United States. President's Commission on Immigrati.

Hearings online

. (page 22 of 35)
Online LibraryUnited States. President's Commission on ImmigratiHearings → online text (page 22 of 35)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


2. Authorizing expeditious naturalization of former citizens

3. J're.serving citizenship notwithstanding i)rotracted foreign residence

or voting in foreign countries.

4 . Other nationality bills

Total



81st Cong.



Intro-
duced



1.596
100



24
19

115
24

221

17

4

62
47
.53



2,465



En-
acted



ia3
44

11

3

5

9

11

53

13

99

4

2

29
6
12



82d Cons



Intro-
duced



2,107
243

192
4

23
34
47
a3
40

134

33

6

119
13
74



En-
acted



2&4
110

110

2

8

8

14

18

21

.50

14

1

43

4



505 3, 302



732



1970 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

The Service caiinot undertake to advise your Comissioii as to the policies
followed by Congress in dealing with private relief legislation. So far as I am
aware, no congressional committee has ever issued a statement setting fortli the
criteria by which it would be governed in passing upon private immigration
and nationality bills. However, tlie House Subcommittee on Innnigrati(»n and
Naturalization lias indicated to this Service that it does not look with favor
upcm ju-ivate bills tor the relief of deserting seamen or stowaways.

In its recommendations to the Department, the Service has talien the position
tliat the enactment of private bills should be limited to cases involving unsual
and compelling circumstances siich as extreme hardship and services rendered
or to be rendered to the United States. Tlie Service consistently has opposed
the enactment of private bills wliich tend to encourage a disregard for the general
laws at the expense of aliens who comply with these laws.

■ As a I'ule, bills in the first inmiigration category i)rovide for the deduction of
one number from the applicable quota as to each alien beneficiary. Under the
existing practice, the aliens who violate our immlgi'ation laws are frequently
rewai'ded and those who respect our l;iws by leniaining abroad until their
numbers are reached nnist experience furfher delay because so many quota
ntimbers are allocated to alie'.is unlawfully i-esiding in the United States.

From time to time retpiests have been made by the Senate and House Commit-
tees on the Judiciary tliat the Service defer deportation pending consideration
of private relief legislation. In that connection, there is attached for your infor-
mation a copy of -a letter which was written on August 21, l!>r)2, by the Attorney
General to the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Nat-
uralization. That letter sets forth the policy by which the Service is guid(Hl in
the matter of staying deportation pending consideration of private l»ills.

In pai'agraphs r» and G of your letter yoii request a statement as to the probable
effect of Public Law 414, Eighty-second Congress, upon the number of private
bills which may be expected in the future. That act eliminates the racial bar
altogether and thereby obviates the necessity for the introduction of private
bills referred to in innnigration category No. 10 of the above analysis. The
Immigration and Nationality Act grants nonquota status to the alien Chinese
children and husbands of American citizens. (See sees. 202 (a) (5) and 101 (a)
(27) (A).) For that reason, there will be no need for private bills under immi-
gration category No. 9.

Section 101 (a) (27) (A) of the Tmmigi-ation and Nationality Act confers
nonquota status upon an immigrant who is the "spouse" of an American citizen.
Under existing law (sec. 4 (a) of the Immigration Act of 1924), alien husbands
of American citizens do not have nonquota status b.v reason of the relationship
unless the marriage occurred prior to January 1, 1948. This change in the law
may I'educe the number of liills described in immigration category No. H.

Section 101 (b) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act defines the term
"child" so as to include "a stepchild, provided the child had not reached the age
of 18 years at the time the marriage creating the status of stepchild occurred."
Thus, a stepchild will enjoy nonquota status under section 101 (a) (27) if the
stepfather or stepmother is a citizen of the United States. This extension of the
class of "child" will undoubtedly operate to reduce the number of private bills
referred to in immigi-ation category No. 2.

Immigration category No. 1 will probably be affected by section 245 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes the adjustment of status to
permanent residence in certain cases, and by section 203 (a) (1), which grants
quota preferences to persons of high education or specialized experience.

