[Senate Hearing 109-698]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-698
EXAMINING THE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM, PART II
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 12, 2006
__________
Serial No. J-109-97
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
30-098 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
Michael O'Neill, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
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........ 10
prepared statement........................................... 69
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of
California..................................................... 16
Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Massachusetts.................................................. 12
prepared statement........................................... 89
Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona.......... 18
Leahy, Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont...... 2
prepared statement........................................... 91
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama.... 13
Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Pennsylvania................................................... 1
WITNESSES
Cutler, Michael W., Fellow, Center for Immigration Studies,
Washington, D.C................................................ 21
Gutierrez, Carlos, Secretary of Commerce, Washington, D.C........ 4
Johnson, Benjamin, Director, Immigration Policy Center, American
Immigration Law Foundation, Washington, D.C.................... 24
McDonald, William F., Professor of Sociology and Anthropology,
and Co-Director, Institute of Criminal Law and Procedure,
Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C.............. 26
O'Dowd, Niall, Founder and Chairman, Irish Lobby for Immigration
Reform, New York, New York..................................... 28
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Responses of Michael W. Cutler to questions submitted by Senator
Kennedy........................................................ 37
Responses of Carlos Gutierrez to questions submitted by Senator
Kennedy........................................................ 50
Responses of Benjamin Johnson to questions submitted by Senator
Kennedy........................................................ 53
Responses of William F. McDonald to questions submitted by
Senator Kennedy................................................ 56
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Chertoff, Michael, Secretary of Homeland Security, Washington,
D.C., statement................................................ 67
Cutler, Michael W., Fellow, Center for Immigration Studies,
Washington, D.C., statement and letter......................... 71
Gutierrez, Carlos, Secretary of Commerce, Washington, D.C.,
statement...................................................... 75
Johnson, Benjamin, Director, Immigration Policy Center, American
Immigration Law Foundation, Washington, D.C., statement........ 82
McDonald, William F., Professor of Sociology and Anthropology,
and Co-Director, Institute of Criminal Law and Procedure,
Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C., statement.. 93
Microsoft Corporation, Jack Krumholtz, Managing Director, Federal
Government Affairs, Washington, D.C., statement................ 106
O'Dowd, Niall, Founder and Chairman, Irish Lobby for Immigration
Reform, New York, New York, statement.......................... 111
EXAMINING THE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM, PART II
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2006
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Arlen
Specter, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Specter, Kyl, Sessions, Cornyn, Leahy,
Kennedy, and Feinstein.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Chairman Specter. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
The Senate Judiciary Committee will now proceed with this
hearing on immigration. And will you please start the clock on
me like everybody else?
It would be our preference to be conferring with the House
of Representatives on the immigration matter as opposed to
setting aside the month of August for hearings. And I do not
believe we are engaging in dual hearings. But when the House
announced the scheduling of hearings starting the month of
August with the overtone of criticizing the Senate bill, it
seems only reasonable to respond to have hearings to
demonstrate the necessity to go beyond border security and to
have a guest worker program and to take care of the 11 million
undocumented immigrants. It is my hope that after we complete
those hearings that in September we will move ahead to a
conference and produce legislation.
There has been a good deal of talk about a so-called
trigger to have border security before we move ahead for the
consideration of a guest worker program or to deal with the 11
million undocumented immigrants. I think it is worth noting
that in the Senate bill there are a number of delays. I think
we should not get bogged down on semantics over substance, but
ought to deal with what is the substance, not get bogged down
on amnesty, which the Senate bill is not, because we provide
for a fine, we provide for no criminal record, we provide for a
long period of employment, the learning of English, so that
there is no forgiveness and citizenship is earned under the
Senate bill.
We do have some built-in delays. For example, there will be
no guest worker program under the Senate bill until after there
have been appropriations for employer verification so that we
will be sure that we are moving ahead on securing the border to
eliminate illegals before we move into the guest worker
program.
It is also estimated that the regulations on the guest
workers or on the 11 million will take at least 18 months,
perhaps longer. So there is a built-in delay. And the 11
million or those of the 11 million who qualify for citizenship
will be at the end of the line, and that line will take perhaps
as long as 6 years.
I do not often quote Senator Kennedy, but I told him I was
going to do this. I do not often quote him in his presence.
Senator Kennedy. That is right. I can hardly wait to hear
this.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Specter. His comment, by the way, comes out of his
time.
But this is what Senator Kennedy said when we had the
hearing last Wednesday at the Constitution Center: ``So if
there are those who feel a greater sense of satisfaction that
we are going to move toward the enforcement first, that
effectively was in the Senate bill.'' So that is a concise
statement that we may not be so far apart.
I think there is the beginning of some amenity nationally.
The recent issue of Time Magazine took up the supportive
position on guest workers, pointing out that there is so much
domestic consumption of illegal immigrant labor--housekeepers,
nannies, gardeners, way above the farmers, the hotels, the
restaurants that we traditionally talk about. And the Time
Magazine article I think was right on target in identifying the
underlying racism and xenophobia which really grips us despite
our denial of it with the Chinese Exclusion Act going back to
1882 and the 1924 Immigration Act limiting immigrants from
southern Italy targeted at Italians and with the limitation on
Jewish immigrants when the Holocaust was on. So that when there
is an effort to limit Chinese and Indian immigrants for legal
status and HB-1, talented, well-qualified people, we see that
the battle goes beyond legal versus illegal.
Today's hearing is going to be another effort, continuing
effort to explain to the American people the importance of
guest workers and the importance of not having a fugitive
underclass of 11 million people.
My red light just went on so I now yield to the
distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Leahy.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Leahy. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have done
so much work on this--and Senator Kennedy, Senator McCain,
myself, and others have--that I am sorry to find that the
election-year politics seem to have diminished the work the
Senate has done to find a comprehensive solution to the
Nation's immigration problem.
We have worked hard in the Senate. We created a bipartisan
bill, delivered fair and comprehensive reforms, but since its
passage, we have seen many in the Congress reject efforts to
move forward and make progress, and notwithstanding what the
Senate Democratic leaders have tried to do to get to
conference. So instead, we end up with a series of after-the-
fact hearings. Now, a few, like the one held by the Senate
Armed Services Committee this week--and I know Senator Kennedy
was at that were supportive of the Senate bill. We heard a
powerful statement by General Pace--as those of us with Italian
ancestry would say, General ``Pa-chay''--this week. The
Chairman's field hearing, again, attended by Senator Kennedy,
last week, contributed to the record supporting the Senate
bill.
But then we see other hearings that have done nothing more
than inflame the passions of anti-immigrant activists, and the
lines seem clear. The anti-immigrant faction opposes a fair and
comprehensive approach. They seem to abhor establishing a
pathway to earn citizenship, and they seem to think it is going
to help in upcoming elections. I would hope not. I think we
reject the best of America and our values when we refuse to
recognize all that immigrants bring and mean to this country.
And I hope that fear and intolerance are not winning political
strategies.
It is unrealistic to think we can apprehend and deport
every undocumented individual the administration has allowed
into the United States. The reality is that our economy depends
upon the labor of foreign workers. When Border Patrol agents
are not spending time and resources apprehending people coming
here to work, then they can work at really protecting the
security of this country.
I believe there is real merit to President Bush's argument
that if we increase the opportunity to come to the United
States legally, we will reduce the demand for illegal entry.
We are a welcoming, diverse country built and enriched by
immigrants. My maternal grandparents came here from Italy. My
paternal great-grandparents came here from Ireland. My mother
learned English as a second language. My parents-in-law came
here from Canada. My wife learned English as a second language
as a first-generation American. And how proud they all were to
come to this country. The distinguished Secretary knows what
that pride feels like
The opposition to providing bilingual ballots to bilingual
American citizens, who are vested with the right to vote, is a
particularly troubling part of this debate. Section 203's
guarantee of equality is not just for immigrants but for Native
Americans and those who have long been citizens. The reality is
that people who come to the United States embrace the English
language along with patriotism, as my grandparents did, as my
mother did, as my wife did. And America loses when we
discriminate on the basis of national origin or language.
Isolating ourselves and turning this country into a police
state is not the way our Nation will remain the beacon of
freedom and prosperity it has always been. Let us have faith in
our traditional values. Let us show the strength and purpose
needed to accomplish the comprehensive reform we need.
It is critical that President Bush make good on his
commitment to support the Senate's work. I know how hard we
worked to get that bill through. But without his active support
and his steadfast dedication, the Congressional Republican
efforts to derail comprehensive reform will succeed. I
applauded the President for his statements earlier on
comprehensive reform. I hope he will stay steadfast with that.
If he does, we will pass it. If he does not, we will not. I
hope he stays with us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Senator Leahy.
We are pleased to have as our first witness today the very
distinguished Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez; born in
Havana, Cuba, in 1953, came to the United States at the age of
7 in 1960; became a naturalized citizen in 1966; went to work
for the Kellogg Company as a sales representative in 1975, and
then became the youngest CEO in the history of that illustrious
company. He has been the Secretary of Commerce since January of
2005, and he brings to the immigration issue a number of
perspectives:
First, as Secretary of Commerce, he is in a position to
provide expert testimony about the employment picture in the
United States, just what is necessary by way of immigrant
assistance, what is necessary by way of a guest worker program,
what would happen if we did not have immigrants in this country
undertaking so many of the jobs.
And then from his own perspective as an immigrant, he can
tell us what it feels like to come from foreign shores and to
become a part of the United States family and be such a
distinguished citizen. And he can perhaps give us some insights
as to the problems if we have an 11-million underclass of
fugitives in this country, what that means to our society as a
whole.
So we welcome you here, Mr. Secretary, and we look forward
to your testimony.
Secretary Gutierrez. May I proceed with the testimony, Mr.
Chairman?
Chairman Specter. Yes, you may proceed. Your full statement
will be made a part of the record, and the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF CARLOS GUTIERREZ, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Secretary Gutierrez. Thank you, Chairman Specter and
Ranking Member Leahy and members of the Committee. I am very
pleased to have this opportunity to discuss comprehensive
immigration reform with you, and I want to thank you for your
leadership and hard work on this important issue.
I believe that immigration is probably the domestic social
issue of our time and a key to our future economic health. The
President has called for comprehensive reform that includes
protecting our borders and recognizing the needs of our growing
economy.
Our reality is that our economy is growing faster than any
other large industrialized nation. Our unemployment rate is
below the average of the past four decades.
Our economy, like other major industrialized economies,
faces the challenge of an aging and increasingly educated
workforce.
