
sprouted everywhere in the streets.
Mr. Baffles was exuberant with what he
believes is a rebel victory. He praised the
job that had been done by the "American
press."
He said, "You reporters saw through the
brainwashing of the American Government,"
and then added, jokingly: "I am recom-
mending that we strike a medal for the
American reporters who covered this story."
One of the sources of strength Garcia
Godoy hopes to keep, as a counter to the
Communists in the rebel forces, is the mil-
itary.
As of mid-July, the Dominican armed
forces had the following strength figures:
10,000 army; 3,800 air force; 3,600 navy;
more than 10,000 in national police; 1,700 in
Wessin's armed forces training center.
I talked with high-ranking military offi-
cers, many of whom were gloomy.
One in particular I had seen several times,
in May and July, when the purely military
situation was much worse than it Is now.
But never had I seen him so gloomy.
This officer said:
"The situation is worse than anytime since
April.
"During April and May, and into June, you
at least could have faith in something-the
military effort against communism. Now,
even that faith has been shattered. United
States seemed to be against the Communists
then. Now It doesn't seem to be. United
States instead seems to be protecting the
Communists.
"Exiled revolutionaries are coming back.
Arms are not being collected.
"One provisional government, Imbert's, is
out and another one is In-but still the
Communists keep their control of downtown
Santo Domingo. What did the compromise
agreement accomplish?
"The Communists publish their newspa-
pers-but the anti-Communists are ordered
off the air, and have no newspapers."
The officer was puzzled by the United
States-and said that he felt betrayed, ad-
ding:
"We cannot understand your Government.
You send thousands to fight communism in
Vietnam-but give in to the Communists
here."
Neither does this officer think that all the
rebel guns will be surrendered or found.
He said 2,500 weapons were found in the
northern part of the city, after the junta
victory in May-but that many others still
are there, hidden too well or too deeply to
be detected. How many more are being hid-
den downtown, or in the rest of the country
the officer would not try to guess.
AN ECONOMIC PROBLEM
United States now has not only the polit-
ical and military problems, but the formid-
able economic problem as well.
Here are some aspects of the aid problem:
Government budget runs $15 million a
month. Collections fell to $2 million in
May, got up to $9 million in September, are
not expected to reach $15 million before
many months.
Sugar Corporation, Government-owned,
loses money and has to borrow $16 to $18 mil-
lion a year to operate. Production costs are
higher than the low world prices.
Coffee, a prime export, is In trouble. A
few years ago, the Dominican Republic
cheated on the World Coffee Agreement, ex-
ported more than its quota. Now, It is being
penalized. In addition, coffee prices on the
world market are very low. Result is that
the little coffee growers, out in the country-
side, aren't able to sell their coffee beans-
and don't understand why. That poses a
political problem of Garcia Godoy-and the
United States.
Cacao prices are down on the world mar-
ket.
Since Trujillo, the Dominican Republic has
been importing more than it can afford.
Trujillo was killed in 1981. He had kept a
tight rein on imports, showed a yearly favor-
able balance in current trade accounts. The
figures tell the story. Current trade
balances, year by year, were: 1960-plus $42.6
million; 1961-plus $41.8 million; 1962-
minus $13.5 million; 1983-minus $22.8 mil-
lion; 1964-minus $55.7 million.
All these problems are manageable, how-
ever, compared to the really big one:
This has been a country of easy living.
People didn't need peso incomes to live.
They could pick bananas and get along. But
now that's not good enough for them. They
want TV sets, and pesos in their pockets.
They want schools for their children, and
hospitals. Other people have these things,
and they want them too. Only problem is
that, while they want the benefits that come
from a money economy, they don't really
understand yet that they have to work for
what they get.
Against these problems, and others, the
V.S. mission for the Agency for Interna-
tional Development went to work on esti-
mates of what was needed.
The mission came up with an estimate of
30 millions, to start with. It recommended
that United States chip in 20 millions, the
Dominican Republic the other 10 millions.
President Johnson agreed, announced his
$20-million aid program.
Initial planning calls for use of the money
in these ways:
Help make up the budget deficits, in
monthly operating costs.
Pay half the 1-month salary bonus that
all Government employees get in December.
Throw in some money to help rehabilitate
manufacturing and business, generally-but
not to help commerce.
Finance public works projects. Many al-
ready are underway, like the new water
system being constructed for Santo
Domingo. But In addition, Garcia Godoy is
being given a "pot" of 2 millions to throw
into public works in areas where it will do
the most good politically. Idea is that
United States wants Garcia Godoy to suc-
ceed, so V.S. money is being given to him
to use for semipolitical purposes.
On September 5, 2 days after the Garcia
Godoy government took Office, the AID peo-
ple went over the books with the govern-
ment. The Dominicans were surprised.
They were "wealthier" than they had
imagined.
They hadn't heard about President John-
son's promise of $20 million-because there
are no newspapers of general information
in the capital.
But, In addition to that, they found that
they had: 32 millions in loans negotiated
by previous governments, but never drawn;
20 to 30 millions in new loans that will be
available to finance projects the AID mis-
sion now Is developing; 6.5 millions in OAS
emergency aid that has not been spent yet.
Total aid given since April 24 ran to 42
millions. This was U.S. money, most of
which was funneled through OAS.
One reason that 6.5 millions of this aid
money has not yet been spent is that United
States now is keeping a closer watch than
ever on what is done with aid dollars in the
Dominican Republic. In the past, officials
say, much of the aid money went down the
drain, in stopgap measures.
Now, the United States intends to be
tougher, and make certain that aid extended
will help make it possible to end aid later.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from South
Carolina [Mr. THURMOND] to the com-
mittee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 Approved For Release 2004/8911: C 67B 00100290006-4
1965 CONGRESSIR~~~ ~~ ~~'g
tember 09
Se
,
p
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I sincerely I hope the Senator from South Caro
hope that my good friend the senior lina will not press his amendment, but,
Senator from South Carolina will not on the contrary, will introduce a special
press his amendment. bill for the benefit of Gen. Wessin y Wes-
The Senator 'from South Carolina sin.
makes out a fairly strong case in favor I give the Senator my assurance as a
of General Wessin y Wessin. His amend- member of the Subcommittee on Immi-
ment, however, is an illustration of the gration and Naturalization of the Com-
fact that it is unwise to pass a general mittee on the Judiciary that I shall give
law based on one specific instance. consideration to the merits of the case
Under the amendment of the Senator of Gen. Wessin y Wessin.
from South Carolina, any person who Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
was involuntarily brought into the invite attention to the fact that the Coast
United States by the United States or its Guard may arrest anyone within our
agents could not be deported. This 3-mile limit. That is considered within
amendment would cover all persons the waters of the United States, and it
brought into the United States under would appear that the persons in the
those circumstances except prisoners of Senator's example would be voluntarily
war. within the area of the United States. If
Frequently the U.S. Coast Guard has they are beyond the national waters of
the task o preventing smuggling. We the United States, I do not know of any
have statutes against piracy on the high authority we have to bring them in here.
seas. The way in which this amendment In view of that lack of authority, I do
is phrased, it would go far beyond the not believe such an amendment would
case of General Wessin y Wessin. be necessary.
If the Coast Guard were to catch However, if there is any question about
smugglers off the U.S. Coast, against it, if the Senator wishes to offer an
whom they had a case based upon evi- amendment or would support such an
dence of prior acts, and if the smugglers amendment if I offered it, I should be
were brought to our country against their pleased to hear from the manager of the
will, even though the smugglers were bill as to his views with regard to such
aliens, they could never be deported from an amendment.
the United States under this amend- Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, in spite
went. of the suggestion of the Senator from
The same thing would apply to pirates South Carolina, the Senator, by his act and who were aliens gen haf the to be ap- in modifying his own amendment, has
United ed shown that his amendment is subject to
Government nd by coast of e the American
off the he further scrutiny and should be further
States or elsewhere on the high seas. scrutinized.
I suggest to my good friend, the Sen- have in our laws the dof
ator from South Carolina the advisabil- We
and
ity of withholding his amendment and hot pursuit, su re smuggling; and
introducing a separate bill to cover the under ot ot p r have Senator's latlating relating i laws she amendment, doctrine octri followed smugglers outside the 3-if we
mile
case a ttey on Westin. Immigration limit into the ocean and captured them
of,General The Subcommittee
of f the Committee n on and brought them back here for trial in
Judiciary and atio has n jurisdiction t of e bills our courts, they would have a right to
the
are introduced remain in the United States, under the
subject behalf ct of to de- - amendment, until they shuffled off this
clal which are in individuals who are in
mortal coil.
portation under the general laws. The
subcommittee constantly acts on such I am not sufficiently gifted in drafting
bills for special individuals in individual to draft an amendment on the spur of
cases. the moment. I only wish the Senator
I sincerely hope that the Senator from from South Carolina would save us fur-
South Carolina will withdraw his amend- ther labor on the point by withdrawing
ment and introduce a special bill to cover his amendment, and then introducing a
General Wessin y Wessin. special bill for the relief of one man.
There afe several members of the Sub- Whether or not we are able to develop
committee on Immigration and Natural- a good case for the relief of Gen. Wessin
ization present in the Chamber. I am y Wessin, I do not think we can make
certain that they will join me in assur- out a good case for the proposition that
ing the Senator from South Carolina smugglers and pirates involuntarily
that we would give careful consideration brought into the United States by U.S.
to the case of General Wessin y Wessin law-enforcement agencies should be al-
in the event the Senator were to see fit lowed to remain in this country forever,
to introduce. a special bill to take care and not be subject to deportation.
of his situation. I believe that would be Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the
a safer course to follow. purpose of the amendment is not solely
The amendment has not been consid- to prevent General Wessin from being
ered by the subcommittee. The sub- deported. The Wessin matter is merely
! an incident which illustrates well what
committee has had no opportunity our Government has done in this case.
study the amendment. l Certainly inly to the Our Government, at the point of a
amendment would be suntio e to the in- bayonet, with pistols in the man's back,
the nited forced him to come into the United
interpretation which I mentioned,
Stites-'from. an woutding people the who come come States. From all indications, he did not
into thee U.S. deport waters or into our country want to come. He was brought in
in violation of the laws against smug- involuntarily.
sling or piracy if we were to apprehend ' Our position is that when our Govern-
23869
wishes to do so.
The Senator has raised a technical
question and is, I think, taking a very
dubious position. But I should be glad
to hear from the manager of the bill as
to how he feels about this matter.
Mr. ERVIN. If the Senator will par-
don me, if I may be recognized 1 more
minute, I remember a relatively short
time ago when U.S. law enforcement
forces caught a Russian fishing trawler
poaching in the waters off the coast of
the United States. They were arrested
and brought into the United States
against their will, to be tried in court.
Under the Senator's amendment, those
poachers would have the right to stay
in the United States forever. Many sit-
uations of that kind arise. People on
rafts, picked up and brought into the
United States, sometimes against their
will, no matter how undesirable their
character, would have the right to re-
main in the country. It seems to me
that this is an illustration of what I have
observed heretofore: We ought not to
pass general law on the basis of one
instance.
I agree with the Senator from South
Carolina that if all the things which
have been recounted in the press are true,
and Gen. Wessin y Wessin has not been
fairly dealt with, a bill for his relief
might be appropriate if he wishes to
come to the United States. But I do not
believe the special remedy for such a
situation is to tell all the others that
they can stay here if they wish, from
now on.
I do not know whether the facts re-
ported in the newspapers are true, be-
cause I find newspapers sometimes may
stretch the record; occasionally they
contain about as much fiction as fact.
That is the reason why we ought to have
a special bill, referred to an appropriate
committee, which could then investigate
the truth of the press reports.
Mr. THURMOND. Of course, Mr.
President, there is no intention to pro-
tect smugglers or criminals, but the
Cubans to whom the Senator refers were
already within U.S. waters, and they
were taken to jail.
I should be pleased to hear from the
manager of the bill as to his reaction to
my amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, the Senator from North Caro-
lina has raised a number of different
points which cast doubt on the total
affect of this amendment. I think all
of us can remember back, not many years
ago, to the time when there was a seizure
of a Portuguese ship, and countries
throughout the world were notified about
the act of piracy which had been com-
mitted, and navies all over the world
went in search of the ship.
There were people of nine different
nationalities aboard that ship, being pur-
sued by units of the U.S. Navy. What
would have happened, for example, had
that ship been seized and brought to the
United States? Could any of the in-
dividuals who happened to be on that
ship have declared that they were in-
voluntarily brought to the United States,
them on the high seas. meat does that, the victim of such actions
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 A roved Fo 1 1 DP671300446R000100290006-4
23870 pp SENATE September 22, 1965
and take advantage of the proposed pro- In charge of the bill will yield to me for come in, but the need to reunify and
vision? a moment for a question? bring families together, as well as people
Other questions, too, have been raised Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I of merit and ability.
by the Senator from North, Carolina, am glad to yield to the Senator from At this time, I would hesitate to sup-
What I should like to do, knowing how South Carolina. port any kind of amendment which
strongly the Senator from South Caro- Mr. RUSSELL of South Carolina. I would alter the basic formula of the
lina feels about the issue, Is respectfully am very much interested in this bill. I 170,000 figure. I might mention to the
suggested that the Judiciary Committee am impressed with its objectives. I sym- Senator from South Carolina that the
hold a hearing on this matter next year, pathize with all of them. I was deeply number of immigrants who came into
at least to develop, expand, and evaluate impressed with the remarks made yester- this country in 1924, when this legisla-
it, to see whether this is an appropriate day by the Senator from Rhode Island. tion first established the national ori-
matter for the concern and deliberation In my State, many Greek and Italian gins system, represented six-tenths of
of the Senate. families are making great contributions 1 percent of the U.S. population.
I would be more than delighted to at- to the progress of South Carolina. They In 1964, the number of immigrants
tend such a hearing and to participate are outstanding citizens, coming into this country in relation to
in it. I have only been acting chairman As I understand the provisions of the the population was only one-tenth of 1
of the particular subcommittee that Is pending bill, it would be possible for percent. Therefore, I believe, as related
involved. Final determination would many additional immigrants from both to the total population, that the total
have to be made byour chairman. Greece and Italy to come into the United number of Immigrants has been decreas-
However, I recommend to the chair- States-perhaps many of them to settle ing. I would expect, with the ceilings
man that he hold such a hearing and in South Carolina. which have been established for the 170,-
extend such a courtesy to the Senator I recall that it was stated on the floor 000, and the other restrictions which
from South Carolina, so that we could of the Senate yesterday that many great have been applied, that the percentage
examine the subject in some detail and scientists have made valuable contribu- would constantly decrease-that is, that
consider it and evaluate it. tions in connection with the develop- the number of people who will come in
I feel that the distinguished chair- ment of the atomic bomb; but also, when as immigrants compared to the total
man of the committee will accord this we came to the period of the hydrogen population of the United States will con-
courtesy to the Senator from South Caro- bomb, there was another distinguished stantly decrease in the years ahead.
lina and to the points that he has raised. Hungarian refugee, Dr. Edward Teller, I hope that this explanation will be of
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I who was responsible for that as well as some interest to the Senator from South
have no desire to force action on the many other great contributions to sci- Carolina, but at this time I would hesi-
amendment at this time. I wished to ence.
focus attention on the subject. It in- For +i,,,+ tats to consider any change in the total
th
e Dominican Republic at the point of
bayonets, against his wishes, and to keep
him here at the Government's will,
whether he wishes to remain here or
not. It is one of the- most dastardly acts
that has ever been committed by the
U.S. Government. Those who commit-
ted the act should be required to ex-
plain it.
If the Senator In charge of, the bill
gives assurance that the subject will
receive attention at a hearing, and the
distinguished Senator from North Caro-
lina, who is a member of the Judiciary
Committee, feels the subject will receive
full exploration-and I should like to
hear from him on that point-I shall be
willing to withdraw the amendment, to
allow the Judiciary Committee to hold
full hearings on the subject.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I assure
my good friend from South Carolina
that I-shall do everything in my power
to see to it that a hearing is held on
such a bill if It is Introduced, and that
serious consideration be given to the
facts to which he has referred in pre-
senting his amendment.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, in
view of the assurance given by the man-
ager of the bill, the Senator from Massa-
chusetts [Mr. KENNEDY], and by the
distinguished senior Senator from North
Carolina [Mr. ERVIN], a member of the
Judiciary Committee, I withdraw the
amendment. I am sure the Judiciary
Committee will consider the subject, as
both Senators have indicated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment is withdrawn.
The committee amendment is open to
amendment.
Mr. RUSSELL of South Carolina, Mr.
President, I wonder whether the Senator
I fear that the number of immigrants
would be substantially increased under
the provisions of the pending bill, and I
wonder whether it would be possible for
the Senator in charge of the bill to con-
sider any reduction from the 170,000 as
now contemplated to be authorized under
the provisions of the pending bill.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachu-
setts. Early today, I analyzed how we
arrived at the 170,000 figure. Briefly,
we traced it back to 1924, when the im-
migration bill was being considered, and
the figure set then was 150,000, repre-
senting one-sixth of 1 percent of the
country's population at that particular
time. That figure was increased by some
8,000 as this country recognized newly
independent countries and accorded them
a small minimum quota. On top of
the 158,000 figure, this bill increased
by 10,200 the total quota numbers to take
care of refugees as defined in the bill,
those fleeing from Communist persecu-
tion, or fleeing from the Middle East, or
natural calamities. This brought the
total close to the 170,000 figure.
As the Senator from South Carolina
has recognized, this figure does not in-
clude those who have close family rela-
tionships, so It probably would mean not
only 170,000 but also 40,000 or 50,000 in
addition because of the close family rela-
tionships.
The stress of the bill Is on the reuni-
fication of families. There was a great
deal of debate in the subcommittee at the
time of the hearings as to what the figure
should be. The figure of 170,000 was
arrived at after a considerable amount
of "pulling and hauling," so to speak, as
to exactly what the figure should be. I
believe that It really reflects, not a sub-
stantial increase in the numbers that will
which the committee has put into this
legislation and in arriving at the figure
of 170,000. However, I still have grave
doubts about whether we should at this
time increase the number of immigrants
allowed into our country annually. We
have an unemployment problem which
we must deal with, and we should limit
immigrants to those who have a real
reason for coming into this country for
family reasons or other pressing human-
itarian reasons. `-.
While I have an open mind about al-
tering the national origins quota system,
I do have such grave doubts about the
wisdom of Increasing total immigration,
as this bill would do, that I will have to
consider seriously casting my vote
against the bill unless an amendment is
adopted substantially reducing the total
number of immigrants.
I thank the Senator from Massachu-
setts.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Massachusetts yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
MorrroYA in the chair). Does the Sen-
ator from Massachusetts yield to the
Senator from Michigan?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I
am glad to yield to the Senator from
Michigan.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, earlier in
debate the Senator from Massachusetts,
the Senator in charge of the bill, as well
as the Senator from New York [Mr. KEN-
NEDY], made comments about the atti-
tude that they and I share with respect
to- the numerical ceiling on admissions
from the Western Hemisphere. I believe
that our views, expressed in the filed sep-
arate views in the committee report, are
adequate and illustrative of our reason-
ing.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 Approved For Release 20 713 0100290006-4
1965 CONGRE L' -
September 22
,
However, as we approach final passage taken by the administration to prevent the
of the pending bill, I wish to acknowl- imposition of a ceiling of a kind which might
edge concerns which have been voiced, change this situation.
It is, therefore, a matter of anxiety to
particularly by public officials and edi- Canadians that an amendment has been in-
torials in the Dominion of Canada, Mich- troduced in the Senate to limit immigration
igan, and other Northern States, which into the United states of America from the
find that the Canadian who has decided Western Hemisphere, including Canada. The
to become an American makes a mag- adoption of such a measure by the U.S. Gov-
nificent American citizen. There is a ernment would be a matter of serious con-
great community of interest on this cern to the Canadian Government. It would
unguarded border. I would hope that seem to place potential quantitative limita-
emi
could e
some reassurance could be voiced, as tra on the movement of Canadians
grating ting to the United States. It t could cause
we approach a vote, to allay the fears of
our Dominion neighbors.
First of all, let me say that the dis-
tinguished Senator from North Carolina
[Mr. ERVIN] has been magnificent in
working out the evolution of the bill
through trying months of hearings. He
was quick to respond to the basic con-
cern of the Canadians. Initially, it had
been the suggestion of the Senator from
North Carolina that the Western Hemi-
sphere ceiling be applicable to the nu-
merical limitation on each nation in the
Western Hemisphere. This would have
been, indeed, a jolt to our Canadian
neighbors. When I presented this prob-
lem to the Senator' from North Caro-
lina, he quickly responded-and pru-
dently, I believe-by eliminating the
20,000 ceiling with respect to a national
limitation in the Western Hemisphere.
This in itself should ease considerably
the concern of our Dominion neighbors,
but I believe that additionally I should
make the point that I trust that the bill
we are about to enact would not affect in
any way the day-to-day exchange of
visitors across our respective borders. In-
deed, it would not affect the day-to-day
entry of Canadians employed in this
country. It applies only to those who
would seek permanent residence and ul-
particular uneasiness among persons living
in border areas who may seek in future, as
many have often done in the past, to take
advantage of employment opportunities in
neighboring parts of the other country.
It is, of course, the intention of the Cana-
dian Government that Canadians should in-
creasingly find full scope in Canada for the
application of their talents and skills. The
Canadian Government's concern is not only
with the practical effect which the proposed
measure might have on Canadians emigrat-
ing to the United States but also with the
widespread anxiety and misunderstanding
which it may cause. Moreover, the intro-
duction of such a numerical limit would be
regrettable in principle and could be re-
garded as setting an unfortunate precedent.
The Canadian Government finds it dif-
ficult to understand the need for a restriction
of this nature and could only view it as a
regressive development in the general rela-
tions between our two countries.
In the light of these considerations the
Canadian Government hopes that the U.S.
Government will continue to oppose strongly
any proposals in the immigration legislation
now under consideration in the Congress
which might be regarded as having a restric-
tive effect on the movement of peoples be-
tween our two countries.
WASHINGTON, D.C., September 3, 1965.
[From the Toronto Globe & Mail,
Aug. 31, 1965]
THE QUIET DIPLOMAT
23871
possessing the education, skills and training
demanded of all immigrants should have
little trouble competing with Latin Ameri-
cans for the 120,000 annual openings. The
point, however, is that President Johnson
has taken action in the exceedingly sensitive
field of immigration, solely on the dictates
of domestic policy, and apparently without
any prior consultation with Canada. It
comes down to this: despite the well-inten-
tioned recommendations of the Heeney-
Merchant Report, the only quiet diplomacy
is to be practiced by ourselves; the only con-
sultation we may expect will be ex post
facto.
[From the Montreal (Canada) Star, Aug. 28,
1965]
LARGELY IN THE MIND
If the proposed restriction on immigration
into the United States to 120,000 annually
from the Western Hemisphere becomes law,
Canadians would be affected not entirely but
mostly in their feelings. We are so used to
going to the United States almost at will that
the right to do so seems as if it were based on
a law of nature. Natural law says that the
people of the Western Hemisphere are all so
nearly alike as makes no difference, and
Canadian ideas of superiority are not rele-
vant. Any other position amounts to dis-
crimination, which we try to avoid in our
own immigration regulations.
The practical effects of legislation on the
point are difficult to forecast. They could be
felt by several different classes of Canadians,
those crossing the border daily to work in the
United States, those crossing for periods of a
few days at a time to work, those transferred
by employers to plants in the United States
for training, and those entering to take up
permanent residence, sometimes to work,
sometimes to live in retirement where small
incomes go further.
But a person entering and leaving the
United States daily is not an immigrant. A
seasonal worker goes in because his labor is
needed, persons in line for transfer by indus-
tries big enough to do that sort of thing
have influential sponsors, all considerations
which would tend to limit the extent of
changes in existing practices.
And quite apart from these aspects of the
case, it appears that there is a general error
in regard to the amount of Canadian emi-
gration to the United States. It is said to
be about 10,000 annually under present con-
ditions, some of those persons who enter the
United States by way of Canada not being
Canadians at all but birds of passage.
Form requires our Government to make
representations, but they will not have much
content.
[From the Calgary (Alberta) Herald, Sept.
2, 19651
U.S. IMMIGRATION CHANGES
The Minister of Immigration, Hon. J. R.
Nicholson, is undoubtedly right in his assess-
ment of U.S. plans which would limit immi-
gration from Western Hemisphere countries,
including Canada, to a total of 120,000 people
a year.
It is, as Mr. Nicholson suggests, hard to
see how the new legislation, which has been
approved by a U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcom-
mittee, can hurt this country.
Indeed, Canada may have suffered to some
extent because it was so easy for Canadians
to emigrate to the United States. The finan-
cial and other types of opportunities avail-
able in the United States have been a con-
stant attraction for well-educated and high-
ly skilled Canadians. The migration of this
type of citizen to the United States has come
to be regarded deploringly in this country as
the "brain drain."
The restrictions contemplated in the
United States do not seem likely to bar this
timate citizenship in the United States. The central theme of the Heeney-Merchant
We shall have a thorough study made Report was that there should be free and
by the Select Commission on Western easy consultation between the Governments
Hemisphere Immigration in the next 2 of Canada and the United States before
years. As the Senator from Massachu- either became publicly committed to any one
setts has said, I share the hope that that Position, that it is in the interests of both
Commission will give proper considera- countries that whenever possible divergent
Lion to the implications of a Western views be expressed and resolved in private
through diplomatic channels. Mr. Arnold
Hemisphere ceiling. Heeney, coauthor of the report, enlarged
Finally, I believe that it would be use- upon this theme at Banff last week. But he
ful for the RECORD, and I ask unanimous had hardly finished his speech before Presi-
consent to have printed in the RECORD, dent Lydon B. Johnson knocked it fiat. Mr.
some editorials and expressions of opin- Johnson acted as if he had never heard of
ion from outstanding Dominion news- the Heeney-Merchant Report. In fact, by
papers and the Canadian Embassy, which abruptly changing his administration's posi-
tion on immigration from Canada and other
expressions are most temperate. Western Hemisphere countries, President
There being no objection, the material Johnson embarrassed not only his own State
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, Department, but left two Canadian Cabinet
as follows: Ministers publicly contradicting each other.
h
CANADIAN EMBASSY.
The Canadian Embassy presents its com-
pliments to the Department of State and has
the honor to refer to the proposed changes
in the U.S. immigration laws currently under
consideration in the Congress.
The Canadian Government has followed
with close attention the course of discussions
on the proposed new legislation in the Con-
gress. The intimate relationship and com-
munity of interest between the Governments
and people of the United States and Canada
have provided the basis for a unique degree
of freedom of movement of citizens of the
two oountres across the international border
in both directions. In.keeping with the tradi-
tional lack of any numerical restriction on
these movements, the Canadian Government
has noted with satisfaction the strong sfand
e
Perhaps without realizing that it was t
President's go-ahead which made possible the
vote by the Senate Subcommittee on Immi-
gration to limit immigration from all coun-
tries in the Western Hemisphere to 120,000,
External Affairs Minister Paul Martin said
the move would be "a regressive factor in our
traditional arrangements with United States
insofar as the movements of our peoples are
concerned." On the other hand, Mr. John R.
Nicholson, Minister of Citizenship and Im-
migration, welcomed the bill, figuring it
would slow down the emigration of Cana-
dians to the United States, now running at
about 40,000 a year.
The bill is not likely to affect the Canadian
migration to the United States very much,
one way or another. No national quotas are
being written into the bill, so that Canadians
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA,-RDP67B00446R0001002900064
 23872
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 22, 1965
type of Canadian in large numbers from U.S.
citizenship. The proposed calling appears
high enough to admit those with the highest
qualifications. But, if it has the effect of
encouraging at least some of the "brains" to
remain and make the best of opportunities
here, this country should benefit in the long
run.
With these factors in mind, It is puzzling
to detect an apparent difference of opinion
within the Federal Cabinet on this question.
Mr. Nicholson sees no harmful effects for
Canada in the bill, but the External Affairs
Minister, Hon. Paul Martin, regards it with
misgivings.
eral immigration bill. The amendment Carran-Waiter Act, and was opposed to
would limit to 120,000 a year the number of its abolition. Frankly, I would still op-
people from Latin America and Canada who
want to become U.S. citizens, pose pose its abolition if I had
This is the first time any quota has been
success. At the same time, Iyfelttpthat
put on Western Hemisphere immigration and there was a defect in the McCarran-
presumably reflects the fear among some Walter Act in that it provided no liml-
Republican leaders that without such re- tation on immigration from the Western
strictions the United tSates, in time, will be Hemisphere. Therefore, I proposed a
flooded with immigrants from Latin Amer- limitation upon immigrants from the
lea's exploding population.
Some 40,000 Canadians emigrate to the Western Hemisphere, which, as the Seri-
United States each year, their entry now ator from Michigan has so well stated,
subject only to financial responsibility and contemplated that countries of the West-
thern Hemisphere would be placed under
tagood kes ilabocuht 11 ooo
ACmeri an
l
a
annually
e samenational Iimitation, in each case
[From the Sun (Vancouver, British without any thoughtof limiting their num- of 20,000, that the bill places upon the
Columbia), Aug. 28, 19651 bers. nations of the Eastern Hemisphere.
U.S. QVOTA-JGOOD OR BAD? Why should Canadian emigrants to the The Senator from Michigan called my
It is understandable that there should be United States be subject to quota restric-
mixed u
reaction
nders within the Cohere s ould be tions that are not imposed on Americans attention very eloquently to the fact that
to the shape the U.S. new immigration policy coming here? Canada, our nearest neighbor to the
Is .
taking More important is the fact that a quota north, was sending into this country in
It cs a shock to learn that for the system will reduce the mobility of Canadians the neighborhood of 40,000 Immigrants
first comes
me s as with surprise approval from and Americans wishing to move between our a year.