In paragraph 6 of ycmr letter you request a statement as to the types of cases
in which the Service anticipates an increase in the volume of private bills result-
ing from the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Some avenues
which heretofore provided administrative relief to aliens seeking the adjustment
of their immigration status will be closed as you have indicated. There is, how-
ever, no way to ascertan what proportion of the persons affected will seek relief
through private legislation. While this expedient has been resorted to with
increasing frequency during the last decade, it is not possible to determine what
effect Public Law 414 will have upon the attitude of the Eighty-third Congress.
Consequently, any statement by the Service as to the probability of an increase
in the number of private bills, or the extent of any possible increase, would be
entirely coniectural.
Sincerely,

Benj. G. Habberton,
Acting Commissioner.



I



COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1971

(The following letter from Attorney (Jeneral McGranery was enclosed:)

AtJcrsT 21, 1952.
Hon. Fkancis E. Walter,

Cliairiiian, Sithconiiiiitfcr on Jmniif/ration and NdtvrnUsdtion,
Committer on the Judiciary, House of RcpreHnitatixcs,
Washington, D. C.

My Dear Mr. Congressman : This is in response to your letter of July 8, 1952,
reiiuesting that deportation be held in abeyance until March 1, 1953, in the cases
of aliens for whom private bills were pending in Congress at the time of its
adjournment.

During the Eiglit.v-second Congress, 3,669 private relief bills dealing with
immigration and nationality problems were introduced, which compares with
a total of 2,811 for the Eighty-first Congress, 1,141 for the Eightieth Congress,
429 for the Seventy-ninth Congi-ess, and 16.S for the Seventy-eighth Congress.

This vast increase in th*' introduction of private relief bills in recent years,
reaching its peak in the Eigiity-second Congress, has naturally resulted in a
comparable increase in the calls upon the Immigration and Naturalization Service
for investigations and reports, a situation wliich, without a conunensurate in-
crease in personnel, has placed a considerable burden on facilities already heavily
Inirdened with many other pressing assignments. However, as you know, this
department is always desirous of furnishing every possible assistance to the
Congress and continuing the splendid mutual cooperation which has always
existed between your committee and the department.

I know that the flood ot private bills has also added to the burdens of your
committee, and that many such bills were under active consideration by your
committee and by the Congress at the time of its adjournment. While I am
reluctant to continue indefinitely the deferment of deportation in the cases of
aliens whose expulsion is connnanded by statute, at the same time I wish to
afford to the Congress the opportunity to consider ameliorative action in those
matters where the appropriate congressional committees have stated that such
action is under active consideration.

In the past this Department has generally withheld the deportation of those
aliens in whose behalf private bills were pending, when such postponement has
been requested by the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. Such deferments
represent an administrative courtesy which the Attorney General is glad to
extend to Congress. As you know, however, the law reposes in this office the duty
to dejtort aliens who are illegally in the United States, and this Department
must reserve the right to determine whether a stay of deportation in any
individual case is consistent, in its judgment, with good administration and with
the welfare and safety of the United States, a policy with which I am sure that
you are in full accord. Such determination, however, will be made only after
consultation with the interested committees of the Congress.

In conformity with this policy and in compliance with your request, this
department will continue to extend to Congress the full measure of courtesy
and comity that has guided our actions in the past. With the above reservation,
deportation will lu^ stayed until March 1, 1953, in those cases in which a private
relief Idll was pending in Congress at4;he time of its adjournment, in which the
appropriate committee in either House of Congress has not taken adverse action,
and in which your committee has specifically asked that deportation be stayed or
has requested a report.
Sincerely,

James P. McGranery.

Attorney General.



1972 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR CONCERNING CERTIFICATIONS AS TO UNAVAILABILITY OP
DOMESTIC LABOR DURING 1946-52

Office Memorandum

October 31, 1952.

To : Mr. Boris Stephen Yaiie, President's Commission on Immigration and
Naturalization.

From : E. L. Keenan, Deputy Director, Bureau of Employment Security.