The result is that we have jobs today that American
citizens either are not willing to do or are not available to
do. I continually hear from industries that they are having
difficulty finding workers.
In May, we had 4.1 million job openings in the U.S. with a
large amount in the hospitality industry.
As one example, when I was in Texas in June, Alan Simpson,
president of the El Paso Restaurant Association and the Silver
Streak hamburger chain, said, ``When the unemployment rate is
below 5 to 6 percent, it is a real challenge to staff
restaurants.''
So immigrants are not crossing our borders to look for a
handout. They are seeking jobs that are available.
I am encouraged that we are starting to reach some
consensus. As you know, more than 500 of our Nation's top
economists recently sent a letter to President Bush and
Congress stating that immigration has been a net gain for
American citizens. And two-thirds of American voters say they
support bills that include a temporary worker program or path
to citizenship, rather than one that focuses solely on border
security.
President Bush has called for comprehensive immigration
reform to address the many complex issues involved. Everyone
agrees that it is essential to secure our borders.
The President has proposed increasing the number of Border
Patrol agents from approximately 12,000 to more than 18,000,
increasing the use of technology at the borders so we know who
is coming through, and improving processes to become more
efficient.
We believe that worksite enforcement is also essential.
There is an underground industry today built on producing false
documentation for illegal workers, and employers have a hard
time helping enforce the law because they are not sure which
documents are reliable.
The rules must be clear enough to hold businesses
accountable, and we must ensure that businesses have the tools
they need to follow the law.
We need to create a temporary workers program. It would
create a legal means for more workers to enter the United
States for a limited time period to fill labor needs. And by
providing a legal, enforceable way for immigrants to enter, we
would take pressure off our borders.
The President has called for a program to match willing
immigrant workers with willing employers in jobs that no
Americans have filled. And we need an expanded employment
verification system, including biometric card identification
for the temporary worker program. We have the technology today
to use a person's unique characteristics, such as a
fingerprint, to lock in identity.
When we have an effective employment verification system
and we have a temporary workers program, the whole dynamics
will change.
Over time, it will become very unlikely that people will
risk their lives crossing the border if it is well known that
unless you have this temporary worker's permit, unless you have
this biometric card, you will not find a job.
These are some of the most consequential things we can do
to make our borders more secure, and they demonstrate the
wisdom of comprehensive immigration reform. The biggest thing
we can do for our border is to have a temporary worker's permit
for the interior of the country.
The other reality we must confront is that we have 12
million people who are in the country illegally. The President
has said that deporting 12 million individuals would not be
wise, it would not be practical, and it would not be humane.
The other extreme of the argument is amnesty. The
dictionary defines amnesty as an ``unconditional pardon--
obliterating all memory of the offense.'' The President does
not support amnesty, and it is not accurate or fair to call his
solution to the problem ``amnesty.''
We are talking about having a hard-earned path to
legalization, which would require meeting conditions such as
people waiting their turn in line--which can take many, many
years--paying fines, paying taxes, learning English, undergoing
a criminal background check, and having a job.
Very importantly, when immigrants take the Oath of
Allegiance to become American citizens, they give up
allegiances to other countries. They promise to support and
defend our Constitution and to serve in our military if
required.
The process of becoming a U.S. citizen can take more than 8
years. Nothing is guaranteed. So immigrants have to make a real
commitment to this country, and stick it out, to earn
citizenship and its associated responsibilities.
The last important point that President Bush makes is that
we are a Nation of immigrants and we must honor the great
tradition of the melting pot.
It is a false choice to think the immigration debate is a
battle between America being a welcoming society and being a
Nation of laws. We can be both because we are both.
The United States' ability to assimilate immigrants is our
comparative advantage in this global economy. Mr. Chairman,
many countries today, such as Japan, China, Germany, and
France, are having significant demographic problems, and they
are seeing that over time their populations will start to
decline. And they have more retired workers than they have
workers able to support those retirees. Interestingly, they are
turning to immigration to solve their demographic problems, and
we know, we have seen in the news recently, that they are not
having much success with immigration. They do not have
experience with immigration. They do not know how to deal with
immigration. They do not know how to assimilate immigrants.
We know how to do that. We have been doing it for 230
years. Now at a time when this debate has become so intense, I
believe we need to understand that it is not only an issue to
be resolved, but it is a tremendous opportunity to give us a
competitive advantage over the rest of the world. Our ability
to assimilate immigrants is a capability and a competitive
advantage that we have that very few countries in the world
have.
What we need now is leadership and reasonable compromise in
the middle of those two extremes. We need to be talking about
the right mix of immigration reform that addresses all the
issues.
An immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive
because all elements of this problem must be addressed
together, or none of them will be solved at all.
I ask you to commit to comprehensive immigration reform.
The longer we wait, the bigger the problems we are passing on
to a future generation.
If we address the issues effectively, I am convinced that
our children and grandchildren will be proud of what we did.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I would be pleased to answer
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Gutierrez appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. We
will now begin the 5-minute rounds for members.
I begin with the central point of the impact on the
economy. Recently, more than 500 of the Nation's top
economists, including five Nobel laureates, signed a joint
letter to the President and Congress stating that immigration
has a net gain economically for America. Is there any doubt
that the immigrants contribute to the economy and are an
indispensable part of having a growing, expanding economy which
benefits all American citizens?
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the estimates that
we have seen is that the unemployment rate for undocumented
workers is actually below the national average, which suggests
that they come for one reason, and one reason only, and that is
to work. Approximately--these are estimates--5 or 6 percent of
our jobs are carried out by undocumented workers. So--
Chairman Specter. And is their presence here and their
contribution to the economy a net gain that ripples through to
the benefit of all the rest of those of us who are in this
country?
Secretary Gutierrez. Absolutely. The owners of the
businesses that have access to those workers in turn become
consumers, in turn spend money in our economy. They invest in
their businesses. The immigrants become consumers. There is a
multiplying effect to our economy that every estimate I have
seen suggests that is positive.
Chairman Specter. Moving away from the guest worker program
to the 11 million, and pardon me for perhaps interrupting, but
moving to central point--each of us has only 5 minutes, and I
am going to mind the time meticulously. Moving away from the
guest worker issue, what is the impact on American society by
having 11 million undocumented immigrants who become a fugitive
class and who become an underclass? How does that affect our
society in terms of a crime problem, in terms of the overall
texture of American society?
Secretary Gutierrez. That is a very interesting question. I
think that when we start getting to the ground level and
understanding these 11, 12 million people, we are talking in
many cases of children who are going to school today, because
those 11, 12 million people have 3 million children. They were
born here. They are going to school. They probably play Little
League. They are in the class play. They do not know of any
other country. They probably do not really realize that their
parents have this problem with documentation, so they are part
of the fabric of our society. Estimates that I see suggest that
over 7 or 8 million of them have been here for more than 5
years.
Chairman Specter. How about the impact of living in the
shadows and being subject to deportation and being an
underclass and being essentially a fugitive class?
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, which does not enable them or
encourage them to assimilate, to learn English, to be part of
society. As you say, the more this issue becomes one of
enforcement only, we are driving them farther and farther
underground. And what we want, even for our National security,
is to drive them above the shadows so we know who they are.
Chairman Specter. Mr. Secretary, now moving to the personal
level, because you have quite a history as an immigrant, coming
from Cuba at the age of 7 and becoming the chief executive
officer and later Chairman of the board of one of America's
great corporations, you make the point that there is a real
commitment to this country by the citizens. Senator Leahy talks
about his own background. We all have a background to talk
about. And just for a few moments, a few seconds about my
father, he came here at the age of 18 from Russia. The czar
wanted to send him to Siberia, and he wanted to go to Kansas.
And as I jokingly say, it was a close call.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Specter. He served in World War I very, very
proudly, perhaps in the era before we had draft dodgers. Maybe
he did not know anything about dodging the draft, but he was
very proud.
As an immigrant, what is the commitment of the immigrants
to America?
Secretary Gutierrez. The feeling, it is hard to describe,
that when you are welcomed by a society, welcomed by citizens,
given an opportunity to improve your life, knowing that you
have to play by the rules and you have to contribute. But once
you have that, there is an unswerving loyalty to this country.
I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, I have lost a lot of things
in my life. I have lost pens. I have lost wallets. I have never
lost my passport. And for me, that is probably my most prized
possession. And I know many, many immigrants who feel the same
way.
Chairman Specter. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Leahy?
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I hear my
grandparents in your voice. I know how much they have talked
about it. I have gone back many times to the village in
northern Italy where they are from and met the other relatives.
And I know how proud my mother was. I know how proud my wife is
for her citizenship. You have a remarkable story, and I am glad
to hear your testimony in favor of comprehensive immigration
reform.
If the Congress is going to send a comprehensive bill to
the President's desk--and I think it is safe to say that three
of us want to--we are going to need the President's active
participation in the process, because there is a big difference
between the comprehensive bill that we passed here in the
Senate and the House where there is strong opposition to a
guest worker program and path to citizenship.
Is the President prepared to get personally involved in
this, to increase his involvement in this issue?
Secretary Gutierrez. Senator, everything I have seen from
the President is that he is deeply involved, deeply engaged,
and providing great leadership in an issue that is of great
importance for him. I do not want to speak for him, but I know
that he is very committed and very engaged.
Senator Leahy. And he is going to have to stay that way. I
know that in the meeting that Senator Specter and I and others
had with him, he spoke of his own experience in Texas, and he
got very--I would say almost passionately involved in this. But
it is going to require that same kind of passion if we are
going to be successful in our efforts.
For example, does the administration support the Senate
bill as it is written?
Secretary Gutierrez. Well, I believe that the Senate bill
is over 700 pages, and the Senate bill, the House bill, there
are--
Senator Leahy. Well, maybe let me put it this way: We have
basically a guest worker program and a path to citizenship. You
support those concepts?
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, the President supports
comprehensive immigration reform, and that is going to require
a lot of commitment, a lot of compromise, a lot of dialogue to
sort out some very complicated issues and come to an agreement
as to that comprehensive reform that is best for our country.
Senator Leahy. Well, the reason I ask is that there has
been some talk about compromise where you do border security
measures first, and then once a secure border was certified--
which could be years from now--then we could introduce guest
worker and a path to citizenship.
Do you support that kind of a one-two step, or do you
support trying to do both together?
Secretary Gutierrez. Well, clearly, the proposal from the
President is comprehensive reform. One of the big challenges is
how you execute that. How do we execute comprehensive reform?
