[Senate Hearing 109-668]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-668
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM II
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 18, 2005
__________
Serial No. J-109-42
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
30-759 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
David Brog, Staff Director
Michael O'Neill, Chief Counsel
Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas,
prepared statement............................................. 86
Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Massachusetts.................................................. 2
prepared statement........................................... 105
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont,
prepared statement............................................. 127
Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Pennsylvania................................................... 1
WITNESSES
Chao, Elaine L., Secretary of Labor, Washington, D.C............. 7
Chertoff, Michael, Secretary of Homeland Security, Washington,
D.C............................................................ 4
Krikorian, Mark, Executive Director, Center for Immigration
Studies, Washington, D.C....................................... 35
Massey, Douglas S., Professor of Sociology, Princeton University,
Princeton, New Jersey.......................................... 37
Sharry, Frank, Executive Director, National Immigration Forum,
Washington, D.C................................................ 33
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Responses of Michael Chertoff to questions submitted by Senators
Grassley, Kyl, Cornyn, Feingold, and Coburn.................... 45
Responses of Elaine L. Chao to questions submitted by Senators
Kyl, Cornyn, and Feingold...................................... 63
Responses of Elain L. Chao to additional questions submitted by
Senator Feingold............................................... 66
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Chao, Elaine L., Secretary of Labor, Washington, D.C., prepared
statement...................................................... 68
Chertoff, Michael, Secretary of Homeland Security, Washington,
D.C., prepared statement....................................... 78
Embassy of Honduras, Ramon Custodio, Charge d'affaires, a.i.,
Washington, D.C., letter and statement......................... 88
Faith-based leaders and organizations, joint statement........... 97
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and other national and local Jewish
organizations, Washington, D.C., joint statement............... 101
Krikorian, Mark, Executive Director, Center for Immigration
Studies, Washington, D.C., prepared statement.................. 107
Massey, Douglas S., Professor of Sociology, Princeton University,
Princeton, New Jersey, prepared statement...................... 129
Moran, Tyler, Policy Analyst, National Immigration Law Center,
Los Angeles, California, statement............................. 134
Sharry, Frank, Executive Director, National Immigration Forum,
Washington, D.C., prepared statement........................... 140
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM II
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m., in
room 226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Arlen Specter
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Specter, Grassley, Kyl, DeWine, Sessions,
Cornyn, Brownback, Coburn, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold,
Schumer, and Durbin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Chairman Specter. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The
hour of 9:30 having arrived, the Judiciary Committee will
proceed with its hearing on immigration reform, one of the most
important and difficult issues facing the United States today.
We see a problem with our borders being unprotected. We see
a great need for labor in this country, both skilled and
unskilled. We see a certain apathy and resentment toward
immigrants, notwithstanding the fact that this country was
built by immigrants and that we need immigrants in order to
sustain our economic vitality.
I approach these hearings with a bias of birth because both
of my parents were immigrants. My father came to this country
at the age of 18 in 1911, served in World War I. My mother came
at the age of six with her family, also from Ukraine. I think
it fair to say that the Specter family has contributed to this
country as this country has been built by immigrants.
We take up the consideration of two bills, one introduced
by Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy, and another introduced
by Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn. These bills deal with the
subjects of enforcement and guest worker programs. The main
differences between these two bills involve how they would deal
with undocumented immigrants already in this country.
When we take a look at the economic facts, the Bureau of
Labor Statistics report entitled, ``Labor Force Projections to
2012: The Graying of the U.S. Workforce,'' we see that by the
year 2012, the labor force in the age bracket of 25 to 34 is
projected to increase by only three million while those 55
years or older will increase by 18 million. Chairman Greenspan
has described an alarming situation on the economic impact of
an aging American population where the diminishing growth in
the labor force and the increase in the ratio of elderly
workers places an enormous burden on the Social Security system
and the Medicare programs being unsustainable in the long run.
We see tremendous shortages in skilled workers in health care
and in construction, plumbers, electricians, and virtually all
lines.
The Pew Hispanic Center in a recent report showed that for
the first time in our Nation's history, the number of illegal
immigrants coming into this country exceeds the number of legal
immigrants, so we have a major, major problem on our hands.
This Committee worked very promptly through the
Subcommittee chaired by Senator Cornyn and then took the issue
up at full Committee with a hearing in July. We have been
interested in pressing ahead and the administration was not
ready, and I understand that, for the July hearing, with the
complexities of the issues. A number of us have been at the
White House, talking to the administration about the
administration position.
In mid-October, the Judiciary Committee faces a daunting
workload. That is, candidly, an understatement with what we
have done by way of class action reform and bankruptcy reform
and reporting out an asbestos bill and the confirmation of the
Attorney General, confirmation of the Chief Justice, and a very
heavy backlog on controversial and contested Judicial nominees.
But we are prepared to tackle this matter. It is a matter of
very, very substantial urgency and the one obstacle, the only
obstacle to which this Committee will defer is the calendar.
Unless we can elongate the months of October and November, it
is hard to see how we can fit all of the square pegs into
square holes and move forward, but we are determined to do our
utmost.
Senator Kennedy is serving as Ranking today because of his
longstanding interest and we will await his opening statement.
We pride ourselves here on running on time, so I am going to
yield back the last 4 seconds of my opening statement--one
second of my opening statement.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Specter. Our first witness today is the
distinguished Secretary of Labor, who is now in her second
term. Her resume would take more time than is allotted for her
testimony, so we will put it into the record, but I have had
the pleasure of working with her extensively on the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Services,
and Education. She is a tireless worker and I want to thank her
especially for her help on our asbestos reform bill.
Before beginning the testimony, may I yield to our
distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Kennedy, with a word of
praise for his outstanding contribution to the Senate
generally, but especially in the field of immigration.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want
to thank you for calling these hearings. This is the second
hearing. We know the Senate has a very full agenda with a lot
of very important pieces of legislation, but the whole issue of
border security and immigration reform is an issue which is of,
I think, concern not just to areas that are particularly
adversely impacted, but to the Nation as a whole.
Senator McCain and I have put forward a proposal, as I know
other colleagues have, as well, Senator Cornyn, Senator Kyl,
members of our Committee. Senator Feinstein has been enormously
interested, as other members of the Committee have been.
I think, first of all, Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to make
an extensive statement here, but I think it is important that
the country understand that, one, this is a national security
issue. We know that the current system is broken. We know that
we have spent more than $20 billion over the last 10 years and
law enforcement in and of itself has not been able to close the
borders. This is a national security issue.
Number two, this whole question and issue we are trying to
resolve, I don't believe will ever be resolved unless we have
the support of Mexico and the countries of Central America. I
think we need to broaden this out to be inclusive of these
countries and they need to understand the importance of having
not broken borders, but smart borders, that reflect national
policy. I don't believe we are going to be able, with all the
electronics and all the law enforcement in the world, to
function and have an effective system. So we have to include
those nations. They have to be serious about it and they have
to be responsive to the leadership here in the United States.
We are still hopeful that we can work with the President--I am
sure my colleagues do as well--in developing a bipartisan
policy that is going to address the issues.
And third, we know that we are not going to deport the 11
million undocumented that are here at this present time. It is
just not fathomable. For any person that is going to speak on
immigration reform, they have to address that or their proposal
is not serious. That is a complicated issue. It brings enormous
emotion.
Senator McCain and I are not for amnesty. We are not for
putting anyone at the front of the line. We are not for
forgiving anyone. But we do believe that there is a process
that can be developed for those individuals who want to work
hard, for those people that want to play by the rules, those
people that want to pay their fine and pay their dues, that
they can go to the end of the line and through a long period of
hard work be able to earn the rights here in the United States.
That is consistent with our long tradition as a nation of
immigrants.
This is a complicated question. Just these observations are
not definitive in terms of an approach. I do favor, as I know
Senator McCain does, strong law enforcement provisions and
heightened security arrangements. I am very hopeful that
perhaps we can all find a way that is going to be responsive to
the security measures which are going to be necessary. I also
favor a program that is going to admit temporary workers here
in the United States through a legal process rather than the
400,000 to 500,000 that come over the border illegally and
adjustment of status, which also will give focus and attention
to our overall national security issues.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having these
hearings and for giving a focus and attention to an issue of
enormous importance and consequence to our country.
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Senator Kennedy.
I am advised that the witnesses and the administration
prefer to have the order inverted and to start with the
Secretary of Homeland Security, Hon. Michael Chertoff. He
brings to this position an outstanding record academically. He
was a U.S. prosecutor for more than a decade, Assistant
Attorney General in the Criminal Division, Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, and now leaving that lifetime appointment to
be Secretary of Homeland Security.
Thank you for joining us, Secretary Chertoff, and we look
forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Secretary Chertoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Senator Kennedy and other members of the panel for the
opportunity to appear here to discuss vital issues of border
security, interior enforcement, and immigration reform as a
whole.
Later today, the President is going to sign the DHS
appropriations bill into law, and thanks to Congress, DHS now
is going to have substantial additional funds to spend on
critical border security and enforcement initiatives.
As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, over the last several
months, members of the administration have talked to a lot of
Members of Congress about comprehensive immigration reform. We
have benefited greatly from the input we have received and we
appreciate your support and your focus as we move forward on
this very, very important item on the national agenda.
Ever since the President's first inauguration, he placed
increasing importance on border security and has devoted
significant resources to this challenge. The President
believes, and I agree, that illegal immigration threatens our
communities and our National security. The fact of the matter
is that the ability of undocumented individuals to enter our
country represents an obvious homeland security threat.
Flagrant violation of our borders undercuts the rule of law,
undermines our security, and imposes special economic strains
on our border communities. When we don't control our borders,
we also risk entering into the U.S. of terrorists or criminals
who want to do us harm.
There is also a humanitarian dimension. Migrants who rely
on coyotes, human traffickers, and smugglers are often robbed,
abused, and left for dead on their illegal trek across our
borders, so we have to, from a humanitarian standpoint, as
well, address this critical situation at the border.
The fact of the matter is that ending illegal immigration
is going to require three pillars. It is a three-legged stool.
It requires tough enforcement at the border, tough interior
enforcement, and a temporary worker program to deal with the
very real draw that the need for labor is exerting on migration
across the border.
Now, Secretary Chao is going to discuss the temporary
worker program in more detail in a few moments, but I do want
to say this from an enforcement standpoint. Without a temporary
worker program, we have two huge strains on our current
immigration enforcement system: First of all, the high employer
demand which draws people into the country; and second, the
active participation of eight million undocumented workers in
the U.S. economy. In order to have an effective border security
and interior enforcement program, we have to have a workable
and enforceable temporary worker program to lift some of the
strain off two of the legs of the stool. We think that a well-
designed temporary worker program will provide legal channels
for U.S. employers and foreign-born workers to match needs in
the best interest of the U.S. economy and without
disadvantaging workers.
Once we have this in place, of course, it is critical that
we couple that program with a tough enforcement strategy, and
we have already begun that strategy. We have begun to plan it
and we have begun to implement it as part of our responsibility
to protect our country.
Since the President took office, the U.S. Government has
deported several million illegal migrants, including
approximately 300,000 criminal aliens. And since 9/11, yearly
spending has increased by $2.7 billion, 58 percent. Yearly
spending on immigration enforcement has also increased
dramatically and enforcement expenditures have gone up by $1
billion. Every day, our Department agencies take significant
steps to secure our borders. The U.S. Customs and Border
Protection Agency has over 11,000 Border Patrol agents along
the 6,000 miles of Northern and Southern border. An additional
18,000 CBP officers are posted at our ports of entry and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement has over 8,000 agents and
officers working to apprehend criminals, absconders, and other
individuals illegally in the United States. And, of course, the
United States Coast Guard also plays a critical role in
securing our land and sea borders.
Let me give you some staggering statistics. In fiscal year
2005 alone, Border Patrol agents made over one million
apprehensions and CBP field operation officers stopped more
than 600,000 aliens attempting to enter our ports of entry. In
the same period, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
apprehended approximately 140,000 illegal aliens in interior
enforcement operations, including 15,000 under its Fugitive
Operations Program. ICE also executed removal orders for over
160,000 aliens who had been placed in proceedings, and of
those, 84,000 had criminal records. That is both a
demonstration of accomplishment, but also an indication of the
magnitude of the challenge.
Now, even in the last month, as the Department was very
busy coordinating the response to Hurricane Katrina, we have
continued to move forward aggressively on the issue of border
security. Last month, after Congress had enacted legislation
authorizing me to do so, I authorized the elimination of
environmental challenges which were holding up completion of
the 14-mile border infrastructure system near San Diego, which
I know many will remember as being a very grave source of
concern to people in San Diego and surrounding communities.
That was a step that had languished for almost a decade.
Recently, also in this last month, we have obtained a
Predator B unmanned aerial vehicle, which is a follow-on to a
pilot program we ran last year, to enhance our ability to
secure the Southwest border. We are currently partnering with
the Defense Department as part of their training programs to
use their UAVs to give us additional ability to see what is
going on the ground.