President i Johnson surprise immigration two countries, a privilege-and a useful As a result of that fact, and his elo-that to the united states may be put on a quota. foundin ion the two has existed since the quent presentation of that fact, I did not
This explains the affront obviously felt by founding of the two nations.
External Affairs Minister Martin and his External Affairs Minister Paul Martin not-
In to promise that representations against the pro- ed uota syst a syste's protest be "regr ssv tac-
posed immigration bill will be made by quem would be a "regressive f-
Ottawa to Washington. y tore in arrangements between the two coup.
On the other hand we are told by Immi- tries on the movements of their citizens.
It is
col-
gration Minister Nicholson that the quota leag Immigration e uno unfor that
Minister his Jack Nicholson,
rn "certainly would not hurt' Canada." Mr.
Nicholson's on felt compelled to make the singularly asinine
department has been working on comment that he welcomed the restrictions
a program to halt the Canadian brain-drain because "we've been increasingly concerned
to the United States, so it hardll is a A be with migration to the United States and my
angry with Con ess if the r r department had intended to take steps to
from that quarter. p
Once we accept that in principle we would verse reverse the flow."
have no different status in connection with Just what did
Mr. across 3, ,00000 miles intend of do?
United States entry than other countries of Build a Berlin wall l across un-
the Western Hemisphere, we probably would defended border?
ted States soo -sailed "brain drain" to the
find that little or nothing is changed in Canada's
practice. United is more than compensated by
The United States will continue to admit the entry of talented immigrants to this
all the Canadians it wants and needs accord ocountry - o way from overseas. keep p Canadians And, many case, the
ing to their skills and education. Canada, if to only make Caanadian working oeaving is
we are to believe the warnings of some most living and wrcondi-
knowledgeable people, will continue to lose tins more There is no attractive.
doubt the no doubt t
those citizens it needs the most. at Latin America and not Senate at C bill was aimed
Yet the brain-drain as a sap on the Ca- Amanada but
nadian economy is not unchallenged. Ottawa cannot take any particular satis-
A recent McGill study says the 1,000 to 1,500 first-come-first-served that. d The basis, is he thW to a
Canadian professionals who emigrate south b, t is
Latin
Hemisphere e quota quota can be filled by Latin
each year equal a dollar loss of $50 to $75
Americans
milli n-and that's just the cost of their before Canadians get to the
training, not their possible contribution to border.
our growth. Yet the Economic Council, from a Canada cannot argue against restrictions
balancing immigration of professionals immigration laws moral a which plane dilight of
aikate n duo own
against emigration, is confident that we come economic basis. But s criminate an
out on top. s. we can ask that the
But the Council does warn that, unless we quota section of the bill be removed and that
expand But the attract and keep the unless we restrictions be imposed no broader than our
trained people, the swap might not always own-that 1 immigrants must have skills
remain favorable. that will contribute to the economy.
This, surely, is of larger Canadian concern Because it removes previous racial barriers
than proposed U.S. immigration legislation to American immigration, President John- any one of us had written the bill
theoretically relegating us to just another sons bill will be widely approved. But it' himself, he would have some changes
one of the crowd, will leave a bad taste if the price of Senate in it. But we have a situation in which
In this regard, MacMillan Bloedel's, J. V. Passage of the bill is the downgrading of we have given and taken and adjusted
Cl a has suggested Of us who live in the rest of the west- our views In order to get a bill.
yon such stay-at-home in-
centives to young professionals as special tax I honestly believe the bill in its present
deductions; it's the take-home pay that isn't Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the form as it went from the subcommittee
competitive, he says, not salaries. Senator from Michigan yield? to the full committee and as it has come
And that sort of equalizer is something we Mr. HART. I am glad to yield to the from the full committee to the Senate
cannot leave to the U.S. Congress. Senator from North Carolina. is the very best bill obtainable at this
Mr ERVTTAT
con- I ( remarks co
President Johnson may seriously damage nection with ~theahearings and develop- Senator from the other day, the unior
Canadian KEN-
-American relations by his surren- meat of this bill.
Massachusetts [Mr. 1
der to Senate pressure for a quota system on NEDY], the Junior Senator from Michigan
Western Hemisphere people wishing to ems- The matter to which the Senator from [Mr. HART], the senior Senator from New
grate to the United States, Michigan has alluded illustrates, about as York [Mr. JAVITSI, the minority leader,
The President apparently has dismissed well as anything that has occurred, how all of whom are now In the Chamber,
protests from Ottawa and from his own this bill was fashioned. Personally, I am and other members of the subcommittee
State Department in approving a Senate sub- a great believer in the wisdom of the na- and the full committee made most signi-
committee amendment to an otherwise lib- tional origins quota system of the Mc- ficant and substantial contributions to
placing an overall limitation on all the
nations of the Western Hemisphere,
there should be a specific one of 20,000
for the people of each nation In the
Western Hemisphere.
The Senator from Michigan [Mr.
HART], the senior Senator from New York
[Mr. JAVtTS], and the junior Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY] did
not favor any limitation of any kind at
this time on the nations of the Western
Hemisphere. The Junior Senator from
New York [Mr. KENNEDY] has also
strongly expressed his disagreement with
my amendment.
In order to devise a bill that would
pass, Senators, I think with great re-
luctance, have not pressed for the repeal
of my amendment to place a 120,000 limi-
tation upon the Western Hemisphere.
In deference to the eloquent presenta-
tion of the cause of Canada by the Sena-
tor from Michigan, I did not press my
proposal that would place a limitation
of 20,000 on each nation in the Western
Hemisphere, in addition to the total
Western hemispheric limitation of 120,-
000, plus families of American citizens.
As I stated to the Senate the other
day, this bill represents the legislative
process working in its very finest fash-
ion. This bill is a composite bill, contri-
buted to by many Senators on the sub-
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 September 00100290006-4
er 22 ~gve or - 23873
the presentation to the Senate, of a. bill ern Hemisphere Immigration composed
which, as I said a moment ago, repre- of 15 members to study this matter in
sents the very finest bill attainable at the Senate version of the bill so that if
the present time on this subject. dictates of policy or other ideas are
Mr. HART. I appreciate very much deemed necessary within the next few
the completely accurate description of years, the Senate is opening the door
the evolution, of this bill given by the wide to discussion and to considerations
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
MONTOYA in the chair). Does the Sen-
ator from Michigan yield to the Senator
from New York?
Mr. HART. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. First, I should like to
Join my colleague the Senator from
Michigan in the comments he has made
about the words just spoken by the Sen-
ator from North Carolina. That is
exactly the way the matter went. They
are exactly the reasons, as referred to in
the kind of, references made by the Sen-
ator, for our restraint, notwithstanding
bur deep feelings on the subject.
I point out that not only Canada, but
Mexico also is involved. Attorney Gen-
eral Katzenbach testified at page 16 of
the House hearings that "70,000 of the
125,000 immigrants from the Western
Hemisphere come from Canada and Mex-
ico." The Senator from North Caro-
lina had that fact in mind. Mexico
sends into our country approximately
30,000 a year. It is a sensitive and im-
portant point to that country to the
south of us.
I take this moment to express a plea
to our neighbors in Latin America. We
have not heard a great deal,about this
matter from Latin America. We may.
Demagogs may seek to use what. may re-
sult from the conference at a later time.
Let it be said, first, that there is no
diminution of any kind or character in
the highest rate of immigration from
Latin America in recent years. The fig-
ure is now about 135,000. It has averaged
at 110,000 per year for the past 10 years.
As the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr.
and leaving the door open as to what may
be dictated by the interests not only of
this country, but of the hemisphere.
We cannot stop demagogs and peo-
ple who are here to disturb the relation-
ship of the American States, but at least
we can -set the record straight, that with-
in the context of this new, and I think
noble, immigration policy, we have tried
in every way to accommodate the special
relations, affection, and friendship which
exist between the United States and the
people of Latin America.
I have never heard the Senator from
North Carolina [Mr. EavIN] say that
there has been any abuse of the immi-
gration policy from the other American
Republics or from Canada, but in accord-
ance with his view, and that which has
prevailed in the totality of the proposed
new law, as we are approaching a new
policy, let us make it a new policy across
the board.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, If the
Senator from Michigan will yield, I con-
cur in what the Senator from New York
has said to the effect that there has been
no abuse in immigration from any of the
countries of the Americas.
I might also state that the first bill
which proposed to place a limitation upon
the nations of the Western Hemisphere
was introduced by one of the Senator
from New York's predecessors, Senator
Herbert Lehman, in 1955. At that time
he said:
I say to those who criticize placing Western
Hemisphere nations under the quota sys-
tem-let's be fair to all. The same criteria
should apply to all peoples, regardless of the
place of their birth. I believe our Latin
American neighbors will respect us for such
a policy.
KENNEDY] pointed out, the addition pro- I sincerely trust that his belief will be
vided for brings the number beyond the justified.
current range, which in 1964 was about Of the contributions made by Sen-
140,000. ators on the subcommittee and the
Second, we are engaged in a great full Judiciary Committee, some of them
immigration reform. I hope our friends were contributions of omission as well
in Latin America, whom we number in as contributions of commission.
the millions, will understand they are The Senator from New York deserves
helping us in achieving an important re- special praise on that point, because he
form for America's position in the world. was very much concerned about certain
With all due respect to the Senator from provisions of the naturalization law and
North Carolina [Mr. EavIN] in what he certain provisions with respect to proce-
has said about the national origins quota dure in deportation cases; but he with-
system, it has been one of the most dis- held amendments on those proposals be-
tasteful aspects of American foreign pol- cause he was anxious to process a bill
icy, so far as the nations of the world are concerning the receipt of immigrant for
concerned. Some persons may say, permanent residence and eventual cit-
"What do we care what they think of izenship. I think his is one of the sig-
us if we are right?" But, Mr. President, nificant contributions made to this bill
we are wrong. I hope the people of Latin in that respect.
America will understand this. Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator.
This is not a country-by-country limi- There is a liberal provision with re-
tation, I say to our friends in Latin spect to refugees from Cuba, enabling
America. It is a hemispheric limitation, them to regularize their status. That is
because we consider the whole hemi- an indication of the warm disposition of
sphere as our partner. sympathy and favor of the United States
Even with that limitation, we are pro- toward other American states in the
viding for a Select Commission on West- matter of immigration.
No. 175-15
Mr. HART. I thank the Senator from
North Carolina and the Senator from
New York for this exchange. It clari-
fies the matter, it ought to reassure the
Nation that we recognize the seriousness
of the steps we take.
We have created a commission which
I hope will, without overwhelming pres-
sure in time, report to us an objective
evaluation on the desirability or un-
desirability of imposing a Western
Hemisphere ceiling when 1968 arrives.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, a parliamentary inquiry.
What is the pending question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the commit-
tee amendment in the nature of a sub-
stitute.
The committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question now is on the engrossment of
the amendment and the third reading of
the bill.
The amendment was ordered to be
engrossed, and the bill to be read a third
time.
The bill was read the third time.
ADDRESS OF MADAM CHIANG KAI-
SHEK AT SENATE LUNCHEON
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President,
many Members of the Senate had the
privilege today of attending a luncheon
in the Senate Conference Room and to
hear an address by Madam Chiang Kai-
shek. She is, as everyone knows, a very
intelligent and gracious lady. She gave
a rather brief address, but one that is
thought provoking.
I ask unanimous consent that there be
printed in the RECORD at this point the
address of Madam Chiang Kai-shek.
There being no objection, the address
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
I remember with pleasure it was some 6
years ago that I had the honor of being in-
vited by the Senate Foreign Relations Com-
mittee to lunch and to meet its members.
Today I am again so honored by my Senate
hosts and friends, and the presence here of
so many solons who have taken the time and
trouble to greet me so cordially fills my heart
with warm gratitude.
In the intervening 6 years since I was last
here in the United States the world has not
been uneventuful as you ladies and gentle-
men only know too well. But, fortunately,
the Republic of China, thanks to your help,
has remained the guardian rock in the West-
ern Pacific standing watch in a tossing,
churning, treacherous sea.
The years before 1958 were even more par-
lously eventful for the Republic of China and
for all that it stands for; yet through it all
you, our friends, have held on to the prin-
ciples of freedom, of decency, and of morality.
Somehow in the correlation of thought and
events my mind seemed to run effortlessly
in focusing onto two trivia from introspec-
tive reflection of insignificant recollection,
both seemingly of little import in themselves;
yet they have shaped and will shape and test
our manhood in the moment of truth. I give
them to you here as I recall them.
Last Monday morning after laying a wreath
on the tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Ar-
lington, and the strangely haunting notes of
taps pervading the quiet vastness below
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
23874 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 22, 1965
brought to mind the inscription on a mem- AMENDMENT OF IMMIGRATION took to impress what they thought were
orial in Kohima, Burma, erected to an un- AND NATIONALITY ACT British subjects from American vessels
gainly, lonely, unprepossessing youth, hints- and take them back to England. Even
Corporal John Harmon, who won posthu- The Senate resumed the consideration in 1858, this practice prevailed, and Pres-
mously the Victoria Cross in World War II. of the bill (H.R. 2580) to amend the Im- ident Buchanan had to send the Ameri-
And these were the words: migration and Nationality Act, and for can Navy into the Gulf of Mexico in or-
"When you go home tell them of us and say other purposes. der to stop it. It was not until 1870,
For your tomorrow we gave our today." Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I am when Queen Victoria was on the throne
The other day whilst reading a newspaper, deeply indebted to the distinguished of Great Britain, that we finally man-
I came across a drawing done in charcoal Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KEN- aged to have an understanding and se-
showing a primitive grave with a rifle stuck NEDY], the Senator in charge of the cure rights, whereby a British subject,
into the mound by the bayonet mounted onto pending bill, for making it possible for if he so desired, could expatriate him-
the barrel of the gun. And on top of the me to make some concluding remarks self.
butt of the rifle was a GI's steel helmet tilted on it. I felt that perhaps there were
and slightly askew with the chin straps dan- some historic items that ought to be With citizenship and naturalization
gling loosely downward and flapping some- made a part of the record, because we pretty well settled, we could expert
what in the desolate wind, as if saying with greater immigration of people from
silent eloquence, "Well, I have given my best, shall hear more and more about our im- oountries. It is rather interest-
my all, my ultimate to this worthy cause." migration problems in the light of the other t take a look It she therous interest-
It took but a trice for anyone looking at the population expansion. ing r sent people here. Of vacourse, rious
some
picture to know what the sketch was meant I have said on occasions that I doubted that them probably came with romantic
to convey. Yet should there be any hesita- whether we would ever be able to it
tion as to its meaning, the caption: "No- another immigration bill without giving notions as to what the new land offered;
where Does Freedom Come Cheap" dissipated top consideration to the question of ex- but there were other reasons besides
an once and all. Notohaving at allf times a lazy mind, the panding populations all over the world. that.
little wheels in my head began to spin, and For the moment, however, I should From 1770 to 1820, it is estimated that
my memory raced back to the moments in like to go back to set a little background perhaps not more than 250,000 people
history and events seeking to pick out one- for what is being contrived here today. came to this country, largely from Eu-
just one instance where I could find an ex- I support the bill. I supported it in rope. It was estimated that in the year
ception to those words in the caption "No- the subcommittee. I supported it in the 1820 about 20,000 persons came to these
where Does Freedom Come Cheap." full committee. I shall vote affirmatively shores.
Could an exception be found in some of when the roll is called on it. Then came the Irish famine, with its
yeafor many freedom? epitaphs Or of struggles perhaps in the e tears ar-ars However, I invite attention to the fact hunger and misery; and it was thought
year p
and blood spilt during the French Revolu- that the problem of immigration goes that perhaps more relief could be ob-
tion? Or in the strivings for representation back to the days of the American Revo- tained by coming to this land of free-
and justifiable national identity in the Amex- lutfon. One of the remonstrances that dom. Largely as a result of that fa-
lean Revolution? And how about our own Thomas Jefferson wrote Into the Decla- mine- and that was in 1855-400,000
revolution in China with its attendant mis-
par-
eries, ration of Independence against King came to this country. We were not pnda undaunted ntedks, and grandeur of s spiri sacpirit t?-to leagued cite George III was that, among other things, ticularly immigration conscious at that
with
but a few instances. My mind refused to he obstructed naturalization and dis- time.
yield one single exception where freedom had couraged migration from the Old World Beginning in 1871, there was a need
been obtained cheaply; and I should be much to the New World. for railroad workers, because America
obliged if someone-anyone--could give me It was, in fact, on the very day of the was in an expansionary mood. Labor
one exception-just one exception-to this
Inexorable Declaration of Independence, in 1776, was needed to work on the railroads that
For some and frightening truth.
For unexplainable reason, this truth, that the Continental Congress passed a went to the Pacific and finally closed
this thought which is nothing new, often re- resolution covering into citizenship all the frontier. In that year, we brought
garded by the blase, the cynical, the delib- persons who were in the Colonies. in 400,000 people. But in 1878 the num-
erately biased and purposed as being trite In the Articles of Confederation, on ber dropped back to 150,000.
and shopworn, has passed through my mind the 2d of March 1781, it was declared In 1882 came a continuance of the
on innumerable occasions. Yet it never fails that the "free inhabitants shall be en- Irish famine, together with the rise of
to my The leave a ealityis that sadness neitthen wanting to being, titled to all privileges and immunities of militarism in Germany. These events
wish who it stark reality
away, nor nor resorting to her escapism, pi, nor free citizens." When, finally, the Ar- accounted for the largest number of im-
casuistry, nor groveling cowardice can buy titles of Confederation gave way to the migrants, and in that year 800,000 came
freedom cheaply. Constitution of the United States, the to this country.
How poignantly sad, but true, are these Constitution, among other things, in its In 1898, when we were still in the tail
words: From nowhere, but nowhere does delegation of power to the legislative end of the depression of 1893, which was
freedom come cheap. branch provided Congress with the probably the fifth or sixth major eco-
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. power "to establish a uniform rule of nat- nomic dislocation in this country, there
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of uralization." Naturalization, of course, came, even then, 200,000 immigrants.
a quorum. connotes the very fact that people will But a peak was reached in 1905, for in
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The be coming here from foreign shores. As that year 1,250,000 people came from
clerk will call the roll. a consequence, the problem was how to foreign shores.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call cover them into the citizenship of the When the depression struck after black
the roll. country. That is a power that lies in Friday in 1929-and, as I recall, October
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I ask the legislative branch and should be ex- 19 of that year was on a Friday, so it
unanimous consent that the order for ercised when the occasion calls for it. was not unlike the black Friday of
the quorum call be rescinded. We lived with the problem of migrants 1873-people abroad knew full well the
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- and immigration even in the days of the difficulties that we were experiencing,
out objection, it is so ordered. War of 1812, because the British under- and our immigration fell to about 40,000.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 September 22AWffed For ~OMAg /1P E 67 A6 000100290006-4
The number has shuttled from that tiro
on, generally in the area of 250,000 a year.
So we became immigration conscious,
and Congress. began to take note. In
1924, we heard the very first effort to
develop the so-called national origins
concept. In that year-and that was
during the Coolidge administration-the
so-called origins concept was offered on
two different occasions in the House of
Representatives and was defeated on
both occasions. It remained for the Sen-
ate to take the initiative and to write
that idea into an immigration act in that
year. At first, it was felt that by using
a factor of 2 percent based on the num-
ber of any given nationality in this coun-
try, as determined in the 1890 census,
that would be a broad formula to deter-
mine the number that should come in
from abroad. Since that time, the for-
mula has been revised. Instead, the 1920
population census was used, and one-
sixth of 1 percent has been used as the
mathematical formula for determining
the number of each nationality that
should come to these shores.
At long last, an overall ceiling of
roughly 157,000 was hit upon. It is
rather strange how from that ceiling
number, on a quota basis, a national
origins concept was finally distributed.
Eighty-two percent of that whole num-
ber came from Western and Northwest-
ern Europe; 16 percent came from South-
eastern Europe; and only 2 percent came
from countries in the rest of the world.
So in 1952 we first heard about the
McCarran-Walter Act.
I go back to 1933. In that year I came
to Congress. After being frustrated and
disappointed over committee assign-
ments, having won in a year in which
there was a presidential landslide, I
thought that I should have first call on
the leading committees in the House.
Instead, I found myself assigned to the
Committee on the District of Columbia,
to the Committee of Insular Affairs, and
to the Committee on Immigration. I
served a great many years on the Immi-
gration Committee on the House of Rep-
resentatives.
I recall so well the individual cases
and the individual bills which were in-
troduced every year in hardship cases,
and other cases which were presented to
Members of Congress in every corner of
the country.
In 1952 there was an overall survey of
the whole problem, and out of it came the
McCarran-Walter Act. It laid down the
so-called national origins concept and
fixed the .quotas. It repealed what was
sex discrimination at that time in the
existing law. It repealed the Oriental
Exclusion Acts that were on the books.
Every country received a_ quota of at
least 100. Then we dealt with the so-
called Asia-Pacific triangle. That is an
area in the Pacific that runs roughly
from, Pakistan to Japan, and then to the
Polynesian Islands. Those were the in-
trusions on our immigration policy at
that time.
One may well wonder how the McCar-
ran-Walter Act actually worked. I be-
lieve that these figures are substantially
correct, and they are yearly averages for
the years from 1959 to 1963. By aver-
ages, for each of those 4 years, we re-
ceived 98,000 quota immigrants. We re-
ceived 180,000 nonquota immigrants.
There were an estimated 27,000 alien
departures in each year. The net num-
ber of immigrants could be set at the
figure of 250,000. That figure, of course,
included the nonquota immigrants from
this hemisphere. Generally speaking,
they were divided about like this: 40,000
from Mexico, 32,000 from Canada, and
20,000 were accounted for mainly as be-
ing the wives of citizens of the United
States who, as such, enjoyed a special
preference.
The character of immigrants who
came to our country in the period from
1952 to 1961 is, I suppose, of consider-
able interest, and probably will be, be-
cause of the preferential status which
we have established in the pending bill.
The figures which I have show that in
that 9-year period we received 8,600 who
could be identified as skilled craftsmen.
We received 14.000 doctors, 28,000
nurses, 12,000 technicians, 9,000 machin-
ists, 4,900 chemists, 1,100 physicists, 30,-
000 engineers, and 7,000 tool and die-
makers.
It has been a long time since an or-
ganized effort got underway to change
the whole origins concept; and one can
see the logic of it. In the first place,
about 56 percent of the quota numbers
were never used and, under existing law,
they lapsed., They could not be trans-
ferred to another year in which all of the
quota numbers had been used. That was
one argument that could be well made.
Second, the smaller quotas were
frightfully oversubscribed. In some
cases, the number was oversubscribed by
as many as 9 years. I believe that in one
case it was oversubscribed to the extent
of 90 years. In one case, if one were to
file an application with an American
consular office abroad, he could expect to
wait 5 years before his application was
reached; and at the other extreme, a
person could expect to wait 90 years be-
fore his application would be processed.
There are still other problems and
other factors. I remember cases arising
out of my own experience in working on
the problem of reuniting families.
A Member of this body who does not
have a large metropolitan center in his
State cannot quite realize how many im-
migration cases involving family hard-
ship ultimately come to the attention of
the Representatives and Senators; and
they are tearful cases. Indeed, it would
require almost the wisdom of a Solomon
23875
to undertake to solve some of the prob-
lems.
I mentioned to our policy committee
on Tuesday a case that always entranced
me. The master of a freighter steam-
ship jumped ship, his own ship, in New
York, mingled with the crowd, and
finally found his way to Chicago. He
eventually came to my hometown. No-
body paid too much attention to him.
He was a very thrifty, able, frugal
worker. He got himself a dinner bucket
job in a factory and, by dint of sheer dil-
igence and devotion to his job, he finally
became one of the top foremen. In a
short space of time, he was being in-
vited to come to luncheon clubs and other
organizations to give speeches.
Back in those days, or at about that
time, I was a district commander in the
American Legion, and the Legion post in
that area used to invite this man to tell
about his war experiences. He had a
fabulous record.
This man addressed many of the
luncheon clubs. Nobody ever worried
about his identity. Nobody cared
whether he had a social security num-
ber. We took him into the bosom of the
municipal family.
One night there was a knock on my
door and there he stood. When he came
into my study and told me his story, here
was a man with broad shoulders, a ma-
ture man, weeping like a baby.
His problem was that his wife and
youngsters were still in the old country
and he wanted to get them here. He
said, "I will build a new house; I can
pay for it in cash. I will buy the finest
furniture; I can pay for it in cash. I
want my family."
"
Mr. President, it took me over a year,
sometimes by devious effort, to work it
out. However, I was there the day that
that family was reunited, and what a
blessed thing it really was.
That is a single instance. I do not
know how many hundreds-I was going
to say thousands-of times that same
kind of problem, came to my attention.
The subject has been before Congress
for many years. That was perhaps an-
other reason for re-evaluating the con-
cept on which we work and the con-
cept that we followed in respect of im-
migration bills.
There was a question of skill. A repre-
sentative of one of the largest brewing
companies in this country came to me
and said, "We need an alemaker. We
are going into the ale business." I said,
"Why don't you go and get yourself
one?" He replied "It is not that easy.
We found one. He is in Czechoslovakia,
but how can we get him here?"
We find that often labor organizations
will go before the Immigration Board
and resist an application on the ground
that there ought to be alemakers among
our own citizens.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 22, 1 GJ
They were in business. They knew
the product that they had to brew to sell
to the American people. They knew it
required a topflight alemaker. It took
some doing to get him here; but, Mr.
President, I finally brought him over.
There we have an example of skills
that we can use, that are identified in
various corners of the world. But how
to bring them here is quite a problem,
unless we give them a preferential status.
Then there were the pressures from
abroad. When, at long last, Sukarno
finished with the Dutch in Indonesia,
there were thousands of refugees, thou-
sands of whom had to go back to Hol-
land. In Holland, they have difficulty
reclaiming land from the sea and hold-
ing back the sea so that it would not
impregnate their soil and destroy its fer-
tility. It is a little country. They can
take care of only so many.
The Dutch Ambassador has been to see
me several times, pleading, "Can't you
possibly do something so that we can get
10,000 of them into this country? For
us, It is a burden to sustain them." That
Is another problem that we deal with
when we face up to immigration poli-
cies and how to do equity in every case.
It is no secret that a good many peo-
ple feel that southeastern Europe is the
object and the victim of discrimination.
When one looks at the one-sided quotas,
one can readily come to that conclusion.
For, under these various enactments in
other years, 82 percent of the entire
quota from northwestern Europe, only
16 percent from southeastern Europe,
and 2 percent from the rest of the world,
one can easily see the foundation for
the charge that there has been discrimi-
nation.
Then there is the fact that we have
been constantly patching our immigra-
tion laws. Over here sits a former dis-
tinguished Governor from Idaho. We
were discussing the problem the other
night.
I remember, Governor, if I may affec-
tionately call you that, the fuss that we
had about bringing Basque sheepherders
to this country. I was delighted, the
other night, to hear you tell the story
about their frugality and assimilability
into the population, and how they have
graduated from sheepherding into prof-
itable businesses in Idaho and some other
Western States. They are among the
best citizens there, as the Governor can
so well testify. It was a job to bring
them in, but it was a piece of patch-
work we accomplished.
I remember the difficulty we had when
we tried to patch up the law so far as
orphans are concerned. Is there a heart
that- does not bleed for orphans? But
bringing them in was quite another ques-
tion. All of that had to be considered in
the preparation of the bill.
Then, of course, there were the re-
fugees. Anyone who has ever inspected
refugee camps-and I have inspected
them in the Levantine States like
Lebanon and Syria, in Palestine, In India,
and in Europe; I have seen Berlin vir-
tually ringed with refugee camps, to the
point where finally they become profes-
sional refugees.
That is not difficult to understand.
When I said to the officials of Syria,
"Why not issue these people work cards,
so that they can go to work?" and ob-
viously they could not without a work
card. They said, "Our own labor is op-
posed to it." So, no work card, no work.
No work, they fall back upon their re-
fugee status. A second generation of
professional refugees has not gotten out
of some of the camps in various parts of
the world. It is a problem that we can-
not blink. In this bill, we provide for
10,200 refugees, but within the ceiling of
170,000 for all of the world except the
Western Hemisphere.
I add to all this the individual relief
bills that we were continually called upon
to introduce. It should not have to be
done. But it had to be done, and it takes
time to process every one.
There are other factors that I think
dictated the need for a new approach to
the whole problem of immigration.
There is one item in the bill that is my
particular baby, and that is the Commis-
sion, three from the Senate, three from
the House, and nine appointed by the
President, to make a 3-year study, not
only of immigration, but of the popula-
tion explosion generally and its impact
on employment and unemployment as
well. That Commission is to make its
first report on the 1st of July, 1967. That
will be 1 year before the transition
from our present system to the new sys-'
tem becomes entirely complete. The
final report will be made on the 30th of
June 1968, when the transition is com-
pleted.
I have given some attention to the
problem; and it, too, is a problem we
cannot blink. Down on Massachusetts
Avenue there is a privately endowed pop-
ulation reference bureau which works
in this field. The figures I have here, I
have obtained from them. The world
population will increase and is increas-
ing now by the,fantastic number of 65
million every year. Sixty-five million
motals are born into this world every
year at one place or another. In Latin
America-and these figures are obtained
from the same source-the present pop-
ulation is about 200 million. By 1980-
and that is only 15 years away-it is esti-
mated that the figure will be 374 million.
What will they do? They will be beat-
ing upon the doors of this country. Un-
der a nonquota system, so long as they
can satisfy consular officers that they
can sustain themselves, and that they
will not become public charges, they can
come into this country.
I presume, as a rounded figure, that we
can say that 120,000 come in as nonquota
Immigrants from the Western Hemi-
sphere every year. In the bill we have
set a ceiling of 120,000.
I do not believe our Canadian neigh-
bors will become to excited, because, in-
sofar as I know, they would prefer to
keep their people at home instead of
having them migrate to the United
States for residence purposes.
I doubt whether we shall have any dif-
ficulty so far as the adjoining Republic
of Mexico is concerned. We get at the
present time, I believe, about 40,000 from
Canada and about 32,000 from Mexico.