That execution can take on a lot of different avenues, but it
needs to be comprehensive reform. How we execute, which I think
is one of the big questions, is one of the big challenges, how
we make it workable, how we execute is something that I would
hope that we can sort out.
Senator Leahy. Well, I would hope we can, but I do not
think you can do one without the other, and I do not think you
can do one first and the other 1 years later.
Incidentally, part of the Senate's debate on comprehensive
immigration reform includes a debate about whether English
should be an official or a national language of the United
States. I, along with others, feel that an official language is
not only unnecessary but fails to recognize the multicultural
heritage of our country and the legitimate needs of those who
are learning English.
I enjoy speaking French with my wife's family, but they
also all speak English, fortunately, because my French is not
that good.
The President has also expressed this belief. Attorney
General Gonzales has as well.
Can you tell me if the administration plans to continue its
support of Executive Order 13166? That is the order that
improves multilingual access to Federal programs and
activities.
Secretary Gutierrez. I believe the administration has
mentioned that there is support for extending and continuing
the current law.
On the English language--
Senator Leahy. On that one, if I could add just a second
part to that, and you take the time you need, some members of
the House of Representatives have expressed opposition to
Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act which provides bilingual
ballots. Do you agree with them on that?
Secretary Gutierrez. As I mentioned, the administration has
expressed support for the current law as it is written. This is
interesting because the President has talked about English-
plus, and I hate to get sidetracked on an issue. The President
has said if you learn English, you can go from cleaning an
office to running an office; you can go from picking
agricultural products to owning a restaurant.
So it is a very positive attitude. No one is against second
languages. My goodness, I would hope that we would all somehow
be bilingual. But what we have said is if we can convince
people, encourage them that the best thing for their future is
to learn English and to learn it well, I think that is the
positive message here, is learn English, this is good for you,
it is good for your future. But as the administration has said,
we support extending the current law.
Senator Leahy. Including Section 203 of the Voting Rights
Act which provides bilingual ballots?
Secretary Gutierrez. The provisions of the current law,
yes.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Chairman Specter. Thank you, Senator Leahy. Under our
early-bird rule, those first to arrive are taken in sequence.
Among the Republicans we have Senator Cornyn, Senator Sessions,
Senator Kyl, and the Democrats, Senator Kennedy and Senator
Feinstein.
Senator Cornyn?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
TEXAS
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Secretary Gutierrez. It is good to see you again, and thank you
for visiting with me recently in my office about this important
issue.
As I told you then and I will repeat now, I support
comprehensive immigration reform. As you know, Senator Kyl and
I introduced a bill almost about a year ago now that addresses
all of the various components that you have spoken to. And
while there is some divergence among us here in the Senate
about some aspects of that, I share your desire and the
administration's desire to get to conference and try to work
out those details.
As a businessman, you are, I know, committed in your
business operations to actually having a policy that will
actually work and can be implemented. And I think the biggest
concern that some of us have is that we put the procedures in
place, we appropriate the money, we hire the people, we train
the people, we build the infrastructure that will actually
allow comprehensive immigration reform to succeed. That is
certainly my goal.
I guess what is such a challenge about this issue is that
people tend to approach it from different perspectives, some
from a security perspective, and certainly there is that
essential element, as you have noted; some from a workforce and
an economic perspective, which you have addressed primarily
this morning, and it is certainly that as well; some from a
human compassion perspective, and it certainly is that as well.
And I believe that we need immigration reform that addresses
all of those.
But while I believe that immigrants contribute to our
society, our culture, and our economy, there are some of my
constituents who are angry at the Federal Government for what
they see as the Federal Government's failures to address border
security concerns and immigration concerns that have fallen on
them in terms of their financial burdens, their tax burden,
things like criminals who are housed at our jails and our
prisons, that the Federal Government does not help pay for that
housing and that incarceration.
Health care costs, 25 percent of my constituents in Texas
do not have health insurance, and a large number of those are
undocumented immigrants who show up at emergency rooms, and so
emergency rooms go on divert status where true emergencies have
to go wherever they can find the help.
And then, of course, there are education costs.
In each of those three areas, the Federal Government is
simply not--it has mandated those costs be borne, for good
reason, but it has not stepped up and paid for them. And so I
know you can understand--because I know you were just down in
Texas talking to a number of my constituents as well,
understand why people have--while they feel proud of our
heritage as a Nation of immigrants, while they believe that we
are better off for it, they are upset with the Federal
Government's failures in this area.
Let me just ask you about the--and I would ask, Mr.
Chairman, I have a statement which I would ask to be made part
of the record, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Specter. Without objection.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cornyn appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Cornyn. Let me just, in the minute and 16 seconds I
have remaining, ask you about the guest worker program. One of
the important things that has happened as a result of this
debate on immigration reform is I think people have learned
that it is a lot more complex, a lot less simple than they
thought at first, and that simplistic solutions will not
address our true needs. But I think it is important when we
have a debate to use terms that are meaningful and not
misleading, even inadvertently so.
Sometimes we hear discussion about a guest worker program;
other times we hear a discussion about a temporary worker
program. Senator Kyl and I have endorsed in our bill a
temporary worker program that would be based upon the principle
of work and return, restoring the circular migration patterns
that have historically existed between countries like Mexico
and the United States that we feel would benefit our economy by
creating a legal workforce that could provide workers, but at
the same time provide a way for those workers to return to
their country of origin, should they wish to do so, in a way
that would allow them to bring their skills and savings back
home that would help countries like Mexico develop its economy
and create opportunities there.
Would you comment on that issue specifically about a guest
worker program or temporary worker program and how you would
see that structured?
Secretary Gutierrez. Well, the way I think about it is a
TWP, temporary workers program, that is part of comprehensive
reform, but it is not the only part of comprehensive reform.
And I believe, as we were talking the other day, that there are
probably workers who want nothing more than just being able to
come, work, and go back home.
One of the problems is that until we clarify the future, I
believe they have all--they feel a bit reluctant to go back
home because they are not convinced they will be able to get
back in. So there is a temporary worker's permit program that
allows people to work temporarily, go back home, and that is
probably all they want. But then there is the other side of
what to do with those who would like a path to legalization
that have developed roots in the country. And talking about one
without the other I think misses the comprehensive nature of
what we are thinking about.
Senator Cornyn. We have to deal with both.
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, sir.
Senator Cornyn. My time has expired. Thank you.
Chairman Specter. Thank you, Senator Cornyn.
Senator Kennedy?
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, and welcome, Mr. Secretary you
have an enormously impressive background and experience, and
you come to this hearing particularly well qualified to talk
about the economics of the undocumented in our society.
Let me just add that, as I was listening to Senator Cornyn,
our comprehensive immigration legislation, recognizes that
there are responsibilities at the national level to help border
communities in the areas of enforcement, education and others.
It is important to know that we have those kinds of provisions
in the bill. We are hopeful that our President will work with
Mexico to try to develop a system where there is going to be
less pressure on the border. We have worked very hard on the
national security in this area and will continue to do so.
I wanted to quickly review ``The New Americans: Economic,
Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration,'' published by
the National Research Council. I understand their conclusions
are very similar to yours. The study found that, overall, an
immigrant and his family contribute over $80,000 more in taxes
over their lifetime than they consume in services. Also, every
census since 1890 found that immigrants are more likely than
U.S. workers to be self-employed. One analysis has shown that a
third of all the start-ups in Silicon Valley were founded by
immigrants and that between 1901 and 1991, 44 of the 100 Nobel
Prizes awarded to U.S. researchers were won by immigrants or
their children, and that over 50 percent of engineering
students in the U.S. and 40 percent of students in the natural
sciences are foreign born. Most are legal immigrants, but many
are not.
Are those observations consistent with what the Department
of Commerce review has?
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. We had an enormously interesting hearing
in Philadelphia. Mayor Bloomberg talked about what would happen
to the city of New York if they did not have immigrants working
there. The undocumented that work there have contributed so
much to the vitality and the economic strength of New York.
We know from the Department of Labor that close to half of
all the new jobs that have been created in this country over
the last 5 years have been done by immigrants. The economic
contributions of immigrants are something we ought to know and
understand.
I just want to mention how moved I was by your testimony
regarding the economic issues and the Department of Labor's
statistics, and also the very powerful testimony that we had
from General Pace, who is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. When he was asked about the performance of immigrants in
the service, he mentioned the number of Bronze Stars that were
won by immigrants today in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think it was
three Silver Stars that were won by immigrants. It might have
been two, but I think it was three Silver Stars.
He also commented on the percentage of immigrants that
completed courses to advance to an infantryman and others were
actually higher than other troops. Their performance in terms
of discipline, bravery and courage were equal to any of the
troops that he commanded.
Does that surprise you at all?
Secretary Gutierrez. It does not, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. And we listened as well to Reverend
Cortes, heads Esperanza, the evangelical group. He talked about
their devotion to family, to parents and grandparents, to
faith, to religion and their willingness to support one
another. And he talked generally about the contributions
immigrants are making to their community.
In your experience, is this something that you have been
aware of?
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, Senator, I have observed that.
Senator Kennedy. Well, I wanted to thank you as well.
Secretary Guitierrez, over the course of these hearings, we
have faced challenges in trying to have legitimate debate and
discussion. For example, the House Immigration Subcommittee
will hold a hearing on July 18th and the title of their hearing
is, ``Should We Embrace the Senate's Grant of Amnesty to
Millions of Illegal Aliens and Repeat the Mistakes of the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986?'' I think you have
helped us understand the economic contributions that immigrants
make to our country.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Specter. Thank you, Senator Kennedy.
Senator Sessions?
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF ALABAMA
Senator Sessions. Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming.
We appreciate your leadership, and I am certainly a great
admirer of President Bush and the team he has put together and
the economic record that you have achieved. And we are
celebrating some of the good things that have happened as a
result of that.
Mr. Secretary, Americans do believe in immigration. They do
affirm immigrants that are here. They do not hate immigrants.
All of us have a heritage of immigration. But they are asking
sincerely, consistently for over 30 years that we create a
lawful system of immigration.
You have expressed an affirmation of that, but, frankly, if
you look at the budget requests of the administration, if you
look at the prior record of this administration, we have not
had a serious commitment to a legal system. The US-VISIT
program, which is so central to what we will do if we are going
to have a successful legal system, still does not have the exit
system in place. And I am told that the budget request does not
include sufficient money for that. That is not in your
jurisdiction, but I would just share that.
So the American people are rightly concerned. They saw what
happened in 1986, and they are rightly concerned that we may
make that mistake again.