Also importantly, with funds appropriated by Congress
earlier this year, we have begun to hire and have already begun
graduating 1,500 new Border Patrol agents for deployment along
the entire border. As we speak, there are 400 Border Patrol
agents training at the academy in Artesia, New Mexico, and I
look forward later this week to addressing them when I go down
there on Thursday.
So we are grateful to Congress for providing this function.
I want you to know we are moving very rapidly to deploy these
assets and to take other additional steps.
Let me just take one moment to indicate that this is really
part of a comprehensive strategy, because although we have
taken significant action, this is a system desperately in need
of repair, and the fact of the matter is, people are rightly
upset and distressed about the prospect that we do not have
control of our border the way we should and that when we
apprehend people, they wind up getting released because we
don't have a sufficient ability to remove them. So we are very
focused along the entire continuum of the system to make sure
we are working every lever of power and every resource that we
have to make this work more quickly and more efficiently.
I have to say, in one respect, I want to--since the
question of Mexico was raised--I want to thank the Mexican
officials for the cooperation we have gotten from them in
dealing with organized smuggling groups through information
exchange and joint targeting. That is going to be very helpful.
But I also think we need to look at the whole system across
the board, and I have a couple of charts that will illustrate
this.
Chairman Specter. Mr. Secretary, how much more time do you
think you will need to finish your presentation?
Secretary Chertoff. Two minutes, if that would be OK, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Specter. That would be fine.
Secretary Chertoff. What I want to indicate is when we
think about the issue of apprehensions, we see that 55 percent
of those apprehended are those who come--a little more than 55
percent are those who come between the borders. But a
significant number, the remainder, are those who are
apprehended at the ports of entry.
Now, with respect to those caught between the borders, when
they are Mexicans, they are all returned. They are not
released. They are simply sent back across the border. But, of
course, it is not quite that easy with respect to non-Mexican
illegal aliens and that category is approximately 11 percent.
What you will see if you look at the narrow slivers on the pie
charts is that we have been--out of 160,000 non-Mexicans that
we have apprehended, 40,000 have been returned and 120,000 have
been released. That is unacceptable and we are going to change
that starting immediately.
The key here is to change the amount of time that it takes
to move people out of detention, get them back to their
countries, and also have additional beds so that we can detain
people. That is not only important because we don't want to
release them in the community when we have apprehended them,
but because we need to deter people from coming across the
border. If they think that they can come across and get
released, they are going to keep coming, and we have got to
change that.
The next chart is going to show something that we have done
with respect to one program, and then, I think, Mr. Chairman, I
will stop. We had an operation called Texas Hold `em which we
ran in the McAllen Border Patrol Sector during the course of
this summer and this had to do with a focus on Brazilian
nationals, which was the largest category of non-Mexican
illegal migrants who were coming across the border. When we
started this program in June, if you look at the comparison
between apprehensions and removals, you will see there were a
lot of apprehensions and comparatively few removals.
As we allocated additional bed space to this program, we
actually increased the percentage of removals in comparison to
apprehensions, but more important, we reduced the number of
apprehensions because very quickly, Brazilians got the idea
that if they came up through Mexico and they got caught, they
weren't going to be released through the community but they
were, in fact, going to be held and returned, and I think that
is a key finding in terms of our ability to manage this border
enforcement.
As I am happy to expand upon in greater length, doing this
is going to require addressing all parts of the process. It is
going to be increased beds. It is going to involve working with
foreign governments to have them move more quickly to take
people back to their home countries. It is going to require
cutting some of the transaction costs and time that we spend.
But I think if we do it, we can get this job done.
So with this experience and, of course, with the three-
legged stool of a comprehensive approach, I am confident we can
finally give the American people what they are entitled to get,
which is control over the borders that works efficiently and
that is also consistent with our American ideals.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Secretary Chertoff.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Chertoff appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Specter. We turn now to Secretary Chao, Secretary
of Labor, in her fifth year, having served the President since
his election. Secretary Chao came to this position with a very
extensive background in government. She was Deputy Secretary
for the Department of Transportation, Deputy Maritime
Administrator. Before that, she had been the President and CEO
of the United Way of America. She has a very distinguished
academic career from Holyoke and an MBA from the Harvard
Business School.
Thank you for joining us this morning, Secretary Chao, and
the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF ELAINE L. CHAO, SECRETARY OF LABOR, WASHINGTON,
D.C.
Secretary Chao. Mr. Chairman, Senator Kennedy, and members
of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today on the President's plan for comprehensive immigration
reform. As challenging as this issue is, we can all agree that
America needs an immigration policy and a system that
effectively secures our borders and serves our economy, and the
President's proposal does both.
A workable, enforceable temporary worker program must be an
essential part of any comprehensive strategy to secure our
nation's borders. By addressing the economic forces that drive
immigration, we can meet employers' needs for workers, provide
appropriate legal channels for foreign-born workers to access
opportunity, and allow enforcement resources to be targeted on
the critical mission of border security.
Last year, the President laid out a comprehensive vision
for securing our borders and also meeting our work force needs,
and today, we will be discussing the President's plan in
greater detail as a result of extensive policy discussions
within the administration and with many of you.
First and foremost among the principles the President
outlined is protecting the homeland. An effective temporary
worker program will allow our country to meet its needs for
temporary, legal, foreign-born workers while enabling U.S.
enforcement to focus aggressively on achieving control of our
borders, punishing those who continue to employ workers
illegally, and intercepting and removing workers who violate
the temporary worker program requirements.
Now, many of you are familiar with the other key elements
of the President's plan, but let me briefly outline them. We
need to serve America's economy by matching willing workers
with willing employers in a clear, efficient, and timely
process. We need to ensure that violation of our immigration
laws is not rewarded by giving illegal immigrants an advantage
over those who follow the rules.
We should create incentives for temporary workers to return
to their home country after their work visas end, and we should
also encourage and enable those who are currently living in the
shadows an opportunity to come forward and participate in a
temporary worker program.
Under the President's principles, those who are currently
here illegally would have to pay an up-front fee, or fine, in
order to receive a temporary worker visa. They would not be
granted amnesty and they would not be rewarded with an
automatic path to citizenship. In addition, felons and those
currently in removal proceedings would be barred from the
temporary worker program.
This administration envisions that this new temporary
worker program would replace the current H visa programs for
low-skill workers. Today, these H visa categories are too
complicated, too complex, too cumbersome, and too confusing. In
fact, every year, the Department receives hundreds of requests
from Members of Congress petitioning us to reclassify workers
into categories whose quotas have not been filled. Let me note,
however, that this new temporary worker program does not
include the H-1B program for high-skilled workers.
As we go through the process of designing a program to
secure our borders while meeting our Nation's economic needs,
we will continue to look to the expertise and the wisdom of the
Congress. I know that several members of this Committee are
deeply interested in pursuing rational and fair immigration
laws and reforms, and some of you have also introduced bills
outlining significant changes to the current system.
Reforming our temporary worker program is a difficult and
complicated undertaking, but I am confident that reforms will
be enacted to protect homeland security, restore the rule of
law, serve the economic needs of our nation, and also honor our
Nation's history of openness and opportunity.
With that, I am now pleased to answer any questions that
the Committee may have.
Mr. Chairman, I have a longer statement which I would like
to submit for the record, if I may.
Chairman Specter. Secretary Chao, your full statement will
be made a part of the record, as will all statements of all
witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Chao appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Specter. We will now proceed with 5-minute rounds
by all the members.
Secretary Chertoff, with respect to the efforts to protect
the border, our Southern border alone consists of 1,500 miles.
Our Northern border with Canada approximates 3,000 miles. How
do we realistically approach that issue to secure the border?
Is it physically possible?
Secretary Chertoff. I think it is, Mr. Chairman, if you
look at it as a system, and it is going to require a number of
pieces that have to fit together.
Obviously, you need additional Border Patrol agents, and we
have gotten 1,500 that we are going to deploy this year. It
requires some additional infrastructure. I am not suggesting a
fence across the border. There are places where vehicle
barriers or fencing or lighting or sensors actually does make a
huge difference in terms of being able to deploy Border Patrol
agents rapidly in order to intercept people coming across the
border.
The third is high-tech. I mean, the ability to use UAVs,
even satellites to give you a picture of what is going on over
a large area of desert is very important in terms of, again,
allowing us to leverage our resources.
But you also have to look at the back end. The fact of the
matter is that illegal migrant organizations are very sensitive
to incentives and disincentives, as the Texas Hold `em
experience shows. If we catch people and we release them, we
are sending a very bad message out, and the message is--
Chairman Specter. Without going into that, I would like you
to supplement your answer. The infrastructure you describe is
important. Increased Border Patrol is important. But give us a
program as to how you really are going to tackle 1,500 miles of
the Southern border and 3,000 miles of the Northern border.
One followup question on the same line before turning to
Secretary Chao, the GAO released a report this year that
immigration custom enforcement is devoting more attention to
preventing terrorism and less attention to illegal immigrants.
Now, obviously, catching terrorists is more important than
stopping illegal immigrants from coming into the country. Are
the resources at hand--and I know the President is signing the
appropriation bill this afternoon--are the resources at hand
sufficient to devote to the terrorist problem and still have an
effective program against the illegal immigrants?
Secretary Chertoff. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that they are.
The enhanced resources that Congress has given us are going to
be tremendously helpful in doing both.
One thing I do want to point out is that in doing, for
example, our worksite enforcement program, we have focused--we
have really pursued both goals. We have focused on critical
infrastructure. We have focused on those people who are
absconders, where there is a national security interest there,
there is some reason to believe they may be affiliated with
terrorists or criminality. So we have actually been able to
pursue both of these goals in a single program and we will make
good use of the additional resources that Congress has
appropriated to us for these purposes.
Chairman Specter. Secretary Chao, in August of this year,
you highlighted the need for health care workers, saying that
by the year 2012, our country will need more than 3.4 million
new health care workers. We have seen a need in the
construction industry, skilled tradesmen. How do we effectively
and practically take steps to see to it that available U.S.
workers are given priority and that there is sufficient
publicity going to people who may be in the United States, or
who are in the United States who may be in a position to fill
these jobs?
There is a great deal of resentment which continues as to
immigrants. Somebody speaks a little differently, answers the
telephone, there is sort of an innate hostility, and that, of
course, is aggravated by the contentions that people are being
brought in to take jobs which really ought to go to people in
the United States. So what is the practical answer as to how
you be sure that there are no U.S. workers available to handle
the jobs and yet accommodate these areas of real need?
Secretary Chao. The President's proposal addresses this
issue because the President is very concerned about making sure
that willing workers are indeed given the opportunity to work
for employers. In the President's proposal, the process of
labor certification still goes forward. The employers will
still have a responsibility to make sure that they are
advertising and that they are searching for American workers
first at an actual wage that would make it possible, again, for
American workers to have, if you will, the first chance at
these jobs.
Only after the employer, with input from the Department of
Labor, finds that it cannot hire adequate U.S. workers then can
it turn over to hiring a temporary worker who is currently in
the country or perhaps a temporary worker who is not in the
country currently. There are different procedures for both
categories.
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Secretary Chao. My
red light went on after you started your answer, so I will
yield at this point to Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Chertoff, both you and Secretary Chao have said
that border security and interior enforcement must be closely
tied to legal avenues for workers needed by our economy, but
others disagree and want Congress to pass just a border
security and interior enforcement bill before it turns to the
question of immigration reform, including temporary worker
visas. As the head of Homeland Security, why do you take that
position?
Secretary Chertoff. I think you have to look at the issue,
Senator, as a three-legged stool. It is unstable if you only
have one or two of the legs. The fact of the matter is, there
is tremendous pressure on the border--
Senator Kennedy. What do you mean by unstable, I mean, in
terms of Homeland Security?
Secretary Chertoff. It would be enormously difficult if we
were to attempt to control illegal migration at the border
without having some legal avenue to address the fact that there
is a high demand for non-U.S. people to come in and perform
certain kinds of jobs and there is a tremendous desire of those
people to come in.
Most of the people who come across the border are not
coming across to do us harm. There is some percentage who are
criminals and maybe a smaller number who are potentially even
worse than criminals. But the fact of the matter is, we have to
deal with them all equally and the ability to do interior
enforcement and border enforcement is stretched well beyond the
limit if we have to treat everybody as if they are somebody who
has to be the subject of an enforcement action.
If we can channel people into regulated approaches to work
where we satisfy the demand for the labor through legal
channels, where people who want to work and do us no harm get a
legal avenue to do so, that relieves a tremendous amount of
pressure. We will still have a big challenge, but we will now
be able to apply it against a smaller pool of people that are
coming across.
Senator Kennedy. Also, what is your own view? Do you think
our government, even if we had the resources, could have mass
deportation of the eight to ten million undocumented here? Is
that even conceivable or desirable, and are there any estimates
in terms of what those costs would be, both in terms of dollars
as well as the economic implications and importantly in terms
of human conditions? What would happen?