Then there is the figure of, roughly,
20,000 spouses and perhaps children of
those who are already legally in this
country.
In the bill, there is _a quota of 120,000
for the Western Hemisphere. The ori-
gins concept is repealed. Going back to
consider how it was devised, I presume
it served a purpose in its time, for want
of something better. However, I am
sure it is an outmoded system today, and
cannot well be logically sustained.
We have repealed the so-called Asian-
Pacific triangle. It is estimated that
when we total up the score, there may be
an additional 50,000 or 60,000 people who
will come into this country over the
averages that we have had before.
I puzzled about it. I have received
telephone calls and letters, scolding, and
resisting the idea, and urging me not to
support the pending bill.
A few years back, we passed a bill
which had the rather sweet title of "The
Fair Share Act." In this modern world,
I fancy we must make allowances for our
fair share. As population crowds in
other countries, we can scold, we can say,
"Go down to Brazil, to that vast area."
Some of it is primitive, and I have flown
over most of it, but the Brazilians are
likely to say, "You do your share and we
will do ours."
We might then say, "Go to the Argen-
tine. There is a great deal of space
there." They are likely to say, "You do
your share and we will do ours."
it is in that spirit that we must ap-
proach the pending bill today; and I be-
lieve that that idea was constantly in
the minds of the members of the com-
mittee in undertaking to put the final
touches on the measure. It is a work-
manlike job. The Senator from Massa-
chusetts [Mr. KENNEDY] deserves gen-
erous praise for the diligence with which
he has pursued this matter, the long
hours and the hard work which he has
devoted to it.
For a time, it appeared that perhaps
we might have difficulty ever getting a
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
.September 22, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
bill. There were many differences con-
cerning it. I remember a significant'
meeting in my office at which three per-
sons were present-I shall not name
them; but, I will say that after we got
through we had a fair understanding,
and with that understanding the bill
began to move. So it is on the floor of
the Senate today for consideration.
Now, Mr. President, a word about some
of the opposition's argument, some of
the criticism-and the appropriate
answers.
It has been alleged that we shall be
flooding the labor market of the coun-
try. In the first place, there is a 170,000
world ceiling, and a 120,000 Western
Hemisphere ceiling. In addition, if a
person wishes to come into this country
only for the purpose of getting a job, he
not only requires consular clearance, but
also clearance by the Secretary of Labor
as labor.
It has been said that we shall be open-
ing up the gates to a vast flood from
some particular country. That is the
reason the pending bill contains a ceil-
ing of 20,000 from any 1 country-no
more.
It has been said that we are opening
up the floodgates generally. All I can
do is point to the ceilings which have
been imposed and invite attention to the
fact that the additions over, the ceilings
are based essentially upon reunification
of families.
It has been said that we shall get a
great number of undesirables. None of
the screening process which has been
carried in existing law has been forfeited
in the pending bill. Applicants still have
to be screened. There is still power in
American consular offices in every part
of the world to look a person over, to
look his application over, and to deter-
mine whether he fits within the frame of
the pending bill and would be -a desirable
addition to this free land of ours.
It has been said that we might en-
courage so-called ship-jumping or crew
drop-offs. Of course, there is a provi-
sion in the pending bill under which bond
can be required in order to hold that to
a minimum.
It has been said that unless we do
something about the Western Hemi-
sphere, we may be inundated. The 120,-
000 ceiling is there.
I believe that we should pay tribute
to the distinguished Senator from North
Carolina [Mr. ERVINI who was the author
of that ceiling and who insisted upon it-
and I insisted along with him; because
as our population expands I can foresee
what the problem will be, not in the re-
mote future, but in the near future.
the bill; but, I have said on occasion to
some Members who have not been con-
fronted with these problems of family
reunification, and skills, that if they had
a metropolitan center in their State they
would soon find out what it means, and
the many cases which would come across
their desks in the course of a year.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Illinois yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I am glad to yield.
Mr. JAVITS. In the course of the in-
teresting colloquy just had with the Sen-
ator from Michigan, the Senator from
North Carolina, and myself, it was said
that we wished to make it clear-and all
of us join in this-to our friends and
brothers in all of the Americas, Canada,
Mexico, and the other American states,
that this bill represents an effort to do
something globally for the immigration
policy of the United States which, to
many of us, has been so unsatisfactory
that we are proceeding to reform this
across the board. We have tried to do
this within the confines of the pending
bill. It represents a contribution to the
totality of a great and constructive re-
form in American immigration policy.
The greatest solicitude has been shown
in many parts of the bill, in the regular-
ization of the status of Cuban refugees,
and in other ways to show that we pro-
pose to continue this special relationship,
this solidarity, with the people of all the
Americas.
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr.
ERVIN] was gracious enough to join in
that, and I address the same suggestion
to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I could point out, in
addition, that since this transition does
not become complete until July 1, 1968,
we still have room for maneuvering. Ob-
viously, when we provide for an arbitrary
ceiling, we cannot expect everyone- to
like it, we cannot expect other countries
and their officials, particularly, to like
it; but this will be an opportunity to
make a try and see what we can accom-
plish. In that 3-year period, we may
have to make some modifications, but we
will then have better figures at hand, and
if modifications are required, they can
be made.
Mr. JAVITS. Would the Senator from
Illinois also join us-and I shall detain
the Senate for only 30 seconds more-in
the statement that we do not feel that
Latin America has abused the unrestrict-
ed immigration privilege, that the pend-
ing bill is not the result of any such feel-
ing, but rather the feeling of the Senator
from Illinois, the Senator from North
Carolina, and other Senators, as regards
international policy; that we should re-
form our immigration policy across the
Thus, that is a protection. I know of board.
nothing else that we can write into the Mr. DIRKSEN. That is it.
bill in order to satisfy those who might Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator
have been critical or who are opposed to from Illinois.
23877'
Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Illinois yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
Mr. MORTON. The Senator pointed
up the population explosion in this hem-
isphere with some dramatic figures.
I do not wish anything placed in the
bill which would affect our relationships
with our friendly neighbors in this hemi-
sphere, but I approve of the Ervin
amendment, or something along that
line. I believe that it is much easier,
in view of the figures the Senator has
submitted, that we do something now,
than that we should be forced to do
something 5 years from now, and the
Secretary of State and the President at
that time are forced to place into law a
policy which would then be really a cur-
tailing policy, whereas this is more of a
limiting policy.
Mr. DIRKSEN. That is correct. We
have in mind, of course; those who see.
our own population growth and who be-
come concerned about the impact of mi-
gration from abroad on the labor market
of this country. We have not been in=
sensitive of that fact. So out of this
same reference bureau-and I think I
may as well put the full name in the
RECORD; it is the Population Reference
Bureau, Inc., 1755 Massachusetts Ave-
nue NW., Washington, D.C.-we get
some very interesting figures.
Our population today is growing at the
rate of 7,200 every 24 hours. If that
rate continues, it will take only 700 days
to accumulate a 5-million increase.
Those people are experts in their field,
because they have been so bold as to
forecast that in the month of May 1967,
our population will reach 200 million.
So while other countries grow, our
country grows, too. That is another
factor to be kept in mind. We do not
want to be arbitrary, but we want to
meet every challenge, every considera-
tion, every problem as we may conceive
it. Who knows what modifications will
have to be made in other days? If they
are to be made, I am sure the Congress
will be willing to make them.
Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, if the
Senator will yield, I am sure Congress
will do that. My point was that it is
easier to do it today in the bill than, in
view of the figures to which the Senator
has referred, as well as other figures
which are available, to do it 5 or 6 or 7
years from now. We can always modify,
but it seems to me the time has come to
do something today, which is not restric-
tive today, but which would prevent us
from having to do something that might
be catastrophic in the future.
We are to have a sugar bill, which is
being considered by the Finance Com-
mittee, next week, if the other body
should dispose of it. I have received
numerous calls from those who represent
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 23878
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE September 22, 1965
sugar interests in other countries with
reference to the bill. I have had no in-
quiries with respect to the Ervin pro-
posal. Perhaps there could be a dif-
ference of 10,000 or 20,000 in the figure,
but if the good Lord and the people of
Kentucky permit me to be in this body,
say, 10 years from now, and there were
a need to place restrictions in immigra-
tion at that time, I am sure we would
have many calls.
Mr. DIRKSEN. The point the Senator
makes is so proximate to the problem
before us now. Representatives of a
country from South Africa were in my
office only 2 weeks ago. I said, "You are
far away from home. Why are you in-
terested in getting a bigger share of the
sugar quota?" I was told, "For the rea-
son that we have heavy unemployment,
and we think an expansion of our quota
is the only thing we can do to provide
some jobs to relieve the growth pres-
sure." So the question before us is a
fabric of many dimensions.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
Mr. President, will the Senator yield on
that point?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
With respect to the discussion about
hemispheric restrictions, which was re-
ferred to in the dialog between the
Senator from Illinois and the Senator
from Kentucky, the provisions which
were considered in the House did pro-
vide some restrictions on the Western
Hemisphere. The House bill which was
considered and acted upon provided a
sort of sliding ceiling, so that in any one
year the number coming from the West-
ern Hemisphere could not exceed the
mean of the preceding 5 years by 10 per-
cent without causing the President to re-
port to Congress.
The labor provisions were also tight-
ened with relation to those who sought
to come into this country and enter the
labor ranks.
For the RECORD, those of us who had
serious reservations in accepting the re-
striction of 120,000, exclusive of immedi-
ate family relationships, felt that the
provisions Included In the House bill
were sufficiently restrictive to take into
consideration the growth of popula-
tion in the Latin American countries or
any other factors related to hemispheric
immigration.
I wanted the RECORD to be clear, at
this point in the dialog, for the benefit
of Senators who may still have reserva-
tions about the ceilings, that we are on
firm ground and we do not believe this
measure will open unlimited immigra-
tion to this country from the Western
Hemisphere or anywhere else.
Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, if the
Senator will yield on that point, I did
not mean to imply that what was done
was absolutely correct or proper. I, too,
have reservations about the way we are
approaching the problem. I am not un-
sympathetic toward the position the
Senator has expressed.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, the
distinguished Senator has rather con-
sistently on all occasions embraced the
Idea he has just expressed. Others of
us like myself felt that there ought to
be an unequivocal provision in the law,
and it ought to be an ascertained figure.
I like that approach infinitely better, and
that is why I joined the Senator from
North Carolina with respect to the pro-
vision he wanted to have inserted in the
bill. I think it is a good ceiling and that
we should try it. We are flexible enough
to be able to deal with it in the days
ahead.
Mr. President, in connection with my
remarks, I ask unanimous consent to
have inserted in the RECORD at this point
e rather interesting publication of the
Population Reference Bureau called
"Populatia-i Profile."
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
POPULATION PROP2L$
In 166 years the daily U.S. population in-
crease has grown 16 times: About 1800, daily
increase 450; mid-1965 daily increase 7,200.
ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY-FIVE MILLION
AMERICANS
Anyone contemplating a big celebration
for the day when the U.S. population reaches
200 million should start planning fairly soon.
According to the Population Reference Bu-
reau, there are only about 21 months to go.
The 195-million mark is expected to be
reached in late August of this year. At the
present rate of growth the next 5 million
needed to top 200 million would be added
around May 1967.
Currently, U.S. population is growing by
about 7,200 a day,. requiring some 700 days
to accumulate a 5-million increase. The first
U.S. Census in 1790 enumerated 3.9 million
persons. For two decades thereafter the Na-
tion's growth averaged only about 450 persons
a day, requiring 30 years to add 5 million.
The U.S. birth rate around 1790 was more
than twice as high as it is now. However,
today's larger population base of 195 million
can roll up a 5-million increase much faster
than a base of 3.9 million.
BIGGER, NOT BETTER
Once a country's population passes the
100-million mark, even a moderate fertility
rate produces a sizable numerical increase.
India's population, for example, is increas-
ing by 5 million every 150 days. If India
suddenly cut both her birth rate and death
rate in half, making them roughly equal to
the U.S. rates (21.2 births and 9.4 deaths per
1,000 population), her population would still
increase at well over 5 million a year. This
is what comes of having a population of
nearly half a billion. If population growth
in the United States continues at the pres-
ent rate, in just over .60 years this Nation
will have as many people as India has today.
Japan, to take another example, has cut
her birth rate to among the lowest in the
world, 17.2. With a population just under
100 million, Japan will still realize a 5-mil-
lion increase in 51/a years. In Canada, on the
other hand, where the population is less than
20 million, it would take over 10 years at the
current rate of growth to reach a total of
25 million.
MORE PEOPLE, LOWER BIRTH RATE
Around 1800, when the U.S. birth rate was
over 50, the annual population increase was
about 165,000, Today, with a moderate birth
rate of 21.2, the increase Is over 2.6 million
each year.
The uncertainty of the family-size prefer-
ences of upcoming parents makes the future
of U.S. population growth difficult to predict.
During the post-World War II baby boom,
the U.S. birth rate reached 26.8 in 1947-
the highest since 1921. Although the rate
has declined somewhat In recent years, the
population gain for the intercensal decade
(1950-60) was an unprecedented 28 mil-
lion-almost identical to the 28.5-million in-
crease for the 20-year period, 1930-50.
While the U.S. birth rate has gone down
since 1957 and shows no signs of leveling off,
the rising tide of young women just enter-
ing the high-fertility age group, 20 to 29,
is expected to make an impression on the
total fertility of the Nation.
"The 195-million mark in August may be-
come a turning point in U.S. population
growth," according to Robert C. Cook, presi-
dent of the Population Reference Bureau.
In view of the very large fertility po-
tential which now confronts us, the decades
immediately ahead must be viewed as cru-
cial ones," said Cook. "Even with a level-
ing off of the birth rate, we will be adding
nearly 3 million a year to our population. If
present trends continue, we will reach a
growth level of 5 million a year during the
last decades of the century." The highest
projection of the Bureau of the Census,
based on a return to the high-fertility rates
of the postwar years, shows the U.S. popula-
tion increasing by 7.5 million per year be-
tween 2000 and 2010.
SHIFTING AGE STRUCTURE
At present, American parents of a new-
born baby can expect their child to live past
the age of 70. In 1900, life birth was less than 50 years. The U.S. popu-
lation aged 65 and over has increased by al-
most 600 percent since 1900, from 3 million
to nearly 18 million. The number of chil-
dren under 19 has risen from 84 million in
1900 to 77 million today.
The median age of the population is now
28.5 years and could drop to 25 years if U.S.
fertility reverts to the postwar pattern.
Thus, over half the population is in- the de-
pendent age groups of under 19 and over 65.
"Urban concentration is adding to the
problems created by this socially demanding
age structure," Cook said. "Over 70 percent
of all Americans live In cities. Already we
are nationally distraught by the perplexing
problems of urban congestion, water short-
age, juvenile crime, chronic deficiency in edu-
cational facilities, and inadequate care of the
aged.
"Those who think growth to 195 million
Americans should be celebrated with noise-
makers and paper hatsmight well prepare
their children to celebrate the 400-million
mark with padlocked personal water bottles
and oxygen masks."
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I also
ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the RECORD as a part of my remarks
a table giving a summary of immigrant
and nonimmigrant visas issued for the
fiscal year 1964.
There being no objection, the table was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4 23879
September 22, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
TABLE 1.-Summary of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas issued, fiscal year 1964
(Nonimmigrant visas by country of nationality; quota immigrant visasp y ouondt q oor a ea o Quota or subquota chargeability; nonquota visas by country or area of birth or
Total,
Annual
quota
Quota
special
nonquota
symbol K
Total,
immigrant
Re- T
validated i
otal, non-
mmigrant
immigrant
and non-
immigrant
Europe:
100
95
6
1
102
17 -
-----------
17
119
Albania-------------------------------------------------
Andorra
-----------------------------------------------
100
-
-
299
-----1
-
-------265
--------2 -
------
2 -
7, 630
-----------
883
2
8,513
2
10,079
-
Austria-------------------------------------------------
1,405
1
297
,
981
54
2
1:037
8:499
8
9,264
10,301
ium
--------------------------------
Bel
,
6
112
300
7
307
419
g
----------------
Bulgaria------------------------------------------------
-----------------
ki
100
2, 859
86
1,876
2
87
--------31
1, 994
126
2,313
55
-
2, 418
-----------
4, 412
126
a------------------------
Czechoslova
-------
------------
of
Cit
F
i
100
92
34
------------
-
-------_
-
----------------
y
ree
Danz
g,
Denmark:
1,022
Government country---------------------- ----------
-
-----------
Greenland-------------------------------- ------ --
1
175
147
1
1,371
8,225
1,022
9, 247
10, 618
Denmark, total -----------------------------------
-------------------
Estonia
--------------
,
115
,
102
------------
114
641
62
4
487
85
309
147
4,796
261
b; 437
-
---------------
d
----
566
536
------------
,
Finlan
-----------------------------
Franco:
713
2
471
1
4,189
12,821
50, 781
Governing country---------------------------------
,
2
,
3
5
----
-
--
-
5
3
Algeria --
---- -----------
----------------
--
--
3
------------
3
99
-
-
-
-
Freneh Guiana
98
----
99
-
------------
----
-
-
-----------
Guadeloupe-----------------------------------------
46 -
-----------
--------
------------
46
------------ -
-----------
------------
46
Martinique------------------------------------------
nion
R
----------------------------
-
-----------
------------
1
-
-----------
------------
------------
eu
----------------
------------------------------------
Comoro Islands
----------2 -
-----------
------------
----------
6
6
-
---------------------------------
ch Polynesia
Fr
------ -
-----------
------------
I
--
en
French Somaliland----------------------------------
French Southern Island -----------------------------
------------
1
----------4
------------
------------
------
4
-
------
------------
-----------
------------
------------
------------
Now Caledonia
-----------------------------
-
------------
-
------------
------------
-----
--
Pierre and Miquelon-----------------------------
St
------------
-------- ----
------------
-----------
-----------
------------
------------
.
New Hebrides--------------------------------------
---
---
-
total -------- ------------------------------
France
3
2,
870
1,479
4
932
4, 364
691
28
- 42,821
69,459
3,771
7,646
46, 592
77,105
946
50,946
105,796
,
-------------------------
G
d, 2b, 814
2
,
3761
,
,
ermany --------
t Britain Northern Ireland:
G
15
30
324
172, 749
rea
Governing country----------------------------------
29, 444
31
865
-
,
31
------------
31
-
Aden---------------- -
100
68
--
4
172
------------
------------
------------
172
230
Antigua --------------------------------`------------
Bahamas--------------------------------------------
------------
100
100
128
259
2
13
230
372
------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
372
Barbados-------------------------------------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
Basutoland-----------------------------------------
Bechuenaland-------------------------------------
------------
- ------------
-----------
100
-----------
5
-----------
----------
105
------------
------------
--------------
---------105
155
Bermuda -------------------------------------------
---------------
n
-
h Gui
i
i
-
- ------------
67
60
28
156
145
------------
145
------------
a---------
a
t
s
Br
------------------
-
h Honduras
iti
B
- ------------
61
81
3
------------
--
-
--------------
r
s
British Solomon Islands----------------------------
-
i
--------- 61
----------1
--------182
-
'
112
--------------------- ------
in Islands
h Vir
Briti
- -----------
-
------------
g
---
s
BruneL--
--------ice
--------- 20
----------b
------- 125
-----------
------------
------------
126
Cayman Island
99
3
-----------
102
-
------------
------------
102
1
Dominica
Falkland Islands-------------------------------
I
4
-----------
6
- -----------
-----------
2
-
10
-
------------
------------
-----------
-----------
-
- 10
Fijl
Gambia
17
17
-----------
-----------
-
- 17
Gibraltar-------------------------------------------
- -----------
-
-----------
-
------------
------------
- ------------
Gilbert Islands-------------------------------------
-
------100
---------36
136
136
108
Grenada-------------------------------------------
-
99
9
108
------------
-----------
-
27
Hong Kong
25
2
27
------------
-----------
-
Kenya
--------------------------------
------------
-----
----
- -----------
-
--
Maldive Islands-------------`--------------- -
98
--------Hi
125
-
231
------------
--
-----------
231
-
16
Malta----------------------------------------------
-
14
2
16
------------
-----------
- -----------
-
108
Mauritius------------------------------------------
-
99
9
108
------------
-----------
- -----------
-
Montserrat----------------------------------------
North Borneo=
------------
-------------
-
---------
- -----------
-
-----------
- -----------
-
55
:
---
North Rhodesia------------------------------------
-
56
4
-------`
2
-
------------
-
------------
-----------
6
-
Nyasaland-----------------------------------------
Pitcairn Island------------------------------------
-
-
100
---
56
-
-------
--------i-
-
s
------------
156
St. Christopher-Nevis-------------------------------
-
2
-----------
----
- -----------
2
-
------------
-----------
- -----------
- 2
108
St. Helena----------------------------------------
St. Lucia------------------------------------ -----
Vincent
St
-------------------------------
-
-
- -----------
-
- 100
100
8
23
108
-
123
------------
------------
----
-----------
-----------
-----------
- -----------
-
- -----------
-
123
- -----------
.
-------
-
Sarawak
--- --------------------------------------
-
--------- 3
-----------
1
- ----------
--------
4
------------
-----------
- -----------
-
-
Seychelles
--------------------------------------
--
21
-----------
-----------
- -----------
- 21
---
Singapore -------------------------------
-
103
-
-----------
- -----------
- -----------
- 103
Southern Rhodesia-----------------------------
-----------
-
-----------
- -----------
Swaziland-----------------------------------------
--
--------
2
2
-----------
- -----------
- -----------
-
Tonga
----------
20
--
----------
-
2
25
-----------
- -----------
-----------
-
- 25
2
Turks Island------------------------------------
d
-----------
--
-- ----------
2
--
----------
--
3
2
Ugan
a--------------------------------
ibar
Z
--------------------
-- ----------
-- 3
anz
--------------------
Great Britain and North Ireland, total----------
65, 30
--
1 31, 265
1,83
3 8
32
2 33, 18
40
0 2
0 131, 628
661
2 9
10, 797
1,183
142, 42
10,84
5 175, 605
4 13, 246
Greece
------------------------------
30
--
8 224
1, 85
8
5
,
6 99
,
746
5 4
314
6,06
0 6,055
--------------
Hungary
Iceland
-------------------------------
86
10
-
5 711
0 85
22
7
8
7 ----------
-- 16
32
6
,
2 827
973
8 7
334
33
93
4 8, 30
5 1,097
7 14, 635
-------------
Ireland-----------------------------------------------
Ital --------------------------------------------------
17,75
--
5,66
--
23
6 6, 256
6 5, 390
6 215
7
4,21
3
2
1, 61
7
2
,
2 11, 21
5 25
,
9 37, 299
2 36
6, 08
4
5
43:39
8
8
2
4 54,603
4 336
0 31
Latvia
10
0 11
1
1 20
464
38
4 343
----------
4
--
4
39
2 48
7
2
570
Lithuania-
---------------------------------
--
6
9
3 452
2
5 47
7
-----------
--------
-- To
o 87
1
14
1
4 1
8 29
Luxembourg----------------------------------
--------
-----
-- 10
0 10
1
-
Monaco ---------------------------------
Netherlands:
2
836
31
--------
3
-- 3,14
9 21,834
28, 593
Governing country -------------------------------
--
,
--
-
--------
-- -----------
- ----------
--
------------
New Guinea------------------------
Netherlands
--
----------
--
--------
-
--
1 15
6
-
- ----------
-- ----------
156
--
,
------
tilles
A
d
-- ----------
-- 9
91 5
6
----------
1
91
------------------------
n
s
Netherlan
S
i
-----------------
--
81
1
0
9
ur
nam-------------------------
--------------------------
Netherlands
total
3, 13
--
6 3,01
6 37
9
3,39
2
22
6 21, 83
98
3 10
4 3,61
5 69
0 25, 44
0 11, 57
4 28,840
5 18,798
-----
,
N orwnd
aay--------------
Pol
2, 36
6, 48
4 2,17
8 6,17
0 5
0 1,00
3
8 I 5
,
7 7, 23
,
5 3,23
0 11
3,34
8
8 10,583
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
23880 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE September 22, 1965
TABLE 1.-Summary of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas issued, fiscal year 1984-Continued
]Nonimmigrant visas by country of nationality; quota Immigrant visas by country or area of quote or subgnota chargeability; nonquota visas by country or area of birth or
presumed quota chargeabiilty]
Immigrant visas
Nonimmigrant visas
Countr
y
Annual
Quota
Nonquota
Species
nonquota
Total,
Tot a,
immigrant
Issued
Re-
validated
Total, non
immigran
Immi
- and non t
t immigrant
symbol K
Europe-Continued
Portugal:
Governing country----------------------------------
Angola-----------------------------
-----------
- 373
1,025
317
1,715
4,814
562
b,968
081
7
----------------
Cape Verde Islands
------------
Guine Portuguese
-------`------- ------
di
I
--------?
-----------
-----------
1
- 19
- ------------
1
23
-----------
-----------
------------
2
42
------------
-
-----------
_
- - --------
,
- 2
42
n
a, ortuguese----
aoso -
- ----------------------------
-----------
1
1
-
-----------
- ------------
- - --------- --
--------?1
- ------------
----------?
----------
---?------
- ----
- -----------
----------
2
-
Mozambique--
-----`-"---'---?-'--`-----
1
1
2
Tome
Principe and Sao ao To-----------------------
-
2
2
-----
or ---------------------------------------------
-----------
-------
- ------------
-----------
- - -
---------
-----------
- ------------
-----------
- -----------
- ------------
P
l
ortuga
,total ____________________________________
Rumanla_____._-----?____________________________
438
289
398
200
1,051
417
1,784
4,814
bbl
b,388
7
130
_____
a. Marino--------------------------------------?
I00
100
136
6
71
407
641
18
667
,
, 084
I
S
--------"---
106
23
--
23
129
pan:
Governing country.__________----__-___-__-^^------
Fernando Po------------------------------
------------
159
1,469
72
1,700
12,565
1,870
14 235
16
935
----------
i----------
------
-
-
---------`
----------
------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
,
-
-
-----
------------------------
Rio Muni
------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
-----------
------------
----------
ahara
-----------------------
punish Sahara--
------------
------
--
----
------------
------------
----
-------
----------
-- --------
S i
n, total__________________^_______.____________
Sweden-------------------------------------------------
250
3
295
159
2
165
1,469
72
72
1,700
12,585
1,670
14,235
15,935
Switzerland_____________ ----------
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics -_-_----_--_-_-_-_-
,
1,898
2 69
7
,
1,610
2
590
128
1
2,237
1
,739
14,576
12,444
897
927
15,472
13,371
17,708
1b
110
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Yugoslavia____________________________-----------------
4
2
4
,
724
3103 2
11
36
2, 703
1
108
1,906
2
945
17
379
1, 928
8
3
,
4, 628
Europe,total _________________________________________
Asia:
149,372
96,732
20,844
2,695
,
119,771
,
422,531
42,241
,
24
464,772
4,432
584,543
Afghanistan--------------------------------------------
Arab Peninsula----__-_?_--_-__?
---------------------
100
100
29
15
29
289
7
296
325
---------------------------------------------
Asia
Pacific
Bhutaann
100
86
1
575
_ .
- - -----
16
681
82
1
83
99
----
arms
-------------------------'?-----------^--------
109
100
------------
88
------------
5
-
-
----------
----"---
-
--
-
---
------
-
------------
---------
-
------------
-
--------
661
------------
Cambodia
-----------------------------------------------
Ce
Ion
100
100
3
87
`
- -- -- - --
----------
9
1
7
205
170
2i
12
iii
182
190
190
C na
______________________________________ ?`
C
persons-------------------------------
100
705
?9
10
170
23
97
272
329
8,225
46
594
874
8
819
471
9
091
yprus
----------
y ru " -----------------------------
ia
100
---------- -
88
2,177
50
197
4
2,374
142
268
,
- i-
~
,
2,374
____________________'---'"""-----'---------R-----
Indonesia_______________________________________________
100
150
51
127
102
71
41
19
194
9,703
9
1,728
11, 31
419
11,625
Iran
217
2,382
158
2,538
2,755
______________?___-----------__----_----------------
Iraq-----------------------------------------------------
Israel--------------------
100
100
46
44
83
55
82
53
161
152
5,848
,838
1
460
208
1646
6,467
698
-----?------___""------__-___
Japan-----------------------------------------"---------
Jordan--------------------
-
100
185
42
101
142
8,159
23
65
207
3,325
14,83
39,299
870
891
15 718
40
190
1b 925
3,
1
------
----------------^------
Korea___?----------------------------------------------
%uwait_.?_______________
100
100
87
37
196
2,166
bb
44
337
2,247
873
4,680
20
236
,
893
4
898
5
5
1,230
143
________"______------__-------
Laos----------------------------------------------------
100
100
8
7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
--
-
-
-
8
247
21
,
268
7,
274
banon-----------------------------------"-----"------
lays-
M
------------------------ -----------------
100
50
56
1b
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
135
-
-
-
`
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20
7
211
224
2,740
----------
-
915
224
3,655
231
3
866
a
Ma
laysia ------
Muscat and Oman--------
200
29
3
18
------------
------------
18
47
302
675
19
694
894
,
346
------------------------------
eps1---------------------------------------------------
P
ki
100
100
_
---'-----
3
"?
