[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE: A HISTORIC AND PERSONAL REFLECTION ON
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,
CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY,
AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 30, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-15
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-418 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts RIC KELLER, Florida
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DARRELL ISSA, California
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia STEVE KING, Iowa
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM FEENEY, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California JIM JORDAN, Ohio
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
[Vacant]
Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Joseph Gibson, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees,
Border Security, and International Law
ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois STEVE KING, Iowa
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California ELTON GALLEGLY, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
Ur Jaddou, Chief Counsel
George Fishman, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
MARCH 30, 2007
OPENING REMARK
Page
Ms. Cynthia Garrett, Superintendent of Ellis Island.............. 1
OPENING STATEMENT
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law.............................................. 2
The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Iowa, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration,
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.. 7
The Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois, and Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law.............................................. 9
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas, and Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law.............................................. 11
The Honorable Linda Sanchez, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law.............................................. 13
WITNESSES
Mr. David V. Aguilar, Chief, Office of Border Patrol, Department
of Homeland Security
Oral Testimony................................................. 16
Prepared Statement............................................. 19
Mr. Igor V. Timofeyev, Director of Immigration Policy and Special
Advisor for Refugee and Asylum Affairs, Policy Directorate,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Oral Testimony................................................. 23
Prepared Statement............................................. 25
Mr. Daniel J. Tichenor, Ph.D., Associate Professor in the
Department of Political Science, Rutgers University
Oral Testimony................................................. 41
Prepared Statement............................................. 43
Mr. Dowell Myers, Ph.D., Professor of Urban Planning and
Demography, University of Southern California
Oral Testimony................................................. 58
Prepared Statement............................................. 60
Mr. Dan Siciliano, Executive Director of the Program in Law,
Economics, and Business, Stanford Law School
Oral Testimony................................................. 69
Prepared Statement............................................. 71
Mr. Bruce DeCell, member of the 9/11 Victims for a Secure America
(reading the prepared statement of Michael W. Cutler, former
Senior Special Agent of the INS, Fellow at the Center for
Immigration Studies)
Oral Testimony................................................. 78
Prepared Statement............................................. 81
Mr. Jack Martin, Special Projects Director, Federation for
American Immigration Reform
Oral Testimony................................................. 85
Prepared Statement............................................. 87
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California, and Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law................................ 4
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, and
Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees,
Border Security, and International Law......................... 10
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law................................ 12
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Linda T. Sanchez, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California, and
Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees,
Border Security, and International Law......................... 15
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Michael Chertoff, Secretary,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security........................... 102
PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE: A HISTORIC AND PERSONAL REFLECTION ON
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION
----------
FRIDAY, MARCH 30, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees,
Border Security, and International Law
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a.m., in
the Ellis Island Immigration Museum, Statute of Liberty and
Ellis Island National Monuments, Ellis Island, New York, the
Honorable Zoe Lofgren (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee)
presiding.
Present: Representatives Lofgren, Gutierrez, Jackson Lee,
Sanchez, and King.
Staff Present: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Chief Counsel; Andrea
Loving, Minority Counsel; Benjamin Staub, Professional Staff
Member.
Ms. Lofgren. The hearing of the Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law will come to order.
Before we begin, I would like to extend our appreciation
and gratitude to Ms. Cynthia Garrett, the Superintendent of
Ellis Island, for allowing us to use this wonderful and
especially meaningful place for our first hearing on
comprehensive immigration reform. Ms. Garrett would like to say
a few words before we commence with the hearing.
Ms. Garrett. Thank you, Members of Congress and honored
guests. Good morning and welcome to the Statute of Liberty
National Monument and Ellis Island. On behalf of the National
Park Service, thank you for bringing your Subcommittee's
hearing to this historic venue. What better place to reflect on
American immigration. Between 1892, when the Ellis Island
Immigration Station opened its doors and 1954 when it was
closed, over 12 million people started their new lives on this
small island in New York Harbor. Twelve million people, that's
a number to reflect on.
During its peak years of operation, over 70 percent of
immigrants to this country were processed here. If you haven't
already done so, look at the magnificent space around us. The
Great Hall, as this room is called for somewhat obvious
reasons, is where the immigrants were registered and processed.
One of the remarkable things you will find at this national
park is that the sense of history here is very real.
Imagine how an immigrant might have felt sitting on these
benches, anxious to begin a whole new life, speaking very
little English, waiting to be processed, quite possibly with
all their worldly possessions in a sack at their feet. Imagine
the sounds echoing through the Great Hall. Hundreds of voices
in dozens of languages. And think about what brought people
here, the conditions they were leaving, and their dreams for
the future.
As the preeminent symbol of the story of immigration, Ellis
Island plays a pivotal role in our culture. It brings a very
human face to our history. The Immigration Station's main
building was restored and reopened to the public as a museum in
1990. Since that time, we've had over 25 million visitors. The
National Park Service uses the power of this very special place
to engage people in dialogue about the story of immigration and
the cultural richness of the United States, about the
continuing debates on immigration policy, and on the
contribution of immigrants to our society.
After the hearing, I invite you to explore this wonderful
museum to feel the exhilaration, the fear, and the hope of the
men, women, and children who landed here unsure of what turns
life might take. Listen carefully, you can still hear their
voices.
Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very, very much. And I am honored to
call to order the Subcommittee for our very first hearing on
the role of immigration in American society. Since this is a
congressional hearing, we would ask that people take a moment
and turn off your cell phones or turn it on vibrate so that we
don't have that interruption.
Through this hall and through those doors, our Government
admitted millions of brave, energetic people to our great
Nation. After leaving this island, those many optimistic
millions joined our communities and participated in the great
kaleidoscope of life in America. In this Great Hall, capable
officers inspected those who passed through here. They
controlled the flow and they made the process orderly. This
room is a visible vestige of a controlled, orderly and fair
immigration system; in this room today, sit many, many people,
each of whom is a testament to those times.
As I look around this hall, and as I consider my own
family's history, I see the magnificence of America. I see the
picture of America, a place where there is a constant
reinvigoration of the American character, a place where the
values of hard work, optimism, bravery, resilience, and risk-
taking, have forged an exceptional Nation. Immigrants have
always been part of that process of reinvigoration.
I was fortunate to have known and loved one of those
immigrants, my grandfather. Carl Robert Lofgren was a man of
unbounded enthusiasm. Nearly 100 years ago, when he was 16
years old, he boarded a ship in Sweden. He spoke not a word of
English and he didn't have any money, but what he did have was
fearless optimism. Before he died, he told me that when he
boarded the ship, he believed that when he got to America he
would make so much money that he would be able to buy a large
ranch and become the cowboy he wanted to be. But when his ship
landed in Boston, he stepped off the boat, a legal immigrant.