Secretary Chertoff. I think it would be hugely, hugely
difficult to do this. First of all, obviously, a lot of these
people would not want to be deported. We would have to find
them. That would be an enormous expenditure of effort and
resources. We would then have to process them and remove them.
They would have legal resource. I can't even--I think we are
talking about billions and billions and billions of dollars to
do it, I think. This is an area where practical concerns are
really paramount.
Senator Kennedy. I am going to come, Madam Secretary, to
you in just a minute. I want to ask the Secretary, a number of
Senators wrote you earlier this week concerned about the recent
DHS actions to impersonate OSHA officials, safety officials. Do
you want to make a comment on it? This is where they
impersonated OSHA officials. They bring workers in allegedly to
get training in terms of safety at the workplace. I mean, I
think particularly of Katrina with all the cleanup there. Then
there was a sting operation and a number of these people were
arrested. That has all kinds of implications, obviously, in
training and safety. Just a quick reaction.
Secretary Chertoff. I think that was a bad idea and I have
directed it not happen again. I am not saying we don't use
ruses. It is appropriate to use ruses. But I think a ruse that
involves safety or health is not appropriate.
Senator Kennedy. OK. Madam Secretary, I want to hear from
you, too, your sense about why we think legal avenues for
workers must be tied to enforcement measures. I think of it in
two areas. One, obviously, in the heightened border, but also
we move on toward the temporary worker program that is going to
provide legal means for these workers. There will also have to
be enforcement of those that are going to hire illegal workers
or otherwise we are going to have the economic kind of
conditions that have been described by the Chairman.
Secretary Chao. Well, I agree with Secretary Chertoff. If
we are going to patrol our borders effectively, having some way
to gauge who is coming across our borders must be an essential
part of that strategy. And again, to have a workable,
enforceable temporary worker program will go a long way to
securing our borders. We have got to know who is coming across
our borders, and if we have a program that will legally be able
to track people coming over the borders, more resources can be
more effectively utilized by the Department of Homeland
Security to carry out its important functions of securing our
borders.
Senator Kennedy. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Senator Kennedy.
Senator Cornyn? We are proceeding under the early bird
rule.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask
that my written statement be made part of the record.
Chairman Specter. Your full statement will be made a part
of the record.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cornyn appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Cornyn. Secretary Chertoff, let me ask you about
expedited removal. You went over a little bit of that in your
opening statement, but it seems to me that unless we are going
to build literally tens of thousands of detention beds, we are
going to be back in the same old catch-and-release soup that
you explained is intolerable.
Right now, to remove an alien who comes into the country, I
think other than through the expedited removal process, the
average is about 89 days. That is cut down considerably, but
still remains roughly 30 days under an expedited removal
process, which means you still have to have some means of
detaining those individuals.
Could you describe to the Committee what legal measures and
diplomatic measures, what other measures that you believe that
we can effect that will cut that down even further so we don't
have to build tens of thousands of detention beds to make the
deterrence at the border real.
Secretary Chertoff. I would be delighted to, Senator. I
actually have another chart, and this is my last one. I think
you have put your finger on exactly the issue. It is an issue
of how many days you occupy a bed. The fewer days, essentially,
you increase the number of beds.
We have now put expedited removal in place across the
entirety of the Southern border, so we are using it everywhere,
and its principal significance is with respect to non-Mexicans
because they can't simply be immediately sent back to Mexico.
You will see that there is an average of a 34-day cycle
time now, but a lot of it is taken up with what I would call
bureaucratic churn. In other words, we have got an average of
20 days to obtain travel documents from foreign governments. We
ought to be able to cut that down in half or to a quarter. We
have had 12 days to arrange for country clearance, escort, and
schedule air transportation. I have spoken to Secretary Rice.
We are working on dramatically cutting the time for country
clearance. We are working on a plan now to cut the number of
escorts we need for people who aren't dangerous and we are
working on a way of getting an increase in air transportation.
If we could cut this in half, we would essentially double
the number of beds. That is exactly what we are underway trying
to do right now.
Senator Cornyn. Do you believe that with the 20 days it
takes to obtain travel documents from foreign governments, are
we seeing any foot-dragging by foreign governments when it
comes to cooperating in the return of their citizens?
Secretary Chertoff. We do. Some countries are very helpful
and forthcoming. Others do tend to be a little dilatory or
resistant. One thing, for example, we have suggested doing is
instead of having in-person consular visits, we will do video
conferencing so we don't have to wait for 5 days for a consular
person to come. They can just do it over video conference.
At the end of the day, we will probably have to lean pretty
heavily on some foreign governments to make sure that they are
willing to take back people from their own countries. I have
made suggestions. We are willing to have foreign countries send
people over here to help us in terms of travel documents. We
are willing to use any and all techniques possible to expedite
this. I am hopeful that most countries will be responsive and
live up to their responsibility, but in the event that some
don't want to, I think we do have to push them to do it.
Senator Cornyn. I am very glad that you have seen fit to do
expedited removal across the entire border, but I am very
concerned that that number of days it takes to accomplish that
is still high. I would just point out in the last minute I have
in this round, the Congressional Research Service makes a good
point that there are a lot of people watching what we are doing
along the border, which has a big impact on deterrence and our
ability to control who comes into our country and determine why
they are here.
They report that U.S. OTM procedures appear to have been
disseminated widely, for example, in Brazil. This may be due in
part to the Brazilian soap opera entitled, ``America,'' which
follows a young woman's illegal journey to the United States
through Mexico and has drawn a nightly viewing audience of some
40 million people. According to the Border Patrol, the
Brazilians seem to know the process and it seems to be common
knowledge that they won't be immediately deported. So I think
that is further support, if we needed it, for your conclusion
that our catch-and-release program is really contributing to
our problem and our lack of effective deterrence and it is
absolutely critical that we work hard on that.
Thank you.
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Senator Cornyn.
Senator Feinstein?
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to associate myself with Senator Cornyn's concern
about in the ``other-than-Mexican'' category.
I also want to agree with you that these figures are
unacceptable. I have been looking at them and it is hard to
believe this total, which is 1.7 million in just one fiscal
year. It used to be that for every one person apprehended, the
Border Patrol would assume that three got through. Is that
still the case?
Secretary Chertoff. I have to say, I have never understood
that reasoning and it seems ultimately self-defeating for the
following reason. If that were true, then if we stopped
apprehending people, three times zero is zero. We could assume
no one was coming across the border. That is obviously foolish.
Senator Feinstein. What do you assume? What--
Secretary Chertoff. I assume there is some significant
number getting through that we are not catching. I don't think
a formula captures it. One way we can measure it is by looking
at some collateral indications. We can look at the number of
times we continue to see the same people coming back and back,
over and over again, because we do have fingerprints. After--
Senator Feinstein. What is that number?
Secretary Chertoff. I don't have--I think it usually hovers
around 40 percent, mostly, I think, Mexicans.
Senator Feinstein. So you would add 40 percent of 1.7
million on top of this?
Secretary Chertoff. I would hesitate, Senator, to give you
a number. I mean, it would be a wild guess. I am sure--
Senator Feinstein. Could I get those numbers, please?
Secretary Chertoff. Sure.
Senator Feinstein. Let me just move on, and let me just
give you my observation, and to Secretary Chao, as well. I may
be very wrong, but it seems to me that all the talk about the
guest worker program actually spurs illegal immigration. I have
seen no guest worker program that I, representing California,
could vote for in good conscience that I believe would not be a
major magnet.
Now, I have served on the Immigration Subcommittee for
about 13 years and looked at it as it affects my State. We have
a very large number of illegal workers in our State, many of
them very good, all of them living in the dark of night, many
of them here for as much as 20 years. In my view, we ought to
find a way to be able to take people who have lived here
without any criminal activity, been good citizens, worked hard,
particularly in areas where there is need, which in my State it
is agricultural, and be able to give them some kind of official
temporary status provided for a period of time they would
continue to work in agriculture. I prepared some legislation
along that line, which at an appropriate time I would
introduce.
But I just want to say to you that from California, that is
my view. There is no shortage of willing workers, Secretary
Chao. There is an abundance of willing workers. The problem is
their status. I think Secretary Chertoff is right that we have
got to enforce the borders, and I was wondering if you could
give us a brief progress report on the border fence.
As you know, we appropriated the money. You used the Real
I.D. Act to cut environmental reviews. What is the current
status and how are you working to make the necessary
environmental protections?
Secretary Chertoff. One of the things I did do is we had,
in the course of negotiating back and forth during the
environmental litigation, committed ourselves to an approach
that we thought was respectful of the environment, although it
wasn't necessarily everything that everybody who opposed the
fence on environmental grounds wanted. We are committed to
continuing with those undertakings. In other words, we are
going to voluntarily comply with what experts that we think are
good thought was appropriate.
Now it is really in the hand of the builders. I don't know
if it is the Army Corps of Engineers that is going to do it or
somebody else. I can find out for you, Senator. But the green
light has now gone forward to build this remaining piece of
infrastructure and I am convinced not only will it be better
for our border, it will be safer for our Border Patrol agents
and actually it is going to help the environment because it is
going to stop people from coming across illegally, and that
tends to have a bad environmental impact of its own.
Senator Feinstein. I would like to ask you about, and this
is really not your problem but it is a problem and you are
there, Senator Brownback and I cosponsored a bill called the
Unaccompanied Alien Child Act. It was voted out of this
Committee in April. Some of the Departments indicated they had
some concerns. We have tried very hard to negotiate with them.
We have been stonewalled all the way and I find this really
unacceptable.
I think Justice has taken the lead. I met with the Deputy
Secretary of HHS that was in charge of children and families.
We said we would submit some amendments which we thought might
help the administration. We can't get any response. It has gone
from April to October. We have at any given time maybe 5,000
children are here unaccompanied. Some are locked up. How they
actually are treated is unacceptable and we would like to get
this bill moved. Can you help us?
Secretary Chertoff. I will certainly--I know there are a
number of Departments involved. I will certainly find out where
we are with it. I mean, I don't know, there may be some
elements of the bill that there are going to be some objections
to, but we certainly ought to get back to you and let you know
what issues there are and if they can be addressed, that would
be great. So I will do that for you.
Senator Feinstein. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Specter. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Senator Kyl?
Senator Kyl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, Secretary Chertoff, do you have a program for
speeding up the training of Border Patrol agents, since we now
have authorization and appropriations for training 1,500,
actually, for next year?
Secretary Chertoff. I know we can handle in terms of
capacity the 1,500 we are talking about. I don't know that we
have condensed the process of training. The one thing I--
because I did raise this issue with the Border Patrol--the one
thing I did want to be careful about is part of the time it
takes is an enculturation process to make sure that the Border
Patrol agents are enculturated to what they need to do to
function in an environment in which they are often by
themselves. We want to make sure that they are properly
disciplined, that they are resistant to the potential for
corruption, because that is always an issue at the border--
Senator Kyl. I have some things I want to get into more
than that. I know there has been a bottleneck that at least was
alleged to have precluded us from training substantially less
than 1,000. What you are saying is that we do have the capacity
to train 1,500 for the next year?
Secretary Chertoff. Correct.
Senator Kyl. Thank you. Now, the Senator from Massachusetts
talked about mass deportations. I just wanted to ask you, does
the proposal that the administration is suggesting involve mass
deportations at all?
Secretary Chertoff. No.
Senator Kyl. You are familiar with bills that have been
introduced in the Senate. Are either of you familiar with any
bills in the Senate that would require mass deportations?
Secretary Chertoff. No, I don't understand that they
require mass deportations.
Senator Kyl. OK, thank you. Nor am I. Third, the reasons
for temporary workers, it seems to me, are twofold, and I would
like to get both of you to comment on this. One is included in
your statement, Secretary Chao: if these workers are permanent
rather than temporary, then one could easily argue that it
represents amnesty because it would allow them to remain in the
United States while seeking legal permanent residence,
something that people who are following the law cannot do. They
must apply for that in their home country.
And second, and it seems to me this is really critical, we
are in a good employment situation right now, full employment,
essentially. We have a very good economy right now in the
United States. But I can remember not too long ago that we
didn't have a good economy and we had relatively high
unemployment, and clearly, those cycles will continue
throughout our future.
With temporary foreign workers, you can calibrate, you have
the flexibility to calibrate the number of workers to the slots
that are needed. In case of an economic downturn, you don't
have to issue as many permits for foreign workers because there
aren't as many jobs. But if all the people who are illegally in
the country today are allowed to remain here on a permanent
status, you don't have that same flexibility in the event of a
downturn and this, it seems to me, argues against granting
permanent legal status to all of the illegal immigrants who are
here today. I would like to get both of you to comment on that
observation.
Secretary Chao. First of all, the President is very
concerned about controlling our borders, serving the American
economy by matching willing American workers with unfilled
jobs.
On the permanent status, the President's proposal would
have a 3-year stay, which can be extendable for another 3-year
stay. The total would be 6 years, at which time the worker
would have to return back to their home country and apply. That
is if the worker is already here in the United States. So the
President's proposal does not anticipate amnesty or a pathway
to citizenship. So that is not the intent.