Subject : Operational data concerning certirtcatiuns us to unavailaliility of domes-
tic labor during 1946-52.

The data contained herein represent those instances in which the United
States Employment Service furnished to the Attorney General of the United
States a certification as to the unavailability of like domestic lal)or in connection
with applications filed by employers requesting waiver of the labor-contract law.
The data does not reflect whether the emijloyer requests were for temporary
(nonimmigrant) or permanent (immigrant), nor does it indicate that workers
actually entered this country in the numbers indicated. It is further limited
in that it applies only to requests from nonagricultural employers, exclusive of
users of Canadians on a temporary basis by the woods industry in Maine, New
Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. The Canadian woods workers are admitted
under the waiver provisions of the law implemented by arrangements between
the United States and Canadian Governments.

The attached tables show information by broad occupational groupings :

Table I. — This table indicates the number of openings for which certification
as to the unavailal)ility of workers was made by calendar year. You will note
that substantially large numbers of workers were primarily in the skilled
occupations, and relatively small numbers in the professional. With respect to
the professional groups, the sm;ill number of openings for which certifications
were made may be due largely to the fact that the labor-contract law excludes
mental workers from its provisions. Thus, in those instances in which the
Immigration and Naturalization Service determined that the employer's appli-
cation was for an alien to iierform mental work, certitication was not requested
by the United States p]mployment Service. There appears to be a relationship
between the annual total nvimber of openings for which certification was made
and the general labor-market conditions in this country during those years.

Table II. — Table II is prepared to show the number of different occupations for
which certifications were made each year. The figures in the total 7-year-period
column indicate the total number of different occupations for which certification
was made during the entire period. For example, construction bricklayers
(skilled group) may have been certiiied for in each of the T years. However, in
the total colunm, it woidd appear as only one occupation. While 4.ss different
occupations would appear a sizable number, it is less significant in terms of the
thirty-odd-thousand identifiable occupations utilized in the Ihiited States, each of
which requires different skills or a different skill level.

Table III. — The information contained herein is presented to show that, gen-
erally si)eaking, small numbers of openings are involved for each application
filed by an employer. For instance, in the professional and managerial group
for 1946, certification was made for 43 openings (see table I) representing 18
different occupations (see table II), but involved 39 employer j-equests (see
table III). Thus, the number of openings ijer request averaged 1.1 per request
and 2.3 number of openings per each occupation in the professional and mana-
gerial group for the year 1946.

These data are not a sample but constitute total activity for the years re-
ported, exclusive of the use of Canadians in the New York and New England
woods industry. Interpretations and conclusions are relatively difficult due to
the problems of determining the interrelationship among such factors as —

1. Varying economic conditions ;

2. Total size of labor force ;

3. Total number of openings certified ;

4. Small numbers of openings usually involved per request ;

5. Wide range of occupations ;

6. Quota problems which may have been a deterrent to employer application:

7. Inability of worker to independently apply for admission for employment ;

8. Repetition of appearance in successive years of same needs, either due to



COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1973

seasonal demaiul or inability to etVtrt entrance of worker within authorized
period ; and

9. Inability to determine from Employment Service records the proportion
approved by Imniij;ration and Naturalization Service for permanent or temporary
admission. Detailed sampling, however, indicates that a substantial proportion
involved workers who were granted temjxtrary iidmission.

J)iitit on uotiiif/riculturnl ccrtificntions, other thnn Cfniailinn icoodsirorkers.
coiitpilcd from- individual employer folders

TABLE I. NUMBER OF OPENINGS



Occupations


1946


1947


1948


1949


1950


1951


1952'


Total for
7- year
period


Professional and managerial _

Cleriral and sales


43
3

88
2

240
221

97
156

183
268


23

27
2

232
300

166
63

1,031
22


34

49

36

5

195
506

32

1

1.003

88


25
2

11
2

53
111

25
6

75
144


27
2
2


94
3
13


87
1

13
2

412
267

420

51
242


333

67


Service . . .


190


Fisherv, forestry, and kindred


13


Skilled:

Miinufacturing-.