Armed only with his dreams, his work ethic, his optimism, and
visions of America forged from reading Westerns written in
Swedish, he made his way by train to Oakland, California. The
starting was hard, the trip long and demanding. His entry, like
that of millions of others, was simple, orderly, and legal. And
as you might guess, my grandfather did not find the streets of
Oakland paved with gold.
Undaunted, he rolled with the punches. He met his wife, my
grandmother. He started a family. He worked hard. Out of
curiosity, I went to ellisisland.org and typed in my last name.
And just over a 30-year period, starting in 1892, there were
120 Lofgrens who did come through these gates, and that was
just the Lofgrens whose first names began with A. That
shouldn't be too much of a surprise, for most immigrants at
that time, this small island in New York Harbor, in the shadow
of Lady Liberty, was their first stop on a long and determined
journey to the land of opportunity. And today, 40 percent of
Americans can trace their roots to an ancestor who was among
those who landed here.
Each of us here has our own family's immigration story.
I've told you mine.
Today, we're in a grand debate about the role of
immigration in American society, but most of us agree that the
immigration that is symbolized by Ellis Island is a process
that worked. There were challenges to be sure, but by and
large, it was a process that worked. And that's what we need
now, and that's why we're here. It's not because people around
the world still yearn for the hope that has always defined
America, it's because America needs them in a continual process
of renewal.
We are a Nation of immigrants. It is these very people and
those who came before them who gave life to our Nation's
enduring promise. That's our history. That's our present. And
it will be our future. But by no means is it a given. Not if we
ignore what are legitimate and sincere concerns. From 1892 to
1954, more than 12 million immigrants entered the United States
through Ellis Island. Today, we have close to the same number
of illegal immigrants already in the country. If they come
forward, work hard, accept responsibility, and the judgment of
the Nation for breaking the law, will we provide them--not with
a free ride--but with a fair and well thought out way to
contribute to our country legally? Will we do the same for
those who enter our country legally and decide they want to
stay and keep contributing? Will we enforce the law and will we
secure our borders, making sure that they are not negligently
porous, but necessarily protected? Will we always remain
mindful and sympathetic to the hardworking Americans who have a
real fear of losing their jobs to those who are willing to work
for less?
Will we hold accountable employers who remain willing to
hire undocumented workers to the detriment of American workers
and will we demand that those working here assimilate and
contribute?
We can and we must reform our immigration system in a
comprehensive way, to promote a safer, more secure, prosperous
America. We can and must leave here dedicating ourselves to
building a rational, reasonable, workable immigration system. A
comprehensive system. A system that allows us to control our
borders, to protect our citizens, and a system that allows
America's economy to continue to expand while making certain
that our workers get what at the very least they deserve so
very much, a fair shake. A process that works, that's our
responsibility.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International
Law
Ms. Lofgren. I now would like to recognize our
distinguished Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, and that is
Mr. Steve King of Iowa, for his opening statement.
Mr. King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair. I can't thank you enough
for holding this hearing here at Ellis Island. As I've
mentioned at the conclusion of our tour, I can't imagine
learning enough from the witnesses here today to eclipse what
I've learned in this tour, but it will be a very complimentary
educational process for this panel and hopefully for the people
that are here.
This island is a place of significant historical value and
not only for America, but for my family in particular. My
grandmother, Frieda Katrina Johanna Harm entered the United
States through here at Ellis Island March 26, 1894. She was 4
years old. She and her family emigrated from the port town of
Kiel is part of Schleswig-Holstein in Germany on a ship named
the New York. And interestingly and coincidentally, I today
represent the United States Congress, the cities in Iowa,
they're named Schleswig and Holstein. A grandson reflecting
back here in Ellis Island about how meaningful it is to be here
and have this sense of history for our Nation.
My ancestors made a new life in America just like the
millions of other individuals who have done so throughout the
years. However, the idea that Ellis Island and the Statue of
Liberty stand for the premise that the United States should
welcome every person in the world who wants to come here is
historically inaccurate. In fact, the Statue of Liberty was
given to our country by France in 1886, not as a symbol of our
willingness to accept immigrants, but to celebrate the
friendship that developed between the United States and the
French during the Revolutionary War. I question some of the
architecture that they brought to Washington, D.C., but they
still were the friends of liberty.
And the famous Emma Lazarus' poem, ``The New Colossus''
often cited as proof that the Statue of Liberty is a beacon for
open borders was not an original part of the statue. It was
only added in the early 1900's.
No country can effectively allow unrestricted immigration.
Even here at Ellis Island, approximately 250,000 prospective
immigrations were turned away because they didn't meet the
immigration standards at the time. We must have an immigration
and naturalization policy designed to enhance the economic, the
social, and the cultural well being of the United States of
America. Every Nation must have that kind of a policy.
The United States already has the most generous immigration
policy in the world. Over one million immigrants are legally
admitted into the United States every year. And that's very
close to the numbers that we saw as we went through this tour
on an annual basis.
According to the Department of Homeland Security 2005
Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, between 1820 and the year
2000 nearly 66 million immigrants came to the United States,
legally; 12 million of those came here through Ellis Island in
its years of operation between 1892 and 1954. So roughly 66
million is the cumulative total of all legal immigration
throughout this country's 200-year history. And last year, the
Senate passed legislation that would have added that many
immigrants in just 20 years. Unfortunately, it seems that any
comprehensive, and I put that in quotes, ``comprehensive
immigration reform bill,'' as we see in this Congress, will
have the same unmanageable results. The realities of today's
immigration policies are not the same as those at any other
time in America's history.
For instance, in years past, once an immigrant came to the
United States, he or she was expected to fully assimilate by
learning English, foregoing past allegiances and accepting the
principles of our Constitution. Legally, those principles
remain today. Immigrants also have relatively little contact
with their home countries because of the difficulty of
traveling long distance and communication, and so they
assimilated more quickly in those years.
Now immigrants come and go with relative ease. They
communicate by phone and email with friends and relatives in
their home countries. We're glad about that. But they are not
expected as much to learn English. Instead, it's the immigrants
who demand American citizens change their culture and language.
While it's true that the United States has often had generally
welcoming immigration policies, our country has rarely had no
restrictions. As far back as 1798, Congress passed the Alien
Enemies Act which allowed hostile aliens to be apprehended,
restrained and secured and removed from the country during
times of war, or threatened by a foreign nation. It would be a
time like this actually.
And in 1802, the Naturalization Act established that an
immigrant must be a U.S. resident for 5 years before they can
become a citizen. Between the 1920's and the 1960's, we had
relatively little immigration which gave time to assimilate
earlier immigrants. And it was a calculated policy debated in
the United States Congress. Unfortunately, in the last several
decades, the Federal Government has not taken seriously its
role to enforce its own immigration laws. As a result, it's
estimated there are between 12 and 20 million illegal
immigrants in the country today. And not all of those illegal
immigrants contribute positively to American society. For
instance, we are all aware as we sit at Ellis Island here today
that right across the river is the site of the World Trade
Center, perhaps the most significant symbol of the failings of
America's immigration laws and policies where 19 foreign
terrorists murdered over 3,000 innocent Americans.