Second of all, the President is very concerned about the
American worker and that is why his plan says that American
workers come first and employers must determine that no
American worker is available to fill a job before offering that
position to an immigrant worker.
Senator Kyl. Secretary Chertoff, any other thoughts?
Secretary Chertoff. I don't think I have anything to add to
that.
Senator Kyl. OK. It seems to me that the real key, once we
have done a better job to control the border and instituted a
legal worker program that meets the objectives, Secretary Chao,
that you pointed out, and frankly, those objectives are
embodied in the two major bills that have been introduced in
the Senate, even though they approach it somewhat differently,
but the real key is enforcement at the workplace. If you can
enforce the law at the workplace, if employers have the means
of identifying people and they can check that through a
governmental source and that governmental source can then audit
the employers and verify that people are not being employed
illegally, then we are not likely to have a lot of illegality,
amnesty. We are going to have a rule of law that has once again
characterized the employment of people in this country.
Would both of you agree that it is really critical that we
have workplace enforcement that is as close to perfect as we
can get it, anyway, that that is the key to this issue?
Secretary Chao. I would certainly agree with that. Most of
the responsibility for employer sanctions is over at DHS.
Secretary Chertoff. I do agree and I think that that means
we need to be more efficient in allowing employers to verify.
Right now, I have to say I am kind of appalled to say this,
that I think when you get a ``no match'' letter from Social
Security, apparently the employer proceeds at his or her peril
in terms of taking further steps to find out what is going on
because the law is so confused. If you want people to obey the
law, I think it is kind of fundamental you let them know how to
do it, and I think that is one of a number of things we need to
change in order to make workplace enforcement a real reality.
Senator Kyl. Thank you very much.
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Senator Kyl.
Senator Schumer?
Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
both of you Secretaries for testifying here today.
I have two questions, really both aimed at Secretary
Chertoff. The first is very timely. It is the PATRIOT Act
reauthorization to first responder funding formulas. As you
know, we have a bipartisan coalition of Senators, Senator
Cornyn and Senator Feinstein among them on this Committee, to
try and persuade conferees to retain the Lowey-Sweeney
bipartisan language which was passed as part of the PATRIOT
Act. You have always said that you, and the administration
position is to make it more needs-based. The House does a
considerably better job than the Senate.
So what I would like to ask you today is what you are
willing to do to try and weigh in on the conference. In the
past, Homeland Security--before you came in, it is not at your
desk--would say, oh, yes, we are for needs-based, and then
never mixed it in at all and we didn't get a needs-based
formula. Would you be willing to lobby some of the Senators?
The House is united. It only had 40 votes against it. The
Senate is more divided. Would you be willing to lobby some of
the Senators personally and ask them to go along with the House
formula? What can we do? And I only ask this out of
frustration, because in the past, your predecessor would speak
about it and then we would ask them to get involved and mix in
and they were absent.
Secretary Chertoff. I would make sure I get involved in a
way that doesn't get me in trouble with the law or anything.
But I have been unequivocal and I will continue to be
unequivocal in supporting risk-based funding and I will be
happy to use every legal and appropriate means to communicate
that to--
Senator Schumer. When I say lobbying, I don't mean you
would be hired by somebody.
Secretary Chertoff. Right. I mean, I just get nervous. I
have been reading the paper--
Senator Schumer. You have been hired by the President and
this is his viewpoint.
Secretary Chertoff. And I know there are some--well,
without getting hyper-technical about it, I will--every
appropriate means to convey my passionate belief that we need
to be as needs-based as possible.
Senator Schumer. And it is the administration's position
that the House bill is more risk-based than the Senate bill
and, therefore, preferable, the House formula?
Secretary Chertoff. I think the administration's position
is the more risk-based we get, the better we are.
Senator Schumer. And the House bill is, in your opinion,
more risk-based.
Secretary Chertoff. I think it speaks for itself.
Senator Schumer. OK. I thank you for that, because we
really need your help.
The second deals with another issue that affects--some of
us from States that are on the Northern border. As you know,
the passport situation has created a huge outcry. I know that
you have talked about finding alternatives to passports, which
I think places like Buffalo, New York, and Plattsburg, as well
as Seattle and Detroit and other places really appreciate. The
problem is that what has been talked about so far is the sort
of card which would be cheaper than a passport but still
present the same problems. For places like Buffalo, the Niagara
River, which separates Buffalo from Canada, is more like the
Hudson River. It is not like flying to Munich. You don't want
to call 3 weeks in advance to say, oh, I am planning to go see
a show or a ballgame or whatever on this side of the river.
What can be done? Can you give us some idea of how we can
deal with these issues? We need security. I am the first to
agree with that. We also can't afford to just slow down
commerce to a standstill. This border card hasn't met with too
much favor, at least in its initial discussions, because it has
some of the same problems the passport has.
Secretary Chertoff. Well, of course, we begin with the fact
that we are dealing with a law and we have to comply with the
law. The law requires a passport or its equivalent, and I think
the President was very clear a few months ago when it came up
and I have tried to be very clear about the fact that we were
not looking to make passport be the only or the preferred
choice, although it certainly would be acceptable, but that we
were looking for some alternative that would satisfy the
requirement of accurate documentation.
Frankly, a card, and we all carry cards in our wallet. I
carry a driver's license. A card seems an efficient way,
particularly for people on the border, and I well understand
there are people who go back and forth multiple times a day--
Senator Schumer. Right.
Secretary Chertoff [continuing]. It seems that we have got
to find some way to get them a card that is cheap, that
satisfies the legal requirement, but that is as convenient to
carry as walking out of the house with your driver's license--
Senator Schumer. The only other criteria I add, and then I
will conclude as my time is concluding, but it also has to be--
it has got to be secure, but it has got to be relatively--it
has got to be quick and easy to get. Do you agree with that?
Secretary Chertoff. I agree, and I think we are going to
face that challenge as we were with the Real I.D. Act.
Senator Schumer. Right.
Secretary Chertoff. We have some time to do this and we are
working hard to make sure we do it right.
Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Specter. Thank you, Senator Schumer.
Senator Coburn?
Senator Coburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
being late.
I listened with interest to Senator Kennedy's questions on
you in terms of the ten to 12 million people who are here. My
question really deals with the fact that if somebody is here
illegally and the real basis for our society is recognition of
the law and equal justice under the law and if they come here
illegally, building a case for amnesty, no matter which way you
call it or how long it takes, the fact is, you undermine that
tremendous important aspect of being an American is recognizing
that we are all treated equally under the law.
If we have the President's program in terms of enhancing
border security, enhancing enforcement, enhancing the return of
those that are here illegally, and then enhancing in some way
those that are here already illegally to give them a period of
time to come back and do it properly, can you envision a way
where we can impact that thought that you have to follow the
law? I will tell you, to the people of Oklahoma, amnesty is a
terrible word to them--
Secretary Chertoff. Right.
Senator Coburn [continuing]. Because it didn't work last
time and if we start talking about it now, what you are going
to see is more pressure on the border. How do we implement this
idea of making people who want to come here and be a part of
our society understand the rule of law?
Secretary Chertoff. Let me begin, Senator, by saying the
President has been crystal clear, it is certainly embodied in
the administration's view, that there is not to be an amnesty
here. This is not to be a way for people to line-jump to
permanent residents or a path through which they can get to
permanent resident or citizenship. What it is designed to do is
to regularize an existing situation and channel people into a
way of dealing with work that will ultimately get them back to
their own countries and it focuses on the employer as well as
the employee, and let me just take 1 minute to explain what I
mean.
The driver here is the demand that employers have for the
work. As long as employers are going to be willing to hire
people who are here illegally, people are going to come in. The
question is, can you give employers a way to do that using a
combination of carrot and stick that will put them into the
regular channel so that people are coming, they are registered,
they have identification, we can track them, and also we build
a set of economic incentives that ultimately actually gives
them incentives to go back home when they have made some money.
What that would do is that would bleed out a significant amount
of the pressure on our border enforcement people and let us now
focus on the worst of the worst.
Clearly, amnesty would be an affront to the rule of law. It
would be an affront to those who are legal, who are waiting
their turn. The key is how do you manage a very, very difficult
situation.
Senator Coburn. So my followup question to that is at the
end of the third year, and then the second, third year and
somebody has not complied, what do we do?
Secretary Chertoff. I think at that point, you are out of
the program, but by then, we have tracked you. We know where
you are. We have your address. And also, if the program is
designed properly, money that, for example, is set aside for
retirement winds up only being available to the migrant if the
migrant goes back home to get the money. So the migrant now has
a pretty strong economic incentive to go back to that original
place in order to get their retirement or benefits.
Senator Coburn. But again, I want you all to think about
the contrast. We have a law, and the predicament that Senator
Kennedy set up is it is the law, but it may cost too much to
enforce it, so we won't enforce it. That is the antithesis of
this whole country. If it is the law, either we change the law
or we enforce the law. So at the end of 6 years, what do you
perceive will happen with the President's program, Secretary
Chao or Secretary Chertoff?
Secretary Chao. I think we are all in agreement that
enforcement is a very important part of maintaining a culture
of rule of law and also of securing our Nation's borders. But
we have also found that enforcement alone will probably not be
the entire answer, either. So there must be some way to track
these 11 million people who are here illegally and the
temporary worker program is an attempt to address that.
Senator Coburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Senator Coburn.
Senator Brownback?
Senator Feingold. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Specter. Pardon me. We should go to Senator
Feingold, who just came.
Senator Feingold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Senator Brownback. I am pleased that the Committee is once
again taking up the critical issue of comprehensive immigration
reform. We will all be better off if we create a realistic
immigration system that recognizes that American businesses
need foreign workers sometimes, that allows them to come to the
United States legally, that protects their rights in the
workplace, and that ensures that the government knows who is
entering the country.
Immigration reform is important for all of these reasons,
but I also want to mention again the importance of this issue
to our economy. I am hearing more and more every day from
business owners in Wisconsin telling me that sometimes they
cannot find local workers to fill their jobs and that they
desperately need to see changes in the immigration system in
order to stay in business.
But I do want to take a few of the minutes here to ask
about a somewhat different issue, which I understand Senator
Kennedy has mentioned. I support vigorous enforcement of our
immigration laws, but I am concerned about this incident that
occurred on July 6, 2005. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
officials impersonating OSHA employees publicized what they
characterized as a mandatory OSHA safety training for workers
at the Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in Goldsboro, North
Carolina. Once workers arrived at the meeting, the ICE
officials disclosed that there was no safety briefing and
subsequently arrested 48 undocumented workers.
Secretary Chao, a Labor Department spokesperson said at the
time that, quote, ``This is not something we were involved in
and we do not condone the use of OSHA's name in this type of
activity.'' Secretary Chao, do you agree that the actions taken
by ICE undermines OSHA's credibility and harm your agency's
effort to address workplace safety issues for all workers?
Secretary Chao. The short answer is, I do. As mentioned, no
one at the Department of Labor or at OSHA was involved in this
decision or the enforcement action itself, nor did we have any
advance notice of it, and we have conveyed our gravest concerns
to the Department of Homeland Security and the Secretary.
Senator Feingold. Thank you for that answer.
Secretary Chertoff, I and a number of other Senators just
sent you a letter about this incident, asking for further
information. I realize you may not have had a chance to review
it and I do appreciate your response to Senator Kennedy's
questions about this incident. Can you commit to respond to
that letter expeditiously?
Secretary Chertoff. Yes.
Senator Feingold. I would like to understand how this
incident came about. Did the ICE investigators who put together
this ruse in North Carolina contact OSHA or anyone else at the
Labor Department to ask their views on it before implementing
the plan?
Secretary Chertoff. I don't know. I mean, I will have to--
as I say, I became aware of this yesterday and the facts, I
think, will have to be looked into and I will give you--we will
respond with a factual summary.
Senator Feingold. I look forward to that information. I
took Secretary Chao's comments to be that you believe that
there was not this kind of contact. Did you say that in your
previous response to me?
Secretary Chao. Yes.
Senator Feingold. I thought you said that there was no such
contact.
Secretary Chao. No one at the Department of Labor nor OSHA
were advised in advance of this plan.
Senator Feingold. According to news reports, Secretary
Chertoff, representatives from the Labor Department, Justice
Department, and Homeland Security were going to meet to discuss
this incident. Can either of you tell me if that meeting has
occurred?
Secretary Chertoff. I don't know off the top of my head. We
can find out.
Senator Feingold. Secretary Chao, has that meeting
occurred?
Secretary Chao. My understanding is, yes, it has.
Senator Feingold. Can you tell me he results of that
meeting, then, Secretary Chao?
Secretary Chao. May I submit that for the record?
Senator Feingold. Yes.
Secretary Chao. There was a discussion at the appropriate
levels with the Department of Homeland Security. There was
concern expressed as to how this plan was hatched, what
happened, why was it initiated. There was a great deal of
concern expressed.