39
381

4
13

144"


1,2.30
1,224

15
380

84
230


2,401
3 010


Nonmanufacturing-. - .


Semiskilled:


410


Nonmanufacturing.


1,039

2,427
1.138


fn.sk illed:

Manufacturing .


Nonmanufacturing


Total . .


1,301


1,873


1,949


454


612


3,273


1, 566


11 028







TABLE II. NUMBER OF OCCUPATIONS



Professional and managerial

Clerical and sales

Service.

Fisherv, forestry, and kindred-
Skilled:

Manufacturing

Nonmanufacturing

Semiskilled:

Manufacturing

Nonmanufacturing

T'nskilled:

Manufacturing

Nonmanufacturing



Total.



18


12


12


2


3


6


9


11


7


2


2


3


40


38


39


39


24


24


17


11


9


7


8


1


7


4


4


5


3


3


146


116


108



69



15


25


3


1


6


8




1
43


35


35


37


8


7


11


/


3


2


5


4


121


135



67
13
28
10

112
113

46
31

13

15



TABLE III. NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL ORDERS



Professional and managerial

Clerical and sales

Service _

Fishery, forestry, and kindred.
Skilled:

Manufacturing

Nonmanufacturing.

Semiskilled:

Manufacturing _ .

Nonmanufacturing

Unskilled:

Manufacturing _ .

Nonmanufacturing.



Total.



39


14


19


8


5


19


36


3


3


6


1


1


3


1


13


16


9


6


2


7


9


2

87


2
.54


3

66


2
33






1
65


28


55


55


44


45


27


45


67


48


17


15


9


5


1


8


7


11


9


1


4


4


33


46


7


5


4


1




3


2


7


3


3


1


1


16


21


241


165


165


88


87


211


233



140
18
62
10

388
331

62
108

22
52



1,193



1 Through Oct. 17.



1974 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR CONCERNING MANPOWER ASPECTS OF IMMIGRATION POL-
ICY ; IMMIGRATION QUOTAS IN RELATION TO SIZE OF UNITED
STATES POPULATION; AND I'OPULATION GROWTH AND CAPITAL
INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 1919-60

United States Depart mext of Labor,

Bureau of Labor Statistics,

Office of the Commissioner,
Washifiiiton, D. C, November 4, 1952.
Mr. Harry N. Rosenfield,

Executive Director, President's Commissiofi on Immigrdtion and Nnturali-
zation, Washiniiton, D. C.
Dear Mr. Rosenfield : In accordanfe with our understanding with Mr. Boris S.
Yane, I am happy to send you the folh)wing materials, prepared by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics for tiie assistance of the President's Commission on Immi-
gration and aliens in the United States.

1. Manpower aspects of immigration policy.

2. Immigration quotas in relation to size of United States population.

3. Population growth and capital investment in the United States, 1919-60.
The above materials may be considered as supplements to the statement which

I presented at the public hearings of the Commission in Washington on October
27, 1952.

We have previously sent you : (1) Summaries of the economic situation for se-
lected periods from 1907 to 1951; and (2) a selected list of references on immi-
gration and aliens in the United States.

The opportunity to be of service to the Commission has been appreciated.
Very truly yours,

EwAN Clague,
Commissioner of Labor Statistics.

Manpower Aspects of Immigration Policy

Immigration policy has often been considered in relation to the manpower re-
quirements of the American economy. There are two basic considerations con-
cerning the role of immigrants in meeting the manpower requirements of the
United States which should be taken into account in formulating that policy.
Both make it quite impossible to give any objective quantification of this rela-
tionship.

1. The manpower requirements of the United States in i*elation to immigration
obviously vary with employment and over-all economic conditions in this coun-
try. Obviously enough, to take one extreme, during a period of depression, we
do' not even have the capacity to absorb the labor force resulting fi-om our own
population increase. lender these circumstances, a case can be made for cessa-
tion of all immigration. Under conditions of an expanding economy, with
high levels of employment, it is just as obvious that immigration can play a
part in meeting manpower requirements in this country. The amount of immi-
gration that could be absorbed under these conditions becomes a theoretical
problem related to the ultimate capacity of this country to al)sorb additional
persons. For examiile, the figures will vary substantially depending on assump-
tions concerning technological advances on the farm, in terms of increasing the
amount of food that con be produced per acre; similar technological advances
in factories ; etc.