Criminal aliens are coming to the United States in record
numbers. According to an April 2005 GAO study, nearly 28
percent of all State and Federal prisoners are criminal aliens.
And further statistical analysis show that 4518 murders were
committed by criminal aliens in America in 2004 alone. That
means 25 people were killed by criminal aliens in the United
States each day if you add the numbers that include the victims
of negligent homicide which is about 13 a day. Some of the
victims of criminal aliens include Adrienne Shelley, the
actress who was murdered by 19-year-old Diego Belco here in New
York last November; or Houston Police Officer, Rodney Johnson,
who was murdered execution style by Juan Leonardo Quinterro,
who snuck back into the United States after being deported to
Mexico in 1999. These victims were American citizens who
deserved to be protected by their government's policies,
including its immigration policies.
So as we sit here today at Ellis Island we must keep in
mind our obligation to put forth and maintain a responsible
immigration policy that assures what is best for America. But I
would like to just close with this, Madam Chair, and that is
that I know of no one who is opposed to legal immigration. And
there's a certain vitality that comes with immigration. We got
the vitality from the donor countries across the world and you
can see it here. They had the most to gain and the least to
lose. They took the risk and they came here and the vitality of
civilization after civilization contributed to American
exceptionalism. And I'm looking forward to this dialogue that
we have and I'm looking forward to continuing on the path of
enhancing American exceptionalism.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. King. And now I'd like to
recognize the other Members for their opening 5-minute
statements. Let me first recognize the gentleman from Illinois,
Congressman Luis Gutierrez.
Mr. Gutierrez. First, I'd like to say thank you very much,
Chairwoman Lofgren, for putting together this exceptional
hearing--I can't think of a better way to begin what I know are
going to be many hearings under your leadership.
And thank you, Ranking Member King.
And I would like to extend my thanks to all of those that
are coming to testify before us here this morning. It is
particularly significant that the hearing is being held at
Ellis Island, in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty and the
first beacon of freedom seen by countless immigrants seeking
the American dream.
I hope that today's hearing will foster a greater
understanding of the need for comprehensive immigration reform
and propel a demand for a reform that respects the history of
welcoming immigrants seeking the American dream and building a
better future.
You know Dr. Martin Luther King said that ``the arc of the
moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.'' for the
millions of hardworking immigrants in this country who toiled
deep in the shadows of our society, where mistreatment and
abuse run far too rampant, we must continue to ensure that the
arc bends their way. We must continue to ensure that they, too,
can realize their hopes and aspirations, and that they, too,
can have a real shot at the American dream. I'm talking about
the humble mother who has dreams, who leaves her home and her
children before dawn each morning to wait for a bus in the
harsh chill of the Chicago winter so that she can take care of
someone else's kids, but who knows this work will provide money
for school supplies and doctors' visits and access to
opportunities for her children she never thought possible for
herself.
I'm talking about the modest dreams of the migrant worker
who has bloodied and blistered hands and aching muscles, who
spends 12 hours a day in pesticide-ridden fields so his son can
1 day realize his dream of going to college.
It is the same immigrant experience, the same pursuit of
the American dream that has been the inspiration and motivation
for immigrants generation after generation in our country. And
it is our responsibility. It is our solemn obligation to ensure
that America stays true to its rich heritage of welcoming those
who seek a better life, that we as a Nation stay true to the
eloquent and powerful words etched in the base of the Statue of
Liberty which read: ``I lift my lamp beside the golden door.''
In the coming months, we face the difficult and very real
challenges in our effort to achieve comprehensive immigration
reform, but in the end I am confident we will get there. We
have no other choice. Because I am confident in the will and
the spirit of the people who are passionate about this issue,
I'm confident in the compassion of the American people, and I'm
confident in our ability to do what is right and what is
necessary to secure our border, safeguard our families and
strengthen our economy.
Again, I wish to thank the panelists and I wish to thank
the Chairwoman for convening this wonderful hearing here on
Ellis Island.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gutierrez follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Illinois, and Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International
Law
Thank you Chairwoman Lofgren and Ranking Member King for holding
this very important hearing on historic and personal reflections on the
past, present and future of American immigration.
I would also like to extend my gratitude to the witnesses
testifying before us today.
It is particularly significant that this hearing is being held at
Ellis Island, in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, the first beacon
of freedom seen by countless immigrants seeking the American dream.
I hope that today's hearing will foster a greater demand for
comprehensive immigration reform and propel a demand for a reform that
respects this history of welcoming immigrants seeking the American
dream and to build a better America.
Dr. Martin Luther King said that ``The arc of the moral universe is
long, but it bends toward justice.''
For the millions of hardworking immigrants in this country who toil
deep in the shadows of our society, where mistreatment and abuse run
far too rampant, we must continue to ensure that the arc bends their
way.
We must continue to ensure that they too can realize their hopes
and aspirations--and that they too can have a real shot at the American
Dream.
I am talking about the humble dreams of the young mother, who
leaves her home--and her children--before dawn each morning to wait for
a bus in the harsh chill of a Chicago winter, so she can go take care
of someone else's kids, but who knows this work will provide money for
school supplies and doctors' visits and the access to opportunities for
her children she never thought possible.
I am talking about the modest dreams of the migrant worker, with
bloodied, blistered hands and aching muscles, who spends 12 hour days
in pesticide-ridden fields, so his son can one day realize his dream of
going to college.
It is that same immigrant experience--that same pursuit of the
American Dream--that has been the inspiration and motivation for
immigrants--generation after generation--in our country.
And it is our responsibility. It is our solemn obligation to ensure
that America stays true to its rich heritage of welcoming those who
seek a better life.
That we--as a nation--stay true to the eloquent and powerful words
etched in the base of the Statue of Liberty, which read, ``I lift my
lamp beside the golden door!"
In the coming months, we face difficult and very real challenges in
our efforts to achieve real comprehensive immigration reform and to
ensure that the golden door is not slammed shut on those who embody the
entrepreneurial spirit, the drive, the integrity and the work ethic
that has allowed our nation to flourish.
But in the end, I am confident we will get there.
Because I am confident in the will and the spirit of the people who
are passionate about this issue.
I am confident in the compassion of the American people.
And I am confident in our ability to do what is right and what is
necessary to secure our border, safeguard our families, and strengthen
our economy.
I again extend my thanks to the panelists for appearing before us
today, and I look forward to hearing your perspectives on the history
and personal stories of American immigration. Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Gutierrez. I'd now like to
recognize our colleague from Texas, the gentlelady,
Congresswoman Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Good morning and thank you very much,
Madam Chair, and I would like to add, as others have, my
appreciation for the wisdom of holding this very vital hearing
at Ellis Island. Let me thank the National Park Service for
their hospitality and also their instruction this morning.