Senator Feingold. I look forward to receiving that
information in writing and as thorough as is possible and as
soon as possible and I thank you for that.
Secretary Chao, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't
believe your testimony covered the issue of visa portability.
Do you agree that allowing workers to switch jobs on the same
visa would help to protect workers from exploitation by
unscrupulous employers who could otherwise threaten to get them
kicked out of the country?
Secretary Chao. I think the goal here, of course, is to
protect American workers first. The Department of Labor also
has responsibility to enforce labor standards and health and
safety rules across the board. So we are concerned about
workers being taken advantage of. We are also trying to
balance, again, the security issues, as well. So it was thought
that if workers were able to apply for this visa, that they
would have an opportunity with, let us say, a 45-day grace
period if they left one job to be able to go to another. But
these are proposals. That is the best effort--best attempt at
trying to balance both those needs. So we would be interested
in your point of view if you have a different point of view.
Senator Feingold. I thank both of you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Senator Feingold.
Senator Brownback?
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
holding this important hearing. I like your new hairdo. It
looks sharp.
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much. I am glad to have it
recorded on television.
[Laughter.]
Senator Brownback. I am appreciative of all your work and
all the key topics you are bringing up, this one amongst them.
Secretaries, thanks for being here. There was a report out
two or 3 weeks ago that we now have a higher level of illegal
immigration than legal immigration into the United States. Is
that accurate? That was in, I believe, a Pew study.
Secretary Chao. I am not actually--I am not familiar with
that and--
Senator Brownback. Secretary Chertoff, are you familiar
with that? This is a Pew study that was out a few weeks ago.
Secretary Chertoff. I saw the article. I think I said
earlier, I am always a little--I always question to some degree
some of these studies or surveys because I am not quite sure
how they are constructed, so I am not in a position to verify
or dispute it.
Senator Brownback. Obviously, we have a high level of
illegal immigration in the--
Secretary Chertoff. That, I agree with.
Senator Brownback. Do you have any idea why we have so much
higher illegal immigration than maybe we used to and certainly
a high level relative to our legal immigration into the United
States?
Secretary Chertoff. Of course, this has been a problem that
has been around for 15, 20 years. I remember when I was U.S.
Attorney in the early 1990's, going down to the border with
U.S. Attorneys and being shown--this is before the fence--being
shown people waiting to run across the border.
Why it is higher now, I suspect is partly a function of the
labor market, that there is now an intense demand for workers
that is not being met and I think that comes back to the point
of the temporary worker program, that--
Senator Brownback. Let me jump into that one, because my
time is going to run real fast. It looks like, when I have
looked at these numbers in the past, I mean, I think you have
got the right combination. You have to have both enforcement
and some sort of work program, and I want to cite to you some
numbers off of that. There may be some of my colleagues that
would say, well, I am not sure that that is an accurate
reflection of today's situation, but in 1954, we had a big
increase in enforcement actions combined with an increase in
the then-designed Bracero program that led to a 95 percent
reduction in illegal immigration. Are you familiar with those
numbers, or is that an accurate reflection of that time?
Secretary Chertoff. I have heard about the program. The
numbers, as I say, I can't verify or disagree with. I just
don't have them on the top of my head.
Senator Brownback. I would appreciate you taking a look at
that, because that is quite striking if that is, indeed, what
the combination can produce.
I noted in 1964 with the ending of the Bracero program, it
triggered a 1,000 percent increase in illegal immigration by
1976. Twelve years, 1,000 percent, and the raw numbers are even
more striking than that. We had, I can get down to this, INS
apprehensions in 1964, 86,597; in 1976, 875,915. I hope you can
take a look at that, because it seems like the model is
accurate. Now, the devil is in the details in how to get that
done.
Perhaps, Secretary Chao, this would be best for you. I have
heard numbers that we have as high as, in the use of Social
Security numbers and bad Social Security numbers or illegal
ones, 400,000 that claim the Social Security of all zeroes? My
guess is some of those are illegal if that is indeed the case,
but--
[Laughter.]
Secretary Chao. Enforcing employer sanctions is not in my
Department. It is in the Department of Homeland Security.
Senator Brownback. Secretary Chertoff?
Secretary Chertoff. You know, I don't know of it for a
fact, but I can believe it. As I said earlier, I find one of
the most frustrating aspects of what employers face is some
uncertainty about what they can do when they get a ``no
match.'' Common sense would tell you if you get a ``no match''
on Social Security or a Social Security card with all zeroes,
at a minimum, you should be able to ask some questions. I am
informed that there are all kinds of legal issues about whether
the employer is going to get in trouble if he or she does that.
At a minimum, we ought to clarify that an employer who has got
some kind of notice that there is something funny with a
document ought to be able to do the kind of inquiry to get to
the bottom of it.
Senator Brownback. If we could, and I know this can be
touched and hopefully the next panel can address some of this,
but it seems to me that is one of the simple ways we ought to
be moving forward, is if this isn't a match, then it ought to
have an immediate notification and something in the system that
that would be a way to go. I think we have got a model in the
past, it is not a perfect fit, but how you mix both the
enforcement with a good work visa program for a way to move
forward so that we have got a model, and now getting the
details of getting that to move forward will be helpful.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Senator Brownback.
Senator Sessions?
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chertoff, the American people are not happy with the
way the system is working. I notice in your written statement,
you indicated that enforcement will not wait for enactment of a
new temporary worker program. In your verbal statement, I am
informed that you said, once we have the new worker program in
place, we must couple it with enhanced enforcement.
I am not sure when this new worker program is going to
pass. Certainly, I don't think it is going to pass in the form
that has been suggested by the administration. So are you going
to get busy now to enforce existing law?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, we are busy. I mean, I don't want
any ambiguity about this. Not only are we going to get busy, we
have gotten busy. As I have demonstrated, for example, with
respect to non-Mexicans from Brazil, we ran an operation in
Texas. We have got 1,500 Border Patrol that now have been
appropriated. We are going to get those online and we are going
to move over the next year from a catch-and-release for non-
Mexicans toward a catch-and-remove to non-Mexicans. So we
aren't going to wait and we haven't waited.
The point I made in my oral statement is that, ultimately,
to be effective, I think in a way that I think we need to be,
we are going to need more than just brute enforcement. We are
going to need a temporary worker program, as well.
Senator Sessions. I just want you to know how strongly I
think the American people care about this. We know that we need
workers in this country, and we have some great people that
come into our country from many countries who work well and
contribute to our economy and many of them bring brilliance and
technology and skills that help us fight disease and make
scientific advancements also.
But I was a little troubled when you lightly dealt with the
question of 400,000 people with zero Social Security numbers. I
mean, that is a big deal. Also, I note that in 2003, I believe,
there were about 15 employers sanctioned for hiring illegal
workers in an improper way. Do you know what the numbers are
this year and what they were in 2004?
Secretary Chertoff. Yes. In 2004, on the criminal side, we
had--worksite enforcement led to 67 indictments and 46
convictions. In 2005, it was 140 indictments and 127
convictions. In terms of administrative sanctions, in 2004, I
think we had 685 arrests and in 2005 we had 1,358, of which 832
were from critical infrastructure facilities. So we are
increasing the tempo and pace of our worksite enforcement, but
we need to continue to do more--
Senator Sessions. That is some progress, but it is still
awfully, awfully small, as I think you would admit. What I
would suggest to you and what I would say to many people who
think this is a hopeless matter, that it is really not. If we
enhance our enforcement actions against businesses, if we
eliminate areas through fences and enforcement on the border,
we enhance the ability for people to come legally with a
biometric identifier so they can come and go, this thing can
tip and you can make huge progress.
I notice you talk about the other-than-Mexicans and the
progress you are making with Brazil, but it still--there are
many other other-than-Mexicans than Brazil. As I understand it,
it is about an 80 percent chance that if you are apprehended
coming into this country from a nation other than Mexico, that
you will be released on bail, and over 90 percent do not show
up for the court hearing. Is that still true, and what plans do
you have to deal with all of these countries?
Secretary Chertoff. That has certainly been the historic
situation and that is one of the reasons the first thing we
initiated in the last month or so was getting 1,800 additional
beds, cutting the time in beds, and moving from a catch-and-
release to a catch-and-remove.
I completely agree with you. This is one of those areas
where there is a tipping point. We saw it with the Brazilians.
In fact, we continue to see a decrease in the number of
Brazilians. Part of that is because the Mexicans have actually
now reversed their position and are now no longer allowing
Brazilians to go in without visas, which is a positive step.
But I completely agree with you. This is an area we can
have an impact in 1 year in tipping away people coming in from
outside Mexico. I think that would be a very important step
forward.
Senator Sessions. My time is up. I would just advise and
ask that you not wait for Congress to promote these ideas. I
think you should be bringing them forward and asking us to help
you achieve lawfulness in immigration.
I would also offer, Mr. Chairman, for the record, a letter
that Congressman Lamar Smith asked me to make a part of the
record, and I would be pleased to, that responds to some of the
administration positions, and also a letter signed by 81
Congressmen emphasizing the enforcement needs to come first
before we deal with the overall issues of immigration.
Chairman Specter. Without objection, those documents will
be made a part of the record. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
Senator Durbin?
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My
appreciation to both of you for joining us today on this really
complicated issue.
My mother was an immigrant to this country. She was brought
here at the age of two, came over with her mother and brother
and sister, and I am sure as they walked down the ramp at
Baltimore, Maryland, people looked up and said, ``Not more of
those people.'' I am glad that she came and I am glad that my
grandmother and grandfather had the courage to come and I hope
we don't overlook that.
The people who make the decision to cross this border and
come here leave behind a lot--their language, their culture,
their family, their relationships, their churches, their
villages. They come here with a special quality of courage that
has really made this a much different country, a much better
country. I hope that as we consider how we deal with a sensible
immigration system, we never overlook the fact that they bring
a lot of value to this Nation.
I have met them, and I am sure you have, too, and worked
with them, and many of these people who are clearly
undocumented are really adding to America, making really
beneficial contributions, not just to the economy, but to who
we are and our values. Those who just view them in negative
terms don't know them and don't know the lifestyle and the
values that they bring to us.
What I need to find out in the short time we have together
is to ask you what the administration thoughts are on a couple
of things. First, does the administration agree that there
should be a path to permanent residence for immigrants who work
hard, pay taxes, play by the rules, and learn English?
Secretary Chao. I think the administration has said on many
occasions, and the President has, as well, that we have--first,
we have put forth five principles, which I won't go into at
this point, but that there should not be a pathway to
citizenship.
Senator Durbin. There should not be?
Secretary Chao. There should not be an automatic pathway to
citizenship under the--
Senator Durbin. Could you clarify the word ``automatic''?
Secretary Chao. Under the President's proposal, we would
try to bring out those undocumented workers who are currently
living in the shadows. Our goals are to control our borders.
Second is to serve the American economy by matching workers
with unfilled jobs. Three is promote compassion for immigrant
workers. Four is to provide temporary workers with the
incentive to return to their home countries. And fifth is to
protect the rights of legal immigrants.
So the administration's plan is not an amnesty for illegal
immigrants and it does not--
Senator Durbin. What--
Secretary Chao. We feel that an automatic pathway to
citizenship would reward those who have violated our laws.
Senator Durbin. So you are opposed to creating a pathway to
permanent residence for immigrants who have lived in this
country, have paid their taxes, have not broken the law, and
have some command of the English language? You would not open a
pathway to legal residency to them?
Secretary Chao. We would ask that temporary workers come
and work for--there are two types, obviously, those who are out
of the country and those who are in the country. For those that
are in the country, which is what we are talking about--
Senator Durbin. Yes.
Secretary Chao [continuing]. We would ask them to sign up
for the temporary worker program for 3 years and they can
extend for another three years for a total of 6 years, and at
which point we would ask that they return to their home
country.
Senator Durbin. So there would be no pathway to residence.
Let me ask you about--
Secretary Chao. They can apply for the program and come on
back--
Senator Durbin. They can continue to work, but they
wouldn't have any opportunity or pathway to legal permanent
residency, as I understand your description.
Secretary Chao. They would not have a legal pathway to
citizenship, no.
Senator Durbin. Let me ask you about a specific group,
then. There are thousands of undocumented students in this
country whose parents brought them to the United States when
they were children. They grew up here. They have excelled in
school. They know no other country. I had a particular case of
a young woman who was accepted at the Juliard School of Music,
a child prodigy, a Korean American, it turns out was
undocumented, the only person in her family who was. When I
contacted the then-INS and asked them what to do, they said she
has to go back to Korea. She had been here since the age of
two.
So I want to ask you, I have introduced a bill with Senator
Hatch called the DREAM Act which would allow for students in
this circumstance an opportunity, if they played by the rules,
haven't violated the law, been here at least 5 years, completed
their education, and plan to attend college or even serve in
the United States military, that they would then have a pathway
to legal residence, permanent residence, and ultimately
citizenship. What would your position be, if not on this
particular bill, on this concept of giving these children that
opportunity?