'
---
4
741
4
a
stan---------------------
---------------------`-----
Palestine--- -----------------------------------------
100
100
-
45
71
-----------
26
--
g
3
99
122
2,830
13
59
135
2 8
138
2
--
SaSaudi Arabi___?--------------------------------------- udi Arabia----------------------------------- -
-
100
100
38
9
32
2,378
193
103
2,607
14
12,828
4
2,140
18
14
968
'121
17
575
--
----
Thailand ---------------
Syria------------------
------------"---"----"---"--------
100
69
1
49
---
--------
3
10
121
754
865
22
126
,
778
991
,
786
---------------------------------
Turkeurksy -
Vietnam
100
225
85
87
54
159
184
139
430
2
468
2
843
19
249
2,
487
1,112
3
------------------------------------------------
Yemen----------------------------------------------
100
100
47
92
143
------------
192
,
2,192
3
3, 092
226
2
522
2
416
----
2
-----------
94
33
4
,
37
,
131
Asia, total ___________
______________________
frica
3, 725
1, 665
11, 966
964
14 696
117, 657
8, 900
126, 557
141, 152
:
geria--------------------------------------------------
B
urundi---------? ----'----------------------
287
100
78
8
------------
88
_
76
-----------
162
Cameroon
---------------------------------
Centres African Republic--------------------?---------
lbl
100
_
Z
-
"-
2
1
9
2
130
2
13'2
ha1 ?-
C
moo
-
-----
-
----
--
-
------------------------- --------
100
100
?---------- -
-----------
1
-----------
------------ -
_
-----------
3
2
21
80
21
30
Congo
,
R
blic
epu
of
th
e
Dahomey
100
-
28
---------
2
-
--
-
-
-
1
80
37
253
a1
37
38
---------------------------------- ----------
Ethiopia-----------------------------------------------
Gabon
100 I00 -
-
-------- 78 - -
---------
-
3 -
----- -
-
-
--
-- ?
--------
--------
81
b1
480
4
49
6 274
5
304
55
---------
Ghana uinea ---------------------------------------
G
-"-"----
100 -
100
-
b8
4
62
so
478
38
67
577
677
?---------------------
Ivory Coast--_--_--__?_______?-__-------------?----
$
0 _
10
100
2
-
----------
1
2
188
13
535
196
897
197
enya----- ----------------------------------------------
Liberia-----------------------------------------------
.20
100
10 -
39
--------1-
3
----------
11
100
-
814
--------.
23
100
54
102
588
L1bya
-------------------------------? ------
Malagasy Repub]ic------------
100
93
16
-
__
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
42
109
482
217
6
8
548
222
587
331
-------------------------
&tai
--- ?_____________________"-._""__--""__--__--"__--
Maudto
-
100
4
1
_
___
-
-_
_
_
_
_
_
5
103
63
3
2
108
85
111
--
Morocco_?---------?-----------?---------------`----
Niger----------
100 -
100 0
-------- --
68
--------
113
- ------ 2 -- --
-- ------
181
714 --
-------4~-
84
7
65
34
-----------------------------------------
Nigeria------------------------------
------------------
10
149
1
--
8
5
---------- -
----------'
1
62
13
76
942
76
wauda
-------------------------?---------------------
Senegal
100
.
--
--------__ -
-____------
-
85
-------
3,120
83
1
3,203
3,288
-------
------------------------------ -
Sierro Leone------?----------------
---------?---------
100 100
13 6 ?
-------- -
1
---------~-
-
6
97
7
16
104
16
110
Somali Repub]ic
_______---_?---------------------------
100
4
-
1
---- ------
14
80.5
85
340
354
South Africa---------------------------------- -
uch-West Africa__--"__--____"________
-
IM
200
b7
69 -
---__---_
126
4,438
653
4
991
Po
1
117
_._
____________
Sudan---------------------------------------------^----
100
9
75
21
1
5
_
85
15
11
,
26
,
61
-
--.`----?
76
817
22
339
A25
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
A
 Approved For ~~ee~~ /P1 RD? 6R000100290006-4 23881
September 22, 1965 CONREI~C
TABLE 1.-Summary of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas issued, fscal year 1984-Continued
[Nonimmigrant visas by country of nationality; quota immigrant visas by country or area of quota or subquota chargeability; nonquota visas by country or area of birth or
presumed quota chaage ability].
Africa-Continued
Tanganyika------------------------------
Togo- ------------------------?--------- ----
Tunisia----- ------------------ --------=--------
Uganda-------------------------- --- ------ ----
United Arab Republic__________________________________
Upper Volta---------------------- ---------------------
Africa,total -------------------------------------------
North America:
Canada-------------------------------------------------
Costa Rica--------------------------- ------------------
Cuba------------ ---------------------=---- ----------
Dominican Republic------------------------------ ----
El Salvador ------------------------------------- --------
Guatemala ----------------------------------------------
Haiti------------------ ---------------------------- -
Honduras-------------------------------
Jamaica----------------------------------------- -------
Mexico--------------------------------------------------
Nicaragua--------------------- -----------
Panama
Trinidad and Tobago--------------------
Country
Annual
quota
~--------100 ~--------100
100 40
100 91
100
50 4
100 7
100 ---------4---
100
100
------------
------------
------------
100 76
100 69
100 53
100 ------------
38,604
2,690
16,098
7,206
1,345
619
2,155
1, 815
1, 393
31,324
1,100
1:835
238
6,404
780
2, 276
1,231
10,090
3,600
203
2,195
316
897
------------
388
------------
Special
nonquota
symbol K
------------
----------3
-------22
------------
------------
---------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
4
------------
Total,
immigrant
38, 604
2,690
16,088
7, 206
1,345
619
2,156
1, 815
1, 636
31, 324
1,100
1,835
358
North America, total ---------------------------------
South America:
Argentina-------------------- -------------------------- ---------- -
--?---------?-- ------------ ---------
Bolivia--------------------------- -
--------------- - ------------- ---------
Brazil------------------ --------------------------------
Chile ------------ ------------
Colombia ----------
Ecuador-----------------
----------------- - -----
Paraguay
---- ----------
Peru - -
---
Venezuela-------------------------
South America,total ----------------------------------
Oceania:
Australia:
Governing country ----------------------------------
Christmas Island----------------------------- ----- ------ -----
Pap IaTe
Papu ua, Territory of--------------------------------
Australia,total------------------------------------
New Gumea-----------?-----r----------------------,--
New Zealand:
Governing country ----------------------------------
Cook Islands ----------------------------------------
New Zealand, total------------------------- ------
Wesern Samoa -----------------------------------------
Nauru----------------------------------------------------
Oceania, total-----------------------?----------------
No nationality---------- ------------------ ----------------
Grand total--------------------------------------`----
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, those source, I ask unanimous consent to have increases, decreases, and so forth. obJ
, the
ect
tab are the latest data I have seen on that tableeentitled e"Population Information tionhwasbo deed to beiprin ed inlthe
suF ect.
Finally, Mr. President, from the same for 129 Countries," broken down to show RECORD, as follows:
No, 175 ---ld
6,404
780
2,276
1,231
10,090
3,600
203
2,195
318
897
------------
------------
------------
283
------------
193
ill
64
233
75
286
109
2,303
24
747
4,574
2,033
23,828
4,524
6,817
3, 662
3:652
13,489
124,436
3, 674
3, 226
4,926
16,904
1,837
13,443
61375
21,053
6,234
639
10,841
2,416
20,095
------------
------------
------------
19, 523
1
6,600
242
194
26,560
4,194
Re-
validated
2
8
14
5
636
2
69
115
545
2,118
115
1,744
500
238
653
82,392
412
480
528
558
98
1,598
418
1,610
349
67
1,580
111
9,674
------------
------------
386
----------3--
2,012
1,108
Total non-
immigrant
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
235
83
299
114
3,029
26
616
4,689
2,578
25, 946
4, 639
7,561
4, 062
3,890
14,142
206, 828
4:086
3,706
5,454
17,462
1,935
15,041
6,793
22, 663
6, 583
706
12,421
2,527
29,769
21,146
------------
------------
21,146
1
6,986
242
197
28,572
5,302
Total,
immigrant
and non-
immigrant
275
84
406
118
3,172
26
39,420
7,379
18,666
33,152
5,984
8,180
6,217
5,705
15, 778
238,152
5,186
5,541
5,812
23,866
2,715
17,317
8,024
32,753
10,183
909
14,616
2,843
30,666
------------
------------
21, 429
1
7,179
353
251
29,213
5,302
 23882
1965
Continent and country
Po ula-
tion
estimate
mid-196
(millions
Annual
rate of
s increase
4 since
)
)
( 19b8
percent)
Birth
rate per
1,000
popula-
tion
(latest 1)
Death
rate per
1,000
popp
tion
(latest 2)
Popula-
lion pro-
jections
1980
(mu-
lions ?)
Continent and country
Popula-
tion
estimate
mid-196
(millions
Annual
rate of
s increase
4 since
) 19b8
(percent)
Birth
rate per
1,000
popula-
tion
(latest 2)
Death
rate per
1,000
po Pula
-
tion
(latest 2)
Popula-
tion pro
jections
1980
s]-
(
lions ?)
-
Africa:
- -
NorthemAfrica
Asia-Continued
-----------
Algeria________________
Ethiopia_____________
- ---------
_ 12.0
21
0
- - ---
- (46) (22
2.1 45-49 ______-_-
) -A sia------------------
_ 19.6 China (mainland)-----
- -----
_ 690.0
-
2
1
(42
) (10)
__
Moro
Libya-----------------
i
bycoo
_
.
- 1.3
_
1.9 ---
------ ---
29.0 China (Taiwan)-------
1.9 Hong Kong+
- 12.1
3
8
.
3.6
_
36.3
846.(1
6.1 17.2
____-----_-?__
Somalia--------------
_ 13.1
2
3
3.0
----------
------__--
22.4 Jp----------------
-
.
- 96.8
4.5
9
32.1
17
2
5.5 5.5
7
0
-
u an-----------------
Tunisia
-
.
- 18.2
_
2.8 50-56 - - ----
Korea, North------____
19.3 Korea
South
_ 10.7
2
.
.
.
1.1
15.4
________________
United Arab Republic
_ 4.7
1.4 4549 25-27
,
-------___
6.6 Mongolia------___-____
_
8.0
_ 1
1
3.3
3
1
39 43
I1-13
-(Egypt)---- --
Tropical and southern
~' 7
? 8 40-44 22-24
erica:
46.8 Northern America:
C
.
.
1.7
Altie
a -----?-----------
- ----- -
6
1
(47) (24
2
1
anada -------------- _._
) ----United States -----------
19.3
- 192.1
2.1
1
6
24.8
21
6
7.8 26.3
9
6 2
Burundi--------------
.
37
.
____-___
---------
_ 6.0 Middle America:
.
.
.
40.9
Cameroon--------------
Central African Re-
4.6
------?-- --------- ---------
1.9 39-44 24-30
- 4.2 Costa Rica ----- -----.-__
5.4 Cuba __
1.4
7
3
4.3
2
49.9
8.5 2.4
ublic________________
Ch
d
1.3
1.9 39-47 26-32
X
_.--_____-- --___
Dominican Republic----
1
6 El S
l
.
3.5
.0
3.8
30-34
48-54
9-13 I0.0
16-20 6.2
a
___________________
Congo (Brazzaville)
2.8
9
1.1 44-52 25-31
1
3
.
a
vador_____________
3.8 Guatemala -_________
2.8
4
2
3.8
3
2
48.6
47
7
10.8 4.6
17
----
Congo (L6opoldville)-
Dahome
.
15.4
.
2.4 40-46 ______-___
Haiti-____-_---__-___--_
1.5 Honduras
.
4.5
2
1
.
2.2
.
____
.3 6.9
___
6.9
y---------------
Gabon_____________ ____
2.3
5
2.3 45-53 20-26
2
1
_______________
3.0 Jama-ica__________-___-__
.
1.7
3.0
1
5
45-50
39
6
16-20 3.7
9
1
Ghana------------------
Guinea
.
7.5
.
2.7 ~5
5 Mexico___-_..__-_--__--
1 .
39.6
.
3.1
.
45.0
.
2.1
10.4 70.6
_________________
Ivory Coatt____-_--____
3.6
3.7
3.0 -57 33-35
2.2 49-66 33-37
5.0 Panama ?-_---------__-
1.2
3.3
440.1
12-17 2.0
3
Kenya__________________
Liberia
9.1
2.9 46-54 ___ ______
-
5.0 Puerto Rico 4__________-
13.8 Trinidad
andToba
o
_.9
9
3.2
3
.6
.1
7.3 3.5
_________________
Madagascar
1.0
6
1
- ------
g
1.2 Sthth Am Ami
.
3.2
6
36.6
7.3 1.5
____________
Malawi ?______________-
.
3.8
2.8 43-49 17-21
2.1 - - --
--
7.6 Arggentina_______________
8
1 B
i
21.7
1.6
21.8
7.9 29
0
Mali____________________
Mauritania_____
_
4.5
1
0
--- ---------
2.1 55-63 26-32
.
ol
via----__-_-----_--
6.4 Brazil____.____________-_
3.7
79.8
1.5
3
0
41-45
43-47
.
20-25 6.0
11-16
_
______
Mauritius 4-------------
Mozambi
ue
4
.
.7
----
-
3.1
39.9 9.7
Guiana4-__
1.1Ch11e
0.6
8
4
.
3.0
42.3
123.7
7.9 1.0
q
Niger--____________
6.9
3.2
2.O
------- -- --------
3
0 49-57 24-30
___________________
91.0 Colombia----______-_
.
15.4
2.4
2 . 2
34.2
43-48
11.8 12.4
14-17 27
7
Nigeria-----------------
Rwanda
56.0
.
4.5 Ecuador---___________
91.0 Paraguay
4.8
1
9
3.2
45-50
.
15-20 &0
________________
Senegal-----------------
Sierra Le
2.9
3.5
2.6 ___-- __ _ _--_______
2.7 39-47 23-29
----------__---
3.5 Peru-----_________------
4.4 Uruguay
.
11.9
2
2.4
3.0
45-60
42-48
12-16 3.0
13-18 17.5
one-__________
South Africa_-__--______
2.2
17.5
2
6 ------
_-_--__-_-------
6.8 Vonezuela _---___--
.6
8.4
_ _-
3.4
21-25
45-50
7-9 3.1
10-15 14
9
Southern Rhodesia
4 ----
4.1
.
______
3
3
27.1 ope:
.
Tanzania ?--------------
10.3
.
__________ ___
1
9 46-b0
7.1 Northern and Western
Togo___________________
Uganda
1.6
.
_
2.6 51-59 --_26-32
14.4 Europe:
2.3 Belgium
9
3
---------------
Upper Volta -----
7.2
4.8
2,5 46-50 ----- ..
3.3 43-49 2731
---------------
10.0. Denmark---------------
.
4.7
.5
.8
17.2
17.7
12.7 10.1
9.9 5
2
Zambia 7---------------
3.6
2.8
6.3 Finland________________
5.7 France
4.6
48
4
.8
18.1
.
9.3 5.3
Southwest Asia ___------?--
-----
-----
- (47) (24)
---------
----_______-------
Iceland-----------------
Ir
l
.
.2
1.2
1.9
18.2
26.8
11.7 53.3
6.8 .2
Cyprus_________________
Iran
.6
0
1. 24-28 ----
e
---------
and-----------------
7 Luxembourg
2.8
3 3
-.3
22.2
11.8 '2.9
--------------------
Iraq --------------------
22.6
7.0
1.9 42-48 23-27
1
8 47-51
--
33.1 Netherlands ------__-_--_
12.1
.9
1.3
16.0
20.8
126 .4
8
0 14
1
Israel________________
Jordan
2.6
.
__________
3.5 24.6 6.2
13.8 Norway----------------
3.1 Sweden
3.7
7
7
6
6
.8
17.5
.
.
10.0 4.3
__________________
Kuwait___________
1.9
3
2.3 43-47 -_ _ __-__
________
3.4 United Kingdo-
.
.
64.1
.5
-
8
14.8
18
5
10.1 8.4
12
2
______
Lebanon---------------
.
1
8
_
---------
.3 Central
Europe:.
.
.
,
57.3
SaudiArabia________-__
Syria
.
6.6 -
- --- - ----- --- ---- --
9.4 3.1 Czecha_________---___
-
-
slovakia
7.2
14
0
.6
18.7
12.7 7.3
-------------------
Turkey-----------------
5,4
30.8
3.2
2.6 ---44-48
-
-
-------
9.3 Germany, East---_____
48
5
.
16.1
.7
-.3
16.9
17.5-
9.5 15.8
13.7 17
6
Yemen_____________
----
South centralAsis
5.0 -
-________
-_- -----
--------- ----------
.
Germany, West ?---___
y,
6.9 Hungary
---
5
10
1
1.3
18.5
.
11.4 58.5
__________ _
Afghanistan ------------
_____
14.9 -
--------- 45-53
---------
Poland _____-____
22
1
.
31.1
.4
1.3
13.1
19.0
9.9 10.7
7.6 38
0
Bhutan_________________
Ceylon
.7
-
--_______
--------- ---------- ----------
.
Switzerland______
1.0 Southern Europe:
5.9
2.1
18.9
.
9.6 6.3
-----------------
India_________________
Ne
l
10.9
468.5
2.7 35.8 &5
2.3 39-43 21-23
18.3 Albania________________
661.5 Bulgaria
1.8
3.2
39.3
10.7 3.0
pa
-------------------
Pakistan
9.9
100
7
1.6 46-,54 34-40
-----------------
14.1 Greece____-.-------
-----
8.2
5
8
.9
8
16.4
8.2 9.3
________________
Southeast Asia______________ _
.
-
2 1 43-46 16-17
- - (49) (23)
153.6 Italy__-----------
____-_
M
l
.
60.8
.
.8
1
19.
1.
10.2 6.4
Burma---------------
Cambodia
24.2
2.1 47-b3 33-37
a
ta-
35.0 Portugal-------
. 3
9
1
. 5
7
4
20.4
3
8. 9 .4
Indonesia______________
L
102.2
47-53
2.2 40-46 1-23
--___-_-
9.8 Rumania-------___-----
152
8 Spain
.
19.0
.
.9
2
.5
15.7
10.8 9.8
8.3 22.3
aos -------------------
Malaysia _______________
2.0
10.9
2.5
3
3 40
9 8
6
.
-_________-______
2.9 Yugoslavia-------___--_
O
31.3
19.3
.8
1.1
21.6
21.4
9.0 36.0
8
9 22
8
Phi llppines_____________
That
d
31.2
.
.
.
3.2 44-48
18.1
ceania:
55.8 Australia
11
1
.
.
an
_______________
Vietnam,North________
297
17
8
3.0 40 4 19-21
3
4
----.______________
47.5 New Zealand-___________-__
.
2.6
2.1
2.2
21.6
25
5
8.7 14.6
8
8 3
7
Vietnam, South________
C
il
d
.
15.9
.
3.7 40-48 ----------
24.5 U.S.S.R___-__-_-._______________
21.9
228.6
1.7
.
22.4
.
.
7.5 77.8
1
omp
e
from United Nations and other sources.
2 Latest available year. In so case before circa 1960. a Eaclud6Excmerly Northern n, popula Gained 000 (1964). ce . 24, 1964.
Oct
: edium projection (provisional U.N. estimates, 1964). s West Berlin, population 2,200,000 (1964). ? N
on-self-governing country.
? Formerly Nyasaland. Gained independence July 6, 1064.
? Formerly known as the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 22,
World population data sheet '-Population information for 129 countries
NOTE: Parentheses indicate regional vital rates. Blank space indicates lack of
reliable statistics.
World and continental population estimates Population increase at various rates of
[In millions] growth
World total_____________
Africa----
Asia--------------------------
North America ---------------
Contra] and South America---
Europe-----------------------
Oceania
U.S.S. R ---------------------------
303
1,843
211
236
443
18
229
1980
projection 1
449
2,404
267
874
479
23
I Medium projection (provisional U.N. estimates,
1964).
Number of
years to
double
population
In 1 century
10,000,000
increases
Mr. DIRKSEN. So, Mr. President, the
third reading having been had, I am pre-
pared to vote, and I hope the bill will
pass.
Mr. EL,,ENDER. Mr. President. im-
Annual increase rate (percent):
0.5------------------------
139
16,000,000
1--------------------------
70
27, 000
000
1.5------------------------
47
,
44000
000
0
2 (world rate) -------------
35
,
72,000
000
2.5------------------------
28
,
118, 000, 000
3--------------------------
23
192,000
000
3.5------------------------
20
,
312, 000, 000
4--------------------------
18
506, 000, 000
veloped in the 18th and 19th centuries
with the spread of nationalism. Since
the concept of the modern nation state
goes back only to the Protestant Refor-
mation, it is understandable that laws
governing the movement of large num-
bers of people would come about only
with the growth of this concept and the
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 September 22, 10proved Fe gSJ&MR/ M& DPSE M46R000100290006-4 23883
improvement of transportation facilities. It is now proposed that we change but in effect belong to the world's popu-
The states of Europe which emerged this system of immigration in favor of lation at large.
from the religious schism had the effect a "first come, first served" basis. It has American citizens have been taxed un-support
for of giving an identity to local populations been said that we are a nation of im- told billions of dollar ore gin peoples.
which made up the whole of Christen- migrants.
dom. The demise of the Holy Roman This is, of course, true, with the ex- Now we are being asked to surrender
Empire and the diminished authority of ception of the American Indian. How- the country itself to the world's hordes
the papacy brought about a strong sense ever, the United States is no longer in who are just waiting for the immigra-
of nationalism to the principalities of the age of infancy or adolescence, nor is tion barriers to be lowered. Every public k Europe and increased the temporal and it a vast .c The United States is today power. bloclvotingQ1 Bad as to is today, area largely un- With
spiritual princes.
the he discovery of the Western a mature, sophisticated, highly Indus- I dread that time which will come in the
Hemisphere and the improvement in trialized and densely populated nation. near future, if this bill is passed, when
transportation, the emigration of large Today, only the politicians are aware of aliens will dominate the political proc-
populations became a matter of state the hyphenated Americans. The great ess in this country.
tries y bofor the rdering first North Atlantic selves only, American, andnthis ris them- true voting in Literacy no
colonger untry, a particularly e n been had a decided interest in colonizing their whether their name is "Jones" or "Jan- that au h, anknowledge it oh athe English trg language
Th ly urged
is contended by the advocates of is not necessary. Those who wish to de-
territorial claims in this hemcolonial hemisphere. owsky."
The competition among the It is
powers further developed a sense of na- immigration policy change that since nounce me as a bigot may do so, but I has
for one
are well-- Christian and Nation to remain
the Western
want tionalism
Nationalism is a feeling on the part of its 2traditional concept, that alabandon
a citizen that his country is a living en- come and that our historic plea has European and American sense of the
image
tity which will continue on after his been lint ords of th old
For those who worry about our image
fferinge your homeless word.
death and that it is his duty to protect
its existence and work for its continua-
it. ^ Nationalism engenders a spirit of
unity among a people and a homoge-
neous population is one of is earmarks.
However archaic and antiquated na-
tioalism is today, it must be recognized
as a driving force in the world which
still must be contended with. The vast
gulf of cultural, racial and economic dif-
ferences tends to further drive nations
apart, especially in this day of rapid
transportation and communication.
It is in this historic context that the
United States as the primary recipient
of European immigration has had to
examine its policy of admitting aliens.
The problems did not become acute nor
was it a matter of great concern, until
the middle 1800's, when this Nation be-
gan to industrialize, and at the same
time, large numbers of South Europeans
began to come here.
As long as we had free lands and the
population remained culturally and ra-
cially the same, there was little need for
immigration laws. When that situation
began to change in the early 20th cen-
tury, it became necessary for the United
States to protect itself by the enactment
of restrictive legislation on immigration.
It is with this background in mind that
I propose to discuss House bill 2580.
Mr. President, the purpose of H.R.
2580, a bill to amend the Immigration
and Nationality Act is: First, to abolish
the national origins quota system; and
second, the repeal of the so-called Asia-
Pacific triangle;
officially
--
t
St
es
a
Since 1924, the United
established a policy of admitting im- tect the citizens of this s-country by being
basis more selective in those whom it permit-
th
e
migrants to this country on
of national origins already represented ted to immigrate here. This was a period
in the United States. It was the pur- of the burgeoning technological growth
pose and intention of Congress in 1924 and advancement of organized labor.
to maintain and continue the racial, This was a period when it became the
ethnic and cultural traditions of the duty of Congress to protect the American
United States by admitting immigrants workingman from the importation of
in proportion to their American counter- Chinese coolie labor and other cheap
parts. It was the intention of Congress labor supply. There is a strange atti-
that the United States should continue tude in this country today on the part
to be a Christian nation, populated pri- of some people who feel that this land
marily by those nationalities which com- and its material wealth do not rightfully
pose Western Europe today. belong to the citizens of this country,
masses."
I submit, and history will bear me out, I will have more to say about that in a
that the United States, from its earliest few minutes.
beginnings, at no time encouraged the To return to the historical develop-
indiscriminate migration of foreigners ment of immigration in the United
to our shores. The Immigration and States, in the 32 years between 1850 and
Nationality Service states that: 1882, more than 200,000 Chinese immi-
Thomas Jefferson thought it unwise to en- grated to the United States, which al-
courage immigration from monarchial gov- most approximated t f ll the the number of
who
migrants
ernments. George Washington viewed un- im
immigration with caution. When came to these shores in the first 70 years
John Quincy Adams was Secretary of State of our Colonial existence. The famine
in 1819, he stated that the Government had in the Canton region of China is said to
never officially encouraged immigration from
im-
Europe. Adams declared that immigrants migration nl the la ter half ofithe 19th
were not to expect favors.
century. Who knows what future famine
The Alien Act of 1798 empowered the may occur in northern Brazil, in India
President to deport any alien whom he or in Asia, which may cause similar mass
considered dangerous to the Government. migration to this country if the national
Although no immigration laws governing origin system is abandoned.
immigration of aliens to the United We have become a Nation highly in-
States were passed until 1875, no one dustrialized, highly urbanized, with a
advocated the opening of the floodgates rural population dwindling swiftly with
to unrestricted immigration from Asia, each passing year. With our vast
Africa, Latin America or other areas of amount of land in this country our
the world with populations dissimilar coastal areas are being swamped with
from our own. In 1875, Congress passed population increases. I do not have the
the first law preventing the physically figures available, but I believe it is al-
and mentally ill from immigrating to most a certainty that most of the immi-
the United States. grants who have come to this country
In 1882; Congress enacted the first in the last 20 or 30 years have settled in
general immigration law and excluded the large urban areas of the Nation, par-
the mentally incompetent, convicts, and ticularly the east and west coasts.
those likely to become public charges. I am reminded of Thomas Jefferson's
In that same year, Congress also adopted partiality for an agrarian system, when
a Chinese exclusion policy. he wrote to James Madison in 1787. He
With rapid industrialization follow- said:
ing the War Between the States and the This reliance cannot deceive us as long as
beginning of the emergence of the United we remain virtuous; and I think we shall be
States as a great power, it is not at all so as long as agriculture is our principal ob-
_,_ _., .. u as ??? while there re-
When we get piled upon one another in large
cities as in Europe, we shall become corrupt
as in Europe, and go to eating one another as
they do there.
Who can look at our great cities today
and say unequivocally that Jefferson was
wrong? Make no mistake about the im-
migrants who come to this country.
They are not going to go down on the
farm; the farm does not need them.
They are going to install themselves in
the Harlems, the Watts, the South Bos-
tons and other over-crowded areas,
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 23884 Approved For Re 04/01/16: CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
~1(R??E~ESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE September 22, 1965
plagued by poverty, ignorance and dis- certain percentage of the foreign-born vised and codified all legislation dealing
ease. The attempt to diffuse and assim- residents of each nationality in the with immigration.
ilate the Hungarian refugees of 1956 United states in 1920. From 1929 the Under this act, the total immigration
failed miserably. By and large they re- annual quotas totaled 153,714. Under quotas remained substantially the same
turned to the big cities. the 1924 act, certain aliens were admitted as in previous acts; however, the first 50
In 1891, Congress passed the second as nonquota immigrants. Persons en- percent-first preference-of the quota
general immigration law and provided titled to be admitted as nonquota under was reserved to certain highly skilled or
for the medical inspection of all newly that act included those born in Western educated persons whose immigration
arrived immigrants. It barred paupers, Hemisphere countries, their wives, hus- would be of advantage to the United
polygamists and those suffering from bands, and children. contagious diseases. That law also pro- The Western Hemisphere countries in- alien Second preference was given to
parents vided for the deportation of all aliens cluded Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, El reference t
o of spouses citizens and third
illegally admitted to the United States, Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nica- al ens who had been admitted lass immi-
and further created the Office of Super- ragua, Panama, Cuba, Dominican Re- grants. The act also set up maximum
intendent of Immigration, Between 1893 public, Haiti, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, quotas of 100 each for colonies and de-
and 1907, Congress passed several laws Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, pendent areas of parent countries. The
to further tighten the restrictions on the Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela. The law McCarran-Walter Act is still the basic
admission of the insane, professional further provided that wives, husbands, law today, and it is this legislation which
beggars, anarchists and other undesir- and children of U.S. citizens would be we are now considering for revision by
ables. It was also during this time that admitted as nonquota Immigrants, to- the proposals contained in S. 500.
Congress empowered the President to en- gether with clergymen and their families, Since 1952, Congress has amended the
ter into international agreements regula- and persons who previously had been McCarran Act and also passed special
ting immigration, and this lead to the American citizens.
so-called gentlemen's agreement which In 1940, Congress passed. the Alien Ilegislation the n 1953, tfor efu ee Reiof refugees-
Theodore .
Theodore Roosevelt made with Japan. Registration Act which required the ized In 209,000 the Refugee Relief nee Act a United
In 1917 Congress codified all previous registration and fingerprinting of all States a n persons to enter she United
provisions which applied to the exclu- aliens who were in the United States and States as anqua immigrants.
sion of aliens and included in this list those who sought to enter. Further changes were made in 1957;
of ineligibles, persons who were illiter- In 1943, the Chinese Exclusion Act was and in 1958, Congress made it possible
ate, psychopathic, chronic alcoholics, repealed. for the Hungarian refugees to come to
vagrants, and persons entering for im- In 1945, the War Brides Act was passed the United States under Public Law
moral purposes. The law also prevented to permit special entry of wives of Armed 85-559. Minor changes were made in
immigration of persons coming from the Forces personnel. Migration
1961, and 1962 in and Refugee Congress enacted Act
geographical area known as the Asiatic The following year Congress permitted androv and Refugee Assistance As
barred zone. Filipinos and persons belonging to races and the appro for assioffue s to assist
In 1921 Congress enacted the first native to India the privilege of admis- those she ho came the Western to assist
quota law and it limited the number of sion to the United States. Also in 1946, phse who came from the Western Hemi-
any nationality entering the United the Congress enacted the G.I. Fiances sphere countries.