I'm reminded, having visited Ellis Island and the Statue of
Liberty as a little girl, how moving it was to understand the
pinnings and underpinnings, if you will, of what this country
stood for. Even more moving was to recite in class, ``We hold
these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal
. . . with certain inalienable rights . . . life and liberty
and the pursuit of happiness.''
Interestingly enough, one might describe the writers of
that language as immigrants. Coming to this Nation for economic
opportunity, fleeing persecution. Isn't it interesting that
today now in the 21st century, we have immigrants who are
coming for the very same reason? And so I want to, in the
backdrop of Ellis Island, make it very clear: as you look at
the faces of the members of this panel, this Subcommittee on
Immigration, how much we reflect the diversity of America.
We are very serious, by coming to this place, very serious
in having this Congress complete its assignment on
comprehensive immigration reform in 2007. I want to thank the
members of this panel for each of their individual
perspectives. I thank the Ranking Member for his leadership on
these issues. But it is interesting to note that the history
reflected in Ellis Island showed a public action by the Federal
Government in 1892, to put forward an immigration station
costing then $500,000.
I wonder why they did that, and I would almost imagine that
they did so, so that in some way they would know who was coming
into this country. That is what comprehensive immigration
reform is all about, knowing who is coming and knowing who is
here. I believe that's a wise move for this Nation. As a Member
of the Homeland Security Committee, for all of those and
particularly this great and wonderful State and city, that
reflects the tragedy of 9/11. Even with that backdrop, as we
express over and over again our shock and our sadness of that
day, how important it is to be able to know who is in America.
So comprehensive immigration reform is also a means of security
and securing the homeland.
Ellis Island opened for business as an immigration station
in 1892 and during the next 50 years, more than 12 million
people came through the island on their way to a new life in
the United States. Ellis Island also was used as a detention
center for aliens who were inadmissable and could not be
returned to their own countries. And during World War II, it
was used as a detention center for enemy aliens. Immigrant
processing at Ellis Island continued until the end of 1954.
I give you that brief history because it reflects on where
we are today. No one is suggesting that we should have a system
that does not have included in it border security, that we
shouldn't have detention facilities, that we don't have a means
of selecting out or isolating enemy aliens. But what we do say
is that we can do it all, and the reason I know that is because
in the 1960's and thereafter, this great Nation was able to
send someone to the moon. We're proud of that because I
represent the Johnson Space Center.
And then I think we know what is good about immigration
because we know the names of Irving Berlin, the composer;
Arthur Murray, the dancer; opera singer Enrico Caruso; comedian
Bob Hope, and maybe my own constituent Yao Ming of the Houston
Rockets.
So there are good things about this process of immigration.
So even though Ellis Island has been called the island of
tears, we know that there were hardworking people here who
processed immigrants, who gave them an opportunity and gave
them a chance.
Let me conclude by simply adding to the historical
perspective, because I'm always reminded of my grandparents,
who came by way of Jamaica to Panama to South Carolina and then
to New York. Hard-working laborers who raised four sons and who
loved this country. I'm reminded of the pictures as I walk
through this place of Inez Geraldine, who came from Jamaica,
British West Indies in 1923; of Muriel Marjorie, a little girl
who came from Trinidad, Tobago, and the name of Rose Lyddie.
Finally, I would say to you that if you think that this is
new, be reminded that each time we go up and down on our
immigration policies, and I quickly say to you remember the
National Origin Act of 1924. It limited immigration to the
Western Hemisphere, put quotas on Asians and Eastern and South
Europeans. The Immigration Act of 1965 restored that again, and
then allowed people to reunite with their family. And then
there was the 1980 Refugee Act after the fall of Saigon. And
finally, the 1986 Immigration Bill, which many people think
gave amnesty to 2.7 million. It did allow people to come who
had been here for a period of years, not like the legislation
we are talking about, which provides penalties and an order for
which people might become documented.
I close, Madam Chairperson, by simply saying nothing has
changed. People come fleeing persecution. People come for
economic reasons, and therefore nothing should change here in
the United States Congress. Change should be for the better,
and that is comprehensive immigration reform. The same pathway
that our ancestors came--we too, are America, and America is a
Nation that can do it all. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
The subject of this hearing is, ``Past, Present, and Future: A
Historic and Personal Reflection on American Immigration.'' This is a
very appropriate topic for the beginning of a year in which we will be
engaging in major immigration reform, and there is no better venue for
such a hearing than Ellis Island.
The island was purchased by the colonial governors of Nieuw
Amsterdam (later New York) from Native Americans on July 12, 1630. It
initially was called, ``Little Oyster Island'' because of its abundant
supply of oysters. It was purchased by Samuel Ellis around the time of
the American Revolution; his heirs sold it to the State of New York in
1808 for $10,000.
Although Ellis Island's position in the harbor made it useful for
military purposes, it was never needed for national defense. In 1890,
it was selected by the House Committee on Immigration as the site for
an immigration station for the Port of New York.
The immigration station was constructed of Georgia pine with slate
roofs. The main building was two stories high, about 400 feet long and
150 feet wide. Four-story peaked towers marked the corners of the
building. There were baggage rooms on the ground level, and there was a
great inspection hall above them. Smaller buildings included a
dormitory for detainees, a small hospital, a restaurant, kitchens, a
baggage station, an electric plant, and a bathhouse. When the
Immigration Station officially opened on January 1, 1892, its final
cost had reached approximately $500,000.
Ellis Island opened for business as an immigration station in 1892.
During the next 50 years, more than 12 million people came through the
island on their way to a new life in the United States. Ellis Island
also was used as a detention center for aliens who were inadmissible
but could not be returned to their own countries; and during World War
II, it was used as a detention center for enemy aliens. Immigrant
processing at Ellis Island continued until the end of 1954.
On May 11, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson officially proclaimed
Ellis Island as part of the Statue of Liberty National Monument. The
Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation was established to raise $230
million for the restoration of these national monuments. More than 20
million Americans have made contributions to the Foundation.
Annie Moore was the first person to arrive at Ellis Island. She was
followed by millions of hard working immigrants who established a life
for themselves and their families in United States. The diversity and
richness of their contributions to the United States is apparent even
in a short list of immigrants who have achieved success in their chosen
fields: Author Rudyard Kipling; Composer Irving Berlin; Dancer Arthur
Murray; Opera Singer Enrico Caruso; Actor and Olympian Johnny
Weissmuller; Comedian W.C. Fields; Comedian Bob Hope; Psychiatrist Carl
Jung; Psychiatrist Sigmund Freud; Actor, Director, and Comedian Charles
Chaplin; U.S. President Woodrow Wilson; Magician Harry Houdini; U.S.