Secretary Chao. Obviously, Senator, as you can guess, I am
not ready at this point to express an opinion about the DREAM
Act.
No. 2, I think at this point, the President has made his
principles quite clear. We are very willing to work with
Congress, but the principles are that we do not support an
automatic pathway to citizenship.
Senator Durbin. Well, keep--
Secretary Chao. For children, I don't know.
Senator Durbin. Add the word automatic, and I don't want it
to be automatic. I think that these immigrants would have to
earn their way into a position of possibilities and
opportunities and they could lose it by doing the wrong thing.
So it is clearly not going to be automatic. I think that may be
a difference here, but at the risk of pushing it too hard and
too far, I will stop at this point and ask the administration
to take a look at this bill more closely.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Specter. Thank you, Senator Durbin.
Senator Grassley?
Senator Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Chertoff, today, the Inspector General of
Homeland Security issued a report requested by me and
Congressman Hostettler stating that the Citizenship and
Immigration Service fails to accurately count H-1B visas, and
these are handed out yearly, a cap of 65,000. CIS went above
that cap set by Congress, so that clearly is that Homeland
Security is breaking the law. What is worse is that they know
they are violating the law and they will continue to violate it
if they maintain the counting system that they have today. I
don't know how this agency can possibly implement a guest
worker program and keep track of ten million aliens when they
cannot even count 65,000 each year.
So I don't have a question for you now, but I would like to
have your, not your assurance, but your reassurance, because I
have had assurance before, that you will make the agency change
their ways and stay within the number set by Congress.
Secretary Chertoff. We will, Senator. Let me, if I can,
just take a moment to say that I think that we have already
changed the model in this respect. That problem, which I think
occurred last year, occurred because when they estimate in
terms of receiving applications what the cutoff is, at which
point you hit 65,000, since you don't know how many people are
actually going to make their way through the process with the
application, what they were doing was that everybody who
applied on the last day was getting in and that exceeded the
cap.
What they have now done is we issued a regulation saying
that on the last day, when you hit the upper limit, to keep
within the limit, we will operate a random system so that not
everybody who comes on the last day will get within the cap. It
will just be a random luck-of-the-draw type of deal. That
should cure the problem.
Senator Grassley. I sure hope it does.
Also for you, I want to say that I understand that the
Citizenship and Immigration Service has a program known as
FOCUS. This program reviews applications for immigration
benefits, like green cards for citizenship, where national
security concerns are identified. In some cases, applicants may
be on the Terrorist Watch List or the FBI is watching them and
they could be an associate of a terrorist fundraiser. Rather
than simply denying these applications, the agency has allowed
them to pile up while trying to get more information about
them. People within CIS are saying that there are major
problems with getting the information because, too often, law
enforcement still doesn't want to share details with non-law
enforcement people. Now, I don't understand that, being in the
same Department, working for the same agency head, why somebody
doesn't want to share information, but that is what I am
getting, that they don't want to share the information. I have
been told that there are hundreds of these cases and one
estimate was as high as 1,400. Yet the total number of people
working on this FOCUS problem is about four or five.
If your Department can't adequately deal with security
concerns in the processing of six million applications per
year, I would question the Department's ability to deal with a
massive increase in applications that would come as part of a
guest worker program. It leads me to believe that CIS is more
worried about customer service than national security.
Now, I wrote you on September 21 about Project FOCUS and
benefit fraud and I have not yet received a response. My
question is, 4 years after 9/11, we are still hearing that
people applying for immigration benefits are not properly
screened. Name checks are too narrow, unreliable, and
inadequate. Even when there is a hit, CIS is not aggressive
enough in finding ways to deny the application. All the
emphasis seems to be on backlog reduction, and if a few hundred
people slip through the cracks if they have ties with
terrorists or criminal organizations, that seems to be an
acceptable risk, and I don't think it is acceptable. So what do
you think and what are you going to do to put emphasis back on
security?
Secretary Chertoff. Well, we do think security is
important, and one of the things I actually--I think I said in
testimony not before this Committee but elsewhere in July was
we need to reconfigure the model in which CIS operates and
consider the possibility of having, before we give people--
before we accept applications and let people come in on a
temporary basis or be here on a temporary basis, we ought to
reverse the process and do the checking or most of the checking
first so they don't get in. We don't consider their application
complete until we have done a lot of the background checking.
That is not going to happen instantly, but that is what we are
aiming to in terms of a model going forward.
As far as the name checks go, I mean, we have worked with
the FBI in terms of getting quicker response. I think we all
know that sometimes the name checks are not necessarily
accurate, and we see that with TSA. So it is fair to dig a
little bit deeper. But I share your concern, as I said in July,
about the idea that people are going to be here for a long
period of time while we are reviewing a national security
issue. That is not a sensible way to proceed and that is what
we are going to have to correct.
Senator Grassley. Mr. Chairman, we set up the Department of
Homeland Security so all of these agencies would be under one
roof so that we wouldn't have these separate smokestacks with
information being held by the separate Departments. There is
just no reason for not having this information, particularly
within one Department, shared by others in the Department when
it is needed.
Chairman Specter. Senator Grassley, you are right. Thank
you.
I would like to move ahead with the second panel, but I
have had a request from Senator Cornyn for another 5 minutes
and I don't want to curtail any line of questioning while we
have the two Secretaries here. If there is a request from
others, I will accede to that, as well, with one eye on the
clock.
Senator Cornyn?
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful. It
is a wonderful opportunity to have these two Secretaries here
and talk about something that is obviously so important.
I wanted to ask Secretary Chao about the administration's
rationale for requiring those who qualify under this temporary
worker program to return to their country of origin after their
permit, basically, their time here is completed. As you know,
there are at least two major Senate bills that deal with this
whole issue, comprehensive immigration reform, and really what
I am focusing on is this principle of work and return as
opposed to work and stay. I might also ask you to comment, this
would not be, as I understand it, to the exclusion of other
paths for legal permanent residency and citizenship that would
exist under current law. Could you please comment on that?
Secretary Chao. The administration's proposal of requiring
that workers stay for 3 years with a possible 3-year extension
but then must spend 1 year outside the U.S. before readmission
to the temporary worker program as one way to ensure that there
is respect for the rule of law, that there is not, again, an
automatic way to come into this country. So this is an effort
at basically ensuring that there is some kind of a penalty and
some kind of a fresh start for the worker when they leave so
that they can come back and come under a legal program, be
legal, and start their life anew.
Senator Cornyn. Looking long-term at the causes of illegal
immigration, no doubt the development disparity between
countries like Mexico and the United States, Central America,
the United States is a great place to work and make better
money than you can make in many of the places that people
emigrate from. I happen to believe that it is important that we
provide incentives for people to return to their country of
origin as part of this program with the savings and the skills
that they have acquired working in the United States on a
temporary basis because no country's economy could withstand
the permanent exodus of its workers. And, I think in terms of
causes of illegal immigration with respect to the overall
comprehensive policy, that makes a lot of sense and I
appreciate your comments.
Let me ask quickly, Secretary Chertoff, of course, the 9/11
Commission focused on removing barriers to information sharing,
and Senator Grassley just referred to one aspect of that,
transforming our government's system, previously described as a
``need to know'' with a ``need to share.'' I am a little
concerned about some proposals that would restrict the access
of employment verification data from law enforcement personnel,
including immigration enforcement. Do you share that concern?
Would you encourage the Congress to adopt policies that provide
encouragement for information sharing even in that context?
Secretary Chertoff. I am not aware of the specific proposal
you are mentioning. I, in general, believe we ought to share
information. There is very little percentage in keeping people
in the dark like mushrooms.
Senator Cornyn. How about, for people who apply for this or
any other program that the U.S. Government may have, would you
agree that it is a bad idea to issue employment and travel
authorization to aliens before their background screening is
completed?
Secretary Chertoff. I think one of the issues we identified
when we reviewed the operations of the Department over the
summer was that the problem with doing precisely that, that
under the current situation where people get access to the
ability to come in and work while we are processing their
background checks, it seems to me that is a vulnerability and
we need to reverse that. I don't want to understate the
magnitude of the task. The system has now been built a certain
way. It has to be reengineered. We have a new nominee, I think
he is actually coming to testify today before the Committee. We
are very interested in beginning that reengineering process.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Senator Cornyn.
Senator Durbin has requested another five-minute round.
Senator Durbin?
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to ask Secretary Chertoff about Hurricane
Katrina. I am finding it difficult to follow the
administration's policy here. After 9/11, are you aware of the
fact that the Commissioner of the INS, Mr. Ziglar, made an
announcement that people who thought they had lost friends or
family in the World Trade Center and contacted local
authorities, that they could do so without fear that the
authorities would use the information that they obtained for
immigration purposes and deportation. That was the policy of
the Bush administration after the 9/11 tragedy.
After Hurricane Katrina, it appears there is a different
policy. In fact, it is my understanding that several hurricane
victims or people who have come forward to agencies have been
deported or placed in deportation proceedings, which is totally
different than the approach that was used with 9/11.
The same question arises when it comes to the policy of
this administration as to workers. In the aftermath of Katrina,
the administration suspended the Davis-Bacon Act and waived
sanctions for employers who hired undocumented immigrants. This
gave employers the ability to hire these people at below-market
rates which could, of course, negatively impact workers.
I am trying to figure out what the position is here. It
appears that if undocumented immigrants, workers, can be hired
for the purpose of reconstruction of Hurricane Katrina, then
they are welcome in the United States for that purpose. But if
they should ask for help as victims of Hurricane Katrina,
unlike 9/11, they are subject to deportation. Reconcile this
for me, if you will.
Secretary Chertoff. Well, first of all, the issue of
whether people can call in and find their missing relatives, I
am not aware of any--I mean, I think there were a number of
telephone lines, frankly, or online ways of doing that. I don't
know that anyone who wanted to find a missing relative was
required to prove their citizenship status.
But I will tell you that the law forbids us to pay benefits
to illegal immigrants. I mean, that is the law. So if somebody
came forward and said, ``I am an illegal immigrant. I lost my
house,'' or they said, ``I lost my house,'' and it emerged they
were an illegal immigrant, they would be in violation of the
law if we gave them benefits.
I think our general policy was we are not looking to turn
this into a law enforcement exercise. On the other hand, we are
going to comply with the law.
As far as the Davis-Bacon Act, and maybe Secretary Chao has
more insight than I do, I don't understand that to have green-
lighted letting illegal aliens be hired.
Senator Durbin. No, that wasn't the part, Mr. Secretary.
First, the people I am talking about who were deported weren't
asking for a free house from the government. They were usually
asking for food and water.
Secretary Chertoff. I don't know that we--I mean, I think
when people handed out food and water and medical care, I don't
know of any policy that said, ask for people's citizenship
first.
Senator Durbin. But do you know, in fact, they were
deported or placed in deportation proceedings in several
instances?
Secretary Chertoff. I must tell you, Senator, I don't know
the facts of the specific case. I don't know how someone became
aware someone was here illegally, and if they did--you know,
once someone becomes aware of a violation of the law, I think
at that point, it is often incumbent on them to take action.
Now, were these local officials, State officials? I don't know.
I can tell you there was no policy to turn relief efforts into
a hunt for illegal migrants. But at the same time, it was clear
that if someone was an illegal migrant and was seeking to get,
for example, benefits--and I am not talking about food and
water, but, I mean, something like--
Senator Durbin. That is exactly what happened here, Mr.
Secretary. These were people seeking refuge at the Judson
Williams Convention Center in El Paso along with other evacuees
and they were deported or placed in deportation proceedings,
and I hope you will look into it.
And the second point is, it is not Davis-Bacon. Davis-Bacon
was part of the decision to diminish the wages of those who
would rebuild Hurricane Katrina. But it was the second part,
the decision of the administration to waive sanctions for
employers who hired undocumented workers in Hurricane Katrina
reconstruction. Doesn't it strike you as an inconsistent policy
of this administration to look the other way in one instance
and then to deport people seeking the basics of life at these
evacuation shelters?
Secretary Chertoff. I have to say something. I am just not
aware of a decision to allow people to hire illegal workers. I
just--
Senator Durbin. Well, I can tell you I have sent you two
letters, September 14 and September 22, asking for you to
please respond on this issue--
Secretary Chertoff. Well, I will look into them.
Senator Durbin [continuing]. And I know you are very busy
and I want you to focus on the reality of this disaster, but
please, get somebody in your office--
Secretary Chertoff. Sure. I will.
Senator Durbin [continuing]. To take a look at it and I
think you will find that the facts I have raised really raise
serious questions about the consistency of this policy with the
administration.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Senator Durbin.
In the absence of hearing any other voice, we are going to
proceed to panel two.
Secretary Chao and Secretary Chertoff, thank you for your
distinguished contribution to our country and thank you for
being at the hearing today and let us keep working and see if
we can't find the answer.
We move now to panel No. 2, to Mr. Frank Sharry, Executive
Director of the National Immigration Forum; Mr. Mark Krikorian,
Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies; and
Dr. Douglas Massey.
