|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE
The leading Copyright |
Presidential Papers Historical Series: Special Message to the Congress on Immigration Mattersby Dwight D. Eisenhower: 1953-1961
To the Congress of the United States:
Throughout our history immigration to this land has
contributed greatly to the strength and character of our
Republic. Over the years we have provided for such immigration
because it has been to our own national interest that we do
so. It is no less to our national interest that we do so under
laws that operate equitably. The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the
Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization have made a
thorough study of the operation of our present immigration
laws, and have advised me concerning the changes and additions
which they consider necessary in the national interest. I have
carefully reviewed their findings and concur in their
conclusions. The recommendations now made are based on those
findings and conclusions. This Message takes up four separate and distinct subject
matters respecting our immigration policies: (1) the quota
system and the use of national origins, (2) the
private-relief-bill system of handling hardship cases, (3)
unnecessary restrictions and administrative provisions of our
immigration laws, and (4) judicial review in deportation. Each
such subject matter is treated separately because the problems
in each are wholly distinct from the others. Accordingly, the
recommendations as to each subject matter will, I hope, be
considered separately and each on its own merit. I. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was developed
essentially as a codification of many separate, and sometimes
overlapping and inconsistent, immigration and nationality
laws. It was thought inappropriate, in connection with that
legislation, to revise our basic immigration policies.
Moreover, at that time 1950 census information was
incomplete. The time has now come to consider those policies.
Experience in the post-war world demonstrates that the present
national-origins method of admitting aliens needs to be
re-examined, and a new system adopted which will admit aliens
within allowable numbers according to new guidelines and
standards. The Congress has traditionally formulated our basic
immigration policies, and will doubtless wish to make its
decision as to what new system should be established only
after its own study and investigation of all possible choices.
There are many factors that must be taken into consideration.
Among these are: the needs of this country for persons having
specialized skills or cultural accomplishments; close family
relationships; the populations and immigration policies of
countries sending immigrants to this country; their past
immigration and trade relationships with this country; and
their assistance to the joint defense of the friendly free
nations of the world. Pending the completion by the Congress of such study and
investigation, it is essential that we take interim measures
to alleviate as much as possible inequities in the present
quota system. Accordingly, I recommend the immediate enactment
of the following proposals. First, the present quota system sets a maximum annual
authorization of 154,657 quota immigrants. This figure is
derived from a formula based upon the 1920 population. I
recommend that total population as shown by the 1950 census be
used as the base for determining the overall ceiling. I
believe that economic growth over the past thirty years and
present economic conditions justify an increase of
approximately 65,000 in quota numbers. I recommend that
Congress provide for such an increase by fixing the overall
ceiling in terms of a percentage of total population as shown
by the 1950 census. The new ceiling recommended would be
approximately 220,000 quota numbers annually. In order to eliminate some of the inequity resulting from
the fact that several countries have large quotas which they
do not use while others have small quotas which are usually
oversubscribed, I recommend that the additional quota
numbers--i. e. those over and above the 154,657 numbers now
provided for--be distributed among countries in proportion to
their actual immigration to this country since the
establishment of the quota system in 1924. This method of allocation will help to alleviate the
problem of oversubscribed quotas. At the same time no country
will have a lesser number of quota numbers allocated to it
than at present. Second, I recommend that the Congress set aside from the
increased annual quota 5,000 numbers to be available for
admission of aliens without regard to nationality or national
origin. Use of these numbers would enable us to meet some of
the needs of this country which develop from time to time for
persons with special skills and cultural or technical
qualifications. The existing immigration law recognizes somewhat similar
criteria for quota immigrants by giving a preference to those
whose services are determined by the Attorney General to be
needed urgently in the United States because of the high
education, technical training, specialized experience, or
exceptional ability--and to be substantially beneficial
prospectively to the national economy, cultural interests, or
welfare of the United States. Our needs and requirements
should be determined on the basis of consultation among the
various departments and agencies of the Government, and also
with the advice and testimony of private organizations. This special pool has further value as an experimental plan
departing entirely from our present system of distributing
quotas on a basis of nationality or place of birth. It also
would enable us to give greater assistance to persons abroad
who have undergone suffering and hardship resisting Communist
aggression, who would make beneficial contributions to this
country, and who will not have the benefit of the Refugee
Relief Act after that Act's termination. Third, quota numbers that are unused by countries to which
they are allocated should be made available for use elsewhere.