President Theodore Roosevelt; King of the Rhumba Javier Cugat; Master
Cellist Pablo Casals; U.S. President Herbert Hoover; Pioneering
Entertainer Walt Disney; Actor Bela Lugosi, Professor and Nobel Prize
Winner Albert Einstein; Composer Cole Porter; Novelist F. Scott
Fitzgerald; Song Writer and Composer George M. Cohan; U.S. President
William Taft; Comedian and Actor Maurice Chevalier; Author Joseph
Conrad; Composer George Gershwin; and Master Violinist Jascha Heifetz.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. I would like now to recognize our
final Committee Member, Representative Linda Sanchez,
Congresswoman from Southern California.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and all of you
who are in attendance. Thank you for taking such an interest in
this issue. As we learned earlier today on our tour, Ellis
Island became the first Federal immigration station in 1890.
And over the course of 62 years, between 1892 and 1954, over 12
million immigrants entered the United States through this very
station. During this time, political instability, deteriorating
economic conditions in Europe, and religious discrimination
sparked one of the largest waves of immigrants in history.
These immigrants came from places like Ireland, Germany,
and Eastern Europe. According to historians, only 2 percent of
those who arrived at Ellis Island were turned away. Immigrants
were excluded for two main reasons. Either they had a
dangerous, contagious disease or an immigration inspector
concluded that they were likely to become a public charge.
The criterion for being likely to become a public charge
was a person who had less than ten dollars, about $216 in
today's money. Imagine that--the only requirements being $216
and having reasonably good health. That's certainly a very
different standard from the standard that we use today.
The immigrants that were admitted found work where they
could. The unskilled male workers ended up in steel mills and
coal mines, while the unskilled female workers cleaned houses.
Things have not changed much in 100 years, except that now
instead of mills and mines, they go to work in fields,
restaurants, meat packing houses, and the homes of the
affluent.
These early immigrants frequently faced discrimination.
Businesses in New York would post signs reading ``No Irish Need
Apply''. Today, immigrants looking for work face everything
from recruitment by firms seeking to exploit cheap labor to
discrimination, substandard working conditions, and joblessness
based purely on their race or ethnicity.
But despite these challenges, is it any wonder why this
country is a magnet for individuals seeking a better life? We
are the wealthiest Nation in the history of the world, largely
due to the hard work of immigrants. President John F. Kennedy
said ``everywhere immigrants have enriched and strengthened the
fabric of American life.'' He was absolutely correct.
Immigrants have helped build everything from the steel industry
to Hollywood.
Just as in the early 1900's, when immigrants came to the
U.S. and contributed to the foundation and fabric of this proud
country, we stand here today in the early years of a new
millennium to bear witness and support the desire of a new
generation of immigrants to contribute to that storied
foundation and fabric that is America.
Today, immigrants come from every continent except
Antarctica. But the commitment, the desire, the hopes, and the
dreams are the same today as they were when millions came
through these gates a hundred years ago. As some of you may
know, I am the youngest daughter of immigrants who came to this
country with very little money and not knowing the language,
much like many of the immigrants that passed through these
gates a century ago.
With hard work, the love and support of family and friends,
and a little good luck, my parents managed to send every one of
my six brothers and sisters and I to college. And like the
children of immigrants from a century ago, my brothers and
sisters and I have succeeded as engineers, entrepreneurs, and
public servants.
Although Maria and Ignacio Sanchez were the first
immigrants, make that the first couple really, ever to have two
daughters serve in the United States Congress, throughout
American history there have been people who have immigrated to
this country and made substantial impacts. Just to name a few,
Madeleine Albright, Michael J. Fox, Harry Belafonte, Albert
Einstein, and one of my personal favorites, Fernando Valenzuela
of the Los Angeles Dodgers.
All of these people are a testament to what immigrants
contribute to our country. While our system has not always been
perfect, there was a time when it was fair, orderly, and
humane. Unfortunately, our current immigration system is none
of those. I don't think anybody would disagree that it is
broken.
It is time for us to get back to where we embraced the fact
that we are all descendants of immigrants. Everyone here is
either an immigrant themselves or knows someone who shares this
common legacy. And we should continue to foster that legacy
with sensitivity and rationality far into the future.
If you look closely enough into the eyes of an immigrant
today, whether from China or Mexico or Kenya, you will see the
same hopes and spirit that burned so brightly in the eyes of
your immigrant ancestors, whether they came from Ireland,
Germany, England, or somewhere else.
I want to thank the Chairwoman for choosing this historic
site to hold this hearing, and for taking a lead on what is one
of the most important issues of the 21st century, and I yield
back the remainder of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sanchez follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Linda T. Sanchez, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International
Law
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member King.
As we learned earlier today, Ellis Island became the first Federal
immigration station in 1890. Over the course of 62 years, between 1892
and 1954, over twelve million immigrants entered the United States
through this very station.
During this time, political instability, deteriorating economic
conditions in Europe and religious discrimination sparked one of the
largest waves of immigrants in history. These immigrants came from
places like Ireland, Germany, and Eastern Europe.
According to historians, only two percent of those who arrived at
Ellis Island were turned away. Immigrants were excluded for two main
reasons: either they had a dangerous contagious disease or if an
immigration inspector concluded that they were likely to become a
public charge. The criterion for ``being likely to become a public
charge'' was a person who had less than $10--about $216 today.
Imagine that: the only requirements being $216 and had having
reasonably good health. That's certainly a different standard than
today.
The immigrants that were admitted found work where they could. The
unskilled male workers ended up in steel mills and coal mines while the
unskilled female workers cleaned houses. Things have not changed much
in 100 years, except that now instead of mills and mines, they go to
work in fields, restaurants, meat packing houses and the homes of the
affluent.
These early immigrants frequently faced discrimination. Businesses
in New York would post signs reading ``No Irish Need Apply.'' Today,
immigrants looking for work face everything from recruitment by firms
seeking to exploit cheap labor to discrimination, substandard working
conditions and joblessness based purely on their race.
But despite these challenges, is it any wonder why this country is
a magnet for individuals seeking a better life? We are the wealthiest
nation in the history of the world--largely due to the hard work of
immigrants. President John F. Kennedy said ``Everywhere immigrants have
enriched and strengthened the fabric of American life.'' He was
absolutely correct. Immigrants have helped build everything from the
steel industry to Hollywood.
Just as in the early 1900's when immigrants came to the U.S. and
contributed to the foundation and fabric that is this proud country, we
stand here today in the early years of a new millennium to bear
witness, and support the desire of a new generation of immigrants to
contribute to that storied foundation and fabric that is America.
Today immigrants come from every continent (except Antarctica), but
the commitment, the desire, the hopes, and the dreams are the same as
they were when millions came through these gates 100 years ago.