So I want to say to you and to my colleagues, comprehensive
immigration reform is absolutely what needs to be done. I have
felt that it was a complicated process and we should take more
time to work it out. As we have gone forward, I have found out
that it is even more complicated than anticipated and is going
to take even longer, really, to put a system together that we
can be proud of, that allows immigration into our country, but
does so in a lawful way in which the United States acts in its
own legitimate national interest. So I want to share those
things with you.
The Senate bill, in my opinion, unfortunately, does not
meet the test. I am pleased, as I understand the President has
never explicitly endorsed that bill. It should never become
law. As I have documented, there are loopholes after loopholes
after loopholes that just cannot be part of an effective plan.
So we have a real problem. That is the reality. It is not an
easy thing to fix.
I would like you to point out a couple of things. We are
going to have to deal compassionately with the people that are
here illegally. I do not dispute that. I do not minimize the
fact that they came here illegally and in violation of our law.
That should not be encouraged in the future. But we need to
treat them compassionately.
But we need to also talk about the future of our
immigration policy. How many people does this country and this
economy actually need and can sustain and assimilate? We need
to ask what qualities we should look for and whether or not
language should be a factor in the mission not just the
citizenship path.
So I would first ask you, Have you considered and studied
the Canadian plan, the point system that Canada has? And I met
with their Immigration Minister recently. They are very proud
of it. They think it is good. They continue to refine it. But
they would never alter that plan. There is nothing like that in
our bill, and I have heard nothing from the administration on
that subject.
Secretary Gutierrez. I believe--and I am not an expert on
the Canadian plan. I believe they have done a great job on
high-skilled immigration, and they have a certain number of
requirements. One of our realities, of course, is that as a
society we have moved on. We have grown. We have taken new
types of jobs. We are not willing to take the types of jobs
that we may have been willing to take 100 years ago or 50 years
ago. So the marketplace needs low-skilled today, as well as
high-skilled. But a lot of it is what is the marketplace--
Senator Sessions. Let me interrupt you there. We have had
serious discussions about this. We had at least one Committee
hearing that discussed it. I think the pro-immigrant witness,
Chamber of Commerce or whatever person, agreed--they all agreed
that low-skilled workers tend to draw more from the economy
than they put in and high-skilled workers increase benefits to
the economy. They all agreed with that.
You have heard of Robert Rector at the Heritage Foundation,
I suppose, the architect of welfare reform. He says this is not
going to solve our demographic problems because it is going to
add to financial burdens because we are bringing in
extraordinary numbers of low-skilled workers without high
school degrees.
When you look at the benefits to the economy, you see that
those benefits tend to be driven by the immigrants who come and
have skills that allow them to prosper and get here and reach
their fullest potential.
Have you considered that sufficiently? And I would just
add, other professors that we have had--Professor Chiswick from
the University of Chicago, Andrew Sum--all say the same thing.
Have you thought about that?
Secretary Gutierrez. Well, I would just say, as you know,
there is a recent letter from 500 economists supporting the
benefit of immigrants to our society. We need high-skilled
workers. They make a great contribution. Our marketplace needs
low-skilled workers as well. Most of the immigrant generations
that have come to our country have been low-skilled. The first
generate is low-skilled. But because they come to work, because
they come in search of a dream, they work very hard to ensure
that their children are not low-skilled.
Senator Sessions. I would just say one thing, Mr. Chairman.
In Mr. Johnson's testimony, whom we will hear in a little bit,
I was noting his testimony is very, very strong in favor of
less skilled workers in immigration. He notes, though,
immigration has raised the average wage of native-born workers
by 1.1 percent during the 1990s--1.1 percent during the growth
period of the 1990s. He goes on--
Chairman Specter. Senator Sessions, how much more time
would you like?
Senator Sessions. Thirty seconds. He also adds, ``Among
native-born workers with a high school diploma or more
education, wages increased between 0.8 percent and 1.5 percent.
Among native-born workers without a high school diploma, wages
declined by 1.2 percent''--during the 1990s.
Now, my understanding of the law of supply and demand, if
we have a high demand for labor, why haven't the wages gone up
more than 1 percent, or even fallen for low-skilled workers?
Secretary Gutierrez. Well, the statistics I see, Senator,
show that average household income--and that includes
everything, benefits, salaries, the impact of lower taxes--has
increased in real terms by 13 percent since the President took
office. Our unemployment rate is at record levels below the
average of the past four decades. More Americans own a home
today than ever before in our history. The numbers I look at
suggest that our economy is in a period of prosperity, and we
have this gap because we are growing, because we are moving on,
because we have fewer high school dropouts than we did 10 years
ago, because we are evolving, and we do not have enough people
to take these low-skilled jobs that our economy needs.
I think it is one of those simple realities.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. But I
really think you need to study the reality of those numbers
more carefully, and I do not think they will be as supportive
of the position you have taken as you may think.
Chairman Specter. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
Senator Feinstein?
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, good morning. I would just like to begin
with a thank you on behalf of the Governors of Oregon,
California, the Congressional delegations of both States for
the conference calls last week and for your action on our
fishing emergency. Very much appreciated. And I think we are in
pretty good shape in the appropriation bill so far, and we will
probably move another amendment on the floor. But I want to
thank you, and thank you for agreeing to call Senator Cochran.
It is a real problem, as you know, so I want to begin with
that.
Secretary Gutierrez. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. I want to just share with you my views
as somebody that represents the State with the largest number
of immigrants, both legal and illegal, and share with you
something that Alan Simpson said. Alan Simpson was the Chairman
of the Immigration Subcommittee for a number of years. Some of
us had the pleasure of serving with him on this Committee. And
he said very recently that he felt that one of the big mistakes
made back in 1986 was that the bill eliminated any national
identity provision which would have allowed employers to
quickly identify the legal status of a job applicant.
I thought a lot about that and made a proposal for an
orange card, and I want to just spend a moment on it with you.
I think that the Hagel-Martinez scenario, which I voted
for, is not really workable because it creates another subclass
of people, at least 5 million people. And we do not have the
ability to deport 11 or 12 million. We do not have the ability
to deport 5 million. And we have industries that are dependent
on this labor.
It seems to me that the best way to approach this is with
an identity document that is biometric, for everybody that is
in the country now that is working, that you are able to say
them, This is your identifier, it legally entitles you to work.
And it is also coded with numbers so that the earned
legalization takes place, and that those people who are here
the longest have the opportunity to receive a green card when
that green card list is expunged, that they pay their fine,
part of the fine to get the orange card, so they earn it. They
commit to learn English so they earn it. They pay another fine
with the green card so they earn it.
I find one of the most disturbing things in this whole
battle is this cry that this is amnesty. And it is not. What we
are trying to do is say people should earn the legalization and
that you are here, your labor is needed, we want you here, we
do not want you living in the shadows, but you earn it.
And if we could only get that across to people, I think in
an important way, and with that document you can then end the
document mills. I can tell you places in California where you
can buy forged Social Security cards, forged green cards,
forged driver's licenses for as little as $15 to $20. And I can
tell you, you cannot tell the difference. So for the employer
it is extraordinarily difficult to know.
So I proposed this. I did not win it on the floor, but I am
hopeful that it might be further considered, because I also
think for security reasons it is important to document and know
who are in this country. And I do not think you can say to
people, well, you have to leave and you can stay. You have to
treat a population as a whole.
I think the Senate bill is far preferable. I think it needs
work. It is a very big bill. Some of the visa categories need
to be cut back on because it is too many new people. But I
think for the first time we have an opportunity to do this
balanced bill, and then I think it works.
Some of us, and I am one of them because my State is so big
and there are so many people that depend on it, we have this
huge agricultural industry, the biggest in America, that cannot
function without this labor. And I am increasingly concerned
about that.
Just one other comment, and then I would like to hear your
thoughts.
I would be one that would say have the border enforcement
go into play and have a brief hiatus for the rest of the bill
to go into play, and then hopefully we can make inroads on the
border fence, get the additional Border Patrol, the additional
National Guard people in place--not for certification, but to
be able to give people on the California, the Arizona, the
Texas borders some sense of security. I think that is really
important.
My State had a proposition in 1994 called Proposition 187.
It passed overwhelmingly, more than 60 percent of the vote. It
passed and it was unconstitutional. And I am a very strong
believer that immigration has to be orderly so that it can be--
the schools can accept people, the workforce can accept people,
there is housing for people. And in California, if it comes too
far, too hard--
Chairman Specter. Senator Feinstein, how much more time
would you like?
Senator Feinstein. Oh, sorry. Could I allow him just to
comment for a few seconds? I did not mean to go on so much.
Chairman Specter. You have a few seconds, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Gutierrez. Thank you.
Chairman Specter. Take whatever time you need.
Secretary Gutierrez. Thank you, Senator, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator, what you said, which I think is so important, is I
think we have two big challenges here. One is designing a
system that is comprehensive, that makes sense, and the other
one is executing it. And if we design a wonderful system that
is not workable, 10 years from now we are going to say, well,
either the system did not work or we did not enforce the law.
But what we will find is that we designed something that was
not practical. And you are so right. Whatever we do, let's make
sure it works, that it is practical, that it is pragmatic.
So the execution, we have a massive challenge in getting
everyone together to talk about comprehensive reform and
designing a plan. But then I think the real work starts, which
is how do we execute. And getting that right I think is going
to be where we make the difference.
So I agree, I think you are right on that.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Chairman Specter. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Senator Kyl?
STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
ARIZONA
Senator Kyl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome. I will associate myself with the
remarks that Senator Cornyn made to you. I know that you
visited, and I am looking forward to visiting with you. But our
view is that the comprehensive solution is ultimately the only
way that we are going to resolve all of the problems. And I
usually talk about four specific things: securing the border,
enforcing the law--including at the workplace--a temporary work
program, and dealing with the people who are here illegally. It
may well be that some of the people who are here illegally will
go into a temporary worker program. Sometimes there is a
distinction between future flow, as the term is used, and also
the people who are here illegally.
And that is what I would like to get your thoughts on
because your testimony certainly suggests--and what you just
said to Senator Feinstein confirms that--you view the employee
verification system a critical component to the workability to
whatever comprehensive reform is. And we certainly agree with
that.
So the questions have to do with how to deal with this
problem of document fraud, what kind of document people should
have to ensure that in the future everyone will be working
legally. And part of that, it seems to me, has to reflect the
fact that it is very difficult for employers to be the
enforcement agencies here, that experience demonstrates that
you cannot expect some employer to be able to hold up the
Social Security card and the driver's license and say, well,
this is fraudulent, and then have the ability to enforce that
by saying, no, you cannot have a job. It is unrealistic to
expect that. And that goes to the workability part that you
talked about. It has got to be a workable program.