Mr. Sharry is the Executive Director of the National
Immigration Forum, a Washington, D.C.-based organization with
membership of over 250 organizations nationwide. He had been
Executive Director of Caentro Presente, an agency that helps
Central American refugees in the Boston area. He also led
efforts to resettle refugees from various countries, including
Vietnam and Cuba.
Thank you very much for joining us, Mr. Sharry, and we look
forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF FRANK SHARRY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
IMMIGRATION FORUM, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Sharry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for this
opportunity to all the members of the Committee.
Please allow me to start with my main recommendation. I
urge this Committee in the strongest terms possible to take
action on immigration reform and soon. The challenge is too
great, the need too urgent, and the stakes too high to allow
the vacuum to be filled by piecemeal proposals that sound tough
but solve nothing. On the other hand, if you move forward with
dispatch and courage, it will be this Committee that sets the
tone and the direction for this Congress.
Now, we all know that immigration is a controversial issue
that defies easy solutions. One reason for this is that there
are two seemingly opposed frameworks for addressing it. One
side says, get tough. The other side says, open up. And for too
long, this either/or argument has led to polarization and
paralysis.
If we are to solve this problem, if we are to move beyond
the failed strategies of the past, we need a new and broader
framework. We need a both/and perspective, one that involves
getting tough and opening up.
As I am often asked, what is the solution to reduce illegal
immigration, it is usually put this way. Are you in favor of
toughening up immigration enforcement or in modernizing our
immigration laws? My answer is, yes.
Senator Kennedy captured this both/and approach recently
when he said this. Enforcement and legality are two sides of
the same coin. This is the insight at the heart of the McCain-
Kennedy bill. It is the insight at the heart of the Cornyn-Kyl
bill. And it is the insight at the heart of the White House
principles for reform that we just heard articulated. All of
these proposals seek to integrate enforcement and legality so
that they no longer push apart but instead pull together.
Now, for a range of constituencies from across the spectrum
and across the country, the McCain-Kennedy bill is the fullest
expression of this both/and approach. It has the right
architecture and the right elements. It is bipartisan, it is
comprehensive, and most importantly, we believe it will be
workable, which leads me to my second recommendation, that this
Committee use the McCain-Kennedy bill as the template for
Senate Judiciary Committee action.
To improve on it, the Committee should incorporate the best
ideas from the other serious proposals on the table put there
by other Senators as well as by the White House. What should
the Senate Judiciary Committee bill include?
On the enforcement side of the coin, a robust combination
of, one, border enforcement that integrates professional law
enforcement and state-of-the-art technology.
Two, workplace enforcement that makes it virtually
impossible for employers to hire those in the country illegally
while making it much easier to go after employers who try to do
so.
And three, means for negotiating active cooperation from
sending countries aimed at cracking down on criminal smugglers
and discouraging illegal immigration.
On the legality side of the coin, the bill needs to have,
one, future flow visas for both needed workers and separated
families so that we can replace the current illegal flow with a
legal and orderly one.
Two, a registration and earned legalization solution for
the 11 million immigrants currently working and living in the
U.S. illegally.
And three, promotion of English language instruction and
citizenship. Incentives for circularity are fine and necessary,
but the many immigrants that settle here should be encouraged
to become new Americans.
Mr. Chairman, the country is crying out for leadership on
this confusing, complex, and controversial debate. With all due
respect, may I say, let us do this thing. Let us build out this
new framework and enact a realistic solution in this Congress.
Let us deal with enforcement and legality at the same time and
with the right mix. Let us forge an immigration system based on
enforceable laws tightly enforced. Let us create a regulatory
regime that respects rule of law at the same time it respects
the law of supply and demand.
It is time for the either/or argument of the past to give
way to the both/and solutions of the future. We no longer have
to choose between being a nation of immigrants and a nation of
laws. In fact, it is time to recognize that the only way to be
either is to be both. Thank you.
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Sharry.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sharry appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Specter. We now turn to Mr. Mark Krikorian,
Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies. He
has a Bachelor's from Georgetown, a Master's from Fletcher, and
has done extensive publishing in the Times, Post, and National
Review.
Thank you for joining us, and the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF MARK KRIKORIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
IMMIGRATION STUDIES, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Krikorian. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Policymakers face
two main questions on immigration. What are we supposed to do
with the 11 million illegal aliens who are here, and do we need
to import unskilled labor at all?
I will address the second question first. Do we need mass
unskilled immigration? The answer is clearly no. Those who
answer yes claim, in effect, that we are running out of a
precious resource, unskilled workers, and thus we need to
import more from abroad. In other words, our vast, flexible,
300-million-person, continent-spanning economy can't function
properly without a steady supply of high school dropouts from
abroad because they do work that Americans supposedly won't do.
Such a claim can only be described as economic gibberish. In
fact, employers would do two things if the supply of foreign
labor were reduced. One, increase wages and benefits to attract
the labor still available, and at the same time, look for ways
of increasing productivity through mechanization, for instance.
Some would say that even with higher wages, there just
aren't enough Americans to do the work that illegals are doing
now. Now, if we were Fiji or Kuwait and didn't have any people,
we might have to import a labor force. But if we look at the
jobs that illegal aliens hold, we find that there are millions
of Americans in those very same occupations and they suffer
from much higher rates of unemployment than the national
average.
This isn't to say that each illegal alien takes a job from
an American. It is not that simple. But it does mean there are
very large numbers of Americans who are unemployed or who have
dropped out of the labor market altogether who are in direct
competition with illegal immigrants. Many of these workers will
be drawn into the jobs now performed by illegals and other jobs
will be eliminated by technology if only the free market were
not short-circuited by mass immigration.
Lobbyists for business will disagree, of course, but claims
of doom and gloom are nothing new from that quarter. Forty
years ago, for instance, California tomato farmers testified
that their industry would cease to exist if the foreign labor
program of that time, the Bracero program, were ended. It was
ended anyway and what farmers did was invest in harvest
machinery, causing output to quadruple and the real post-
inflation price of their processed products to fall.
Fifty years before that, the textile industry predicted
disaster if child labor were ended. In fact, at a hearing
before this body in 1916, one mill owner said that limiting
child labor would ``stop my machines.'' Another said that
investors would never receive another dividend, while a third
said that ending child labor would paralyze the country.
America's economy has done just fine without child labor and it
would do just fine without more foreign labor.
But that leaves the other question before us. What do we do
about the illegals already here? Those who support mass
immigration also tend to support legalization, i.e., amnesty.
They argue that there are only two options: One, mass round-ups
and mass deportations of millions of people in a short period
of time; or, since that isn't going to happen, as Senator
Kennedy pointed out, amnesty is the only other option
available.
Let me say here that anything that launders the status of
an illegal alien, permitting him to remain here, is an amnesty.
Whether it is a so-called temporary worker program that allows
him to stay or an increase in the green card category for
unskilled workers or some other means, the result is the same.
And whether the illegal alien first has to earn his status by
paying a fine or passing an English test or calculating pi out
to ten digits, it doesn't make any difference, either. If he
gets to remain legally, he has received an amnesty.
But we are not stuck with these two unpalatable choices.
There is a third way, and it is the only workable solution in
any case, attrition of the illegal population through
enforcement. We didn't get into this situation overnight and we
are not going to end it overnight with one comprehensive piece
of legislation, I am afraid. Instead, by actually enforcing the
immigration law consistently and across the board, we can
dramatically reduce the settlement of new illegal immigrants
and, over a period of years, force millions of those already
here to give up and to deport themselves, shrinking the illegal
alien problem from today's crisis to a manageable nuisance.
Amnesty supporters claim that we have already tried that
and we have failed and so we have to try something else. In
fact, the precise opposite is true. We have never tried
sustained, comprehensive enforcement, but we have tried many of
the reforms that are now being proposed. In 1986, Congress
passed an amnesty for illegal immigrants with nearly three
million people legalized. Four years later, we substantially
increased legal immigration and the issuance of temporary
worker visas has grown even faster. The result? More illegal
immigration than ever before. It is time to try something new,
attrition through enforcement.
Thank you.
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Krikorian.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Krikorian appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Specter. Our next witness is Dr. Douglas Massey,
Professor of Sociology at Princeton University. He was also a
faculty member at the University of Chicago, where he directed
the Latin American Studies Center and Population Research
Center.
We appreciate your being here, Professor Massey, and look
forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS S. MASSEY, PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY,
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY
Mr. Massey. Mr. Chairman and members of the Judiciary
Committee, my testimony is very simple. The U.S. immigration
system is badly broken. It has been broken since 1986 and has
been getting worse.
The central problem concerns the relationship between
Mexico and the United States. Mexico accounts for 60 percent of
all unauthorized migrants currently in the country and around a
fifth of recent legal immigrants. After Mexico's six million
unauthorized residents, the next closest countries are El
Salvador and Guatemala, with totals of less than 300,000 each.
Few unauthorized migrants come from Asia, Europe, Africa, or
the Pacific. Undocumented migration is, thus, overwhelmingly a
problem of the Western Hemisphere and very disproportionately
Mexican.
Next to Canada, Mexico is our closest neighbor and trading
partner. Together, we share a 2,000-mile border and trade
annually totaling $286 billion. In 2004, 175,000 legal
immigrants entered the U.s. from Mexico, along with 3.8 million
visitors for pleasure, 433,000 visitors for business, 118,000
temporary workers and dependents, 25,000 intra-company
transferees, 21,000 students, 8,400 exchange visitors, and
6,200 traders. At the same time, one million Americans
presently live in Mexico and 19 million travel there each year.
U.S. direct foreign investment in Mexico now totals $62 billion
annually.
These massive cross-border flows are occurring by design
under the auspices of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
However, at the heart of NAFTA lies a contradiction. Even as we
have moved to promote the freer cross-border movement of goods,
services, capital, commodities, we simultaneously seek to
prevent the movement of labor. We somehow wish to create a
single North American economy that integrates all factor
markets except one, that for labor.
To maintain this illusion that we can somehow integrate
while remaining separate, we have militarized our border with a
friendly country that is among our closest trading partners and
strongest allies and which poses no conceivable threat to the
United States security. Even as binational trade with Mexico
grew by a factor of eight from 1986 to the present, the Border
Patrol's enforcement budget increased by a factor of ten. The
Border Patrol is now the largest arms-bearing branch of the
U.S. Government except the military itself, with an annual
budget of $1.4 million.
The attempt to stop the flow of Mexican labor into the
United States through unilateral enforcement has not only
failed miserably, it has backfired. It has not deterred would-
be immigrants from entering the United States, nor has it
reduced the size of the annual inflow. What it has done is
channel migratory flows away from traditional crossing points
to remote zones where the physical risks are great, but the
likelihood of getting caught is actually small. As a result,
the number of deaths has skyrocketed while the probability of
apprehension has fallen to a 40-year low. We are spending more
tax dollars to catch fewer migrants and cause more deaths.
Moreover, once deflected away from traditional crossing
points, Mexican immigrants have moved to new destinations.
Whereas two-thirds of Mexicans who arrived in the United States
during 1985 to 1990 went to California, during 2000 to 2005,
only one-third did so. In essence, our border policies have
helped transform a regional movement affecting three States
into a national phenomenon affecting all 50 States.
Our policies also serve to transform what had been a
seasonal movement of male workers into a settled population of
families, increasing the costs and risks of undocumented entry
and they have not deterred Mexicans from coming.
Perversely, the policies have only discouraged them from
going home once they are here. Having faced the gauntlet at the
border, undocumented migrants were loath to do so again and
hunkered down for the long term. As a result of our
militarization of the border, undocumented trips have
lengthened and rates of return migration have plummeted. If the
rate of in-migration remains stable while the rate of out-
migration declines, only one outcome is possible, a sharp
increase in the rate of net undocumented population growth.
In addition, as Mexican migrants stayed away longer, they
sent for their wives and children. So rather than constituting
a temporary flow of male workers, Mexico-U.S. migration has
become a settled population of permanent residents and
families.
In sum, the American attempt to stop the flow of Mexican
workers within a rapidly integrated North American economy has
not worked. Rather, it has reduced the rate of apprehension at
the border, raised the death rate among migrants, produced
longer trip lengths, lowered rates of return migrations,
increased the rate of undocumented population growth,
transformed what had been a circular flow of workers into a
settled population of families scattered throughout 50 States,
all at the cost of billions of dollars of taxpayer money.
Our border policies have thus given us the worst of all
possible worlds, continued immigration under terms that are
disadvantageous to us, harmful to American workers, and
injurious to the migrants themselves. This lamentable state of
affairs stems from our failure to come to terms with the
contradiction of continental integration under NAFTA. Rather
than viewing Mexican migration as a pathological product of
rampant poverty and unchecked population growth, we should see
it as a natural product of economic development in a relatively
wealthy country undergoing rapid transition to low fertility.