As some of you may know, I'm the youngest daughter of immigrants
who came to this country with very little money and not knowing the
language--much like many of the immigrants that passed through these
gates a century ago.
With hard work, the love and support of family and friends, and
some good luck, my parents managed to send every one of my six brothers
and sisters to college.
And like the children of immigrants from a century ago, my brothers
and sisters and I have succeeded as engineers, entrepreneurs, and
public servants.
Although, Maria and Ignacio S nchez were the first immigrants, make
that the first couple, ever to have two daughters elected to Congress.
Throughout American history, there have been people who have
immigrated to this country and made substantial impacts. Just to name a
few: Madeleine Albright, Michael J. Fox, Harry Belafonte, Albert
Einstein and one of my personal favorites, Fernando Valenzuela of the
Los Angeles Dodgers.
All of these people are a testament to what immigrants can
contribute to our country.
While our system has not always been perfect, there was a time when
it was fair, orderly, and humane. Unfortunately, our current
immigration system is none of those. It is broken.
It's time for us to get back to where we embrace the fact that we
are all descendents of immigrants.
Everyone here is either an immigrant themselves or knows someone
who shares this common legacy. And we should continue to foster that
legacy, with sensitivity and rationality, far into the future.
If you look closely enough into the eyes of an immigrant today--
whether from China, or Mexico, or Kenya, you will see the same hopes
and spirit that burned so brightly in the eyes of your immigrant
ancestors whether they came from Ireland, Germany, England, or
elsewhere.
I thank the Chairwoman for choosing this historic site to hold this
hearing and for taking the lead on what is one of the most important
issues of the 21st Century.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, and thanks to all the
Members for being pretty close to 5 minutes, we all did very
well. Without objection, all Members' opening statements will
be placed into the record, and also without objection, the
Chair will be authorized to declare a recess of the hearing at
any time.
Ms. Lofgren. We have two distinguished panels of witnesses
here today to help us consider the important issues before us.
Our first panel this morning includes David V. Aguilar, who is
the Chief of the Office of Border Patrol in the Department of
Homeland Security. Mr. Aguilar has served for 26 years in the
Border Patrol, and is the Nation's highest ranking Border
Patrol officer.
We are also pleased that Igor V. Timofeyev, who is the
Director of Immigration Policy and a Special Advisor for
Refugee and Asylum Affairs in the Policy Directorate of the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, will join us. Mr.
Timofeyev, himself a refugee from Russia, previously served as
Associate Legal Counsel for the President of the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and as Clerk at the
U.S. Supreme Court. Quite an impressive resume.
Each of your written statements will be made part of the
record in its entirety, and so I would ask that you summarize
your testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay within
the time, there is a timing light at your table. When 1 minute
remains, the light will switch from green to yellow, to red,
and then start to blink incessantly when your time is up. As
you've noticed, I don't have a heavy gavel, but we do hope that
you try and stay within the time.
And so, Mr. Aguilar, we are so delighted that you are able
to join us here this morning. Would you please begin?
TESTIMONY OF DAVID V. AGUILAR, CHIEF, OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Aguilar. Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member King and
Members of the Committee, it is an extreme honor for me to be
here before you today at this historic American landmark to
testify about the United States Border Patrol. The men and
women, that day in and day out, protect this great country and
the challenges that we face as we ride the rivers, the
mountains, and the deserts of this great country.
It is especially humbling to do so on this ground that has
served this country and so many families as a gateway to a new
life and the dream of living as Americans. The men and women of
the United States Border Patrol have the duty and
responsibility of protecting our Nation's borders. Today we
speak about comprehensive immigration reform. Today, I will
restrict my comments to border security and border enforcement,
a critically important part of comprehensive immigration
reform.
Our priority mission is homeland security. Nothing less
than protecting our country from those who would enter
illegally between the ports of entry in order to bring us harm.
And we continue, of course, vigorously to enforce our
traditional missions of preventing the illegal entry of people,
smuggling of people, narcotics, and other contraband into our
country.
Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Committee, this country
has a responsibility to its history, its origins, it heritage,
and its people. The men and women of the United States Border
Patrol are very thankful to you, and all the Members of
Congress and your colleagues who have worked diligently to
provide DHS, Customs and Border Protection of the United States
Border Patrol, with the absolutely essential resources to gain
control of our borders.
There is much that has been done and is being done by many
throughout our country today to protect our rich heritage,
heritage of being an accepting people, a welcoming society, and
a country of laws. Today, our Nation faces tremendous
immigration debates. These debates should be vigorous. These
debates should be spirited. Americans recognize the value and
the benefits that legal immigration has brought to this
country.
But Americans also recognize the detriment that chaotic
levels of illegal immigration and an unmanaged, uncontrolled
border, brings to our country. In today's world, we must secure
our borders and we must manage immigration as a we facilitate
legal travel and trade. Last year, the United States Border
Patrol apprehended over 1.1 million people coming across our
borders illegally. We apprehended over 1.3 million pounds of
narcotics coming across our borders illegally. Over 108,000,
other than Mexicans coming across our borders, and over 152,000
illegal aliens with criminal histories attempting to re-enter
the United States after having been deported.
Approximately 98 percent of this activity occurred on our
Nation's southern border with Mexico. The Border Patrol carries
forth its responsibilities of patrolling and protecting
America's 6,000 miles of border between the ports of entry by
following an all threats strategy. Our resources are deployed
on a risk management basis that takes into account
vulnerabilities, risks, and threats. We employ an enforcement
model along our borders that balances what we refer to as a
right mix of resources. The resource mix is comprised of
personnel, technology, and infrastructure, along with the means
to rapidly respond to any incursion that occurs and that we
detect.
In November of 2005, the Secretary announced the secure
border initiative, of which increased border enforcement is an
absolutely critical part of a comprehensive immigration reform.
Today, the Border Patrol has over 12,700 Border Patrol Agents
along our Nation's borders with Mexico and Canada, a 30 percent
increase since 2001.
We have ended what has previously been known as catch and
release, of other than Mexican aliens that crossed our borders
in the past. We have implemented expedited removal of other
than Mexicans, which streamlines but ensures safeguards of
immigrant rights while we remove these people that have no
relief to immigration laws. We have implemented Operation Jump
Start. Operation Jump Start is the support of up to 6,000
National Guard personnel along our Nation's southern border
with Mexico that help build border infrastructure, perform
administrative functions, help manage our fleet, and especially
act as our eyes and ears on the border with Mexico.
Today, we are building fences, roads, installing border
barriers, and lighting at locations that will increase our
enforcement capabilities and efficiencies. I am very pleased to
report the accomplishments of these on-going initiatives and
others that are happening. Today, we have a very significant
and sustained reduction of flow across our Nation's border with
Mexico, approximately a 30 percent reduction of that flow.
Other than Mexican, apprehensions are down by about 51
percent. Narcotics apprehensions are actually up by 27 percent.