So the employee verification system, it seems to us, needs
to be simple to use and the determination of validity or
eligibility should not be on the employer but on the
Government. And it is really a function of two key things. Does
the individual have a legal status--citizenship, green card,
temporary worker under a new temporary worker program, whatever
that status is? And is the Social Security number attached to
that a valid number? And, secondly, is the individual standing
in front of you applying for the job the person who has that
Social Security number?
You have suggested that for the temporary worker program a
biometric identification system would be appropriate and
workable, and with that I totally agree.
Here are the two basic questions that I have--and the
technology is here for the larger employers. You can have, for
example, a swipe-through easy reader that does not cost that
much money. Somebody says, well, how about the really small
employer, you know, the beautician or whatever? Put one in
every post office. They do not cost that much money, and a
beautician does not hire that many people in a year, and go
down and just swipe it through there.
Anyway, the two key questions are these: With the illegal
population that is here, many of them are going to be eligible
for and desirous of participating in a temporary worker program
along with the future-flow workers. So let's leave aside the
question of those who are here illegally and not appropriate
for the temporary worker program--the elderly retired person,
the young person, whoever may be able to stay here on some
other conditions, leave aside what those conditions are. And
then also the individual who goes to the employer and says: I
am not a temporary worker. I have my--today--fake driver's
license, fake Social Security card. I don't need a temporary
worker card. So that person is going to have to be verified,
too.
The questions are these: Should all people who apply for a
job have the same basic document so that we are not
distinguishing between those who allegedly--or admittedly are
in a temporary worker program as opposed to those who claim
they are not? And should the biometric feature be added to that
particular identification so that all workers would have--all
employers and workers would have the advantage of that? In
other words, what is the best way to make it work for all
people who try to get a job so we are not discriminating
against anyone, the employer is not discriminating when he asks
for the identification? Should the documentation be the same,
in other words, for people who are clearly in the temporary
worker program, as well as all other employees? And should
there be any distinction between the people who are here
illegally today that participate in the program versus the so-
called future flow?
Secretary Gutierrez. Well, I happened to bring a biometric
card with me, and my staff just reminded me I had a visual aid
here. I think the first step is to ensure that we legalize and
bring out from the shadows those who are here. Those who are
citizens have a way of proving they are citizens in a legal
way. What we want to do is eliminate the illegal behavior.
If we give every temporary worker a biometric card that
cannot be forged, cannot be tampered, and we make it very clear
that if you are going to hire someone, a temporary worker, and
they do not have one of these--and you can verify it. We have a
national database to verify--that you will be in serious
trouble as an employer, not a fine, not a slap on the wrist,
but that there will be a meaningful fine.
And I think over time the word will spread among
undocumented workers that, you know, if you do not have one of
those cards, do not risk it, do not go in under the dark of
night, do not hire coyote, do not even try to cross the desert,
because it has become very clear that that system works. And if
you do not have that card, you are not going to get a job.
So, ironically, this temporary worker's card is probably
the single biggest thing we can do for the border. People will
not cross the border if they know they cannot get employed on
this side. I think that is the first step to really getting a
grip on the people who are crossing over.
Senator Kyl. Mr. Chairman, if I just might follow up, would
we all have the same type of card, anybody who is applying for
a job? Because if you just have it for the so-called temporary
worker, a lot of people may continue to say, ``I am not a
temporary worker. I am entitled to be here.'' And they do not
have that card. They still have their counterfeit driver's
license or Social Security card. And how is the employer to
make the distinction?
Secretary Gutierrez. Well, there is a national database.
There is the Basic Pilot Program, a national database to
confirm that people are who they say they are. And I believe
that those who are here legally and those who are citizens and
those who have the right to work have documentation to prove
it.
I think the problem we have it that those who are in the
country illegally--and that is where we should go. And in terms
of whether we should expand beyond that, I think that is
something that can be worked out in the design of the bill. My
sense is that what is really important is to make sure that
temporary workers have one of these, and that will make a huge
difference on the border.
Senator Kyl. Thanks, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Gutierrez. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Senator Kyl.
Secretary Gutierrez, thank you very much for your
enlightening testimony. Senator Kennedy had called attention to
the title of the hearing in the House next week, which is
captioned--and I just borrowed this card from him--''Should we
embrace the Senate's grant of amnesty to millions of illegal
aliens and repeat the mistakes of the Immigration Reform and
Control Act of 1986?'' I hope they call you as a witness.
Secretary Gutierrez. I hope so.
Chairman Specter. So that you can set them straight that it
is not amnesty for the reasons you have eloquently testified
here today, and that we are not repeating the legislation of
1986, as you have articulated with a sound reason, with a
biometric card, and that in dealing with the millions of, they
say, illegal aliens, we are taking the only rational course to
deal with the problem.
If somebody has a better idea, we are ready to here it in
the conference. We would welcome a better idea if somebody has
one. But you have laid the logic on the line and you have laid
your experience on the line and your example on the line. And
for that we are very appreciative. At a minimum, if I find they
have not invited you to testify, I am going to send them a copy
of your testimony.
Secretary Gutierrez. Thank you.
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
We now turn to our second panel: Mr. Michael Cutler, Mr.
Benjamin Johnson, Dr. William McDonald, and Mr. Niall O'Dowd.
Our first witness is Mr. Michael Cutler, who joined the
Department of Immigration and Naturalization, the Immigration
and Naturalization Service in October of 1971 as an immigration
inspector; has worked as a criminal investigator, special
agent; dealt with organized crime law enforcement. He left the
INS in February of 2002 and is currently a Fellow at the Center
for Immigration Studies, a Washington-based think tank; a
bachelor's degree from Brooklyn College in communications,
arts, and science, and he has been an expert witness at nine
Congressional hearings. And among his areas of expertise are
the nexus between immigration and national security and the
impact of immigration on the criminal justice system and
strategies to combat illegal immigration.
We are especially interested in your testimony, Mr. Cutler,
as to how we deal with the creation of--or permitting the
continuation of a 11-million underclass of what essentially are
fugitives under our existing laws. We appreciate your being
here, and as you see, the time clock is set at 5 minutes, and
we look forward to your testimony. Your full statement will be
made a part of the record, and do not start the clock until Mr.
Cutler starts to speak.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL W. CUTLER, FELLOW, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION
STUDIES, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Cutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One second. I think I
have the wrong paperwork. I am sorry about that.
Chairman Specter. Take your time. It will be faster.
[Pause.]
Chairman Specter. Reset the clock, please.
Mr. Cutler. Okay. Thank you for your forbearance.
Chairman Specter, Ranking Member Leahy, members of the
Committee, ladies and gentlemen, it is an honor and a privilege
to be afforded the opportunity to testify before this Committee
on an issue that is arguably among the most critical issues
confronting the United States today. So many areas of concern
are inextricably linked to illegal immigration that when we
seek to regain control of our Nation's borders and restore
integrity to the immigration system, we will be impacting
everything from the economy, education, the environment, and
health care to criminal justice and national security.
As I have stated at previous hearings at which I have
testified, ``A nation without secure borders can no more stand
than can a house without walls.'' It is important, however, to
understand that our Nation cannot gain control of its borders
until and unless we recognize that we need to do more than
focus on the borders of the United States. We need to think of
immigration as a system of many components, all of which are
critical to the success of the others. A well-designed airplane
that is missing a wing will not get off the ground. In order to
soar into the sky, all of the components of the airplane must
function properly. So, too, all of the components of the
immigration system must be made to work effectively and in
coordination with the other elements of the immigration system.
It has been estimated that approximately 40 percent of the
illegal aliens who are present in the United States today did
not run our borders or evade the Border Patrol but, rather,
strolled through a port of entry and then disappeared into
communities throughout our Nation. The terrorists who attacked
our Nation on September 11, 2001, in fact, all entered the
United States through ports of entry and then counted on their
ability to evade detection by the former INS. While much
attention has been paid to the lack of secure borders, little
attention has been paid to the need to have adequate numbers of
special agents for ICE enforcing the immigration laws from
within the interior of the United States. At present, there are
roughly 3,000 special agents employed by ICE carrying out this
critical mission. ICE needs to do more than enforce the laws
that prohibit an employer from knowingly hiring illegal aliens
and seeking to apprehend the hundreds of thousands of alien
absconders. Clearly, these two missions are important, but when
you consider the fact that according to a recent GAO report on
the crisis at USCIS this is a major vulnerability that
threatens national security but is not being addressed. ICE
needs to work in close coordination with USCIS to make certain
that the system by which various immigration benefits,
including the granting of resident alien status, and United
States citizenship has real integrity. The ``9/11 Commission
Staff Report on Terrorist Travel'' noted the fact that in order
to attack our Nation, the terrorists not only needed to first
gain entry into our country, an obviously critical issue, but
they also needed to be able to embed themselves in our country
and have the ability to travel around the Nation and across our
borders as they prepared to attack us. When the United States
provides an alien with resident alien status or when we
naturalize an alien, we are providing him or her with the ``key
to the kingdom.''
If we were able to make the borders of the United States
utterly impassable to illegal aliens but then do little, if
anything, to detect and combat immigration benefit fraud,
thereby providing immigration benefits to aliens who are not
entitled to such benefits, we as foolishly as the homeowner
who, fearful of having his home burglarized, invests
considerable effort and money on buying strong doors and locks
for his doors and windows and takes other such measures, but
then hangs the key to the secure locks on the outside doorknob,
making it simple for anyone passing by to gain entry to that
house.
The huge illegal alien population present in the United
States has a significant impact on the criminal justice system
and on national security as well. While it is extremely
difficult to provide a firm number as to the number of illegal
aliens who are involved in serious criminal activities in the
United States, I believe we can get a sense of the magnitude of
the problem by considering statistics that I am familiar with.
At present, it is estimated that some 30 percent of the inmate
population in Federal correction facilities are identified as
being foreign born. From 1988 until 1992, I was assigned as the
INS representative to the Unified Intelligence Division of DEA
in New York. I conducted a study of DEA arrest statistics and
found that nationwide some 30 percent of the defendants
arrested by DEA for crimes related to narcotics trafficking
were identified as being foreign born, while in New York it was
estimated that nearly 60 percent of the defendants apprehended
by DEA were identified as foreign born. Those statistics
remained constant for more than 5 years, and the 30-percent
figure back then is virtually the same today as it was then.