I believe the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill moves us
substantially in the direction of improving circumstances for
American workers, improving circumstances for our closest
neighbor, and enhancing the health and status of the United
States. I, therefore, support it as a member of the National
Academy of Sciences, a citizen of the United States, and a
concerned human being.
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Professor Massey.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Massey appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Specter. Mr. Sharry, you talk about the key to
putting immigration on a legal footing is to find a way to
encourage 11 million undocumented immigrants to, quote,
``transition to legal status.'' Short of amnesty, which is
generally frowned upon, how do you persuade those 11 million
people to come out of the shadows so that the transition can be
effectuated?
Mr. Sharry. There is no perfect solution to this, Senator.
Chairman Specter. Well, give us some solution that isn't
perfect.
Mr. Sharry. It can't be an amnesty, which is an automatic
pardon and a trip to the front of the line.
Chairman Specter. You agree that amnesty is out of the
question, generalized?
Mr. Sharry. I do. I do. I also think, though, that if we
are going to be realistic about putting migration on a legal
footing, we can't simply ignore the fact that there are 11
million people here without status who are afraid to come
forward.
I like the idea embodied in the McCain-Kennedy proposal,
the idea of coming forward to register, submitting to security
checks, paying fines, maintaining a clean record, getting to
the back of the line, and participating in English and civics
classes. I like the idea of having to earn your way out of the
fact that you did break the law and you are here and most of
you are going to stay. I think that is the right approach.
Chairman Specter. And if they fail to earn their way, a
breach along the line, ship them home?
Mr. Sharry. Yes. If I could just say one more thing about
it, I do think that this amnesty word has been abused and
overused. I think what the American people want is a solution
to the 11 million as long as we have a solution to the problem
of open borders, porous borders, lax enforcement. If we get the
combination right, I think the American people will be pleased
and glad that we have dealt with the 11 million here and they
have come out of the shadows.
Chairman Specter. Mr. Krikorian, you have an interesting
concept on attrition through enforcement and your proposition
that there are many people who are unemployed, but how do you
deal with the statistics which show that even among
construction workers, there are only about 65 percent of the
number we need? If you move into the skilled trades, health
care workers or plumbers, electricians, there are vast
shortages. Looking at the projections from Federal Reserve
Chairman Greenspan, that by the year 2030, the growth of the
U.S. work force will slow to a half percent and at the same
time the population over 65 years of age will rise to 20
percent, that sort of a demographic projection leaves the
country in drastic shape on sustaining Social Security and
Medicare. Really, is there any answer beyond bringing more
workers into this country?
Mr. Krikorian. Yes, there is, Senator. First of all, the
idea of the need for labor is a dynamic thing. It is not
static. The fact is that the expectation or the presence of
large numbers of foreign workers causes those industries that
they work in or are expected to work in to develop differently.
One quick example is in California, where the number of
acres planted in labor-intensive crops has been steadily
increasing because there is an available labor force illegally
coming into the country that farmers want to use. With a
smaller supply of foreign workers over time, the industries
develop differently. Construction moves more rapidly to
manufactured housing, away from stick-built housing. Farming
moves more rapidly to mechanized harvests, away from hand
harvesting, perhaps even different crops. Carrots, you harvest
by machine; strawberries, you don't.
My basic point is the economy is a dynamic system that can
adjust one way or the other--
Chairman Specter. You think the market forces would
accommodate if these workers weren't available?
Mr. Krikorian. If they disappeared tomorrow, that would be
extraordinarily disruptive, but there is no prospect of that
happening. Over time, yes, market forces would deal with it.
Chairman Specter. I have only 30 seconds left and I want to
pose a question to Professor Massey, so pardon the
interruption. You talk about renewal only once in a lifetime of
the visa-holder after he or she returns home. Do you think that
there is any practical way that temporary guest workers should
be able to earn legal permanent resident status after staying
in the U.S. labor force for a period of time without returning
home?
Mr. Massey. Yes, I do. I think that at the same time you
set up a temporary worker program, it is also true that the old
saying that there is no such thing more permanent than a
temporary worker program. Some fraction of those temporary
workers are going to acquire social and economic ties to the
United States that will draw them into a more permanent status
and there should be a pathway for that small fraction of people
to become legal resident aliens of the United States.
But left to their own druthers, the vast majority of people
circulating from Mexico would prefer to return home, and so you
should try to accommodate that with a temporary worker program,
but also have an avenue for permanent settlement for those who
acquire ties to the United States to qualify them.
Chairman Specter. Thank you, Professor Massey. The red
light went on during the middle of your answer.
I will yield now to Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much. I thank the panel. I
think we have gotten a pretty good impression from this panel
about the dynamics of this debate in a lot of different ways.
I want to just ask Frank Sharry about another dimension and
that is what we can expect from Mexico and these other
countries. The panel hasn't mentioned this issue, but unless we
get cooperation in this whole undertaking from Mexico and
Central American countries, we are not going to achieve reform
even with the proposals that Senator McCain and I have made. I
am interested if you would comment on it.
We have the programs in Mexico, the three-to-one programs
where some rebates that go back in are used internally to try
to help economic development. We haven't talked about the
importance of economic development in Mexico and the difference
that that can make. There is also a payment. We talked earlier
in the course of the hearing about people using fake I.D.s or
Social Security cards and we know there are funds that are
already in the Social Security fund that will not be claimed. I
don't know whether there is any way or opportunity or if there
should be one, but it is a public policy issue whether some of
that can be used in terms of helping the development in Mexico
and along these border areas so that it changes the atmosphere
and the climate. You are going to have to get a change in
Mexico and Central America.
Could you comment about the issue just generally, briefly,
but--
Mr. Sharry. Yes, Senator. I agree with your thesis. We
can't get this done right unless we have Mexico and Central
America, which account for more than 80 percent of the current
illegal immigration, at the table as full partners. I do think
that we should expect more from them in both public education
campaigns, administering temporary worker programs, and in
cracking down on smugglers. I also think that part of the deal
of engaging them on immigration reform is that their own
internal reform agendas get accelerated.
You mentioned the Social Security suspense file, which I
understand has some $420 billion in taxes that have been paid
by those who can't get matched up to right numbers and the only
explanation from SSA is that almost all of that is from
undocumented immigrants who have been working and having their
FICA taken out. that is a huge sum of money. Now, most of it, I
hope, will 1 day get matched up to the workers themselves, but
no doubt, some of that will be available both for, perhaps for
development processes in Mexico and Central America.
But we need to bring them to the table. They are democratic
governments and they will come to the table if we have a fair
immigration policy that responds to the law of supply and
demand in this hemisphere.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you. On the issues of wages and the
impact in terms of employment, I don't think any of us question
that if you are going to pay people $15 or $20 or $25 to make
beds or wash dishes, maybe you can get people to do it, but it
is going to be a rather dramatic change in the economy in terms
of what we are looking at here. We can't even get an increase
in the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour in the last 9 years, and
the idea that we are going to suddenly alter and change this
economy so that we are going to be paying all these people and
change this thing dramatically is something that I find quite
difficult to get a handle on.
But I am interested in, Professor Massey, just about what
is happening out there in the depression of wages, even on
American workers. Could you talk about what you think, if we
get to a legitimate temporary worker program where a worker is
going to have the protections in terms of what they are going
to get paid, has got the mobility to move around, as compared
to what we have at the current time in terms of the
exploitation of the undocumented? What is sort of the swing on
that in terms of the economic conditions generally of workers
in those areas? What do you see as a professional economist and
somebody who has studied this?
Mr. Massey. Well, I think one of the major reasons that
wages have lagged at the low end of the distribution is that we
have seen a buildup of people without any labor rights in the
United States. People in undocumented status are, in fact,
vulnerable and subject to exploitation, and ironically, this
isn't because more people are coming to the United States, it
is because when you militarize the border, the paradoxical
effect is you deter them from going home. So what has fallen is
not the rate of entry, but the rate of return migration and you
have got all these people building up north of the border in
undocumented status and by competing in labor markets in this
super-exploitable position, it puts downward pressure on
American wages and working conditions.
I think the way to improve the situation for American
workers is to grant people in the United States full rights
within the U.S. labor market and labor markets work to allocate
supply and demand, so you should allow people full rights to
participate and allow the markets to do their work.
Senator Kennedy. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Senator Kennedy.
Senator Cornyn, do you have questions for this panel?
Senator Cornyn. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, if I may.
Chairman Specter. Please proceed.
Senator Cornyn. I think all of us agree that there are
several different components to immigration reform that we need
to address. One, obviously is the national security imperative.
The other is the economic issues involved. And third, I would
say, are the compassion issues that cause our hearts to go out
to those who are literally dying trying to come to America to
provide for their families. I don't know anyone under similar
circumstances who would not try to do the same, assuming that
they had sufficient courage to do that.
My own belief is the best and most compassionate thing we
can do for people is to create a legal system and one that can
be enforced, because a legal system then provides protection of
the laws to workers. It provides protection against the human
smugglers. It obviates a necessity for those. And it even helps
the spouse who is subject to domestic violence and who is
afraid to report it because of her status.
But let me talk first, and perhaps exclusively in the time
I have remaining, about enforcement. We know that the nature of
immigration has changed across our borders, that it is not the
traditional economic immigrant only, but rather we know that
that porous border makes us vulnerable to people who want to
come here to kill us, literally. It is just a matter of money
to the smugglers. They will smuggle guns, they will smuggle
drugs, they will smuggle people. They don't care whether they
are members of al Qaeda or whether they just want to work and
provide for their families.
Mr. Sharry, would you talk about, briefly, what sort of
enforcement measures you think are imperative as part of this
comprehensive immigration reform package? I understand there
are other attributes that you think it needs to include--
Mr. Sharry. Right.
Senator Cornyn [continuing]. But just talk to us about
enforcement.
Mr. Sharry. Thank you, Senator. Well, let me suggest that I
think there are a number of good ideas in the legislation that
you have put forward that should be fully considered as part of
a Senate Judiciary bill. I think the combination of robust
border enforcement with the kind of infrastructure and
technology improvements is essential. I think the idea of more
boots on the ground, both on the border and in the interior,
are ideas that have to be further developed and implemented. I
particularly like the way you have designed the bilateral
agreements with sending nations. I think that is a respectful
but essential way to engage the sending countries so we get
cooperation from them in a meaningful way and I think that that
is an excellent idea. And I think the detailed approach that
you take to worker verification is essential.
I think at the end of the day, if, in addition to
augmenting the increased border enforcement, the key to
reducing illegal immigration and draining the swamp of fake
document merchants and smugglers is really going to be worker
verification, and I think we need to do it. It is tough to do
it right. We need to take into account privacy concerns, data
concerns, anti-discrimination concerns. They are all
legitimate, and I think those elements need to be added in this
mix. But at the end of the day, if we have that combination
from sending countries to border to interior enforcement
combined with legal channels, I think we will significantly
reduce illegal immigration.
Right now, about a third of the flow is illegal. Our goal
should be nothing less than to have it less than two or 1
percent as a flow, in which our Border Patrol can instantly
know if someone is crossing our border and have teams go after
those folks. We have got to take care of the networks that move
workers so that 1 day, they can't move terrorists.
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Krikorian, would you speak to that same
question, please?
Mr. Krikorian. I am inspired that Frank is so pro-
enforcement now. It is a refreshing cool drink of water to
hear. The problem, though, is that in the discussion of
immigration enforcement and security, what we often hear is
that the dishwasher isn't the problem, the terrorist is the
problem. And the fact, of course, is the dishwasher does not
have a bomb vest on him and is not going to blow up a bus. But
any immigration system that the dishwasher can sneak through is
one that the terrorist can also sneak through.
So we can't do what really has been kind of the implicit
sense since 9/11 in immigration enforcement. We can't just pick
and choose which immigration laws we are going to enforce or
who we are going to enforce them against. We need to do it
comprehensively at consulates overseas, at the border, and
inside the country in order for the security benefits of it to
be realized, because without it, if we look only at people from
Egypt and Saudi Arabia, for instance, we will end up with
terrorists using French passports or Russian passports or
others, and those are not hypotheticals, those are real things.
So we need enforcement across the board if it is going to have
any security benefits at all.
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Senator Cornyn.
Without objection, Senator Leahy's statement will be made a
part of the record.
Thank you very much, Mr. Sharry, Mr. Krikorian, Professor
Massey. Your testimony has been very helpful and now the
Committee will struggle with the so-called markup where we try
to write a bill.
There is no doubt of the enormous importance of the
immigration issue, how we balance many conflicting factors. I
was interested to hear the story of Senator Durbin's
grandparents, a story very similar to the story of my parents,
both of whom were immigrants. I disclosed at the outset my bias
at birth favoring immigrants. Beyond that, we have to have a
program which engenders respect for law and protects our
borders and sees to it that we have an adequate work force,
lots of complications, but within the pay grade of the
Judiciary Committee.
That concludes our hearing. Thank you all very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Questions and answers and submissions for the record
follow.]
[Additional material is being retained in the Committee
files.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0759.101