This is a good thing. A reduced flow of illegal alien activity
across our southern border with Mexico gives us the ability to
concentrate on threats that exist besides illegal immigration.
While it is correct that many of our resources are being
applied and directed toward the southern border, this does not
in any way reflect us ignoring our northern border. It is vast.
It is remote in very many areas. And it is an area that does
not have any worthy activity levels of the southern border. It
is an area where we enjoy exceptional relationships with our
Canadian law enforcement partners in an area that lends itself
to partnerships with the communities, farmers, and ranchers on
both sides of the borders.
We are working very hard with our Canadian and Mexican
counterparts to ensure that we do everything we can to protect
our borders.
Madam Chairwoman, I just want to say the following because
I think it is absolutely important. There are many today that
have asked whether the resourcing and enhancements of the
United States Border Patrol are, in fact, important to homeland
security. The answer is definitely yes.
Some people would believe that Border Patrol enforcement
capabilities are being increased solely for the purposes of
stopping illegal immigration between the ports of entry. The
fact of the matter is that an unmanaged, uncontrolled border is
an unsafe border. Not an unsafe border just for our border
communities, but an unsafe border for our country.
The high activity levels that our southern border is
experiencing creates opportunities for those that would come
into this country to bring us harm. An unmanaged border is
easily exploited by criminal organizations that seek to bring
drugs to our schools, our streets and our neighborhoods.
We have a responsibility, a responsibility to our
forefathers, to our children, to our children's children to
secure our borders. In order to remain an accepting society, a
welcoming people, and a society of laws, we must secure our
borders.
And in closing, while immigration inspectors worked these
hallways and offices back in the early days of our country, our
Border Patrol forefathers, who were known as the Mounted Guard,
patrolled the borders of our country on horseback on the
northern and southern borders of Mexico and Canada. Their
collective responsibilities were important to this country.
They defended our country by defending our borders. They kept
out disease, animals, criminals and others our society did not
deem welcome. Our responsibilities today as their successors,
are much greater.
The threats to our Nation are deadlier and the results of
failure would be catastrophic. Our mission has not changed. Our
resolve has actually strengthened.
I close, Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Committee,
Ranking Member King, by saying that it is very proper for this
hearing to be held here in the very ground where so many
millions of individuals legally took their first steps of
American ground toward their dream. Ellis Island represents
America's front door, America's golden door. We must keep it
that way.
Our mission, our responsibility is to protect and ensure
that America remains a welcoming country. To do so, we must
secure our borders.
Madam Chairwoman, I stand ready to answer any questions
that you might have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Aguilar follows:]
Prepared Statement of David V. Aguilar
CHAIRWOMAN LOFGREN, RANKING MEMBER KING, AND DISTINGUISHED
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS, it is my honor to appear before you at this
historical American landmark today to discuss American Immigration its
history and its promise. My name is David Aguilar, and I am the Chief
of the U.S. Border Patrol a component of the Department of Homeland
Security's (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). It is my
privilege to testify about the United States Border Patrol, the job
that our men and women perform day in and day out in protecting this
great country and our people, the challenges that we face and the
achievements that have been made along our country's borders. It is
especially humbling to do so on this ground that has served this
country and so many American families as a gateway to a new life and
the dream of living as Americans. Immigration has been one of the
wellsprings of our great democracy's vitality and together with our
written Constitution and the institutions and documents that support
it, constitute the framework of our nation's greatness.
The role of federal immigration at the Ellis Island Station started
on January 1, 1892 during the administration of President Benjamin
Harrison. Congress created this station in reaction to a great wave of
new immigration, itself made possible by late 19th century changes in
transportation technology. The mass of new immigration brought with it
threats of epidemic disease, organized crime, and radical ideology. The
Nation's response was to create a legal procedure through which lawful
immigrants could be screened, and to introduce stations like this one
as gateways for that lawful procession. From 1892 to 1924, Ellis Island
was the Nation's first line of defense, and the two agencies charged
with processing immigrants at Ellis Island were the United States
Public Health Service and the Bureau of Immigration (later to become
known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service--INS).
Since then we've seen great changes in the sources of immigration
and means of transportation, but little change in the nature of the
threats. Ellis Island worked to prevent the spread of Trachoma, while
we work to prevent the spread of SARS or avian flu. And while Ellis
Island deported individuals attempting to undermine our great
democracy, we now seek to detect and prevent any terrorist threat to
our national security. Unlike Ellis Island, however, which processed 70
percent of arriving immigrants--all of whom arrived on steamships--we
cannot concentrate all our efforts in one place. Today there are
hundreds of Ports of Entry--air, sea and land.
To better equip the Nation to focus on its now more diverse
immigration mission, on March 1, 2003, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service was divided into 3 separate agencies within the
Department of Homeland Security: Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
I would like to give you a brief review of our agency and mission.
CBP, as the guardian of the Nation's borders, safeguards the homeland--
foremost, by protecting the American public against terrorists and the
instruments of terror, while at the same time enforcing the laws of the
United States and fostering the Nation's economic security through
lawful travel and trade. Since 1924, the Border Patrol has grown from a
handful of mounted agents patrolling desolate areas along U.S. borders
between the Ports of Entry, to today's highly-trained, dynamic work
force of almost 13,000 men and women supported by sophisticated
technology, vehicles, aircraft, and other equipment. Contributing to
accomplishing our priority mission is the Border Patrol's time-honored
duty of interdicting illegal aliens and narcotics and those who attempt
to smuggle them across our borders. We cannot protect against the entry
of terrorists and the instruments of terror without also reducing the
clutter that is caused by illegal migration across our borders.
To most effectively secure our border, we must reform our
immigration system to relieve this pressure. We need comprehensive
immigration reform that supports border security, establishes a robust
interior enforcement program, and develops a temporary worker program.
The Administration is dedicated to comprehensive reform of America's
immigration laws by supporting border security, while maintaining the
Nation's tradition of welcoming immigrants who enter the country
legally. For immigration reform to succeed, it must be based on five
pillars: 1) strengthening security at the borders; 2) substantially
increasing enforcement in the interior to remove those who are here
illegally, and to prevent employers from deliberately or inadvertently
hiring illegal immigrants; 3) implementing a Temporary Worker Program
to provide a legal channel for employers to hire foreign workers to do
jobs Americans are unwilling to do; 4) addressing the millions of
illegal immigrants already in the country; and 5) helping new
immigrants assimilate into American society. The Administration's plan
will deter and apprehend migrants attempting to enter the country
illegally and decrease crime rates along the border. The plan also will
serve the needs of the economy by allowing employers to hire legal
foreign workers on a temporary basis when no American is willing to
take the job, bring illegal immigrants out of the shadows without
providing amnesty, and restore public confidence in the Federal
Government's ability to enforce immigration laws. As immigration reform
legislation is considered, it is crucial to heed the lessons of past
reform efforts and avoid repeating their mistakes. All policies for
comprehensive reform must be workable. In 1986 an opportunity was
missed by not crafting a law that was workable. We should not repeat
that mistake.