Additionally, a GAO report issued in April of 2005 found that
in 2004, 27 percent of the Federal inmate population was
comprised of criminal aliens. And the same report pegged the
cost to the Federal Bureau of Prisons for incarcerating
criminal aliens at some $1.2 billion. This same report found
that on the local and State level for fiscal year 2003, some
147,000 criminal aliens were in custody.
Additionally, there have been studied that show a
relationship between a wide variety of crimes that are
committed to support terrorism. Drug trafficking in particular
has come to be associated with this fund-raising objective, but
other crimes, including mail fraud, arson, and identity theft,
also help fill the coffers of terrorist organizations and
organized crime groups. Often aliens who come to the United
States fleeing not only the grinding poverty and perhaps
tyrannical government of their homeland often find that when
they come here they also encounter the same criminals who were
preying upon them in their home countries.
It is also worth considering that when you have a large
illegal population, a series of businesses spring up in the
communities that support that population that is not only
helpful to the illegal alien who is simply looking to get a job
in the United States, but also to members of organized crime
groups, violent gangs, drug-trafficking organizations, and,
indeed, terrorists. And among these enterprises are money
remitters, private mail box services, and fraudulent document
vendors. It is also important to understand that in an effort
to hide in plain sight or embed themselves in our country,
criminal aliens and terrorists often take relatively pedestrian
jobs to help pay their day-to-day expenses and to provide
themselves with an effective ``cover''--
Chairman Specter. Mr. Cutler, how much more time will you
need?
Mr. Cutler. Just about another 30 seconds, sir. I am sorry.
The thing to remember is that someone once said that an
effective spy is someone who would not attract the attention of
a waitress in a greasy spoon diner. You could expand on that
statement and state that an effective terrorist is also
somebody who would not only not attract the attention of the
waitress in a greasy spoon diner but might be that waiter or
waitress.
That is why it is important that ICE not only focuses on
seeking to find illegal aliens who are employed at supposedly
high-value secure venues, such as airports and nuclear power
plants, but also as a matter of routine to enforce immigration
laws on a random basis.
The final thing that I want to say is I also believe we
need to have better foreign language training skills given to
our agents who are enforcing the immigration laws throughout
the United States.
Chairman, I want you to know that I think that legal
immigration is a wonderful thing for our country. It is
wonderful for the aliens who come here and America gains by it.
My concern is that we have many illegal aliens whose identities
are unknown to us and whose purposes are unknown to us, and
that is what keeps me awake at night.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cutler appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Cutler.
Our next witness is Mr. Ben Johnson, Director of the
American Immigration Law Foundation's Immigration Policy
Center. He has been in the field for some 15 years. He has
written extensively on the police and the challenges of illegal
immigration; has his law degree from the University of San
Diego and studied international comparative law at Kings
College in London.
We appreciate your being with us today, Mr. Johnson, and
the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION POLICY
CENTER, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAW FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Judiciary Committee, for this opportunity.
The current immigration debate is over how we respond to an
immigration system that everybody acknowledges is broken. The
question in Congress has come down to this: Do we pursue an
enforcement-only strategy and focus only on the best way to
keep people out? Or do we adopt a more comprehensive approach
that includes new enforcement strategies but also improves our
ability to let people into the country legally? I would argue
that for the last 15 years, we have been trying the
enforcement-only strategy, and it has been an utter failure.
Since the early 1990s, the border enforcement budget has
more than quintupled. It went from about $600 million to now
spending more than $4 billion a year on border enforcement.
During the same time, the number of border agents has nearly
tripled. And what do we have to show for that? The pace of
undocumented immigration to the United States has increased.
Apprehension rates are down. More people are dying every day at
our Southern border. And the business of human smuggling and
document fraud has been transformed from a relatively small
operation into a billion-dollar enterprise.
Now, I would agree completely that an enforcement strategy
has failed in large part, or at least in part because we are
fixated on fortifying the Southern border and have ignored
other critical components to the immigration enforcement, like
an effective employment verification system or the need for
more personnel and training to deal with the delays and
backlogs at various immigration offices. But even with
significant improvements in our enforcement strategies and our
adjudication capabilities, stanching the flow of undocumented
immigration will remain a Herculean task unless and until we
reform the legal channels for admitting people into the country
legally.
The bottom line is that immigration is not just a law
enforcement issue. It is a valuable resource to our economy and
our labor force, and we have to start treating it like a
resource and managing it on an ongoing basis. The ability to
use our immigration system to supplement and fill gaps in our
labor force across the skill spectrum is one of the principal
reasons the United States has been able to create the most
diverse, most dynamic, most flexible workforce the world has
ever seen.
In the last 15 or 20 years, our economy has been radically
altered because of the high-tech globalized world that we live
in. In response to this, Congress has made dramatic changes to
our trade policies, our banking policies, our
telecommunications policies. But Congress has yet to make a
concerted effort to align our immigration policies with this
new economic environment. In fact, in many areas we are going
in the opposite direction. While more and more countries are
spending billions of dollars to attract foreign studies and
high-skilled workers, the United States is making it more
difficult for foreign students to enroll in U.S. universities,
more difficult for highly skilled immigrants to come to the
United States.
And at the other end of the skill spectrum, where we have
undocumented immigration, there has been a lot of controversy
over whether in this new economic environment there are some
jobs Americans are less interested in and whether we need
immigrants to fill these jobs.
But the truth is it is not an insult to the American worker
that we have fewer and fewer people in our labor force who are
in the market for jobs that require very little education or
training. Our labor markets are attracting younger, less
educated immigrant workers because our labor force is getting
older and it is getting better educated. In the early 1960s,
over half of U.S. workers were high school dropouts. Today,
only about 15 percent of U.S. workers are high school dropouts.
We should be proud of that fact, but we have to recognize that
this success means we have fewer workers who are looking for
jobs that require no education or training. So we are doing
what we have always done. We are turning to our immigration
system to fill the gaps in those labor markets.
Unfortunately, while we have been encouraging workers to
get an education and improve their skill sets in this new
knowledge-based economy that we are creating, we have not been
creating more channels of legal immigration to replace those
workers. Today, in a labor force of over 150 million workers,
we have 5,000 permanent visas available for foreign workers in
less skilled occupations. We can debate about how many workers
we need in this country, but 5,000 is nowhere near the kind of
demand that this economy generates in less skilled workers. And
outside of agriculture, the only temporary visa we have for
less skilled workers, the H2B visa, is only available to
seasonal employers. For companies that employ less skilled
workers and operate year-round, we have no temporary worker
program for foreign workers.
So, because essentially we have no legal channels of
employment-based immigration for these workers, they either
come illegally or they attempt to come through the already
overburdened family-based system, a system that already
requires people to wait 5 to 7 years to be joined with their
spouses and children.
In this environment everybody loses. Families are
separated, and workers are expected to wait years for jobs that
are available today. Nobody should be surprised that when we
close the front door on these families and workers, they look
for a way in the back door.
The real challenges we face today stem from the fact that
we send two message at our border: ``Help Wanted'' and ``Keep
Out.'' And the byproduct of this schizophrenia is that law
enforcement agencies, businesses, and families are stuck
between a rock and a hard place. In short, we have created an
unsustainable contradiction between U.S. economic policy and
U.S. immigration policy, and economics is winning. We can
either continue to spend billions of dollars in an immigration
enforcement battle with our own economy and our own labor
force, or we can create an immigration system that is not only
good at keeping people out but effective at letting people in.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.
Our next witness is Mr. William McDonald, Georgetown
University Professor of Sociology and Anthropology, and Deputy
Director of the Institute of Criminal Law at their Law Center.
He has written extensively in the field of immigration and
crime control. His educational background is a bachelor's
degree from Notre Dame, master's in education from Boston
College, and a doctorate in criminology from the University of
California at Berkeley.
Thank you very much for joining us today, Dr. McDonald, and
we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM F. MCDONALD, PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY AND
ANTHROPOLOGY, AND CO-DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF CRIMINAL LAW AND
PROCEDURE, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. McDonald. Chairperson Specter and members of the
Committee, it is an honor to be here today. I would like to
point out for members of our audience that I am an Irish
American.
I have been studying the connections between crime and
immigration since 1996, and I was informed the other day, when
I was asked to speak, that it would be useful if I would touch
upon several issues, only one of which I think I have time to
address, and that is, statistics regarding the criminality of
illegal immigrants. But first I would like to make some general
observations.
Although we are a Nation of immigrants, Americans have
always worried about the criminality of the next wave of
immigrants. There have been many studies in the United States
and abroad that have addressed the question of the criminal of
immigrants. And while they are by no means unanimous, there is
a remarkable degree of agreement among them regarding one
important finding: the criminality of the first generation of
immigrants, those who actually migrate, is less than the
criminality of the native born. Public fears about immigrant
criminality have usually not been borne out by research.
I mention this literature on immigrant criminality because
there is little reason to believe that the findings would be
substantially different for illegal immigrants, assuming that
the data were available, that would allow us to make the
necessary statistical controls for age, sex, economic status,
and immigrant status to do a valid study.
Because of the difficulties of getting proper data, studies
of comparative criminality of illegal immigrants are rare and
inconclusive. Anyhow, the critics of illegal immigration are
not interested in knowing whether illegal immigrants are more
or less criminally inclined than the native born. For them, any
crime committed by an illegal immigrants represents a crime
that would not have happened if the Government had been in
control of immigration.
I turn now to the question of the statistics on illegal
immigrants who commit crimes. In 1989, the Immigration
Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary asked the
Immigration and Naturalization Service the following question:
What percentage of the individuals incarcerated in specific
cities are illegal aliens? The answer was simply: We do not
know; the data do not exist in anything like usable form. And
since that time, things have not really gotten much better.
Before proceeding, I must warn you of a terminological
quagmire that surrounds this issue. There are technical legal
definitions involved that cause confusion. The basic
distinction to keep in mind is between criminal aliens and
illegal immigrants who commit crimes. Criminal aliens have been
around since the beginning of the country. They are noncitizens
who have committed crimes, either before or after they have
entered the United States. Illegal immigrants did not exist
until the Federal Government began regulating immigration in
the 1870s.
Not all criminal aliens are illegal immigrants. A legal
immigrant who commits a crime while in the United States
becomes a criminal alien. Some criminal aliens are deportable,
depending upon the crime they have committed. In the late 1980s
and 1990s, responding to complaints from the States about
increasing numbers of criminal aliens in State and local
prisons, Congress added to the terminological confusion. In
1986, it mandated the INS to conduct expeditious proceedings
for aliens convicted of deportable criminal offenses. In 1988,
it created a new category called ``aggravate felon.''