Under our present law quota numbers which are unused by any
particular country in the year in which they are available
become void and may not be used by any other country. I recommend enactment of legislation that will permit the
utilization of unused quota numbers in the succeeding year.
This should be done by pooling the unused quota numbers in
each of the following areas: Europe, Africa, Asia, and the
Pacific ocean area. These pooled quota numbers would then be
distributed during a twelve-month period on a first come,
first served basis among eligible applicants of the area,
without regard to country of birth within the area. These
quotas should be limited to aliens who qualify for preference
status under existing law--persons having special skills or
close relatives in the United States. There is a further inequity in the quota system by virtue
of the so-called mortgage on quotas resulting from the
issuance of visas under the Displaced Persons Act and other
special acts. The law provides that visas issued under these
acts are chargeable against quotas authorized under the
Immigration Act. The result is that the quotas of many
countries are mortgaged far into the future. For example,
fifty percent of the quota for Greece is mortgaged until the
year 2017; for Lithuania, until 2090; for Latvia, until 2274.
The total number so mortgaged for the year 1955 amounted to
about 8,000, and over the total span of years the aggregate
could be as much as 328,000. I recommend the elimination of
this unfairness. This is consistent with the action of the
Congress in enacting the Refugee Relief Act of 1953. Congress
did not then impose additional mortgages on quotas but
provided special non-quota visas for eligible refugees. II. For some time I have considered that undue and largely
useless burdens are placed upon the Congress and the President
by the avalanche in recent years of private bills for the
relief of aliens. The number of these bills is strikingly high
in comparison with the number of public enactments. In the
First Session of the Eighty-Fourth Congress private
immigration enactments alone accounted for 413 of 880
enactments, public and private; 3,059 such bills were
introduced. During the Eighty-Third Congress, private
immigration enactments accounted for 753 of 1,788 enactments,
both public and private; 4,797 such bills were introduced. At
the beginning of the present Session, there were 2,159 private
immigration measures pending. The Congress, in the performance of its constitutional
duties, must consider the worthiness of each private
immigration bill introduced. The President, in the performance
of his constitutional duties, must consider the worthiness of
each bill enacted. The Nation's interest would surely be
better served if the bulk of these private immigration claims
were handled through suitable administrative machinery and if
the Congress and the Executive could thus give their full
attention to more urgent national problems. Under the private bill system of handling individual
immigration cases, many persons fail to obtain the very relief
which others have received, because Congress has not had the
time to take up and act on the bills introduced for their
benefit. Indeed there are many whose plight has not even come
to the attention of the Congress. For these reasons it is my belief that action is called for
to provide the necessary administrative authority to take care
of such cases. I hope that such action will be taken without
delay so that it may be of help this year. The enactment of
such authority, in my opinion, would substantially eliminate
the need for private legislative redress in this area. I
suggest that there should be vested in the Attorney General
limited discretionary powers to grant relief with respect to
admission and deportation of aliens. Such discretion should be
limited to aliens with close relatives in this country, to
veterans, and to functionaries of religious organizations,
regardless of the technical statutory ground on which the
alien is inadmissible or subject to deportation. These classes
of cases embrace the great bulk of the hardship cases which
appeal to our sense of fairness. However, no relief ought to
be accorded aliens whose presence here would be dangerous to
the safety and security of the United States. An appropriate
charge against the applicable quota would be made in each case
where relief is granted. It should further be provided by the Congress that there
shall be a ceiling on the number of cases in which such
discretionary authority may be exercised. III. Experience under the existing immigration law has
established that there are a number of changes, aside from the
quota provisions, which should be made in the Immigration and
Nationality Act of 1952. Some provisions create unnecessary
restrictions upon travel to the United States, while others
inflict great hardships upon the aliens affected.