States to 3 percent of foreign-born per- Act which permitted entry into the coun- This was specially designed to assist
sons of that nationality who lived in the try of fiances of Armed Forces per- the Cuban refugees fleeing Communist
United States in 1910. Under this law, sonnel. persecution on that island. Also in 1962,
approximately 350,000 aliens were per- The Displaced Persons Act of 1948 other minor changes were made in the
matted to enter the country each year. permitted the immigration of 205,000 Immigration and Nationality Act which
In 1924, Congress enacted the first displaced persons over a period of 2 years. affected preference and priority provi-
permanent quota law and provided for It should be remembered that these sions of the law.
the national origins system which, how- special acts passed by Congress during At this point in my remarks I would
ever, did not become effective until July and after the war permitting additional like to introduce a table prepared by the
1929. From 1924 to 1929, the quota was immigration were over and above those Immigration and Naturalization Service
set at 2 percent of the foreign-born admitted under the yearly quota system. which contains the figures on the num-
-residents in the United States in 1890. In 1952, Congress enacted the Immi- bers of immigrants admitted since 1946
This reduced the yearly quota to about gration and Nationality Act, which is through June 30, 1964.
164,667 persons. Under the national better known as the McCarran-Walter There being no objection, the table was
origins provisions, a quota was set up Act. This law repealed all existing im- ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
for each nationality. All quotas were a migration and nationality laws and re- follows:
Immigrant aliens admitted to the United States by classes under the immigration laws, years ended June 30, 1946--52
Class
1946-59
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
Total immierantsadmitted
------------------------------------------------------
Total quota immigrants
3,114,168
108,721
147,292
170,570
188,317
249,187
205,717
'
265,520
-------------------- - -- -------------------------------
Immigration Act of Ma
1924
d
1,600,426
29,097
70,701
_
92,726
-
113,046
197,460
156,
Z
199,297
y
, an
Immigration and Nationality Act______________
Displaced Persons Act of 1948, as amended (quota)___
1, 033, 134
29, 006
70,618
92
-
73, 075
-
64, 769
769
-
58
376
--
74
037
_____________________________
Other acts ___-____-____________________________----
407,737
1
756
83
1
0
39,899
132,577
,
97,960
,
119,982
rotanonquotammigrants
,
-
0
72
114
231
228
_______________________________---------------------------_
Immigration Act of Ma
26
1924
d
1,613,743
76,591
-
78,044
75,271
61,727
49,170
~71,273
y
,
, an
Immigration and Nationality Act -----------
Wives ofU
S
citizen
1,221, 378
33,809
49,128
54, 603
52, 337
49,479
48,157
68,881
,
.
s__------------------------- --------------------- -------- __
Husbands of U.S.citizens ________.________________________________________
Children of U
S
citi
en
200,508
49,576
2,904
208
5,962
478
8,132
553
7,297
10,735
8,680
16,058
.
.
z
s ___________________________
Hemisphere ------ildren--------__
Natives Western
countries,
their
spouses and
86,586
508
b 647
8
7,969
3,168
6,397
1,453
3,233
822
5
266
793
8
391
en
iti
---- --
-
Persons who o had had been U.S. . citizens__________________ _
Mi
i
886,342
1
34`2
29,63
6 6
36,
9
37,968
36,394
33,238
,
35,266
,
48,391
n
sters of religious denominations, their spouses and children
--
---
,
9
660
3
91 1
1 136
11 110
86
39
32
--------
-
--
Professors of colleges, academies, or universities, their wives and children
Oth
,
4
180
432
102
1,336
1,692
1,233
833
731
578
--__-_
er nonquota immigrants ---------------------------___-_-- -------------
,
11
738
534
997
869
603
467
297
War Brides Act of D
28
04
,
----------
----------
96
91
138
218
268
ec.
, 1
5 -------- ------- -- ---- -
-
Displaced Persons Act of 1948, as amended (nonquota)
----------------------
119,693
45,567
27,212
23,016
22, 214
1, 694
--
-----
Refugee Relief Act of 1973_------_-----________________
4.157
-
233
595
1
982
_____-------------
Act of Sept. 11, 1957 (Public Law85-316)----------------------------------
_______-
Act of Ju y 25, 1958, Hungarian parolees adjustin
t
t
140,
-
--
---
----
----
,
g s
a
us--- ---------- ----_----
_
CtofSep 2,1958, Azores and Netherlands refugees
25,424
----------
----- -----
----------
----- ----
- -- -----
-- --- -
_______________________
Other acts--------------------------------------------------------------`------
1,187
3,653
260
261
~b
4
321
--
418
- ---- --
410
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B0 46R000100290006-4 23885
September 22, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA
Immigrants admitted to the United States by classes under the immigration laws, years ended June 30, 1953-64-Continued
i I I I
Total immigrantsadmitted --------------------------- 3,197,857
Quotainunigrants,total ------------------------------------1,140,479
Immigration and Nationality Act______________________ 1,124,863
1st preference quota:
Selected immigrants of special skill or ability---
Their spouses and children____________ __
Skilled agriculturalists, their wives and children
-----
(1924 act) ------------------------------
Parents or husbands of U.S. citizens (1924 act)__
2d preference quota:
Parents of U.S. citizens____________ ------------
Unmarried sons or daughters of U.S. citizens 2_
wives and children of resident aliens (1924 act)
3d preference quota:
Spouses, of resident aliens-----------------------
Unmarried sons or daughters of resident aliens 3-
4th preference quota:
Brothers or sisters of U.S. citizenss______________
Married sons or daughters of U.S. citizens 2_____
Spouses and children of brothers or sisters, sons
or daughters of U.S. citizens 4_________________
Adopted sons or daughters of U.S. citizens 2_ _ _ _
Nonpreference quota_______________________________
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, the
figures are broken down into two basic
groups of quota immigrants as author-ized under the national origin provision
of the McCarran-Walter Act and non-
quota immigrants who were admitted
under other provisions of the McCarran-
Walter Act or special legislation enacted
by Congress. In the period from 1946
to 1959, some 3,146,168 immigrants were
admitted to the United States. Of these,
less than half, 1,500,425, were admitted
as quota immigrants. The balance were
admitted under special legislation or un-
der other provisions of the McCarran-
Walter Act which did not contain the
limitation of national origins.
I believe that the record will bear out
the fact that few countries have been as
generous as the United States in accept-
30, 600
28, 676
321
4,290
35, 847
2,409
4,133
28, 450
36, 618
22,406
7,928
11, 580
137
911,468
170, 434
84,175
79,053
1, 429
1, 027
321 --------
4,290 _--__---
983 2,783
291
220
63
22
5,759
363
3,180
2,824
1,556
374
74,843
1,776
1,236
2.394
2,604
2, 821
1, 955
1,120
65, 711
1, 946
1,420
2,843
2,902
4,064
1,690
431
Special legislation (quota immigrants)__________________ 15,616
Displaced persons, Displaced Persons Act of 1948
(quota) 15,121
Skilled sheepherders, act of Apr. 9, 1952 (quota) 363
Foreign government officials adjusted under see 13,
act of Sept. 11, 1957 (quota) -----------------------
----------------------------
Nonquota immigrants, total________________________________
______________________ 1,681,285 85,015 112,854 126,136 156,808
Wives ofU.S.citizens ------------------------------ 236,980 5,916 17,145 18,504 21,244
Husbands ofU.S.citizens -------------------------- 73,418 3,359 7,726 6,716 6,788
Children of U.S. citizens___________________________ 70,896 3,268 5,819 5,662 4,710
Natives of Western Hemisphere countries___________ 1, 227, 778 58, 985 78,897 92,620 122, 083
Their spouses and children_____________________ 27,482 2,114 1,629 1,654 1,949
Persons who had been U.S. citizens_______________ 902 104 427 87 44
Ministers of religious denominations, their spouses 5 , 107 387 386 307 350
and children----------------------abroad-------?
Employees of U.S. Government abroad, their
souses, and children________________________205 2 4 9 2
Children born abroad to resident aliens or sub se- 12,117 326 358 348 412
quent to iswlance of visa---- _, __ r _ ~:---__---_ ~a-
-----------------------
Natlpnanty Act ?_______ __
8 664 465 228 226
Othernonquotaimmigrants ------------------------ 3,606
485
Special legislation (nonquota immigrants)_____________ 376,013 1,244 1, 225 29, 423 75, 607
Displaced persons, Displaced Persons Act of 1948 1, 030 1, 030 _
(nonquota) -------------------------------- ---- -
Orphans, act of July 29, 1953________________________ 466 399 67
Refugees, Refugee Relief Act of 1953________________ 189,021 821 29,002
act of Sept. 3,1904 (nonquota)_ 385 ________ _
Skilled sheepherders, Immigrants, act of Sept. 11,1957____________________ 61, 948 ________ __------
Hungarian parolees, act of July 25,1958_____________ 30,701 -------- --------
Azores and Netherlands refugees, act of Sept. 2, 1958_ 22,213 -----------------
Immigrants, sees. 4 and 6, act of Sept. 22, 1959______ 29,337 -----------------
Immigrants, not of Sept.26, 1961-------------------- 15,525 ____-_-- --------
Othernonquotaimmigrants,speciallegislation_____ 412 214 6
Refugee escapees, act of July 14, 1960________________ 6,111
Immigrants, act of Oct.24, 1962_____________________ 18,944 -_______ -_______
75, 473
31
------3
97, 084 1102, 077
2,992 I 3,941
2,739 3,179
3,677
2, 848
3, 783
1,715
1,443
77, 887
--------
4
21,794
5,767
4,799
111,344
2,144
58
ing the displaced and the homeless peo-
ples of the world.
I cannot understand those who attack
our basic law simply because it attempts
to continue the cultural heritage, politi-
cal and social traditions of this Nation.
The Congress has been more than gen-
erous in departing from the basic law of
national origins to take care of special
hardship cases such as the Hungarian
and Cuban refugees. We have more
than met our international responsibili-
ties as a great world power in helping to
alleviate the suffering of oppressed peo-
ple in distressed areas of the world.
It has been argued that, because the
United States contains a large land mass,
it can absorb countless millions of the
world's population. When the vast land
area of Alaska is added to that of the
-------
-
2,719
2,668
2,903
2,029
23,517
5,833
6,970
86,523
2, 052
43
97, 657
97, 651
3,618
3,109
3, 409
4,134
2,162
1,275
--------
22,620
6,913
6,869
66,386
1,810
22
23 24
926 1, 228
4,321
269 590
3, 385
3,681
3,451
376
--
2,767
3,226
1,956
425
1, 044
55
80,987
21,621
6,140
6 454
89,966
2,135
36
485
27
1, 458
4,773
392
-----43
6,612
r),067
8,870
10,314
----32
3,460
3, 758
3,381
931
2,132
3,265
2,346
214
2,572
62
73,923
20,012
6,059
6,480
110,140
2,696
15
406
10
1,411
5,037
116
------9
--------
3,082
122
5,472
13,255
-----18
3,313
3,721
2,252
341
--------
1,786
2,419
2,162
205
2,548
16
71,642
--------
11
169,346
17,316
6,640
6,354
130, 741
2,764
25
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
451
3
1, 495
3,399
152
16
1, 809
51
4,796
5,488.
11,912
27
2,288
2,374
4,006
392
1, 832
3,266
2,187
199
2,887
1
83, 563
--------
40
17,190
6,035
6,981
144,677
3,067
23
462
32
1,611
2, 680
125
------3
213
20
1,888
280
2,848
12
2,005
12,672
2,475
2,387
4,063
369
1, 980
3,929
1,711
161
2,529
3
83, 207
19, 701
6,437
7,531
135, 816
3, 468
18
478
61
1,843
2,585
262
-------i
31
17
--------
--------
765
12
4,106
6,272
I In 1953, figures include admissions under Immigration Act of 1924. 3 Prior to act of Sept. 22, 1969, included only children under 21 of resident aliens.
rior to act of agerwere classified as Sept. 4th preference quota under the Immigration and Nationality Adult 4 Prior to aetof Sept. 22, 1959, c1 ssified s nonprefe ence quota.
2
reference quota. 5 Not Act. Adopted sons and daughters with petitions approved prior to Sept. 22, 1959, a Includes rte professors of colleges and universities and their wives and children.
remained 4th preference.
U.S. mainland, it is argued that we can
easily accommodate many millions more.
The fact of the matter is the total pop-
ulation of Alaska today is not sufficient to
maintain a good-sized town and there is
no indication that immigrants coming
into this country desire to move to
Alaska. I do not have the figures avail-
able, but I seriously doubt that any of
the Cuban, Hungarian, or other refugees
have migrated to Alaska. The truth of
the matter is, as I have pointed out
earlier, that new immigrants to this
country move into the huge urban areas
primarily on the east and west coasts
and add further to the population ex-
plosion problem with which we and the
rest of the world are faced. There are
no new frontiers in the United States
where pioneers can settle and establish
 23886 Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE September 22, 1965
homes for themselves and their children. gation either moral or legal to admit rest of the world. We spend a vast
Using Samuel Lubbell's definition-that anyone who wishes to enter. As I have amount of money to maintain an agency
a frontier exists where a man faces a stated previously, we are no longer a called the U.S. Information Agency.
fact-the only frontiers remaining in small group of colonies with a small if our vast bureaucracy cannot ade-
this Nation are those which exist in the population where European and other quately inform the peoples of the world
sprawling urban areas where the poor powers have the right to dump their of what we have done for the sake of
and culturally backward groups must excess population which includes debt- humanity in admitting countless millions
fight to maintain a subsistence living. ors, criminals, and others.
Changes in our immigration law would This is a mature country with a com- foreign of Hungarian, Cn into our r so and other
only add to the ghettos which already plicated social structure requiring citi- believe it is time to question the qualifi-
great cities. zens with great technical skills who can cations of those who purport to head
I have prepared a table which I am not only support themselves but who this bureaucracy.
introducing at this point in my remarks, can make worthwhile contributions to Secretary Rusk is vague as to who these
showing a comparison from 1920 through the Nation.
1964 of the annual immigration figures I have read with great foreigners are who find discrimina-
ployea in this country.
There being no objection, the table
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Anmial
immigration
Unemploy-
ment (In
thousands)
2820-----------------------
430,001
1921-----------------------
805, 228
O
1922
3o9
bye
1929
,
522, 919
1924-----------------?-----
706
896
1925
,
294,314
2026 -----------------------
304488
W
335, 175
----------------------
307,265
O
1029-----------------------
279,678
1
550
1930-----------------------
241700
,
4
340
1931-------
97,139
,
8
020
1932-----------------------
36,576
,
12,060
1933---------------------
28,068
12
830
1934----------------------
29, 470
,
11
840
1935-----------------------
84, 956
,
10
610
1936----------
86,329
,
9
030
1937-----------------------
80, 244
,
7 700
1938-----------------------
67
8
10 390
1939-----------------------
82,
998
8480
I940-----------------------
70
756
8
120
1941-45--------------------
1
,
I946-----------------------
108,721
Z 270
1947-- - ---- - --------------
1948--?-----------------?
147,292
170,570
20
2
0664
1949
188,317
,
3
395
1950-----------------------
249,187
,
3
142
1951-----------------------
2(15, 717
,
949
M2 ----------------------
1953---------------------
265, 520
I70, 434
---------1
871
1954-----------------------
208,177
,
3
580
1955-----------------------
237,790
,
1956-----------------------
321
625
2
3957_
,
326
867
,936
2
936
im -----------------------
1959-----------------------
,
260 86
,
3 3,813
1960----------------------
265,398
8
1961-----------------------
271,344
4,
807
N62---------------------
283,763
4
008
1963----------------------
306, 260
,
4
166
1964
292,248
,
3,878
3 Unavailable.
2 Figures for war years are not significant because small
immigration and small unemployment were due to
wartime conditions.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, it
makes little sense to me to continue to
accept large numbers of immigrants
when we have almost 4 million unem-
ployed In the United States at the pres-
ent time. I am personally in favor of
halting all immigration for 5 years in
order that the problem may be thor-
oughly studied, with a view to determin-
ing the effects of immigration upon the
labor market, the success or failure of
assimilation of these foreign groups
coming into the country, and the effects
upon our urban areas. It should always
be remembered that immigration is a
privilege to be conferred upon foreign
persons by the Congress of the United
States. No one has a right to become a
citizen of this country, and the people
of the United States are under no obli-
present immigration policy. They are, "" 61" "1UC17aiis who permit only Negroes
- to
as I said before, those persons who ap-14. bimmigrate to their country? Could
th
e Australians who bar all Negroes
parently feel that the natural resources a
of this Nation do not belong to its citi- and Orientals from entering the country
tens exclusively. They seem to be down under?" Could it be the Arabs
racked with guilt feelings do not allow the infidel Christians
rigs over the fact to approach closer than 12 miles to
that Americans are, by and large, much Mecca and Medina? I was recently in-
better off materially and spiritually than formed that the National Broadcasting
most of the world's population. Co. is going to establish a TV system for
When the Secretary of State, Mr. Dean Saudi Arabia and that they first had to
Rusk, appeared before the Senate Sub- train Saudian nationals in the opera-
committee on Immigration and Natural- tion of technical equipment because only
ization, he made the point that, because the faithful could enter these holy cities
of our national origins quota system, it of Mecca and Medina.
was embarrassing to him to conduct our Could the forei
foreign policy because we showed a gners who criticize the
peculiar preference to maintain our cul- United States be Africans, particularly
tural and political institutions as they from those new countries who do not ad-
have been for almost 200 years. snit any Westerners except under limited
Mr. Rusk seems to feel it is discrimi-
nation on our part because we do not let
untold numbers of Orientals come into
this country. I had always thought
that it was the duty of the Secretary of
State and his Department to conduct
our foreign policy in a way which was
most advantageous to the country and
to represent the American people to the
rest of the world for what we are and
what we believe and what we wish for
others. It would appear from Mr.
Rusk's statement that we might have to
change the whole composition of the
Nation in order to make his job easier so
that when he holds these interminable
and innumerable conferences he cannot
be accused of representing a system
which discriminates. If we examine
Mr. Rusk's complaint and the com-
plaints of those foreign elements who
criticize our immigration policy, it seems
apparent that there is no basis at all for
criticism.
He says that, when a foreigner sits
down and reads our immigration law, he
Is immediately appalled by the fact that
we prefer immigrants from western and
northern Europe. Let us examine that
for a moment; just how many immi-
grants sit down and read our Immigra-
tion Act? Mr. Rusk says that they are
not aware of the fact that we have
passed innumerable pieces of legislation
which have permitted several million
people to come into this country without
regard to national origin. I suspect
that these foreigners are more aware of
that than the national origins provision
of the McCarran-Walter Act. If they
are not sufficiently aware of this legisla-
tion, It is a failure on the part of the
Department of State to adequately pre-
sent our position to the peoples of the
conditions? Could it be those black na-
tionalists who are crying "Africa for the
Africans?" I must say that I am at a
loss to know who these foreigners are
who the Secretary of State shows such
deference to and whose criticism makes
his job so burdensome.
According to the administration's new
immigration proposals, the national
origins quota system would be phased out
over a 5-year period. Mr. Rusk says that
this is necessary because if we did not
do that those countries in Western and
Northern Europe which now have priority
would be swamped by the Asians and
Africans coming into the United States,
and that, because we must be respectful
of the sensibilities of our allies-England,
Germany, France, Italy-we cannot
abruptly terminate this preferential
treatment.
In other words, our NATO alliance
might encounter difficulties if the im-
migration bars are suddenly lowered on
a first-come, first-served basis. This
system of first-come, first-served would
completely push Western Europe to one
side. Mr. Rusk goes on to say that we
are going to show preferential treatment
to the highly skilled and the superbly
trained. In admitting immigrants on a
first-come, first-served basis, does he ex-
pect these people to come here from
Tobago, the Congo, or Indonesia? I re-
pectfully , submit that the superbly
trained will come either from Western
and Northern Europe or they will not
come at all.
Secretary Rusk says in his statement
before the Senate subcommittee:
The governmonts of these newly Independ-
ent nations (Jamaica and Trinidad-Tobago)
have made strong representations to our Gov-
ernment, asking to be placed on equal foot-
ing with other American states.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4 23887
-September 22, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: SENATE
It is interesting to note that Trinidad- The Scandanavian countries show a is unwilling to take such a step in the
Tobago has banned practically all im- decided preference in their laws for their light of the hearings had on the pending
migration into that country, especially own kind. Germany and Austria have bill and expressions heretofore made by
from Jamaica and Barbados. It makes special arrangements governing the in- Members taken of Congress. e I applaud the
from
one wonder. I sincerely regret that these terchange of citizens. There are a num- action, tae limiting immigttee o the
"strong representations" from Tobago ber of countries in the world which have s in the
Western have caused our Secretary of State to no immigration policy whatever, and this the count Iesannot see my way H emit-
tremble in the exercise of his office. is due to the fact that they are over- phere,
Mr. Rusk goes further in saying: populated and have been primarily con- supporting the pending measure, and I
As a leader in the struggle for freedom, we cerned with emigration. shall all vote against it.
, would
are expected to exemplify all that freedom I am not at all critical of the immigra- the Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. Mr. . P Prressideidenntwould
means. We have proclaimed again and tion policies of other countries because chusetts distinguished a I maa-
ad-
questions me me s o that
to him may this
again, from the Declaration of Independence of the fact that they are similar to our chless is yield
until the present day,.that freedom is the own. I submit that they have a rea-
right of all men. The rest of the world sonable basis for showing a preference time relating to the pending bill?
watches us closely to see whether or not we for their own and that no country can Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I
live up to the great principles we have pro- be expected to import problems ap- am delighted to yield to the Senator.
claimed and premotdd. Our blemishes de- Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator.
It is our enemies and dismay our friends. prs easily g the insoluble. understandable to why I have received what amounts to al-
Britons prefer chance to to chancce e the destruc- most a flood of mail from the people of
I do not see how any reasonable or It
responsible foreigner could gain the im- tion of the Commonwealth rather than my State opposing the enactment of this
pression from our Declaration of Inde- the destruction of the United Kingdom bill.
pendence or from any of our other state- by passing by the Commonwealth Immi- I have tried to express in the form of
ments of principle that there is a legal grants Act of 1962. One need only look a few questions matters which seem to
or moral right for the world's popula- at the present India-Pakistan war, or the be disturbing them most. It is as to
tion to move into our country. I am secession of Singapore from Malaysia to those questions which I will address my
very much afraid that the Secretary of appreciate the valid and legitimate rea- friend, the distinguished Senator from
State has permitted Communist propa- sons for making distinctions of race and Massachusetts, believing that it might
ganda attacks upon our country to sway religion in immigration policy. be a good thing to have the answers to
his good judgment. It is unfortunate I would like to quote a short excerpt these questions assembled in one place
that some foreigners may also have been from Kenneth Rivett's book "Immigra- in the RECORD so that they can be easily
taken in by these attacks upon Amer- tion: Control or Colour Bar," Melbourne, furnished to the many people who have
ican principle. I cannot see how any- 1962, in which he discusses the 1952 Im-. these particular objections to the pro-
one of reasonable intelligence can really migration Act of Canada. posed bill.
blame the American people for wishing I have selected this reference material First, I have many letters stating that
to maintain their cultural, ethnic, and as indicative of most nations' policy on it is understood that under this bill, ac-
political traditions in their historic con- immigration and naturalization. The cording to the best estimate, the number
text. My experience in traveling in the quotation from this book is as follows: of immigrants to our Nation will be in-
countries of the world has been that these The 1952 Immigration Act (of Canada) creased by something like 60,000 to 70,000
people are not so naive or unsophisti- did not distinguish specifically between per year over the current volume of im-
eated as to expect us to change the com- European and Asian migrants, but left the migration.
position of this country to satisfy some government power to issue regulations gov- I wish to ask the Senator if that is
criticism at this moment in history. erning the admission or exclusion of mi- correct. I heard him the other day and
In considering the charge that Amer- grants (under art. 61) on grounds of: I believe I heard him mention 60,000 peo-
ican immigration policy discriminates, it I. Nationality, citizenship, ethnic origin, ple.
is only necessary to examine the policies occupation, class or geographical area of Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
origin; Yes. It would be between 50,000 and
of other nations to readily establish that II. Peculiar customs, habits, modes of life,
they all show a strong preference for or method of holding property; 60,000 and it' might go up to 70,000 to
people culturally and racially similar to In. Unsuitability having regard to cli- 80,000. The best judgment of the peo-
their own. Some nations exclude matic, economic, social, industrial, educa- ple concerned with this matter is an es-
immigrants strictly on the basis of tional, labor, health, or other condi- timate between 50,000 and 60,000.
race and religion. However, other tions * * * in Canada. Mr. HOLLAND. Apparently there is
IV. Probable inability to become readily as- a good estimate running as high as 70,-
than those nations which have these similated or to assume the duties and re-
outright bans on certain groups, sponsibilities of Canadian citizenship within 000 from various well-informed sources
most countries empower a Cabinet of- a reasonable time after admission. that have reached me.
facer, usually the Minister of Labor or In general, these powers have been applied Let us say the distinguished Senator
Immigration, with total discretion in ad- to limit nonwhite immigration very drasti- is of the feeling that the number will be
mitting immigrants. The laws of other cally, so that there is clearly a "racial" basis increased. As I understand him he be-
countries are usually vague and the par- to Canada's policy, just as there is to Aus- lieves the best estimate is between 50,000
titular immigration official is guided only tralia's. Yet it has not given rise to any- and 60,000.
by considerations of labor supply, the reaso liha the been thnof offense. agree- Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
reason has been the negotiation eg y , That is correct. I might add to that
health and character of the immigrant ments with India, Pakistan and Ceylon,
and the ability to become readily assimi- from which 300 (originally 150), 100 and that under the present law there are
lated into the native population. It is 59 immigrants are admitted respectively each about 55,000 quota numbers which are
this wide discretion which other nations year. authorized and not used.
use to maintain an unofficial national It is significant that the quota for Ceylon I believe last year between 102,000 and
origins system. has generally not been filled, whereas in 103 000 came in under the quotas, which
Persons of foreign races are always India over 20,000 people applied for the 150 places. left about 55,000 not used.
.
most, difficult to assimilate and, there- So we expect between 50,000 and 60,-
fore, constitute a moral basis for the Mr. President, when the McCarran- 000 people to come in over current ex-
Minister of Labor to exclude them. Walter bill was sent to the White House perience. And this number is about equal
The 1952 Immigration Act of Canada, in 1952 for approval by President Tru- to the quota numbers now authorized but
while not distinguishing specifically be- man, he vetoed it. I voted to override wasted.
tween races, empowers the Canadian of- the Presidential veto. Mr. HOLLAND. Then the total would
ficials with the right to exclude anyone I have since resisted any substantial proximate 350,000.
who indicates a probable inability to be- changes in that act, and I am not now approximate of Massachusetts. I
come readily assimilated, or to assume willing to vote for all the changes pro- believe that would be correct.
the duties and responsibilities of Cana- Posed. I would be willing, as I said ear-
i citizenship within a reasonable lier, to suspend our tthat Mr.
has,been rased The is this second time the
tafter ter their their admission, for, say, 5 years. I know that Congress
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 23888
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
-CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE September 22, 1965
present condition of continuous unem-
ployment, which apparently Is disturbing
industry, labor, and Government, and all
of us in this Nation, why is it deemed
desirable to bring In a substantially in-
creased number of immigrants each
year?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I
would respond to the distinguished Sen-
ator from Florida in two ways.
We had an earlier dialog with the
-Senator from Iowa relating to this to
some extent.
Under the present McCarran-Walter
Act, 50 percent of the preferences are
given to professionals. That is under
the first preference. We have changed
that under H.R. 2580 and the first two
preferences would go to those with
Samily relationships. Only In the third
category, 10 percent of the total, are
those that come in as professionals. The
-fourth and fifth preferences come down
to different family relationships. The
it xth preference is for skilled and un-
~akiiled labor... The. seventh preference
goes to refugees.
Even those who will come in under the
third and sixth preferences, it should be
noted that the provisions that will be
applied to them will be more stringent
;than those applicable under the require-
ments of current law.
I believe we have been able to give
assurances, certainly to the AFL-CIO
and all the other groups that have been
interested and have the responsibility
of looking after the welfare of the jobs
of American Industry, that they will be
not only protected in the labor market,
but those who come in under these
categories would not affect labor stand-
ards or conditions under which they
would work.
We have had considerable testimony
on this subject in committee. The case
on it has been very convincing. I read
from page 15 of the committee report:
Under the provision of existing law con-
tained in section 212(a) (14) of the Immi-
gration and Nationality Act, foreign labor
is subject to exclusion only when the Secre-
tary of Labor certifies that either (1) there
are sufficient workers in the United States
who are able, willing, available, and qualified
at the alien's destination to perform the
skilled or unskilled labor, or (2) that the
employment of the alien will adversely affect
the wages and working conditions of the
workers in the United States. This has the
effect of excluding any intending immigrant
within the scope of the certification who
would likely displace a qualified American
worker or whose employment in the United
States would adversely affect the wages and
working conditions of workers similarly em-
ployed In the United States. Under the in-
stant bill, .this procedure is substantially
changed. The primary responsibility is
placed upon the intending immigrant to ob-
tain the Secretary of Labor's clearance prior
to the issuance of a visa establishing (1)
that there are not sufficient workers in the
'United states at the alien's destination who
are able, willing, and qualified to perform
the skilled or unskilled labor and (2) that
the employment of the alien will not ad-
versely affect wages and working conditions
of V.S. citizens similarly employed. The pro-
vision is applicable to immigrants from the
Western Hemisphere, other than immediate
relatives, nonpreference immigrants, and
those preference immigrants who seek en-
trance into the United States for the primary
purpose of gainful employment, whether in
a semiskilled or skilled category or as a mem-
ber of the professions, arts, or sciences. The
certification must be obtained in individual
cases before a visa may be issued to the in-
tending immigrant.