In 1994, it introduced the concept of ``undocumented
criminal aliens'' in connection with legislation to reimburse
the States for the costs of housing illegal criminal aliens.
This reimbursement was only for the costs of housing illegal
criminal aliens incarcerated in State and local prisons, not
for legal criminal aliens. Only the former were regarded as the
Federal Government's responsibility.
It was in that connection that a few studies were done to
try to estimate the number of illegal criminal aliens in State
and local facilities. The Urban Institute did a major study and
came up with some references.
The kind of estimates that the Urban Institute produced
have not become institutionalized in any of the annual reports
of which I am aware. The Bureau of Justice Statistics produces
an annual report on the number of inmates in prisons but does
not mention anything about this. The Office of Immigration
Statistics of the Department of Homeland Security publishes an
annual report, does not mention anything like this. We simply
do not have that data available to us,
Finally, when studies have looked at deportability, they
find many criminal aliens are not deportable.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McDonald appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Dr. McDonald.
Our final witness is Mr. Niall O'Dowd. He came to the
United States in 1979 and soon began his first business, an
Irish-American newspaper in San Francisco. In 1985, he moved to
New York where he founded the Irish American Magazine and later
the Irish Voice newspaper. In 1992, he founded a group called
the Connolly House Group, which has been involved in the Irish
peace process. He has been awarded an honorary doctorate from
his alma mater, University College-Dublin, in recognition of
his work on Irish issues in America.
We appreciate your being here, Mr. O'Dowd, and look forward
to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF NIALL O'DOWD, FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN, IRISH LOBBY
FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Mr. O'Dowd. Thank you very much, Chairman. My name is Niall
O'Dowd. I am Founder and Chairman of the Irish Lobby for
Immigration Reform. I am also founder and publisher of Irish
Voice newspaper and Irish American Magazine, the two largest
Irish American publications.
I am a native of Ireland, once undocumented, but now a very
proud American citizen.
I have lived the immigrant dream in America since coming
here in 1979. I started a newspaper with less than $1,000 in
1979 in California and made a success of it. Currently, I
employ 22 people in New York City running both my companies.
But I come here representing the 50,000 Irish undocumented
in the United States and the millions of Irish-Americans who
are looking for a resolution to this issue.
Since the inception of the Irish Lobby for Immigration
Reform last December, we have held scores of public meetings
across the United States attended by thousands and have held
two lobbying days in Washington, D.C. A total of over 5,000
Irish-Americans from across the United States came to
Washington for both lobbying days.
The facts are clear to us. Without immigration reform, the
Irish-born community in the United States will no longer exist,
and one of the greatest contributors to the success of this
Nation will be no more.
Our neighborhoods are disappearing. Our community
organizations are in steep decline. Our sporting and cultural
organizations are deeply affected by the lack of legal
immigration.
Meanwhile, our undocumented community is under siege. They
can no longer travel to Ireland, even when family tragedies
occur.
Their driver's licenses will not be renewed, which means
mothers cannot drive their children to school. The day-to-day
struggle of living illegally in America has taken a heavy
personal toll on them. I submit that they deserve better.
Everything they have worked years for in America, building
their own American dream, is now falling around them, and I
submit that America will be the big loser.
I know that hundreds of these immigrants, Irish
construction workers, worked with little more than their bare
hands to try to uncover bodies at Ground Zero after 9/11.
Irish labor union members and construction crews were among
the first on the scene, and they tried frantically to save
lives working alongside rescuers who included thousands of
Irish American fire and police workers.
No one was calling them Irish illegals then.
They did no more than previous Irish generations. As
President Bush has stated, ``Throughout our history America has
been greatly blessed by the innumerable contributions of the
Irish.'' Unfortunately, the contribution of Irish-born may be
about to end.
If the Irish antecedents of Andrew Jackson, John F.
Kennedy, or Ronald Reagan were trying to enter the United
States today, they would have to do so illegally.
The sad reality is that there is simply no way for the
overwhelming majority of Irish people to come to the United
States legally at present.
So when people say to me that the Irish should get in line
to come here, I tell them there is no line we can join. There
is no way the vast majority of our people can come legally to
America.
The figures for the Irish bear this out. Of the almost 1
million green card visas given out last year, about 2,000 went
to the Irish. Since 1995, in the diversity visa program, which
was intended in part to help old seed countries, Ireland has
been successful in obtaining one-half of 1 percent, or 2,800
visas out of over half a million.
Such realities, however, have not stopped thousands of
Irish doing what generations have done since they served in
George Washington's army--coming to America and living the
American dream like generations before them.
I can tell you about Mary, who is 36, whose brother was
killed in a car crash a few months ago, and she had to listen
to his funeral down a phone line because she cannot go home and
grieve with her family. She is now a registered nurse, a proud
homeowners, and intends to marry soon. Hospitals would snap her
up in a moment if she became available. She deserves her
American dream.
Then there is Brian, who is 32, a contractor, who was among
the first to go to Ground Zero because he was working nearby.
Brian continues to believe in his American dream. He has six
Americans working full-time for him, and he looks forward to
the day he can take his new wife back to Ireland and meet the
families they have not seen for years.
Eamon, who is 38, came over from Armagh in Northern Ireland
14 years ago. There were no jobs in his town because of the
Troubles, and the only recruiting was being done by
paramilitaries. Here Eamon now runs his own roofing company and
employs six persons legally.
So many others I know have grandchildren their grandparents
have never seen or live in daily fear of being deported or,
worse, a family tragedy back in Ireland which could end their
lives here.
These are typical stories of the Irish undocumented here in
America. They ask for just one thing--the opportunity to live
their American dream like so many generations of Irish before
them.
My deepest desire, and that of millions of Irish-Americans
around this great country, is that their wish can be granted.
With your help I believe it can.
Thank you very much indeed.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Dowd appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Dowd.
We now begin the 5-minute rounds of Senators' questioning,
and beginning with you, Mr. Cutler, you gave statistics as to
the foreign born, but did not indicate any breakdown between
those who had legal status as citizens contrasted with those
who were illegal immigrants. Do you have any breakdown of that
or any judgment as to how that would break down?
Mr. Cutler. Well, it is interesting because Professor
McDonald made the same point. In all of my research--and I have
reached out to other organizations and analysts and so forth--
incredibly, our Government does not track that statistic, and I
think it is an important issue, because this is a measure of
one of the resources that we need for effective immigration
enforcement, and yet there is no delineation.
Chairman Specter. Mr. Johnson, you testified that we have
had 15 years of just an enforcement strategy and little result.
The title of the House hearing for next week talks about the
failure of the 1986 employer verification system, but they did
not have the technology which is available today. And the
statistics show that only four enforcement actions were
initiated last year, so that there has not been much of an
enforcement policy to judge what could happen.
Contrast what this legislation coming out of the Senate has
with respect to Border Patrol, some fencing, some virtual
fencing, employer verification. Wouldn't the projection be that
it is going to be effective if carried out and implemented as
directed in our Senate legislation?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, the Senate legislation is nothing like
the 1986 Act. The failure of the 1986 Act was that it dealt
with or attempted to deal with a population, the undocumented
population that existed at the time, but it did nothing to
respond to why that undocumented population had been created.
It did nothing to provide a way for workers to come into the
United States legally, particularly less skilled workers. It
did not do anything to provide a temporary program for those
workers to come in. It did not do anything about providing more
permanent green cards for those workers to come in.
The solution was we will grant some folks an amnesty and
then we will expect employers to be enforcement agents, and
that strategy will not work. You need to have improved channels
of legal immigration, and I think the Senate should be
commended for recognizing that and trying to develop an
immigration policy that will assure we will not create another
pool of undocumented immigrants 10 years from now.
Chairman Specter. Dr. McDonald, I am not suggesting in the
inquiries about crime that immigrants are any bigger burden
than anybody else when it comes to criminal conduct. What we
are looking for here is some judgments as to how we deal with
11 million undocumented immigrants and whether we do not
relieve some of the pressures on law enforcement if they are
motivated to come out of the so-called shadows, if they are not
a fugitive class, and if they are recognized as being in a
position to earn status as a guest worker, maybe going back, or
if we expand the number of green cards, get on the citizenship
line, albeit at the end of the line.
What would you say about the Senate bill and trying to deal
effectively with eliminating this underclass and fugitive
class?
Mr. McDonald. Well, that is a difficult question that goes
beyond the more focused question about criminality. I would
like to restrict my remarks to that part of the issue. I admire
what that--I am not an expert on the immigration law. It does
appear to me that this bill is not the same as the IRCA bill in
1986, and the biometric measures seem enticing. What worries me
is the huge number of small-time employers of illegal
immigrants, just neighbors who hire them to do the lawn and
things like, they are never going to use the biometric
measures.
Chairman Specter. Dr. McDonald, let me interrupt you
because I want to ask one question of Mr. O'Dowd before my time
expires. You cited two very prominent men--President John
Kennedy and President Ronald Reagan.
Mr. O'Dowd. Yes.
Chairman Specter. I know your views that our country has
been immeasurably strengthened by the immigrants. Would you
care to expand upon that?
Mr. O'Dowd. Well, I think that if you look at any area of
American life, the Irish-Americans have contributed greatly.
Eugene O'Neill, people like that have contributed so much to
the arts and theater here.
I think the fact is that, from our point of view as a
community, it will be America's great loss if Irish-born people
can no longer come to America legally, and it is something that
I know you have seen the people here who have come all the way
from New York this morning. They went to Miami last week. They
are people who feel very, very, very strongly about this issue
that the Irish-born people who have contributed so much in this
country should not be prevented from coming here legally.
Unfortunately--and I do not think that was the intent of the
laws, but that is the effective nature of the law right now.
Chairman Specter. Thank you very much.
Senator Kennedy?
Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much and welcome. I want to
just take a moment to personally welcome Niall O'Dowd. For all
of us who are mindful of Northern Ireland's enormous progress,
its reduction of violence, and its desire to move from the
bullet to the ballot, we must recognize this gentleman here,
who was absolutely indispensable in bringing peace to Northern
Ireland. You all acknowledged the great role that our friend
and former colleague, George Mitchell, played, but Niall was an
enormously important figure as well, in the earliest days of
developing the ceasefire and the support for the figures that
demonstrated courage at a key point in the evolution. We are
still hopeful that those institutions that were established at
the time of the Good Friday Agreement are going to be up and
running so that we are going to have the beginning of real
democracy in the North. I know you could talk about that as
well, but we will do that at another time.