2. A similar situation holds in terms of the relationship of immigration to
manpower requirements in specific occupations. The difficulty in making this
i'elationshii> and quantifying it stems from two factors ;

(a) In terms of manpower requirements of the United States in such highly
skilled or professional occupations as physicians, engineer, etc., there are im-
portant harriers and restrictions in terms of education, training, and licensure.

(b) One must also consider the manpower requirements of our allies and their
needs for these professional and skilled personnel. Historically, we have made
our gains by having immigi-ants to the United States join the stream of education
and training in this country and in this way taking their place in various occupa-
tions, side by side with the native-born, in meeting occupational needs in this
country.



COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1975

When all is said and done, then, the relationship between manpo\A'er require-
ments of tlie United States and innnigration becomes not a matter of quantity
l)ut a matter of outlook or philosophy concerning future economic conditions in
the United States.

Tluis, if one assumes a United States economy expandimr in the future toward
higher national product, national Income, standard of living, one can easily find
the proper place for immigrants. Contrariwise, in tlie setting of a stagnant
economy, it is difficult to support, from a manpower point of view, any significant
number of immigrants to the United States.

Immigration Quotas in Relation to Size of United States Popui-ation

A fixed volume of immigration each year means a constantly declining ratio
of immigrants to the total population because of the natural increase in the
population. The immigration quota of 1(!5,000 in 1924 represented 145 persons
per 100,000 in the population at that date. The same number of inim-grauts in
1952 would have i-esulted in a ratio of 105 per 100,000 population. By 19ti0, the
proportion would be further reduced to 97 per 100,000 pr-rsons in the population
(assuming the same level of immigration after July 1952).

On the other hand, if it is assumed that the inmiigration quota is related as
a fixed percentage to the population, then the amount of immigration would
increase proportionately with the growth of the total population. For examp'e,
the 1924 innniaration quota of 165,000 is the equivalent, on this basis, to 228,000
in 1952, and to 248,000 in 1960.

PopuiATioN Growth and Capital Investment in the United States, 1919-60

The gains in productivity which underlie both the rising standard of living of
the United States and the increased leisure time available to American workers
have been founded in large part upon a long-term growth in our stock of capital
relative to population. Therefore, it is certainly pertinent to inquire whether
immigration would increase our population so rapidly as to strain our produc-
tive resources and endanger the outlook for a continuation of this rising pro-
ductivity. Although the following calculation is extremely rough and takes
account only of the relationship between population and capital accumulation,
it does suggest that rising productivity and rapidly increasing population are
consistent.

Our national wealth, both public and private, has risen considerably faster
than the population in the recent past. In the period 1019-51 our national stock
of productive capital doubled, as compared with an increase in the total popida-
tion of 46 percent. This growth has not been at a constant rate during the
period and the most rapid increases in productive capital jier person have not
been associated with a slowly rising population. Conversely, when our stock
of capital has declined relative to the population, it has not been an abnormally
rapid rise in population which has l)een at fault. The depression period of the
19;30's is a graphic example of this. The percenta'^e increase in the population
in the decade of the thirties was the smallest for any decade in our history,
yet the per capita wealth of the Nation declined markedly, the result of little
new investment in a period of business despondenc.v.

In contrast, in the post-World War II period of high levels of employment
and economic activity, capital investment has outrun by a considerable margin
even our extr.-iordinnry rate of population growtli. From 1946 to 1951 our stock
of invested capital increased by an estimated 15 percent, as compared with an
increase of population of 9 percent.

It seems clear that changes in the capital stock per person in the lecent past
have been primarily the result of factors other than population growth. I'ast
experience indicates that we have the ability to increas



Online LibraryUnited States. President's Commission on ImmigratiHearings → online text (page 22 of 35)