These are the safeguards which are
provided so far as the working people
are concerned.
Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from
Massachusetts does not believe that the
admission of 60,000 more immigrants a
year will Increase the unemployment
problem. Is that correct?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
The Senator Is correct. I would add
that only about 45 percent of new im-
migrants, on the basis of past immigra-
tion experience, would go into the work
force. The remainder would be con-
sumers.
As the Senator from Hawaii [Mr.
Foxe] has pointed out, those who would
come in under the third preference would
possess particular skills which are needed
in the United States. They could fill
jobs which today are not filled suffi-
ciently with trained people. By filling
these jobs, these people will create more
jobs for American workers.
In response to the question of the Sen-
ator from Florida, I do not believe that
we are endangering either the jobs or
the livelihoods of American workers.
Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator.
The third question which seems to dis-
turb an unduenumber of my people, as
reflected in the correspondence which I
have received, is that they note that the
Immediate members of a family joining a
former immigrant to the United States
are not included in the quota.
I believe that applies to the spouses
and children, and the father and the
mother, and may even go further; but
certainly a sizable number of the im-
mediate family are not included In the
quota. -
Was there any reason for their being
excluded from the quota?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. It
Is based upon the fundamental belief that
in our immigration policy we should put
a- high premium on keeping families to-
gether. We feel that if an individual is
sufficiently qualified to meet the other
criteria, criteria which have been detailed
in the bill, he should not be separated
from his family, a condition which exists
today under the - present McCarran-
Walter Act.
I refer the Senator to the Bureau of
Security and Consular Affairs, which
lists, under the second preference, the
number of people, going into the thou-
sands, who have family relationships and
are separated from their families. We
believe that preference ought to be given
to them, and that they should be per-
mitted to come into the country.
We have estimated, as the Senator
from Florida has accurately determined,
that the number would be between 50,000
60,000. They are included in the over-
all figure, which, as the Senator has in-
dicated, Is about 330,000.
Mr. HOLLAND. The fourth question
I wish to ask-and I think I know the
answer-is this: Is any. distinction made
between the members of families of im-
migrants already in the United States
and those who would come in as new im-
migrants? Would they be included in
the quota or not?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
High preference would be given to un-
married brothers and sisters of U.S. citi-
zens. The first category is unmarried
brothers and sisters of aliens. Then the
preference goes to professional groups,
which is the third preference. The
fourth relates to married brothers and
sisters. The fifth preference is to
brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens.
They are the ones who have close family
relationship but are not given nonquota
status. Therefore, a special nonquota
status Is given to those who are members
of families of U.S. citizens.
Mr. HOLLAND. I do not believe the
Senator clearly understood my question.
My question was this: Is there any dif-
ference between relatives of migrants
who are already here, whether citizens
or not, and relatives of migrants who
will be coming in under the bill, as to
their being charged or not charged to
the quota?
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Florida yield?
Mr. HOLLAND. I yield.
Mr. ERVIN. As I understand the bill,
every person who comes as an immigrant
is charged to the limitation, except cer-
tain relatives of one who is already here
as an American citizen.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
That is exactly correct.
Mr. ERVIN. In other words, if an
alien is living here as a permanent resi-
dent but has not yet become a citizen,
relatives may still come in as a part of
the quota. Persons who come in out-
side the limitations are those who are
relatives of American citizens.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
Relatives of aliens would come in under
a lower preference.
Mr. ERVIN. Under the bill, the only
persons who could come in from the
Eastern Hemisphere, or outside the lim-
itation of 170,000, are children, spouses,
and parents of citizens of the United
States. There is a further limitation
that parents must be the parents of a
citizen who is at least 21 years of age.
Mr. HOLLAND. Then there is a dif-
ference in the charging to the quota or
not charging to the quota as between
immigrants already in the United States
seeking- to bring their relatives in, and
those who seek to bring them in with
them after the passage of the law.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. HOLLAND. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. The Senator from
Florida is making a good point. His
question may be misunderstood. His
question is this, as I understand: if a
person who comes into the United States
let us say, in 1970, has relatives abroad,
under what condition may he bring the
relatives in? It is my understanding
that under the bill, whoever comes in in
1970 will have to come in under the over-
all number.
Mr. HOLLAND. Regardless of how
close the relationship is.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 Approved For Release 2004/01/16 CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
September 22, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
Mr. PASTORE. Regardless of how
close the relationship is. In other words,
the exception is being made as to the
people already in the United States; and
at the time of the signing of the bill there
will be the authority, the exemption, in
order to provide for family unification.
But beyond that point, any relatives who
come in new, so to speak, will come in as
immigrants and must be counted among
the number.
Mr. HOLLAND. If the family came
in under the new law, each one would
count regardless, and each would be
charged to the quota.
Mr. PASTORE. To the number, not
the quota.
Mr. HOLLAND. To the quota.
Mr. PASTORE. I detest the word
"quota."
Mr. HOLLAND. I do not share that
feeling; but they would be chargeable to
that limited number and then would be
permitted to come In.
Mr. PASTORE. The Senator is cor-
rect.
Mr. HOLLAND. But that Is not the
case with reference to some people, where
the immigrant is already here under
existing law.
Mr. PASTORE. That is correct.
Mr. HOLLAND. That is what I wanted
to bring out.
My next question is this: A great many
people in Florida have moved there from
Canada, and we are glad to have them.
Many of them have come from Latin
America, as the Senator from Massa-
chusetts knows, because he has checked
the situation in that State.
We have received numerous com-
plaints from Canadian residents-many
of them are citizens now-with refer-
ence to what they say would be the first
restrictions ever to be imposed upon im-
migration from Canada, other than re-
strictions of health, character, and those
classifications. Why were the Canadians,
restricted in the pending measure?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The
Canadians are not restricted as a nation,
except as they are included in the hemi-
spheric quota.
Mr. HOLLAND. I understand that,
but the result is exactly the same.
If there is a limitation in part that
applies to Canada and the Caribbean
nations, such as Mexico and Central
America, and to all of South America,
that means that the restriction in part
applies to all. The question is, Why
was that deemed necessary, consider-
ing the very great likeness between
the Canadians and ourselves, and the
fact that there is no problem at all about
assimilating Canadians into our com-
munities?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I
was not generally in sympathy with that
amendment, so I shall ask the sponsor
of the amendment to respond.
Mr. ERVIN. The majority of the sub-
committee and the majority of the full
committee imposed the limitation of
120,000 on the Western Hemisphere be-
cause they felt that if this were to be a
bill to abolish discrimination, the bill
ought to' abolish the most obvious dis-
crimination-that which provided that
all the people of the Western Hemi-
sphere could immediately move into the
United States, so far as any limitation
upon numbers was concerned, whereas
only 170,000 could come in from the
Eastern Hemisphere.
We who favored a limitation upon im-
migration on the Western Hemisphere
felt that the limitation should be placed
now rather than be left open to a future
time, when the increase in immigration
from the Western Hemisphere might en-
danger unemployment. In other words,
we felt that the nations of the Western
Hemisphere should not be allowed to
move en masse to the United States,
when the nations of the Eastern Hemi-
sphere could not.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I thank
my distinguished friend for answering
that question.
The other horn of the dilemma arises
from complaints of those who have come
from Latin America. We have perhaps
200,000 to 300,000 of these people in our
State at the present time. Many of them
are among our finest people. They say
that they see no reason or no justifica-
tion at a time when we are moving ahead
with the Alliance for Progress and are
setting ourselves up as big brothers of
Latin America, in particular, for a re-
strictive provision relating to Latin
American immigration.
I should like to have this question an-
swered, if the distinguished Senator
from Massachusetts will answer it, as to
why we should be, for the first time, pro-
pose restriction.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, as I stated, I am not in sym-
pathy with that provision. Therefore,
I should like to have the Senator from
North Carolina respond.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, the ma-
jority of the committee felt that we had
reached a point in our Nation's history
at which we can no longer have unre-
stricted immigration from any part of
the earth. The figures show that immi-
gration from the Western Hemisphere is
now in the neighborhood, of 140,000 or
145,000 a year. It has been constantly
increasing. Immigration from South
America alone has increased by 400 per
.cent in the past 10 years. It is necessary,
if we are to have restrictions on immi-
gration, that we should have a restriction
on immigration from all areas of the
world, and that we ought not to invite
all the people of the Western Hemisphere
to come into the United States immedi-
ately. This defect was the result of the
McCarran-Walter Act placing no limita-
tion upon immigration from the Western
Hemisphere.
A majority of the subcommittee and a
majority of the full committee felt that
we ought to place a limitation upon im-
migration from the Western Hemisphere
at this time before the problem became
as acute as that which existed in immi-
gration from the Eastern Hemisphere, in
1920, when we received approximately
1,500,000 immigrants in an 18-month
period.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I
23889
thank the distinguished Senator. If I
understand the situation, the result of
that limitation would be to place an
immediate reduction on the number of
possible immigrants from Canada and
the rest of the Western Hemisphere,
which limitation would come to a head in
about 3 years.
Mr. ERVIN. It would not take effect
until July 1, 1968. There would .be a
period of adjustment, and the number
fixed would be approximately the num-
ber that comes from the Western Hemi-
sphere at this time.
Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the distin-
guished Senator.
The last question which has been posed
by a good many people is, Why for the
first time, are the emerging nations of
Africa to be placed on the same basis
as are our mother countries, Britain,
Germany, the Scandinavian nations,
France, the Mediterranean nations, and
the other nations from which most Amer-
icans have come?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
They are sovereign nations. They are
.recognized by the United States. There
does not appear to be any reason why
we should not do so.
Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator feels
that we have not learned anything at
all about the difficulties which have
arisen from the racial admixtures in our
country, and, to the contrary, we are
going to open the immigration doors
equally to the African nations in the
same way that we opened the immigra-
tion doors to the Western European na-
tions.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
The Senator is correct if he is suggesting
that we are going to accept immigrants,
regardless of whether they come from
Africa or any other country on the basis
of what they can contribute to the United
States, and not on the basis of their
origin or the origin of their parents.
If the question of the Senator is wheth-
er we are including the countries of Afri-
ca on the same basis as other nations, I
am happy to state that the countries of
Africa are so included.
The individuals from African nations
who apply for admission to the United
States will be considered in exactly the
same way as individuals coming from
Great Britain, France, Ireland, the
Scandinavian countries, or any other na-
tion.
Mr. HOLLAND. If I may interpret
that statement, the African nations
would be placed on exactly an equal sta-
tus with the nations of Western Europe.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
The Senator has stated that accurately.
Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator.
Mr. ERVIN Mr. President, I say to
the Senator from Florida that I believe
the answer to that last question arose
from the fact that the President of the
United States and a great majority of
the Members of the Senate and a great
majority of the Members of the House do
not entertain the same sound views on
immigration that I do. They do not be-
lieve that we should continue in exist-
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 23890
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE September 22, 1965
ence the national origins quota system
of the McCarran-Walter Act.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I am
sorry that the distinguished Senator has
not been able to prevail in the commit-
tee, of which he is a most able member.
I fully agree that the last answer in
particular demonstrates a situation
which I do not believe is in accord with
the experience which we are having in
this country and which, to the contrary,
runs in the face of the most unpleasant
domestic experience which we have ever
had, at least within. my lifetime, in the
United States.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I will an-
swer that question from the standpoint
of those who did not entertain my own
sound views on this subject. This pro-
vision was placed in the bill because a
majority of the subcommittee and a
majority of the full committee felt that
all the nations on earth-that is, all the
nations of the Eastern Hemisphere-
should be placed in a position of equality
in respect to the privilege of immigrat-
ing to the United States.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
Mr. President, the Senator from North
Carolina has stated his position and his
reservations about the elimination of the
national origins quota system. However,
I should like to respond to the Senator
from Florida that the provisions of this
bill received the overwhelming support
of the members of the full committee,
with some notable exceptions.
We would not be assuming our full
responsibility under this particular bill,
nor would we be achieving the aims and
aspirations of the people who are con-
cerned with the measure and the Ameri-
can people as a whole unless we clearly
provided that our policy on any immi-
gration bill would be based upon the
individuals involved and not upon the
country from which they came.
I believe that one of the most laud-
able aspects of the entire bill is the elimi-
nation of the racist factor. We have
eliminated the Asia-Pacific triangle
which was based solely on the basis of
origin. I do not see how anyone can
stand on the floor of the Senate in 1965
and oppose this legislation after looking
at our present legislation which contains
the crude Asia-Pacific triangle which
provides "If 51 percent of your blood-
can be traced to that area of the world,
you will be chargeable to that area re-
gardless of your birth."
This is the very basic root of this leg-
islation. I am delighted to be asked that
question by the Senator from Florida.
It is my interpretation, and I believe
the interpretation of the majority of the
members of the committee, and those
who have read the proposed legislation,
that the provisions of this bill eliminates
all references to race considerations.
After we pass this bill-and it will be
passed-we shall consider individuals on
the basis of their own merit and not con-
sider them solely upon the basis of which
country they come from or the basis of
their last name, or on the basis of their
religion, or the color of their skin.
As many Senators have pointed out,
this is a historic occasion. The bill we
will pass today will be considered, in the
light of history, as one of the most im-
portant accomplishments of this Con-
gress.
There was a time when the drawing of
distinctions among immigrants on the
basil of nationality was a popular con-
cept. But we have learned something
adnce the 1920's. We have learned that
there is no difference between people who
participate in the life of our Nation. The
refugee scientists who fled Nazi Germany
taught us this. The Japanese-Ameri-
cans who fought and died in our Armed
Forces taught us this, and the 400 or more
aliens currently fighting in Vietnam are
continuing this fine tradition. The dis-
placed persons who have become our
community leaders reinforce this point
each day. And the hundreds of thou-
sands of immigrants who have come here
in recent years, who have prospered and
become 'good Americans and who have
strengthened our economy is the final
proof. Today we are going to vote the
lessons we have learned from them.
And I think it is extremely appropriate
that this action is taken this year. It is
a natural and logical extension of the
increasing quality that we are bringing
to our domestic and foreign policy. This
is the year we have assured the equal
right to vote. This is the year we have
assured equality in educational oppor-
tunity. This is the year we have elimi-
nated discrimination against the poor
and the aged and the members of mi-
nority groups who are American citizens.
Is is only appropriate then that we elimi-
nate this discrimination against people
who want to be American citizens.
For if there is one guiding principle
to this bill, it is that we are going to
treat all men and women who want to
come to this country as individuals, equal
in the eyes of the law and subject to the
same standards. We are not going to
ask where they come from or who their
fathers were. We will only ask, in the
words of President Kennedy, what they
can do for this, their new country.
Let us erase forever today the stereo-
type of the immigrant in our history.
The cities of America no longer have the
foreign neighborhoods, the cultural
Islands,-separate, unassimilated, a drag
on the Nation. They are gone and
policies based on them should be gone.
The immigrant of today can do a great
deal for his-country and he should be
admitted on that basis.
This bill will also bring our immigra-
tion policy in line with the foreign policy
of our country.
We have sent tens of thousands of
American soldiers to Vietnam to defend
the people of that country because we
believe that as free people they are
worthy of our support. But if the finest
citizen of Vietnam wanted to come and
live in America today, he would have to
wait for many years.
We have made a mighty effort- in the
United Nations to end the dispute be-
tween Pakistan and India, because we
admire the Indian people and we admire
the Pakistani people and we wa M them
to live in peace. But if the finest citi-
zen of India or Pakistan wanted to come
here to live in America, even if he were
a doctor, or a scientist or : professor, or
the parent of an American, he would be
told, as so many have been told, that
they would have to wait for many years.
We poured billions of dollars into the
reconstruction of countries like Italy and
Greece because we believed in the future
of those countries. But even their best
qualified citizens today are told that they
must wait for many years, if they want
to come and make a contribution to this
country.
How long can we continue to show
these two faces of our foreign policy?
How long can we continue to say to the
people of these countries "we admire you
and respect you and we will help you;
but if you want to live among us, we will
reject you." I say we can do this no
longer. We must conform our immi-
gration policy to our policies as a Nation
and our principles as a people.
The numbers involved in this bill are
very small compared. to the principle
which it establishes. The people who will
be admitted under it will continue to
adjust to our country with the speed and
dispatch of past immigrants. New im-
migrants will make more jobs than they
will take. This bill will show the world
that in this country by giving oppor-
tunity to some, we do not take it away
from others, but expand it for all.
I strongly believe that this bill goes
to the very central ideals of our country.
If there is one principle characteristic
that has distinguished us throughout our
history it is that we are the land of op-
portunity. Our streets may not be paved
with gold, but they are paved with the
promise that men and women who live
here-even strangers and new new
comers an rise as fast, as far as their
skills will allow-no matter what the':r
name is, no matter what their color is,
no matter what their place of birth. We
have never fully achieved this ideal.
But by striving to approach it, we re-
affirm the principles of our country.
Where we depart from it we reject those
principles. Today we have a chance to
reaffirm them.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I
thank the Senator for his very clear an-
swer. I want the RECORD to show that
the many people from my State who
have complained to me about this mat-
ter are correctly informed. As I under-
stand it now, all nations on earth, in-
cluding our mother nations of Western
Europe, including the merging nations
of Africa, including the subcontinent,
including the oriental nations, including
Latin America, and including Canada,
are placed on exactly the same basis
because they are nations, and their peo-
ple would be on exactly the same basis
in hoping to come into our country as
immigrants to join our own population.
I believe that there could not be a
clearer statement of that fact than the
statement made by the Senator. Whim
he has made it with considerable fer-
vor, I can understand that, and I believe
the RECORD should show what has been
brought out.
I do not believe that what we are be-
ing asked to do has been brought out
in the RECORD heretofore. We are being
asked to forget about origin, to forget
about the percentage of people who are
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : 1~AL RECORD BOS$4TATE 100290006-4 23891
September 22, 1965 CC.)1~fiGRESSYd
now here as our nationals and who are I know a great many people of the col- [Mr. KENNEDY] has said, we are past
being assimilated in the bloodstream of ored race, and I suspect I have more that period in the history of the United
America, to forget about the, racial diffi- friends among that race than the Sena- States when we judge a person by his last
culties through which we have passed, tor would believe. I have yet to find one, name or his place of birth or where his
not only during the recent clash between in recent years, who has been able to grandfather or grandmother came from,
the people of the white and the black give me much information on the sub- or how much money he has or what clubs
races, but also during World War II in ject which I am discussing. he belongs to. I hope we shall start
the other field, as between the white race Mr. KENNEDY of New York. May I anew, to judge people on what their
and the yellow race. We are being asked ask the Senator from Florida a question? merit is, on what they can contribute to
to forget about any question of that. Perhaps he could suggest to the Senate the country, on what they can contribute
kind. Certainly I shall not find fault why it is that those who came from to their communities, on what they can
with anybody who has come to that con- Africa are unable to say where they came contribute to their families. That is the
elusion. I do not question the good con- from. whole philosophy of the immigration
science of anybody who has come to that Mr. HOLLAND. They did not come as bill, and that that was the whole phil-
conclusion. However, insofar as the Sen- immigrants; let us put it that way. They osophy of the civil rights bills of 1963
ator from Florida is concerned, I be- were generally brought in on ships that and 1964 and the voting rights bill of
lieve that we have the complete right as were based in New England, which 1965.
a nation to safeguard ourselves and our brought in slaves to the Southland or I had hoped that the Senator from
own traditions'and our own people. elsewhere; and, of course, there was no Florida would accept that point of view.
So far as the Senator from Florida way to check that situation. I have no I am very much surprised to hear such
is concerned, he will never vote for a bill fault to find with them. I am only stat- a philosophy raised so blatantly on the
which would place all the nations on ing what is the fact, that those good peo- floor of the U.S. Senate, concerning the
earth and the people from all those na- ple have no nationality now, no race to fact that we do not know where these
tions on exactly an equal status as to look to, and no home country to look to Africans came from, that they cannot tell
admission to citizenship.in our country. except the United States, whereas the whether they came from the east coast
Mr. KENNEDY of New York. Mr. distinguished Senator from New York or the west coast, and that therefore
President, will the Senator yield? has a mother country to which he can they should not be permitted to come
Mr. HOLLAND. I am glad to yield to look, as I think every Senator present here any more.
the Senator from New York. has. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, the
Mr. KENNEDY of New York. I heard I see in the Chamber my distinguished Senator from Florida was not stating a
the Senator refer to the countries of our friend from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE], philosophy; he was merely stating a fact.
origin-our mother nations. a very great Italian-American, who has Our Negro citizens are American citizens.
Mr. HOLLAND. Yes. been Governor of his great State. Each The Senator from Florida has done more
Mr. KENNEDY of New York. Does of us has that sort of situation. in his own State than the Senator from
the Senator agree that there are many Mr. PASTORE. Will the Senator yield New York has done in his recently
citizens in the United States-and they on that point? adopted State to see that Negro citizens
are citizens of the United States-whose Mr. HOLLAND. I shall be happy to are qualified to vote and that they do
mother country or country of origin was yield in a minute, but just now I am vote. He has done many other things
one of the countries of Africa, and that engaged in a discussion with my friend to advance their status. But he knows
they also have a right to be here, as much from New York. what the fact is. They cannot tell
as somebody who came from one of the Mr. KENNEDY of New York. I be- where they came from, and they are not
Scandinavian countries? lieve it is correct that my family and interested in going back anywhere, to a
Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from my brothers, who are now serving in home State or a mother country, as my
Florida understands that about one- Government, were aware of the fact that distinguished friend from New York, of
tenth' of the citizenship of our Nation our family originally came from Ireland. course, takes pride in going back to a
now have African origin. The Senator Mr. HOLLAND. Is the Senator not particular area of Ireland.
from Florida, after having talked with a proud of that fact? Mr. KENNEDY of New York. That
great many people of that origin, has not Mr. KENNEDY of New York. May I does not make me any better person.
been able to find many of them who have finish? Mr. HOLLAND. Certainly not.
the slightest idea as to what tribeor na- Mr. HOLLAND. Is the Senator proud Mr. KENNEDY of New York. The
tion or area or geographic region their of that fact? fact that I might know I came from Ire-
people came from. It is not at all a com- Mr. KENNEDY of New York. May I land does not make me any better than a
parable situation to that of the distin- finish? Negro.
guished Senator from New York, who Mr. HOLLAND. I hope the Senator Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, the
knows perfectly well where his people will say he is proud of that fact. Senator may not be, but I shall let him
came from-Ireland-or to that of the Mr. KENNEDY of New York. -If the be the judge of that. The Senator from
Senator from Florida, who knows per- Senator will let me finish, I think he will Florida is stating what is a fact, namely,
fectly well where his people came from, find that I am. that the bill, as it is now disclosed on the
Germany and England, or to the situa- Mr. HOLLAND. All right. floor, assumes to open the door to immi-
tions of most of us, or I suppose every Mr. KENNEDY of New York. I am gration to this country equally wide to
one of us. very pleased and proud of the fact that people from all the countries of the
I see on the floor my distinguished our family came from Ireland. I think world, making no distinction between
friend from Washington [Mr. MAGNU- some of the people the Senator has de- them, except on the basis of communism.
SON] whom we all love so deeply, whose scribed to us, whose mother countries I do not believe my distinguished friend
ancestry does not have to be announced, are the Scandinavian countries or per- excluded that, and that is an excluded
because he so clearly comes from won- haps Ireland or England or some other -situation that I think we should state for
derful Scandinavian stock. I see other countries, were responsible for bringing the RECORD. Except for that, the Orien-
Senators who are very proud to be able the people from Africa to the United tal, the African, the Malayan, and vari-
to tell where they came from. I am States in the first place, as slaves. So ous other people from all parts of the
looking at a former Governor from when the Senator says, after we have earth are to be equally accepted for im-
Maine, with whom I talked just the other performed that kind of unforgivable act, migration into this country and for ad-
day, who was exceedingly proud of his that we should penalize them because mission to citizenship.
background; I believe his people came they do not know where they came from, All I am calling attention to is that
from Poland. He is a fine- representative nor where in Africa their grandfather many people in my State of Florida do
of that country. was born, as I am fortunate enough to not agree with that principle, and they
We are all linked to the countries know, I am surprised to hear the Sen- have objected to it.
which gave our parents or our ancestors ator from Florida suggest such a phi- Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.
birth. But the same situation does not losophy, and that is why I rise, in the President, will the Senator yield?
obtain at all, I say to my distinguished back row of the U.S. Senate to speak. Mr. HOLLAND. I shall yield in a mo-
friend, with the people of whom I speak. As the Senator from Massachusetts ment. It appears from the RECORD that
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 238J2
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 22, 1965
that is the principle upon which the
pending bill is based.
The attitudeof opposition to the pend-
ing bill by several thousand people in
Florida who have written to me Is rather
fully justified now by the answers which
have been put in the RECORD. I am grate-
ful to my distinguished friends for mak-
ing clear exactly what the bill means,
exactly what Senators are asked to vote
for, exactly how we are going to open
the gates to all the people, disregarding
the fact that our background is largely
European and that we have gone so very
far in the development of ourselves and
of our resources, in giving gifts to others,
and in helping all the races of the earth,
whereas many of the other people have
not been able to show anything com-
parable to that.
A nation that does not give some at-
tention to the protection of its own
rights, to the protection of its own citi-
zenship, is a very unwise nation.
I have heard it said on the floor by
one of my friends that some nations
will be angry at us if we do not take
the actions proposed in the pending bill.
I do not believe-that is true. I do not
believe the nations of the earth are
angry at Australia because of its restric-
tive immigration laws. Australia insists
not only on selected nations, but also on
.selected individual capacities.
Australia is to be admired for its pro-
tection as it moves forward to greater
status.
We shall regret it if we take this step,
which is different from anything we have
ever done before.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. HOLLAND. I am delighted to
yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I be-
lieve we misunderstand the concept of
what we are trying to do. Is the Senator
from Florida saying that if Nigeria to-
morrow were able to produce a scientist
who could find a way that would make it
possible for us to get to the moon before
the Russians did, he should be excluded
because he was black? Would the Sen-
ator do that, because he was black?
Mr. HOLLAND. Certainly not.
Mr. PASTORE. Well, that is what
the pending bill in effect would be doing.
The bill is saying, in effect, that it does
not make any difference where one comes
from, that it does not make any differ-
ence what the color of one's skin might
be, if he can add to the glory of America
he will be welcome to come into this
country. That is what we are trying to
do here, but the Senator is saying that
many people in Florida object to anyone
coming in if he is black, no matter how
smart, no matter what his contribution
can be, that because he is black he can-
not come in.
I ask the Senator, is that what we un-
derstand to be Americanism?
Mr. HOLLAND.
has the floor?
Mr. PASTORE,
Florida has it.
Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the chair. Americanism, that highly patriotic bodies
Let me say to the distinguished Senator such as veterans' groups have gone on
from Rhode Island that I do not have to record as being decidedly against this
be reminded what Americanism is. I radical change in our system of immigra-
have fought on foreign soil, and in for- tion. I invite attention to that. I have
eign skies for this Nation. I know what
it is to be shot down in combat. I won-
der whether my distinguished friend
from Rhode Island has had any such
experience?
Mr. PASTORE. I know that. I ap-
preciate that. I applaud it. But the
Senator from Florida has made the point
that we have to look to the mother coun-
try because Negroes cannot look back to
their tribes, or wherever they came from,
because, of course, their ancestors came
to America as slaves. The Senator is
making the point that it is not good for
the development of America, that if we
allow Negroes to come into this country,
as Negroes, under the standards of the
pending bill, it would mean that they
would have to prove that they can make
a contribution to America. But because
he is black, many people in Florida do
not like the idea. That is the substance
of the argument being made In the
Chamber at this moment by the Senator
from Florida. I cannot accept that as a
good American argument.
Mr. HOLLAND. In the first place, my
enthusiastic friend from Rhode Island
is no judge as to what a good American
argument is. In the second place, let me
say that my position is in no sense
against the admission of anyone from
anywhere. My objection is to taking a
position under which we open our doors
equally wide to all the people on the face
of the earth, when we know perfectly well
where the roots of our own background
lie, where our own traditions came from,
here our own inspiration comes from,
and where our progress is based. We
know perfectly well where we can gain
people who will add instead of subtract
from our opportunity to move forward.
So far as the admission of individuals
of great skillis -concerned, we found no
difficulty at all with that at any time.
The provisions of the present law, for
that matter, have permitted just that
kind of operation. I certainly would
wish to have that kind of operation per-
mitted in the future.
What 'I object to is imposing no limi-
tations, insofar as areas of the earth are
concerned, but saying that we are throw-
ing the doors open and equally inviting
people from the Orient, from the islands
of the Pacific, from the subcontinent of
Asia, from the Near East, from all of
Africa, all of Europe, and all of the
Western Hemisphere, on exactly the
same basis. I am inviting attention to
the fact that this is a complete and rad-
ical departure from what has always
heretofore been regarded as sound prin-
ciples of immigration.
That is the only point to which I in-
vite attention. I am thoroughly within the junior Senator from Hawaii [Mr.
my rights in doing so. The people of my INOUYE] served so well and so valiantly.
State are very much concerned about It was, perhaps, the most highly deco-
this matter. My mail also indicates that rated.
not only my people but a great many ' Mr. KENNEDY of New York. Is the
people from many other States are deeply Senator from Florida aware that the
concerned about it. men who made up that unit could be de-
I might say to my distinguished friend scribed as orlentals-that they were of
from Rhode Island, who has talked about Japanese origin?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rus-
SELL of South Carolina in the chair).
The Senator from Florida has the floor.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
no objection to any Senator voting his
convictions, and I hope that every Sen-
ator will vote his convictions-whatever
they may be.