Consequently, I make the following recommendations: Under the present law, every alien applying for a visa must
be fingerprinted; and every alien admitted without a visa and
remaining in the United States for thirty days or longer, even
if here temporarily, must be fingerprinted. Although in our
minds no stigma is attached to fingerprinting, it is not a
requirement of travel in other countries. We should be the
first to remove travel obstacles which hamper the free
exchange of ideas, cultures and commerce. Further, experience
over the last three years has shown that this requirement does
not significantly contribute to our national safety and
security. The law should be amended to permit the Secretary of
State and the Attorney General to waive the requirement of
fingerprinting, on a reciprocal basis, for aliens coming here
for temporary periods. We must recognize the tremendous increase in air and
surface travel in recent years. Aliens traveling from one
country to another often find it necessary to pass through the
United States without any intention to remain in or even visit
this country. A South American flying to or returning from
Europe, for example, will often pass through the United
States. He should not be required to meet all of the standards
for admission, coupled with inspection and examination, that
normally apply. These requirements result in unnecessary
hardships to the traveler, expense to the carrier, and loss of
good will, without proportionate benefit to the United States.
The law should be amended accordingly. The present statute contains a restrictive requirement
which makes it necessary for immigration authorities to
inspect and apply all grounds of exclusion to aliens seeking
admission to the mainland of the United States from Alaska and
Hawaii. This requirement results in expense to the Government
and causes delays and inconvenience in travel. It must be
remembered that, by definition in the law, these Territories
are part of the United States, and aliens who have entered or
are present in them are subject to all the provisions of the
Act. If the alien was deportable before he came to the
mainland, he remains deportable. I recommend the elimination
from the law of this unnecessary restriction upon travel. The immigration laws presently require aliens to specify
race and ethnic classification in visa applications. These
provisions are unnecessary and should be repealed. A large group of refugees in this country obtained visas by
the use of false identities in order to escape forcible
repatriation behind the Iron Curtain; the number may run into
the thousands. Under existing law such falsification is a
mandatory ground for deportation. The law should be amended to
give relief to these unfortunate people. The inequitable provisions relating to Asian spouses and
adopted children should be repealed. The Immigration Act grants special naturalization benefits
to veterans of our Armed Forces who have completed at least
three years' honorable service and who can submit proof of
admission for permanent residence. Many have been unable to
submit this proof. I recommend that proof of admission be not
required in such cases. The present statute is unnecessarily restrictive as to
aliens who marry United States citizens. It forbids adjustment
to permanent residence if the alien has been in the United
States less than one year before the marriage. This disrupts
the family and is expensive for the alien who must go abroad
to obtain a nonquota visa, without proportionate benefit to
the United States. I recommend that the requirement of one
year's presence in the United States before marriage be
repealed. The above covers the principal changes which I recommend as
a minimum toward amelioration of the immigration laws. Others
will be suggested by the Attorney General. IV. Just as the Nation's interests call for a larger degree of
flexibility in the laws for regulating the flow of other
peoples to our shores, there is at the same time a significant
need to strengthen the laws established for the wholesome
purpose of ridding the country of the relatively few aliens
who have demonstrated their unfitness to remain in our midst.
Some of these persons have been found to be criminals of the
lowest character, trafficking in murder, narcotics, and
subversion. Constitutional due process wisely confers upon any
alien, whatever the charge, the right to challenge in the
courts the Government's finding of deportability. However, no
alien who has once had his day in court, with full rights of
appeal to the higher courts, should be permitted to block his
removal and cause unnecessary expense to the Government by
further judicial appeals the only purpose of which is delay. I
am concerned by the growing frequency of such cases involving
as they often do the depraved and confirmed criminal.
Accordingly, I have asked the Attorney General to submit to
the Congress, a legislative proposal that will remedy this
abuse of legal process. I believe that these changes in our immigration and
nationality laws, together with the amendments to the Refugee
Relief Act which I have heretofore recommended to the
Congress, not only will advance our own self-interest, but
also will serve as living demonstrations that we recognize our
responsibilities of world leadership. I urge their careful
consideration by the
Congress. Reprinted with permission from John Wolley and Gerhard Peters of the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Santa Barbara at the American Presidency Project.
About The Author |