The depth of his support is well understood by all of us on
this Committee. We welcome our good friends here today, and
thank them for joining us. They joined with us in Philadelphia
and they joined with us in Miami. I do not see many of the
Miami group here, but I cannot let the moment go by without
welcoming Kelly Fincham as well, and thank her so much for all
that she has done.
We have seen dramatic changes in immigration law. Prior to
the 1965 Act, we had about 30,000 Irish that were coming into
the U.S. Those numbers dropped to about 20,000 afterward. The
1986 Act was really something different. That Act focused on
those that were here undocumented and employer sanctions,
something I never thought was going to work and voted against.
What we were trying to do in the 1965 Act was to eliminate
discrimination that existed in the law. However, way that that
legislation was developed worked in a very dramatic and
significant way against the Irish.
Now, we are seeing the elimination of the diversity
program. There were only several hundred that took advantage of
the diversity program last time, and now we are changing it
from requiring a high school education to requiring a much
higher degree of academic achievement and accomplishment. In
other parts of the bill we provide visas to the highly educated
and this change will reduce access to the program.
I am going to be short on the time, unfortunately, but
could you tell us, Niall, a little bit about how people feel,
first of all, about the criminalization of immigrants. We have
heard a good deal about this issue. What is your sense about
the extent of the criminality in immigrant communities, the
commission of serious crimes, the abuse of the welfare system,
failing to play by the rules? I would like you to talk about
that. I have another question and only a couple minutes left
here.
Mr. O'Dowd. Well, briefly, there is not a single person I
know in the Irish community who is against having a secure
border in America. There is almost, I imagine, no criminality
in the community itself that I would know of. Irish people that
come to America come here to work, and they come here to build
a life and build their own American dream. So I think they are
not direct issues that affect them as much. But I think overall
that they feel very strongly that a lot of the statistics are
hyped up to make this seem a lot worse than it is in terms of
the contribution of illegals or of undocumented Irish to this
country.
Senator Kennedy. Let me ask you to talk about how it feels
to be undocumented. I am interested in the fear of deportation,
the separation of family, the real dangers of depression and
sense of desolation. What does this do to individuals that are
attempting to be a part of the American dream, to play by the
rules, to make a contribution, and devoted to their religion
and members of their family?
Mr. O'Dowd. I think it is a devastating thing. We had a
case, as I mentioned here, of Mary, who is one of our chief
operators at the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform. Her
brother was killed in a car crash in Ireland about 3 months
ago. She could not go home. She has made her life here. She has
been here 16 years. She is a registered nurse. She had to
listen to her brother's funeral down the phone line, and you
can only imagine the impact that had on her and her family at
home.
That is, unfortunately, an all too common theme. People are
waiting for that dreadful phone call from Ireland that someone
has died or that their parents are ill. We have numerous cases
where people have to make a horrific decision between staying
here and keeping their hope alive of living the American dream
or having to go back to Ireland and basically end everything
here because of a family emergency. And these are people, as
you say, who have made huge contributions to this society.
I go back to Ground Zero. We figure there were about 300
Irish construction workers who went to Ground Zero that
morning, who spent the next 7 or 8 days digging up bodies,
helping as much as they could. And the point I made was nobody
was calling them illegal then because of what they did. And I
think if you look at the number of Irish who died at Ground
Zero, you will see what a great tradition and a heroic
tradition they represented.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you. My time is up.
Chairman Specter. Thank you, Senator Kennedy.
Senator Sessions?
Senator Sessions. Thank you very much. As we go forward, I
think the concerns that the American people rightly have and I
have is many of these complex questions are not amenable to
being settled in a secret conference Committee appointed by the
leaders of both Houses without much or virtually any input from
the American people in the process. So I am very nervous about
that. That is why I think that this hearing and the one you had
previously, Mr. Chairman, was good. It allows us to discuss
some of the complex issues.
Mr. O'Dowd, you make some points here that I am surprised
at. You said if John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan or Eugene
O'Neill were trying to enter the United States today, they
would have to enter illegally. You say, ``The sad reality is
that there is simply no way for the overwhelming majority of
Irish people to come to the United States legally at present,''
and that out of a million green cards given out last year, only
2,000 went to Irish. Why? Why don't we fix that? I tell you,
there is nothing in this bill that fixes that.
Mr. O'Dowd. No.
Senator Sessions. So what could we do to draft a
comprehensive bill that would allow people with the family and
historical connection to have a better chance, some better
chance than this to enter the United States?
Mr. O'Dowd. I think my organization is primarily concerned
right now with the undocumented Irish who are here, and
certainly the Senate bill would work very much in their favor.
Senator Sessions. Well, we have got to get beyond just that
problem. We are going to treat those people that came illegally
somehow in a compassionate way. I am not sure what we are going
to do, but we are going to do something.
Mr. O'Dowd. Right.
Senator Sessions. But we have got to think about drafting a
comprehensive bill. Let's draft one that is comprehensive, that
deals with the problems that you just raised. Now, you tell me
how we want to fix that. Do not be just a team player now with
the crowd. You tell me what you can do.
Mr. O'Dowd. Well, I think up until 1965, obviously,
Europeans were able to emigrate legally to the United States in
much higher numbers than they are now. And, clearly, if you
have a specific plan, like there was in the late 1980s--there
was what was called ``old seed immigrant countries'' that got a
certain amount of visas through two programs. One was called
the Donnelly visa after Congressman Donnelly. The other was
called after Congressman Bruce Morrison, Morrison visas. They
were certainly very acceptable, but they were unfortunately
time-limited. They only lasted 3 years. But the Irish community
at the time developed hugely as a result of those.
So it is a question of fairness more than anything. We do
not want to take visas off anyone. We do not want to be seen to
do that. But we do want a system where we would get an equal
opportunity to come here as much as any other country.
Senator Sessions. Thank you. Time is so short on all these
issues, and, Mr. McDonald, you gave in the appendix a quote
which I thought was interesting. The one in 1911, the first one
you lead with was interesting. It said we do not have more
crime among immigrants, but ``the coming of criminals and
persons of criminal tendencies constitutes one of the serious
social effects of the immigration movement.'' The current ``law
is not adequate to prevent the immigration of criminals, nor is
it sufficiently effective'' to deport criminals. That is still
the truth today, isn't it?
Mr. McDonald. Things have not changed much.
Senator Sessions. So would that be your suggestion on what
we should focus on, how to identify people before they come
with criminal tendencies and to be able to identify those who
are here that commit crimes and deport them more efficiently?
Mr. McDonald. I think the attempt to identify people with
criminal tendencies is a dream.
Senator Sessions. Well, tendencies, but records. A lot of
people that come, they apply at the embassy and they do check
some of their records. I do not know how adequate that is.
Mr. McDonald. A record of serious criminality I suppose
could be a criterion for exclusion, but it would have to be
true serious criminality, not the sort of thing that the
Congress created when it created the category of ``aggravated
felon.'' If you look at the lists included in that category, it
is clear that you do not have to be a felon and the crime does
not have to be aggravated. It is just a laundry list. So I--
Senator Sessions. You mean that two from Honduras that
applied to come to the United States and one had a series of
minor crimes and one was valedictorian of their class, the one
with the crimes ought to have the equal right to enter as
compared to the other?
Mr. McDonald. How minor?
Senator Sessions. Well, we cannot accept everybody, so why
shouldn't we select those that have no criminal history as
opposed to those who have a criminal history? Whose interest
are we representing--the United States or the person who would
like to come?
Mr. McDonald. Sure, but I think the standard should not be
minor crimes. Minor crimes cover an awful lot of territory.
Serious crimes, sure.
Senator Sessions. All right. Mr. Cutler, my time is about
up, and I did not get to Mr. Johnson, who does a great job in
making his presentation. Thank you for those good numbers I
made reference to.
I would just ask you, Mr. Johnson, if the wages of native-
born workers without a high school diploma have declined in the
1990s, wouldn't that indicate we do not have a labor shortage
for unskilled workers?
Mr. Johnson. No, sir. The reality is that wage inequality
is an issue that we have been dealing with since the 1970s, and
maybe even before, and it really had, you know, very little to
do with immigration.
Senator Sessions. Well, let me ask this question: If there
is a shortage of low-skilled labor in America, doesn't the
economic reality indicate their wages will go up? And why have
they not gone up if there is not--
Mr. Johnson. Again, they have not gone up because of the
issues of wage inequality. We are in a time now in a knowledge-
based economy where we put a high premium on people who have
education and training. And we have been paying people who do
not have a lot of education and training less and less since
the 1970s, before we had large waves of immigration.
It is too simplistic to say supply and demand, the more
people come means that the price goes down. Take an easy
example. We have today a copy shop on every corner, Starbucks
everywhere, and yet people line up every day to pay more than
we have ever paid for coffee than at any time in the history of
the country because demand has kept pace with supply. So if the
demand for less skilled workers is keeping pace with supply,
then the impact on wages is not going to exist. It is
competition that drives down wages, and that is my point. We do
not have a lot of competition with immigrant workers because
immigrant workers come in to fill gaps in our labor force. They
come in at the low end of the skill spectrum and the high end
of the skill spectrum, and the U.S. workforce is right there in
the middle.
Senator Sessions. Well, I think you would agree that
Professor Borjas at the Kennedy School at Harvard who has
written a book, ``Heaven's Door;'' Professor Chiswick of the
University of Illinois; Robert Rector at the Heritage
Foundation; and Andrew Sum, I believe at Northeastern, would
disagree with you.
Mr. Johnson. They would disagree with me, and they would
also disagree with David Card and Giovanni Perry and Dr.
Feinberg at Brown University. I mean, you get ten economists in
a room, you are going to get ten different answers.
Chairman Specter. Senator Sessions, how much more time
would you like?
Senator Sessions. My time is up.
Chairman Specter. Senator Sessions, thank you very much.
Mr. Cutler, Mr. Johnson, Dr. McDonald, Mr. O'Dowd--
Senator Sessions. You have been very generous, I have to
say.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Specter. Well, we have exceeded the time limit to
some extent, but not a whole lot, and we very much appreciate
your coming in. We are going to continue these hearings to
analyze further the respective positions of the Senate and
House on the immigration issue and inform the American people
that we are very serious about border enforcement and employer
verification. We are also very serious about a guest worker
program and very serious about dealing in a human, realistic
way with 11 million undocumented aliens. And your contribution
has been very substantial, so we thank you, and that concludes
our hearing.
[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Questions and answers and submissions for the record
follow.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1098.078