I hope the Senators will be represent-
ing their constituents when they vote on
the bill. I shall be trying to do just that.
I believe that is what the fundamental
objective and requirement of representa-
tive government should be.
I am trying to say clearly, so that
there can be no question about it, that by
the questions raised by many people in
Florida, I could not vote for this radical
departure in our immigration policy-
and I shall not do so.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Florida yield?
Mr. HOLLAND. I am glad to yield
to the Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I have
listened with interest to the remarks of
the distinguished Senator from Florida
as he speaks for his constituents and
their views on liberalizing our immigra-
tion policies. It is for that reason that I
feel compelled to speak out for some of
my constituents In Wyoming, namely,
the more than 4,000 American Indians
that live in my State. Through the eyes
of the Indian, there is not a member of
this body that is not an immigrant; and
it ill behooves any of us immigrants to
look down our noses at others who would
seek but to do what our forefathers
did-find a new opportunity in a new
world.
Save for the voice of the Red Man in
our country, no other voices raised
against immigrants should be heeded or
can speak with naught but ill grace.
My ancestors came from Western
Europe. I believe that we should set a
policy which will exemplify the kind of
thing we should hold out to all the rest
of the world.
Scientists have shrunk the world.
Man's genius has so shriveled distance
and time that we are, literally, sitting
in each other's lap.
It is time that as Americans we realize
that we have little right, in my judg-
ment, to slam closed the door, once we
ourselves get in the "club." - -
Mr. KENNEDY of New York. Mr
President, will the Senator from Florida
yield?
Mr. HOLLAND. I am glad to yield to
the Senator from New York.
Mr. KENNEDY of New York. Does
the Senator from Florida remember,
during the Second World War, what was
the most highly decorated U.S. unit as a
group?
Mr. HOLLAND. I have heard that the
unit most decorated was the one in which
 SeptemberprrV For ReG81VGESSIQNAL RE ORDB~ SNA 100290006-4 23893
Mr, HOLLAND. Certainly-I know Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, like the
that. Senator from Florida, I entertain the
Mr. KENNEDY of New York. The opinion that the national origins quota
Senator from Florida is aware of. the system was .a wise formula on which to
great contribution which they made to base our immigration law. Instead of its
victory by the United States? being founded upon prejudice, it was
Mr. HOLLAND. I know that perfectly based upon the assumption that we
well, I have, frequently expressed, pub- should welcome to this country for
licly and privately, my great affection for permanent residence and eventual citi-
the junior Senator from Hawaii [Mr. zenship immigrants with cultural back-
INOUYE]. I was the first to sign a bi l for grounds similar to those people already
statehood for Hawaii. I also had the here, because such immigrants could be
honor to be invited to come out to Hawaii most readily assimilated into our popu-
for its statehood celebration. lation and into our life.
I am proud of Hawaii as our 50th As Senator McCarran said, the na-
State. I have no disposition at all to tional origins quota system held up a
inveigh against anyone there. I merely mirror to America and reflected Amer-
state that when we open our doors wide ica as we know it.
to all the oriental nations of this earth, Mr. President, as a member of the
with some 700 to 800 million in 1 Subcommittee on Immigration and
country alone, and with countless other Naturalization and as a member of the
millions in other nations, and when Committee on the Judiciary, I have had
we offer to admit them on terms of exact to study this problem since February.
equality with people from our own fore- In my study I found that the 'majority
father nations, we are making a radical of the Members of the U.S. Congress do
departure of which I cannot, and do not not entertain my conviction about the
approve. That is the point. wisdom of the national origins quota
Mr. KENNEDY of New York. The system of the Walter-McCarran Act.
Senator talks about opening the doors So, as a member of the Subcommittee on
wide. The doors are open only to those Immigration and Naturalization and a
who can make a contribution. The fact member of the Senate Committee on the
that someone came from Japan or China Judiciary, I was confronted by two pos-
originally, the fact that someone comes sible courses of action. First, I could
from Italy, Poland, or Nigeria, makes no have spent my time and my energy in
difference. They are all going to be fighting a lost cause for the preservation
considered equally as to whether they of the national origins quota system,
are going to be accepted into the United and I could have been faithful to an idea
States. The person who comes from which I cherished. That was my first
Japan can make quite as much of a con- possible course of action.
tribution as anyone who comes from Eu- My second possible course of action
rope, and I do not believe that he should was to cooperate with the inevitable
be excluded merely because he is Japa- which was the abolition of the national
nese. origins quota system by a majority of the
Mr. HOLLAND. I have considerable Congress, and assist other Members of
familiarity with that subject. Not only the Senate who happen to be members
did I take the position I did with refer- of the Subcommittee on Immigration
ence to Hawaii, but I had a classmate at and Naturalization to try to process the
the university who was a Chinese immi- very best immigration bill we could for
grant to this country in the old days. the United States under the circum-
I saw him in later years, and was enter- stances, at a time when a majority of
tained by him when I went out to San the Congress was going to abolish the
Francisco. His chief claim to fame as national origins quota system, which I
an American was that he had been fore- cherish, as does the Senator from
man of the jury which had convicted Florida.
Harry Bridges in San Francisco. I believe I can truthfully say, as a
The Senator from Florida has a great member of the Subcommittee on Immi-
deal of appreciation for a great many gration and Naturalization that, in my
of our people who have come from other judgment, it has brought to the Senate
places, but he does not want to see- a good immigration bill. The bill does
and this is what it amounts to-this not open the doors for the admission of
fruit basket turned over by having the all the people all over the face of the
whole world invited on the same basis earth. It specifically restricts immigra-
to come to our land, which is the place tion to three groups of people. It ex-
where almost everyone else on earth tends the privilege of immigration to
wants to come, because the Senator from America to the relatives of American
Florida can see the most dire conse- citizens already here, people who possess
quences as a result of that policy. The not only residence in America, but the
Senator from Florida agrees with the right of citizenship in America, and it
expressions with respect to many people restricts those relatives to certain close
who are here. We have many people relatives-not to cousins who may be all
whose ancestors were Irish. We have over the world, but to certain specified
many whose ancestors were Polish. We degrees of relationship.
have many whose ancestors were Italian. That is the first group to. which the
We have many whose ancestors were bill grants the privilege of immigration
Greek. We are proud and happy to to the United States.
have them. I believe this_ bill is a radi- The second group is composed of near
cal change in our whole immigration relatives of persons who have already
policy. It is unjustified, and I am only been received into the United States as
saying that I cannot vote for it. permanent residents for the eventual
purpose of becoming citizens of the
United States.
The.third group the bill admits to the
United States, from whatever country
they may come, is immigrants who are
able-,to contribute something to either
the economic or cultural advancement
of the United States because of their
skills or because of their willingness to
work in areas in which we have a short
supply of labor in the United States.
The bill does abolish the national ori-
gins quota systems, which I personally
would like to keep, because I think it is
wise, for the reasons I have stated; but
it does something to restrict immigra-
tion which has never been done before.
It puts a limitation on all immigration
we can receive from the Western Hemi-
sphere, and by so doing extends to the
Western Hemisphere the same policy
which we have extended to the Eastern
Hemisphere,
The bill does one thing which I per-
sonally would not have done if I had had
a majority, and that is to abolish the na-
tional origins quota system of the
Walter-McCarran Act. Nevertheless, I
think the bill is,a good bill which is de-
signed to restrict our immigration while
extending the privilege of immigration
to all on the face of the earth. How-
ever, I emphasize that it is designed to
restrict immigration to near relatives of
those who are already in the United
States either as citizens or as immigrants
who have been admitted for permanent
residents and eventual citizenship, and
to those persons who have something to
contribute to the economic and cultural
development of the United States.
So I can say that notwithstanding the
fact that I regret the bill does abolish,
instead of retain, the national origins
quota system, in my honest judgment it
is a good measure. The bill should pro-
tect America and contribute substantially
to the future development of our country.
I am sorry that my good friend from
Wyoming [Mr. McGEE] has left the
Chamber. I started to say, in jesting
guise, although it is not that-it is the
truth, that I cannot take too much pride
in the way our first immigrants acted in
this country. A great historian said that
the first thing the first immigrants did
when they got to America was to fall on
their knees, and the next thing was to
fall on the aborigines. So for that
reason I do not take any great pride as an
American in the conduct of our early im-
migrants to this country in their rela-
tions with the Indians.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I hesi-
tate to make the comment that I rise to
make because my presence in the Senate
may be an excellent argument for the
point that perhaps the national origins
quota system should have been in effect
when my father came to this country.
I believe it is undoubtedly true that if it
had been in effect at that time his pros-
pects for entering this country would
have been substantially reduced to the
point where he might not have entered
it, I might not have been born here,
might not have become Governor of my
State, and might not have become a U.S.
Senator.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 23894
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDI?67B00446R000100290006-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE September 22, 1965
So my entire life is testimony to my jority of the residents share my view- ences for close relatives of American
conviction that the philosophy of the point. citizens and resident aliens, for aliens
bill before the Senate is the right one. Therefore, I am not misrepresenting who are members of the professions, or
I do not believe that at any time in the State when I say I shall vote against skilled in the arts or sciences, to workers
the first century of our national ex- the bill. % whose skills are needed in our country
istence, or at any time prior to that, im- Mr, RANDOLPH. Mr. President, the and for certain categories of refugees.
migration into this country was in ac- Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Last year the Congress took a great
cordance with any fixed relationship of enacted under a very different political step toward the elimination of racial dis-
numbers as between peoples from differ- and moral climate from that which pre- crimination against American citizens
ent parts of the globe or from different vails today, was established on the false here at home. This year the Congress
countries. And so the base of our pop- assumption of_the superiority of northern has passed legislation to do away with
ulation was established without any such Europeans over the other racial, cultural, the last remaining obstacles to the at-
pigeon holes, without any such fixed and national categories of mankind. tainment of the right to vote. This im-
guidelines. Though this doctrine is seldom overtly migration reform bill is no less a civil
I believe that what we should have acknowledged by proponents of the rights measure. It will end four decades
learned from that experience is not that present immigration statutes, this is the of intolerance toward those who seek
we had accidentally found the magic major rationale for the attempt to main- shelter on our shores, and who, until they
formula for the relationship between tain the inequities in our current quota have actually sought entrance, have
national backgrounds In this country, system. This quota system was neither looked upon our Nation as a refuge and
but rather that, without any magic wise nor equitable when it was estab- a haven from intolerance.
formula, we have been able to bring into lished in 1952, and it is completely ana- The present national origins quota
this country people from all over the chronistic in this year of 1965. system is completely inconsistent with
globe, and that without exception our During the past 2 years, the American the principle of equality of opportunity,
national experience demonstrates that people and the American Congress have upon which our Nation was founded,
each of them, whatever his origin, what- made a final and irrevocable commitment and with our historic tradition prior to
ever the color of his skin, was able to to the principle that equal opportunities 1920. It is sheer hyprocrisy to extol the
make a positive contribution to the ad- shall not be denied a citizen of this virtues of the Declaration of Independ-
vancement of this country reflecting his country for reasons of race, color or na- ence and the Constitution, and at the
individual merit. tional origin. The actions of this Con- same time to uphold an immigration sys-
So I am convinced, as I was when my gress and the actions of the prior 88th tem which is based on the principle of
father used to tell me of his own experi- Congress repeatedly asserted that the racial superiority.
ence at his knee, that this country is a talents and individual capabilities of a Mr. President, when we began limiting
living, dynamic, growing illustration of person are not determined or limited by migration on the basis of race or na-
the fact that all of God's children, when his national or racial origins. The pend- tional origin, we had forgotten that the
given the opportunities of freedom, can ing measure, H.R. 2580 extends this prin- very name "America" was gto our
make freedom work, not only for their ciple, and rightly so, to individuals of continent by a German was given ive mapmaker, Mar-
own advancement, but for the benefit of all races and nationalities in their oppor- tin continent Waldseemueller, a German
to honor an Italian
the society of which they are a part. tunity to become American citizens. explorer, Amerigo Vespucci. In his
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Mr. President, it would be an evident book, "A Nation of Immigrants," Presi-,
President, I ask for the yeas and nays contradiction for this Congress, which dent Kennedy reminded us that the
on passage of the bill. has enacted the most effective civil and three ships that discovered America flew
The yeas and nays were ordered. voting rights legislation since the Re- the Spanish flag, sailed under an Italian
Mr. ROBERTSON. I heard with in- construction era, to maintain our pres- captain, and included as members of
terest the remark of the Senator from ent immigration quota system and there-
North Carolina that the first settlers fell by deny the validity of the basic prin- Englishman, and a hew.
on their knees. That is true. ciples we have previously enunciated. could list some of the many contri-
The first colonial settlers landed at The present quota system, which I c
-
chil-
Cape Henry in 1607 and fell on their would within 3 years be eliminated by en- bI cou of immigrants have made and are
knees to give thanks-.a little before actment of H.R. 2580, is not only unwise dren
a dare
list-
making our s
Plymouth. They gave thanks for their and inequitable;. it is also shortsighted making be pointless. For it can truly
safe deliverance. and self-defeating of the national in-ing Later they erected a cross there, and terest. The only criteria which should be be said that immigrants and their de-
we still have a cross there, where they applied to immigrants to this country scendants, Americans all, are responsible
gave thanks for their deliverance. are those which are addressed to the for almost all that our Nation has ac-
They did not fall on the aborigines. capabilites and talents of the individual complished. In every endeavor, from
The aborigines fell on them. The abo- and not to the country of his origin. For the world of music to the world of art, of
rigines murdered my ancestor there in only in this way will we be assured that statecraft, of scholarship, of commerce
1622, and he had not bothered them at new citizens of this country will bring and industry, immigrants and their chil-
all. potential enrichment to our society dren have left their indelible mark on our
The distinguished Senator made this rather than mere uniformity with the Nation.
bill better by his amendment. He says present population balance. Mr. President, while this bill abolishes
he will now cooperate with the in- Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, since the discriminatory national origins quota
evitable. Us adoption in 1920, the national origins system, and establishes a preference sys-
expedite
I shall vote against the inevitable be- Quota system has been a stain on the tem to unite families and
professional exemen
cause I still believe in two principles. fabric of American democracy. I am admission of
country, it skilled, not a radical meas-
meas-
First, we were wise in adopting the orig- proud to have cosponsored and worked into this This bill includes strengthened
inal plan to have people of a like kind for the adoption of this bill to abolish ure. come in that could be absorbed. Sec- the national origins quota system for the safeguards to protect our economy from
ond, insofar as concerns our 3 or 4 per- allocation of immigrant visas. Job competition and from adverse work-
cent unemployed, I have no confidence The junior Senator from Massachu- ing standards as a consequence of immi-
whatever in the so-called screening setts [Mr. KENNEDY] has performed a grant workers entering the job market.
process; that we will only get the cream distinguished service for our Nation in An intended immigrant, under the pro-
and the skilled. The cream and the shepherding this bill through hearings visions of the immigrantion reform bill,
skilled stay at home. They have no rea- and through the Judiciary Committee, will have to obtain from the Secretary of
son to leave and are not coming to a new and guiding It to the point of final pas- Labor certification that his entrance will
country. We will not get that type, sage. not adversely affect the American job
I regret to say that we will be in a In place of the discriminatory na- market. There are no grounds for ap-
minority, but I feel I am honored to rep- tional origins system, this bill will sub- prehension that this bill will disadvan-
resent a State where I believe the ma- stitute a new system based on prefer- tage American workers.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 September ~pprpygg For Reed,Vapg ffiyALCI - $PRfJB0%14 RAQQQ100290006-4
The total authorized immigrants, un-
der the most favorable conditions, will
not exceed 355,000 per year, or less than
two-tenths of 1 percent of our popula-
tion. Thus this immigration reform bill
will not permit more people to enter our
country ' than our society and economy
can absorb. However, instead of allocat-
ing quotas based on race, available
spaces will be apportioned on the basis
of individual worth, and the contribution
which the individual can make.
My State of Maryland is a heterogene-
ous one, which has profited from the con-
tributions of individuals of many races
and nationalities. Indeed, Maryland
was founded as a proprietary colony, un-
der a grant to Cecilius Calvert, Lord
Baltimore, to provide a haven, an area
where people could settle, free from fear
of religious persecution. Our Articles
of Religious Toleration was the first such
declaration adopted in this hemisphere.
But I do not support this bill solely
because of Maryland's heritage of reli-
gious toleration. I do not support this
,bill solely on account of the great con-
tributions which citizens of other than
northern European descent have made
to the development of my State. I sup-
port this bill because it is just, and fair,
and American to judge a man by his
skills, by his potential. contribution, and
not by irrelevant criteria such as race,
or place of origin.
Let us adopt this immigration reform
bill, so that our laws will conform to our
needs, and our traditions, and our ideals.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, I
strongly support the immigration reform
bill of 1965.
Our land is a land of opportunities.
Today we in the Senate have a chance
to extend these opportunities to those
who can make the most valuable contri-
butions to American life.
We can never have enough talent.
And we will gain more talent when the
immigration reform bill becomes law.
We can never have enough new ideas.
And we will have many more when the
immigration reform bill becomes law.
Our present immigration laws were en-
acted in 1924. They did not make sense
then, and they make even less sense now
in today's rapidly changing world. For
the national origins quota system asks
only when a man was born, not what he
cap do. If he is lucky, and happens to
live in a country with a large quota, he
may be able to emigrate to the United
States. If he is unlucky, and happens to
be from a country with a small quota, his
chances are slimmer, no matter how
badly he may want to come. This is
true if he is from eastern or southern
Europe, or from Asia. For the national
origins quota discriminates against peo-
ple from nations in these areas.
The national origins quota system does
not make sense for another reason. In
many countries stipulated quotas go un-
filled. For example, the quota for Brit-
ish subjects is 65,000. Yet, only 25,000
British subjects emigrate to the United
States each year. Elsewhere, people
eagerly await an.opportunity to come.
In Italy, 265,000 people have registered
for admission. But the quota is only
5,666. It is clear that the prospects for
legal entry into the United States are
small, indeed, for citizens of a country
with such a small quota.
Mr. President, I am proud to be a co-
sponsor of S. 500.
Our American tradition-our tradi-
tion of opportunity-demands that we
change our immigration laws.
The requirements of a nation which is
reaching for the Great Society compel us
to change our immigration laws.
S. 500 will do this.
The bill gives preference to people with
professional, scientific or artistic abil-
ity-who will enrich our hational life.
It gives preference to families of im-
migrants who are already here-reunit-
ing relatives separated long before.
This bill will finally reopen the gates
of America for people who should be al-
lowed to come to our shores. Let no one
think we are displacing U.S. workers
from their jobs. The Secretary of Labor
must certify that an immigrant's pres-
ence here will have no effect on working
conditions, wages or employment.
This bill must be passed. We can no
longer afford to deprive our Nation of
new talent and brains. Nor can we con-
tinue to show the world a prejudicial sys-
tem of admissions to our shores that con-
tradicts everything this Nation stands
for.
We have a proud tradition. Let us
show we practice what we preach by
making our immigration procedure more
American.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I
support Senate passage of H.R. 2580, as
reported by the Committee on the Judi-
ciary, although I wish to express my
opposition to the provision. which would
modify the current nonquota status of
nations of the Western Hemisphere and
impose a quota of 120,00 annually, effec-
tive July 1, 1968.
I was pleased to be a sponsor of S. 500,
the original proposal to amend the Im-
migration and Nationality Act, which is
similar in general to the bill being con-
sidered today.
This measure will provide a much
needed and long overdue change in im-
migration policy. It is a limited measure,
since it does not make any substantial
increase in the number of immigrants
who can enter each year. Its signifi-
cance lies in its abolition of the quota
based on national origins-a system
which for the past 40 years has imposed
a discriminatory procedure based on the
assumed desirability or undesirability of
certain ethnic and racial groups.
It is unfortunate that the national
origins system was ever approved and
unfortunate also that it was not re-
moved sooner.
Times have changed and history has
moved swiftly. We have in recent years,
and again in this Congress, enacted sig-
nificant legislation to safeguard civil and
human rights and to protect the equality
of all before the law. There have been
Supreme Court decisions and executive
orders to eliminate segregation and dis-
crimination based on race. The bill now
before the.Senate is consistent with these
23895
measures and restores to our immigra-
tion policy the fundamental principle
that persons are to be judged as individ-
uals and not on the basis of race or
ethnic origin. In this respect H.R. 2580 is
not a new departure; rather, it represents
a return to the nondiscriminatory policy
which existed at the beginning of our
Nation. Many of the immigrants who
came to the United States in the 19th
century were improverished and un-
skilled; others were religious or political
refugees, outcasts from their homeland.
They and their children proved them-
selves. Immigrants have demonstrated
that opportunity and individual effort,
rather than racial or ethnic origin, are
the essential qualities of citizens.
The bill has many other provisions
which are commendable. It removes the
mechanical and rigid procedures which
have operated to keep families separated.
It reflects positively our concern for the
importance of the family. The present
laws have been unworkable as regards
the problem of refugees, and the bill ad-
justs this situation. The mentally re-
tarded and those who have suffered
mental illness will be considered in a
similar manner to those who are classi-
fied as tubercular, and the bill removes
the total exclusion of those afflicted with
epilepsy. In these and other provisions
the bill reflects understanding and con-
cern for the dignity of the individual
person.
I believe that the committee amend-
ment to place a ceiling on immigrants
from nations of the Western Hemisphere
is unnecessary and unwise. There is no
pressing problem of numbers which re-
quires this limitation and in any case the
qualitative controls applying to all im-
migrants have set adequate limitations
in the past. Of course, there is no rea-
son in theory why we could not have
worldwide or hemispheric quotas, but
there are many reasons based on tradi-
tion'why we should not impose a nu-
merical quota by law on immigrant from
the Western Hemisphere. Mexico and,,,
Canada are neighbors with whom we
have thousands of miles of common bor-
der and there is no need to place their
citizens who wish to emigrate to the
United States under a general quota lim-
itation. All the nations of the Western
Hemisphere share with us the settlement
of the New World and a common effort
to develop free and independent govern-
ments.. Our nonquota policy of the past
was never intended and never interpreted
as discriminatory against nations outside
the Western Hemisphere; rather, it was
and is a mark of mutual respect and
friendship and a symbol of the good
neighbor policy.
A HISTORIC STEP FORWARD FOR AMERICA
Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey. Mr.
President, passage of this amendment to
the Immigration and. Naturalization Act
will be a historic step in the progress of
the United States toward a society of
equal opportunity for all. Just as we
have struggled to eliminate the barriers
of poverty and race within our borders,
now we are ending a system of arbitrary
discrimination based on nationality and
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-ROP67B00446R000100290006-4
 23896
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE September 22, 1965
directed at future Americans. We are
ending a futile effort to preserve an
imaginary America by arbitrary quotas,
a system which has never worked and
has been honored more in the breach
than the observance. Since 1952 two out
of three immigrants have entered this
country outside of quota limitations.
When this bill becomes law, we can face
the world honestly and without hypo-
crisy. Although we obviously cannot ac-
cept every person who wishes to be an
American citizen, we can say that those
who are admitted will be Judged by fair
and humane criteria. The report of the
Judiciary Committee puts it well:
It Is the basic objective of this bill to
choose fairly among the applicants for ad-
mission to this country.
Immigrants will be admitted on the
basis of family relationship and needed
skills; they will not be admitted or de-
nied admission solely because of an acci-
dent of birth.
One of the fundamental purposes of
this legislation is to reunite families.
Parents and children of U.S. citizens or
lawful resident aliens will be given a
high priority preference status. This
provision will end one of the cruelest
hardships of the quota system, the sepa-
ration of families and the disruption of
family life. During my service in the
Congress, hundreds of hardship cases
were brought to my attention. In some
instances we were able to obtain relief
through the slow and difficult means of
a private bill. But this procedure could
not be used in every case. There are
many cases in my office files now of men
and women kept apart from their fami-
lies. I know the often tragic hardhhfp
Involved in these individual cases. The
cold figures in tables of quota numbers
do not tell the whole story, as my col-
leageus and I know it from personal ex-
perience: Passage of this bill will bring
new hope and new happiness to thou-
sands of American families.
This bill will not raise the overall
.numbers of immigrants, and provides
clear protection for the American work-
ingman. But it will allow skilled and
talented men and women to enter this
country on the basis of their abilities.
Our great and varied culture has grown
up and flourished as it blended many na-
tionalities and cultures into our unique
American way. This bill will open the
doors of our country to quality and to
skill, so that men and women from every
part of the world who can make a real
and flourished as it blended many na-
Society can come to this country to join
with us in building it.
In summation, the administration bill
will make it far more possible for high-
ly qualified foreign citizens to immigrate
to the United States, do away with our
present discriminatory practices, and as-
sure the fullest use of the quota numbers
available. In addition, the refugee re-
form provisions in the bill will make it
easier for people who are fleeing from
tyranny to be welcomed to the United
States as refugees.
The Judiciary Committee deserves the
highest praise for the fine work they
have done on a difficult and complex
bill. Our distinguished colleague, Sen-
ator KENNEDY of Massachusetts, has our
praise and thanks for his able manage-
ment of this long-awaited reform of the
immigration law.
The PRESIDING OFFICEEt. Tire bill
having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall it pass?
On this question the yeas and nays
have been ordered; and the clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I announce
that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr.
ANDERSON] is necessarily absent.
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT] is
absent on official business of the Joint
Committee on Atomic E-nergy.
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr.
ScoTT] is absent on official business.
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. MILLER],
the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. SIMP-
SON], and the Senator from Texas [Mr.
TOWER] are necessarily absent.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Pennsylvania [Mr. SCOTT] would
vote "yea".
On this vote, the Senator from Iowa
[Mr. MILLER] is paired with the Senator
from Utah [Mr. BENNETT]. If present
and voting, the Senator from Iowa would
vote "Yea" and the Senator from Utah
would vote "nay".
On this vote, the Senator from Wyom-
ing [Me. SIMPsoN] is paired with the
Senator from Texas [Mr. Towsnl. If
present and voting, the Senator from
Wyoming would vote "yea" and the Sen-
ator from Texas would vote "nay".
The result was announced-yeas 76,
nays 18, as follows:
[No. 266 Leg.]
YEAS-76
Aiken
Hart
Morton
Allott
Hartke
Moss
Bartlett
Hickenlooper
Mundt
Bass
Hruska
Murphy
Bayh
Inouye
Muskie
Bible
Jackson
Nelson
Boggs
Javits
Neuberger
Brewster
Jordan, Idaho
Pastore
Burdick
Kennedy, Mass. Pearson
Cannon
Kennedy, N.Y.
Pell
Carlson
Kuchel
Prouty
Case
Lausche
Proxmire
Church
Long, Mo.
Randolph
Clark
Long, La.
Ribieoff
Curtis
Magnuson
Saltonstan
Dirksen
Mansfield
Smathers
Dodd
McCarthy
Smith
Dominick
McGee
Symington
Douglas
McGovern
Tydings
Ervin
McIntyre
Williams, N.J.
Fannin
McNamara
Williams, Del.
Fong
Metcalf
Yarborough
Fuibright
Mondale
Young, N. Dak.
Gore
Monroney
Young, Ohio
Gruening
Montoya
Harris
Morse
NAYS-18
Byrd, Va.
Hayden
Russell, S.C.
Byrd, W. Va.
Hill ,
Russell Ga.
Cooper
Holland
Sparkman
Cotton
Jordan,N.C.
Stennis
Eastland
McClellan
Talmadge
Ellender
Robertson
Thurmond
NOT VOTING-8
Anderson
Miller
Simpson
Bennett
Scott
Tower
So the bill (H.R. 2580) was passed.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, I move that the Senate recon-
sider the vote. by which the bill was
passed.
Mr. JAVITS and Mr. PASTORE moved
to lay on the table the motion to
reconsider.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The question
is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the
table the motion to reconsider the vote
by which the bill was passed.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to,
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, I move that the Senate insist
upon its amendments and request a con-
ference with the House of Representa-
tives thereon, and that the Chair appoint
the- conferees on the part of the Senate.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Vice President appointed Mr. EASTLAND,
Mr. MCCLELLAN, Mr. ERVIN, Mr. KENNEDY
of Massachusetts, Mr. HART, Mr. DIRKSEN,
Mr. FONG, and Mr. JAVITS conferees on
the part of the Senate.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, I express my deep appreciation
to the distinguished junior Senator from
Michigan [Mr. HART], who initially In-
troduced the bill which formed the basis
of the action that the Senate has taken'
this afternoon, for his constant help
during the subcommittee meetings and
hearings and for his participation in the
debate on the floor of the Senate.
Mr. President, I also extend my great
appreciation to, and express my great
admiration for, the Senator from North
Carolina [Mr. ERVIN] who has, because
of his constant attendance at the hear-
ings and his constant intelligent ques-
tioning, brought out a number of very
Important and strategic facts during the
course of the debate. The bill is a better
bill because of his contribution.
I know that the Senator from North
Carolina felt strongly about maintaining
the national origins quota system. While
he feels that way he nonetheless directed
his full attention to the other provisions
of the bill. I had some reservations on
some of the suggestions he made, but the
bill that was considered and passed by
the Senate is a better bill because of his
interest and participation.
I also express my appreciation to the
senior Senator from New York [Mr.
JAVITS], who attended the hearings con-
stantly and brought to the attention of
the members of the committee some ex-
tremely important immigration and nat-
uralization matters. The Senator from
New York was extremely helpful in the
subcommittee and In the full committee.
He has been concerned about this matter,
I know, for a great many years.
The Senator from New'York has been
in the forefront of all the fights on the
floor of the Senate. The bill is a better
bill because of his interest, his constant
concern, and his invaluable contribu-
tions.
The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. FOND]
has brought to the debate an under-
standing of-the implications and ramifi-
cations of the previous legislation of
1924 and 1952, as it applied to the Far
East. He has made a study of the prob-
lem and showed an intimate under-
standing of it. His speech which urged
support of this legislation was one of the
most exhaustive and comprehensive
studies of this legislation made by any
.
