OCR Text |
Show wmSsm I . - ,- - ...j IMMIGRATION POLICY MAY GET ONLY MODEST OVERHAUL Farmers, small business owners, and some labor union officials have a vested interest in U.S. policy affecting immigration and the admission of refugees. And. by and large, they are opposed to any big tightening of present laws and procedures. This was made clear last month at joint congressional hearings to discuss the recent report of the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy. Testimony at these hearings reflected various points of view on the question of whether -- and by how much - immigration and admission of refugees should be limited. Those advocating absolute ceilings and generally stricter enforcement of the laws in this field appeared to have an edge. This may have been attained because they argued cogently that current American economic problems and the breakdown of the existing system during the course of last year's influx of refugees from Cuba reveal the need for reform. CEILINGS & MORE CONTROLS These advocates of a markedly tighter policy on immigration and refugee admissions may have found the answer to their requests in legislation proposed by Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) (R-Wyo.) who wants to clamp an absolute lid on total immigrant and refugee admissions. He. would also set a separate lid on refugee flow alone. The Simpson views -- which appear to have wide public support-also include maintenance of the present per-country limit on immigrants, some reduction in the number of immigrants who are relatives of U.S. citizens or permanent residents of this country. The Wyoming Senator also would like independent preference or "seed category" immigrants im-migrants to be chosen on the basis of traits that would benefit the U.S. economy or culture, protect our domestic workers, and ease the melding of the newcomers into American society. ESPOUSERS OF STATUS QUO With public opinion either arrayed against them or at least unsympathetic to their views, those who oppose the Simpson immigration reform package and or other attempts to tighten our' immigration' laws' have not made any big waves so far. They are anxious, however, to see as much of our present liberal policy as possible kept firmly in place. Conscious of their own strengths as well as their weaknesses, Simpson opponents are grouping to do battle against the ceilings that the Senator would have Congress impose. In addition to farming, the enterprises en-terprises that would be most affected by an across-the-board tightening of immigration and refugee policy are largely concentrated in retailing, including in-cluding restaurants. Allied with these are others who could be hurt by new policy restrictions, notably Latin American governments and civic organizations. In some instances, these latter interests may obtain support from certain Hispanic and black groups in the U.S. ' " WHAT LIES AHEAD These foes of stricter immigration legislation feel their position is bolstered by the fact that the select commission mentioned above recommended that the number of legal immigrants into the U.S. annually be increased by two-thirds to 450.000 persons for five years, and then cut back to 350,000. On this and a number of other immigration im-migration questions--including the sticky problems of language and cultural separation as well as the wisdom of setting up an alien ID system-there is as yet no consensus on Capitol Hill. Hence, you may expect Congress to move slowly and deliberately in its consideration of reform. Quite probably it will not take final action until next year. When it does act, the changes it makes in present laws, regulations, and procedures will not be harshly restrictive. They will, nevertheless, mark some pullback from the present laissez-faire in this area. |