(Note.-The following letter was sent to both candidates:)

 (1) That the U.S. immigration quota, based on population figures and other census data of 1920, be updated at least to 1950, applying the same ratio as is now used for devising our immigration quota system.
 (2) That the annual unused quota of certain nations which accumulate and expire each year be redistributed to other friendly nations having a backlog of immigration applications.
 (3) That the Attorney General be authorized to admit up to 60,000 refugees in any given year, extra quota, said numerical limitation to be reviewed annually by Congress in the light of world conditions.
 (4) That any and all measures should promptly be taken to bring about a reunion of immediate family members under the four current preferential quotas and that they should be admitted extra quota.

Vice President Nixon replied as follows:

     DEAR CONGRESSMAN SANTANGELO: I wish to take this opportunity to thank you for your letter of September 20 inquiring about my views on our immigration laws.
     As you know, this is a field in which President Eisenhower long has sought congressional action to bring our laws up to date to fit presentday conditions. On March 17, 1960, for the most recent example, he sent a message to the Congress urging liberalization of our immigration laws in several respects and noting that there has been no period in which the immigrants to this country have not richly rewarded it for its liberality in receiving them. In many respects, however, the Congress has refused to pass the necessary legislation despite these earnest efforts to persuade it of the advisability of proposed new laws.
     It has been said many times before, and it is still true, that the United States has been built by immigrants from other countries, many of them refugees from persecution in their native lands. The process continues today, and an important evidence of this country's high standing in the community of nations is the fact that so many people in other parts of the world seek admission to the United States. As far as can be done without adversely affecting those already here, we should encourage this immigration flow.
     The specific points you propose are largely part of the program which President Eisenhower recommended. Indeed, he proposed that the overall limitation on immigration should be based on the 1960 census rather than 1920, as at present. In further accord with his March 1960 recommendations, I would prefer to see our immigration quotas based on the number of immigrants actually accepted from each area during the last 25 years. Under such a system, the quota for Italy would be based on a percentage of actual immigration from Italy during the 25 years rather than upon a percentage of the socalled Italian ethnic group in our country.
     As the President recommended, we should allow the pooling of unused quotas based on geographic distribution in order to at least use to the maximum our existing exceedingly limited immigration quotas.
     Congress did pass, and the President signed, legislation which provides a limited degree of flexibility in permitting refugees to enter the United States. It fell far short, however, of President Eisenhower's recommendation for statutory provisions to permit absorption of "many thousands" of persons who fled their homelands during political upheavals to escape persecution. In my own travels abroad, I have seen the desperate plight of many of these refugees and I am firmly convinced of the desirability, from several standpoints, of permitting substantial numbers of such refugees to enter the United States.
     Humanitarianism itself calls for action to bring about a reunion of immediate family members under preferential quotas.
     It would be my hope that, controversial though the broad problem of our immigration laws may be, their revision could be approached by the new administration and the new Congress on a cooperative and nonpartisan basis. I share your confidence that, entirely aside from humanitarian objectives, such revisions would result in the strengthening of what you refer to as "our national pool of high skills and talents."
     With every good wish.
        Sincerely,

     DEAR CONGRESSMAN SANTANGELO: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on your program for action in the field of immigration.
     For many years I have been actively concerned with reforming our immigration laws so they will better meet our national needs and international responsibilities. I voted to uphold President Truman's veto of the Immigration Act of 1952. I was the author of the only liberalizing amendment Congress has passed to that act - S.27992. Under this amendment, 20,000 additional Italian nationals and 40,000 other persons have been admitted to the United States. In my years in the Senate, I have also supported the Refugee Relief Act and other legislation that would, in total numbers, provide for the admission of over 600,000 persons outside present immigration quotas, including Italians, Germans, Greeks, and escapees from Communist countries. In addition, in 1957, I introduced legislation that would give nonquota visas to 1,400 Portuguese nationals who had lost their homes due to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions in the Azore Islands.
     I believe that the most important immediate objective of immigration reform is the reuniting of families. There are many new citizens in America whose immediate families are in other lands, waiting patiently to join them. In countries which oversubscribe their quotas, they have been waiting for many years. We have a social obligation to bring these families together. For this purpose, I have suggested that nonquota status be granted to parents, minor children, and spouses of citizens and resident aliens, provided they are otherwise eligible under the law.
     I believe that each of the other proposals you set forth in your letter also provides a sound basis for legislative action. Updating our present quotas, and pooling unused quotas, are sound methods of assuring that present authorizations are used up in an equitable manner. A flexible formula for admission of refugees should be devised so that our country can act more speedily in meeting our share of the world's responsibility to the victims of oppression. But I also feel that we should look beyond these proposals to the abolition of the national origins quota system and its replacement with a more equitable method of regulating the inflow of immigrants.
     Ours is a nation of immigrants. The men and women who have come here from abroad have built America into the greatest country in the world. If America is to move ahead, we will have to draw on the skills of men and women of other nations, just as we have in the past. And if our country is to be the leader of democracy in the world, our immigration policies should conform more fully to the principles of equal justice on which our country was founded.
     With every good wish, I am
        Sincerely,