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
September 22, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Member of this body. The Senator was
in constant attendance at the hearings
before the subcommittee and the full
committee. He brought a unique back-
ground and experience to the discussion.
The makeup of this committee was of
such a nature that we would not have
been able to get the bill out of the sub-
committee unless we had the leadership
of the minority leader, the Senator from
Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN], who rendered in-
valuable assistance in the crucial hours
of the bill. He assisted when many of
us were wondering whether this Con-
gress was going to have an opportunity
to act this year on a matter consistent
with the other actions which has been
taken in other legislation dealing with
equality of opportunity. The equal right
to the vote, equal opportunity for our
young people in education, and a better
opportunity for those who live in pov-
erty, all these measures and the immi-
gration bill stand out as the mark of a
Congress concerned with the quality of
American life.
Many of us felt that it was the re-
sponsibility of this Congress to speak out
on this issue. At a critical time, the
minority leader, the Senator from Illi-
nois, brought forth an understanding
and comprehension of the issue and
rendered invaluable assistance in having
the bill passed.
Mr. President, I am deeply indebted
to all of these Senators and to ,the Sen-
ator from Connecticut [Mr. DODD], the
Senator from Missouri [Mr. Loxc], the
Senator from Indiana [Mr. BAYH], the
Senator from North Dakota [Mr. BuR-
DICK], the Senator from Maryland [Mr.
TYDINGS], the Senator from Nebraska
[Mr. HRUSKA], the Senator from Penn-
sylvania [Mr. SCOTT], and the Senator
from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS], all Of
whom were interested in the legislation
and participated in the work of the com-
mittee. They were in constant contact
with me during the course of the debate.
They were extremely helpful.
Mr. President, I should like to add one
very important name that will always be
associated with this bill. The deep con-
cern and conviction of the President
of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson,
is attested to by the fact that we have
been able to act successfully here today.
He was concerned with it, he has been
interested in it, he has `followed our
progress closely, and I think that his in-
terest and his concern in designating the
legislation as one of his priority meas-
ures had a great deal to do with the
action of the Senate this afternoon.
Mr. President, I could not let this op-
portunity pass without recognizing the
occupant of the chair and without say-
ing how much I recognize the contribu-
tion that the Vice President of the
United States has made in bringing this
legislation to the point at which this
Congress and this Senate could pass the
measure today.
I know that the Vice President of the
United States was in the forefront of the
battle in 1952. He has been interested
in the problem and concerned with it.
I know that he shares with all Senators
No. 175---18
the joy experienced by virtue of the pas-
sage of the bill before the Senate today.
The passage of this bill is also to the
credit of the Attorney General, Mr. Kat-
zenbach, and the Secretary of State, Mr.
Rusk. They, with their able assistants,
such as Norbert Schlei, the Assistant
Attorney General, and Abba Schwartz,
Director of the Bureau of Security and
Consular Affairs, worked long and hard
for this victory today. I would also com-
mend Mr. James Hines, of State, and
Mr. Robert Salasion, of Justice, and Mr.
Gene Krejuk, of the State Department.
Last, but not least, Mr. President, we
are indebted to the staff members of the
Senate Immigration Subcommittee, Mr.
Fred Mesmer and Mr. Drury Blair.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I
yield.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the Sen-
ator has spoken about everybody but
himself. I think that it is very appro-
priate for someone on the minority side
to speak of him.
He is a young man. However, this is
the second time that he has shown his
outstanding ability in handing a matter
on the floor of the Senate.
I just discussed with the majority
leader the very extraordinary point that
a highly controversial bill went through
to passage without it being necessary-
and I emphasize that word-to vote on a
single amendment.
That is a most extraordinary record.
I, too, should like to join in the tribute
paid by the Senator from Massachusetts
to the other Senators.
I should like especially to emphasize
the triumph of the legislative mind and
the ability of the rest of us to agree on
important points with the Senator from
North Carolina [Mr. ERVns] who indi-
cated an objectivity and .understanding
of the legislative process which was most
admirable.
Mr. President, I believe that the Sen-
ator from Massachusetts can write this
event down as one of his finest hours,
whatever Senators may think on the
questions involved, or his views or mine,
or the views on the other side.
The RECORD is very clear on that.
The clearest thing in the RECORD is the
vote. I am very proud of the Senate
that, this afternoon, has taken, by such
an enormous affirmative vote, an his-
toric step forward in the foreign and
humanitarian policy of the United
States.
I think the Senator for the rest of his
life will have every reason to look back
at his role of Senator in charge of this
bill with the greatest of gratification.
I join with the Senator from Massa-
chusetts in thanking the minority
leader, the Senator from Illinois, for his
assistance in this matter. I am con-
fident that, without him, we would not
be where we are. We are all very grate-
ful to him. The country is most grate-
ful to the minority leader.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I thank
the Senator for his most gracious re-
marks. If it had not been for the tact
23897
and the understanding and the devotion
which the Senator from Massachusetts
gave to this bill, the bill would never
have come from the subcommittee or the
full committee in such fine form.
I am also deeply grateful to the senior
Senator from New York, not only for his
gracious remarks, but also for his con-
tributions to the bill.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I, too, join
in expressing praise and thanks to the
junior Senator from Massachusetts for
his magnificent performance.
Two Presidents of the United States
have played a historic role in the passage
of this legislation. I believe that we
should nail that fact in the RECORD.
John Kennedy had no higher priority
that the achievement of the elimination
of the national origins quota system. He
must be very proud to see the Senate,
and more particularly, the Senator in
charge of the bill, at this moment.
I doubt very much if this hour would
have arrived except for Lyndon Johnson.
Some day some Ph. D. may write a
thesis on how it is that a man from Texas
put together all the forces and brought to
bear the conscience of a country on an
issue which really has very little signif-
icance constitutionally, but is on a very
high moral plane. I know that any his-
torian will seek to find the answer as to
him more than anyone else.
I suggest that it may very well prove
to be the combination of the two Presi-
dents who were responsible for this mo-
ment.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, it
was most gracious of the distinguished
junior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr.
KENNEDY] to say what he has just said
about the President of the United States.
It is obvious to all, I believe, that both
our late, beloved President, John F. Ken-
nedy, and the present Chief Executive of
this Nation, Lyndon B. Johnson deserve
an accolade for their efforts in this field.
It is in no small measure due to the
efforts of both of these Presidents that we
have arrived today at the historic point
of passage of an immigration reform bill
which abolishes the national origins
quota system. I join now with those
who give deserved credit to President
Johnson and our late President Kennedy.
Mr. President, a cherished hope of
many Members of this body, as well as
many of the people of this great Nation,
was realized today in the Senate's strong
affirmative vote abolishing the national
origins quota system in our immigration
laws. This is, indeed, an historic oc-
casion marking the culmination of the
efforts of many, including all of our re-
cent Presidents.
The national origins quota system was
inequitable. But the mere abolition of
that system was not enough; a workable
and just substitute had to be found. Mr.
President, in this bill, through the un-
selfish efforts of many, such a substitute
is embodied. The new system of allo-
cation is based on a system of prefer-
ences extending equal opportunity to all
nationalities, demonstrating the human-
ity of this great nation and its con-
tinuing dedication to freedom, and yet-
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 23898
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 22, 1965
and this is of prime importance-fulfill- perseverance and patience sought an end manitarianism, to the fair play, and to
ing the needs of or own country. Priority to the national origins quota system. I the greatness of this Nation. The dis-
in the issuance of immigrant visas is am proud that we have crowned their tinguished Senator from Massachusetts
given to close relatives of U.S. citizens efforts with success today. has done a magnificent job. He should
and aliens lawfully admitted for per- The subcommittee and the committee be very proud that he has played such.
manent residence, to aliens who are could not have succeeded without the a critically important part in bringing
members of the professions, arts or sci- undaunted effort and unselfish cooper- the measure to fruition.
ences, to skilled or unskilled laborers who ation of the senior Senator from North Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I congratu-
h
are actually needed in the United States, Carolina [Mr. ERVIN] and the senior
and to refugees fleeing religious or politi- Senator from Hawaii [Mr. FoNal. The
cal persecution or seeking refuge from Senator from North Carolina devoted
the chaos of natural disasters. i-'s unmatched legal skills to hammering
Mr. President, not enough can be said out the provisions of this bill, and the
in support of these goals. I will, how- Senator from Hawaii brought to the bill
ever, conclude these brief comments on the in-depth analysis of a true scholar
the substance of this bill by saying that as well as the special sensitivity required
through it America will continue to be a for adequate treatment of this most sig-
beacon to the world. It will continue to nificant immigration bill.
merit the praise of the German farmer Others lent their special skills and de-
who, as quoted in the late President voted their sharp analysis as well as
Kennedy's perceptive book, "A Nation of eloquent remarks to this measure.
Immigrants," wrote from his new home Many of these have time and again
in Missouri in 1834: over the years spoken out forcefully in
If you wish to see our whole family living
in * * * a country where freedom of speech
obtains, where no spies are eavesdropping,
where no simpletons criticize your every word
and seek to detect therein a venom that
might endanger the life of the state, the
church, and the home, in short, if you wish
to be really happy and independent, then
come here.
It is especially appropriate, in view of
the very particular interest of the late
beloved President Kennedy in reform of
our immigration laws, that this measure
should be managed by the junior Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY]. But
as the Senator from Massachusetts has
more than amply demonstrated, there
were also excellent reasons on the merits
why that assignment was so made. Sen-
ator KENNEDY has proven himself to be
one of the most well prepared and skilled
of floor managers. He is, indeed, a vet-
eran of the Senate who has come through
with flying colors under the respon-
sibility of managing a very important
and very complex piece of legislation.
A little earlier this afternoon, during
discussion of this bill, we. were treated
to another of the sensitive, eloquent
speeches of the junior Senator from Illi-
nois [Mr. DIRKSEN], the very distin-
guished and cooperative minority leader.
The minority leader played no small
part in the passage of this bill and I
thank him, as always, for the part he has
played.
Both the Junior Senator from Massa-
chusetts and the junior Senator from
Illinois are members of the Subcommit-
tee on Immigration and Naturalization
of the Committee on the Judiciary,
which worked for many, many days to
put this very important measure in shape
and present it to the Senate. During
those long, hard efforts and even for
many years in the past, the proponents
of this bill included in the forefront the
other members of that subcommittee,
from both sides of this aisle. Of special
significance were the efforts of the junior
Senator from Michigan [Mr. HART], who
earlier this year sponsored, together with
33 other Senators, the bill which served
as the blueprint for the Senate's work on
the measure passed today, and the senior
Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS]
who has gained preeminence among the
leaders in this country who have with
favor of the goals of this legislation. I
commend them all. I especially want to
congratulate the senior Senator from
Oregon [Mr. MORSE], the senior Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONsTALL],
the Senators from Rhode Island [Mr.
PASTORE and Mr. PELL], the junior Sen-
ator from New York [Mr. KENNEDY],
and the senior Senator from Colorado
[Mr. ALLOTT].
This bill has been, Mr. President, a
model of deliberative treatment by the
Senate. It is, without question, one of
the most important measures treated by
the Senate in this most productive Con-
gress. It restates this country's devo-
tion to equality and freedom. I am hap-
py to be a part of the Senate which has
taken affirmative action on this truly
historic legislative measure.
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, as a mem-
ber of the Judiciary Committee, which
has worked on this bill, I join my col-
leagues in highly commending the junior
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KEN-
NEDY] for his dedicated effort in seeing
the bill through. He has worked very
hard on the bill. He has sat through
many meetings and listened to a large
number of witnesses with great patience.
He has brought considerable knowledge
to bear upon this extremely complex leg-
islation, and it is through his dedication
and very excellent leadership that the
Senate has at long last passed the bill.
No doubt great credit should be given
our great late President, John F. Ken-
nedy, and our present President John-
son, for their support of the bill. But it
was primarily through the untiring ef-
forts of the junior Senator from Massa-
chusetts that the bill has finally been
brought to the floor and passed.
As a descendant of those people who
came from the Far East, and as one who
has felt the sting of the discriminatory
features of present immigration laws, I
want to say that this is a great day for
the Senate of the United States. This
is a bright moment in history in which
so many of the Senators agreed, by their
76 affirmative votes, that this bill is just,
fair, and equitable. Again I should like
to commend the junior Senator from
Massachusetts for his indefatigable man-
aging of this very meritorious bill, which
is far-reaching in its purview and which
will stand as a beacon light to the hu-
u-
late the junior Senator from Massac
setts [Mr. 7:E^r'E1-'] on his skill, tact,
and tenacity in managing this exceed-
ingly complicated and far-reaching im-
migration bill.
It is an excellent bill and one that
combines our basic ideas of man's equal-
ity to man and the needs of compassion
with the realities of our political process
and of our national Interest.
Senator KENNEDY, in managing and
fighting for this bill and its principles in
the Senate, has shown an awareness of
all these qualities-man's equality, com-
passion, our political process and na-
tional interest.
The senior Senator from North Caro-
lina [Mr. ERVIN] is to be congratulated
on his sense of fair play and justice in
helping this bill along to final passage.
I thank him, too, for his role in the writ-
ing of this legislation.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE-EN-
ROLIZI) BILLS AND JOINT RESO-
LUTION SIGNED
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by-Mr. Hackney, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the
Speaker had affixed his signature to the
following enrolled bills and joint resolu-
tion, and they were signed by the Vice
President:
S.4. An act to amend the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to establish a Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, to
provide grants for research and development,
to increase grants for construction of sewage
treatment works, to require establishment
of water quality criteria, and for other pur-
poses;
H,R. 1221. An act for the relief of Betty
H. Going;
H.R.2414, An act to authorize the Ad-
ministrator of Veterans' Affairs to convey
certain lands situated in the State of Oregon
to the city of Roseburg, Oreg.;
H.R.4152. An act to amend the Federal
Farm Loan Act and the Farm Credit Act of
1933 to provide means for expediting the re-
tirement of C}overnment capital in the Fed-
eral intermediate credit banks, including an
increase in the debt permitted such banks in
relation to their capital and provision for
the production credit associations to acquire
additional capital stock therein, to provide
for allocating certain earnings of such banks
and associations to their users, and for other
purposes;
H.R.4603. An act for the relief of
Lt. (jg.) Harold Edward Henning, U.S. Navy;
HM. 7090. An act for the relief of certain
individuals;
H.R.8715. An act to authorize a contri-
bution by the United States to the Inter-
national Committee of the Red Cros ;
H.R.9877. An act to amend the act of
January 30, 1913, as amended, to remove
certain restrictions on the American horpi-
tal of Paris;
H.R. 10323. An act making appropriations
for military construction for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1966, and for other purposes; and
S.J. Res. 98. Joint resolution authorizing
and requesting the President to extend
i
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 :CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
 September 20,-700-- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
23851
becomes legally incompetent and loses his [From the Richmond News Leader, Sept. 21, land as surplus. Despite the complexity of
rights when he is committed to a hospital for 1'965] the' ownership of the quarry, it is evident
treatment," we AsurA QUARRY REVISITED that George Washington's detractors have no
Attorneys should also be made aware of the Last title to their false claim.
strange Cage
ek
we
the
Senator's cosponsorship of a bill to authorize tics of
those
who were asserting
rting that George
all attorneys, licensed In their home State,
to practice before administrative agencies Washington, the Father of his Country, was
without separate admission bythe agency in- a common crooked politician. The story was
without . that he had finessed a little deal to gyp the
volved
Neither the last nor the least of his zealous Federal Government by selling second-rate
pursuit of the means to safeguard individual Aquia stone for building the U.S. Capitol.
liberties is his current inquiry into Federal h But ever-alert researchers from at Mount teat
employees rights in firings, hirings, and per- non had d quickly shown f fr letters that
sonnel practices. Washington never owned the quarry at Aquia
Of this dedicated lawyer, jurist, legislator, Creek; and that in fact the Federal Govern-
can truly be said he is an ex- went bought the quarry outright from other
and patriot it
ample of the fulfillment of the late President owners and cut the stone itself.
Kennedy's admonition to us all, "Ask not Today the mail brings to hand a year-old
what your country can do for you? ask what issue of Lawyers Title News, giving a complete
can you do for your country." history of the ownership of the Aquia
quarry-and its confused tangle of titles.
THE RECENT CIVIL DISTURB-
$NCES IN LOS ANGELES
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, much
has been written and said about the re-
cent violent disturbances in Los Angeles,
but I think nowhere have such unfor-
tunate occurrences been put in better
perspective than they were in a state-
ment of Prince Hall Grand 1 tasters,
made in San Francisco, Calif., in August
1965,
Amos T. Hall, a good friend and a good
man, has relayed this statement to me.
Believing that it will be of interest to
all Senators, Mr. President, I ask unani-
? mous consent that the statement may
be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT OF PRINCE HALL GRAND MASTERS,
AUGUST 1965, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.
Prince Hall Masonry with-R, membership
of approximately one-half million, reaffirms
Its historical position of protest in seeking
to eliminate the inequities of citizenship and
every form of discrimination from the
American scene.
We deplore the recent violent disturbances
which have resulted in the loss of lives and
the destruction of millions of dollars worth
of property in cities of the United States
without regard to sectional location.
We direct attention to the courageous
leadership of President Johnson, which has
resulted in the enactment of advanced civil
rights legislation by the Congress of the
United States and to his expressions and
proclamations regarding the public accept-
ance of the fact that all citizens of our Na-
tion are entitled to, and should have, equal
protection and application of the law, irres-
pective of their race, color, or religious af-
filiations.
We call upon every Prince Hall Mason as
a leader in his community to use his in-
fluence to keep this protest nonviolent as
he strives to eliminate injustice and dis-
crimination. We urge that violence be
avoided and solutions sought within the
framework of the Constitution and laws of
the United States.
- AQUIA QUARRY REVISITED
Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the RECORD at this point a copy of the
attached editorial from the Richmond
News Leader of September 21, 1965, en-
titled "Aquia Quarry Revisited."
There being no objection, the editorial
was,ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follow:
The article backs up the Mount Vernon re-
search with the expert legal scholarship of an
associate counsel for Lawyers Title Insurance
Co., Marvin C. Bowling, Jr. It's clear from
intr. Bowling's study that Washington had
nothing to do with the quarry.
Lawyers Title got into the problem a couple
of years ago, when after a routine search, it
insured a seemingly perfect title to the island
where the quarry is located. The abstract
showed an unbroken title running back to
the Commonwealth of Virginia In 1877. At
that time, the State had granted the island
to two individuals on a land office warrant.
The overgrown quarry which provided stone
for the U.S. Capitol and the White House was
forgotten and undetected. Then one day the
new, 20th century owner discovered signs on
the island warning: "U.S. Government prop-
erty-keep off." Soon an official advertise-
ment appeared indicating that the land
would be sold by the General Services Admin-
istration at public auction.
The supposed owner grew alarmed. Law-
yers Title was appalled. After running down
a number of U.S. Government agencies that
handle property, Mr. Bowling finally found
the right one. Yes, they had a title, officials
explained; it went straight back to Charles II,
and the U.S. Government had. the paper to
prove it.
In 1678, the island was granted by the
"Governor and Captain General of Virginia"
to two individuals who had performed serv-
ices for the King. The next instrument,
dated 1694, stated that the first grant was
void; the new instrument transferred the
land to a George Brent. And the grantors
were the successors to the original proprie-
tors, the successors being Margaret Lady Cul-
peper, Thomas Lord Fairfax, Catherine, his
wife, and Alexander Culpeper, Esq. Thus the
interest in the property went back all the
way to the original grant of the entire North-
ern Neck to the Culpepers in 1669. For upon
the death of Lord Culpeper, his interest be-
came vested in his daughter Catherine, wife
of Lord Fairfax. The family then sold to
Brent.
The property remained in the Brent family,
famous Catholic recusants from Maryland,
for 97 years. In 1791, another George Brent
conveyed the island to Peter Charles L'En-
fant-the man who laid out the terrifying
complexity of Washington streets-for 1,800
pounds. The title was confirmed in the
name of the trustees for the commissioners
appointed to establish a "seat of government
of the ITrdlted Staten.'` The stone was cut,
the Capitol built, the quarry abandoned, and
the very ownership of the island forgotten.-
Many records in the Stafford County court-
house were destroyed by Union soldiers. And
granted it anew.
Through the peculiar precedence of roy
proceeds of the title insurance. Eventually
the GSA disposed of the historical plot of
PLIGHT OF THE JEWS IN THE
SOVIET UNION
Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey. Mr.
President, on Sunday, September 19,
American Jews assembled in Lafayette
Park across from the White House to call
world attention to the plight of the Jews
of the Soviet Union.
The Jews of that country are subjected
to discrimination. Like other peoples in
the Soviet Union, they are regarded as
a nationality group. They are named as
Jews on their passports. But they are
not permitted the rights accorded to
other nationalities. Their schools, their
theater, their culture, their books, their
learning, their newspapers-all these
have disappeared. For almost half a
century, ever since the Soviet revolution
of 1917, this great community, which was
once a reservoir of learning for world
Jewry, has been cut away and isolated
from Jews of other lands, from its own
historic pact. Gradually, but inexorably,
it will be cut away from its identity and
it will cease to exist.
Officials of our own country are aware
of this injustice and have joined with
the American Jewish community in ap-
peals to the Soviet Union for a rectifica-
tion of this wrong. Our own body has
spoken twice on this subject during the
last 2 years and, during the last few
months, President Lyndon B. Johnson
has twice expressed his own views
publicly.
Last Sunday, on September 19, as Jews
began a vigil in Lafayette'Park to attest
their concern and to protest against the
gradual disappearance of the Jewish
people of the Soviet Union, the President
addressed a message to that demonstra-
tion, and I ask unanimous consent that
the President's message be included in
the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the message
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
SEPTEMBER 17, 1965.
I greet my fellow Americans of all faiths
gathered today in a vigil for Soviet Jewry.
Your cause is the cause of all men who value
freedom.
History demonstrates that the treatment
of minorities is a barometer by which to
measure the moral health of a society. Just
as the condition of the American Jew is a
living symbol of American achievement and
promise, so the conditions of Jewish life and
other religious minorities in the Soviet Union
reveal fundamental contradictions between
the stated principles and the actual prac-
tices of the Soviet system.
I once again express my hope for an end
to the restrict e r tices which prevent
Soviet Jew fro t ull enjoyment of their
heritage. jo 11 everywhere who
through vig e m sin freedom's eternal
NATIONALITY ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
further morning business? If not, morn-
ing business is closed; and the Chair lays
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006=4
 23852
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 22, 1965
before the Senate the unfinished busi-
ness, which will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE. CLERIC. A bill (H.R.
2580) to amend the Immigration and Na-
tionality Act.
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I sub-
mit for the RECORD, a statement prepared
by the Senator from Texas [Mr. TOWER],
and ask unanimous consent that they
may be printed in the RECORD at this
point. .
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT BY SENATOR TOWER
There can be little doubt that the pending
immigration bill is not nearly so objection-
able as it was when it was first introduced
as an administration measure at the begin-
ning of the year. However, I remain opposed
to its enactment because I do not believe
that in the long run it will promote the gen-
eral -welfare of the United States. On the
contrary, I am of the opinion that if we
enact this proposed legislation, we will be
adding unnecessary weight to the burdens
that will have to be borne by future genera-
tions of Americans.
A number of basic changes were made in
the bill before it was passed by the House
of Representatives. These changes, along
with other additional amendments made by
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, have
made it an entirely different measure from
the one that was recommended in the Presi-
dent's January 13 message to Congress. The
bill's provisions regarding basic changes in
the quota system were drastically altered.
The provisions for a Presidential commission,
which would eventually have been respon-
sible for formulating immigration policy, I
am glad to say, have been deleted. Stronger
controls against immigration that would dis-
place American workers from their jobs and
adversely affect wages and working condi-
tions in this country have been incorporated
into the bill. These are noteworthy Improve-
ments, but they do not, in my opinion,
justify the bill's enactment.
STATEMENT BY SENATOR TOWER
Under the provisions of this bill, the vol-
ume of immigration into this country would
be bound to significantly increase. The esti-
mates that have been made concerning the
size of this increase vary from 60,000 to 100,-
000 or more. Considering that an average of
300,000 immigrants have been admitted an-
nually in recent years, this means that we
will have upwards of 400,000 immigrants a
year under the bill.
I do not believe that it is wise for us to be
increasing immigration at the present time.
Notwithstanding its provisions, which are
supposed to safeguard domestic workers, this
bill will increase the size of our labor force,
both immediately and even more markedly
in the years ahead when the younger immi-
grants and the offspring of those admitted
reach working age.
Moreover, I am not at all assured that the
intended safeguards of workers in this coun-
try will prove effective with respect to the
immigrant to whom they are intended to
apply. Frankly, I see nothing but a tremen-
dous bureaucratic nightmare in attempting
to put these provisions into effect. Under
the bill, a job clearance would be required
for each individual applicant for an immi-
gration visa, stating that the applicant will
not displace a qualified American worker or
have any adverse effect on wages and work-
ing conditions of domestic workers. The job
clearance would be required for every immi-
grant except those granted preference under
the bill by reason of their relationship to a
U.S. citizen or an alien admitted for perma-
nent residence.
The enactment of these provisions would,
in my opinion, cast an impossible burden
upon the Labor Department if it is to ad-
minister them effectively. Imagine, if we
will, the involved. decisions that would have
to be made in applying these restrictions to
thousands upon thousands of prospective
immigrants each year. In my opinion, the
provisions are utterly unworkable and give
every indication of being inserted in the bill
merely to provide an answer to those who
would raise questions concerning the bill's
effects on our labor market.
Each generation of Americans has a re-
sponsibility to those that will follow after
it. That responsibility is now ours, to leave
our children and their children a country in
which to live which will be free of any dif-
ficulties or problems of our making that we
ourselves would not want to face.
I firmly believe that if we enact this pro-
posed legislation increasing immigration, we
will be abdicating this responsibility for the
shortsighted and transient goals of politi-
cal expediency. Many of the social and
economic problems we face today may well
be inconsequential in comparison to those
of future generations with our vastly ex-
panding populations.
Certainly, it is impossible to say at what
precise point a country becomes overpopu-
lated. This does not mean, however, that we
cannot clearly recognize when we are faced
with population problems. I believe we are
facing them now. We have reached a point
when our water resources are being taxed
severely in order to meet present needs in
many parts of the country, for example.
Many of our rivers and streams have become
polluted to the degree that they no longer
afford the recreational facilities, or meet the
needs for modestic and industrial water con-
sumption that they did just a few years ago.
One of the Great Lakes, we are told, is now
in the process of dying from such pollution.
New York and other cities in New England
and Middle Atlantic States are now experi-
encing the serious problems that arise from
lack of clean, fresh water. Water problems
are numerous in my area of the country. In
the face of such problems like these, and
others, I feel that we must move most cau-
tiously in considering legislation which would
add stimulus to the pace of our population
growth.
There are several provisions of the bill
which I would support, but not at the ex-
pense of increasing the volume of immigra-
tion, which would be the major effect of its
enactment. I strongly support, for example,
the abolishment of the Asia-Pacific triangle
which has been especially discriminatory. I
also lend my support to the committee
amendment to the bill providing a numerical
limitation on Western Hemisphere immigra-
tion. I do not view this amendment as an
affront to our Western Hemisphere neighbors.
I doubt that in their mature judgment they
would view it as such either. The family
reunification and skill requirement provi-
sions of the bill are most meritorious.
It is evident that the national origins quota
systemhas in some ways been discriminatory,
and that it has not always worked as it was
intended to. These claims, of course, have
some merit, but that does not justify enact-
ment, in my opinion, of legislation to greatly
increase the numbers of immigrants that will
be admitted into the country. Certainly, it
is possible to reform the basic law without in-
creasing immigration. That is what I would
prefer to do.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
FOURTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE
PEACE CORPS
Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, just 4
years ago today on September 22, 1961,
President John F. Kennedy approved
Public Law 87-293, the Peace Corps Act.
This historic measure, which was enacted
with overwhelming Democratic and
Republican support in both Houses of
Congress, has continued to justify the
hopes and the dreams of those who gave
it their faith.
Peace Corps volunteers are now lo-
cated in 46 countries. At the end of the
1964 program year the Peace Corps had
10,494 volunteers and trainees in serv-
ice. At the end of the August 31, 1965,
program year, the Peace Corps had 12,000
volunteers and trainees in service.
Legislation recently approved by Con-
gress will authorize 15,110 volunteers and
trainees by August 31, 1966. An over-
whelming number of these trainees are
devoting themselves to education.
Others are helping in community action,
agriculture, and health among others.
The example they have set by personal
conduct has truly demonstrated that
Americans are a helpful and compas-
sionate people. The spirit of 1776 as ex-
emplified in the Declaration of Inde-
pendence called upon our people "to as-
sume among the powers of the earth,
the separate and equal station to which
the laws of Nature and of Nature's God
entitled them." That declaration held
the following truths to be self-evident
that:
All men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain un-
alienable rights, that among these are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Peace Corps volunteers have sought
to bring this hope of 1776 to the develop-
ing nations of 1905. And they are suc-
ceeding. In Afghanistan when the Peace
Corps first went to help the people there
they were limited to 15 volunteers-9
actually went-located only in the capital
city of Kabul. We now have 190 Peace
Corps volunteers there serving in many
parts of that land. In Colombia Peace
Corps volunteers are producing educa-
tional television programs which are
bringing the benefits of education and
culture to many people of that land.
The projects are innumerable and
worthwhile, but it is the spirit and rcpi,e-
sentations which these Americans, men
and women, young and old, make for a
free way of life that is most meaningful.
They do not live in Embassy compounds.
They do not shop at the PX. They live
with the people. 'I'ney eat their food.
They share their life as they work to un-
derstand and help them help themselves.
When the Peace Corps started with
the verve and enthusiasm which it com-
bined, many Washington cynics thought
that it would not be long before the Peace
Approved For Release 2004/01/16 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000100290006-4