The only way good legislation will be passed is by working together
to craft a solution that all Americans can support and is worthy of our
great tradition as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. At its
base, comprehensive immigration reform should strive to end illegal
immigration, control our borders, and have a system that is at once
workable and enforceable while meeting the actual economic needs of our
country through humane and just legal immigration.
The Border Patrol's national strategy is an ``all threats''
strategy with anti-terrorism as our main priority. Comprehensive
immigration reform will serve to sharpen the focus of this priority.
Our strategy is a risk-management approach to deploy our resources. The
strategy recognizes that border awareness and cooperation with our law
enforcement partners are critical. Partnerships with the Department of
the Interior; Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Drug Enforcement
Administration; Federal Bureau of Investigation; State, local, and
tribal law enforcement agencies; and State Homeland Security offices
play a vital role in sharing and disseminating information and tactical
intelligence that assists our ability to rapidly respond to an
identified threat or intrusion, which is essential to mission success.
Recognizing that we cannot control our borders by merely enforcing
the law at the ``line,'' our strategy incorporates a ``defense in
depth'' component, to include transportation checks away from the
physical border. Traffic checkpoints are critical to our enforcement
efforts, for they deny major routes of egress from the borders to
smugglers intent on delivering people, drugs, and other contraband into
the interior of the United States. Permanent traffic checkpoints allow
the Border Patrol to establish an important second layer of defense and
help deter illegal entries through improved enforcement.
The Border Patrol has a clear strategic goal: to establish and
maintain effective control of the border of the United States.
Effective control is defined in the Border Patrol's strategy as the
ability to detect, respond, and interdict border penetrations. In order
to establish effective control in a given geographical area, we must be
able to consistently:
Detect an illegal entry;
Identify/Classify the entry and determine the level
of threat involved;
Respond to the entry; and
Bring the event to a satisfactory law enforcement
resolution.
Gaining, maintaining, and expanding a strong enforcement posture
with sufficient flexibility to address potential exigent enforcement
challenges is critical in bringing effective control to the borders.
Guidance at the national level for planning and implementation ensures
resources are initially targeted to gain and maintain effective control
in the most vulnerable, highest-risk border areas, and then to expand
this level of border control to all Border Patrol Sectors.
Crucial to effectively accomplishing our mission is SBInet. Through
SBInet, the technological component of the Secure Border Initiative
(SBI), CBP will continue to assess, develop, and deploy the appropriate
mix of technology, personnel, and infrastructure to gain, maintain, and
expand coverage of the border in an effort to use our resources in the
most efficient fashion. SBInet's expansion of a 21st century system of
cameras, biometrics, sensors, air assets, improved communications
systems, and innovative technology will provide the force multiplier
that the Border Patrol needs to perform its mission in the safest and
most effective manner.
The proper mix of personnel, technology, and infrastructure will
vary with differing border environments and enforcement challenges. The
Border Patrol operates in three basic geographical environments: urban,
rural, and remote. Each of these environments requires a different mix
of resources.
In an urban environment, enforcement personnel generally have only
minutes, or sometimes seconds, to identify an illegal entry and to
bring the situation to resolution. This dynamic is a result of the fact
that significant infrastructure exists to facilitate an illegal
entrant's approach to the border and entry and to permit the violator
to escape within moments of effecting the entry by blending in with the
legitimate traffic in the community. Typically, smugglers and potential
illegal entrants prefer urban areas due to the available
infrastructure.
In urban areas, the deployment mix will lean heavily on SBInet-
provided tactical infrastructure, such as lights and fences, supported
by sufficient personnel to quickly respond to intrusions. The
deployment tends to be of high visibility in that a potential intruder
actually sees the barriers, lights, detection capability, and patrols
occurring on or near the immediate border. The goal of deployment in an
urban area is to deter and/or divert potential illegal traffic into
areas where the routes of egress are not immediately accessible and
enforcement personnel have a greater tactical advantage.
In a rural environment, response time to an incursion can be
greater, as the time from the point of entry to assimilation into the
local infrastructure may be minutes or hours, exposing the violator for
a longer period of time and allowing for a more calculated enforcement
response. Deployment in a rural area will be less dependent upon such
things as pedestrian fences and stadium lighting and more dependent
upon SBInet solution sets involving detection technology, rapid access,
and barriers designed to limit the speed and carrying capability of the
violators.
In remote terrain it may take a violator hours or even days to
transit from the point of entry to a location where the entry may be
considered successful. This allows for a significantly more deliberate
response capability geared toward fully exploiting the terrain and
environmental advantages. Deployments in remote areas will lean very
heavily on detection technology and will include infrastructure geared
toward gaining access to permit enforcement personnel to confront and
resolve the event at a time and location that are most tactically and
strategically advantageous. Other infrastructure/facilities that may be
employed in a remote area include remote operating bases to provide for
full enforcement coverage in areas that are difficult to access on a
shift-to-shift basis.
While it is key that the right combination of personnel,
infrastructure, and technology be deployed, it must be coupled with
improved rapid response capability and organizational mobility. Each of
these components is inter-dependent and is critical to the success of
the CBP strategy. Operation Jump Start has provided a valuable
beginning to more rapidly achieving the goal of border security. 6,000
National Guard members have been deployed to the Southwest border to
support of the President's initiative to secure the border.
We are fully engaged with the DHS Science and Technology (S&T)
Directorate in our efforts to identify, develop and acquire technology
to help us gain enhanced awareness and control of our borders. Our
participation in S&T's Integrated Process Team on Border Security, for
example, will help us use S&T resources to develop technology that will
better secure our borders. Systems with the technological ability to
predict, detect, and identify illegal entries and other criminal
activity, but lacking the capacity for a rapid response or reaction,
cannot complete the enforcement mission. Conversely, enforcement
personnel with inadequate intelligence or poor technological support to
provide situational awareness, access, and adequate transportation or
equipment necessary to conduct enforcement activity are much less
likely to be effective in today's dynamic border environment.
There is no stretch of border in the United States that can be
considered completely inaccessible or lacking in the potential to
provide an entry point for a terrorist or terrorist weapon. Therefore,
securing every mile of diverse terrain is an important and complex task
that cannot be resolved by a single solution, such as installing fence
alone. To secure each unique mile of the border requires a balance of
technology, infrastructure and personnel that maximizes the
government's return on investment and is tailored to each specific
environment. Some of the components included by the Border Patrol and
SBInet in evaluating tactical infrastructure needs are border access
(the existence of all-weather roads), border barriers (vehicle and
pedestrian), and the lack of non-intrusive inspections equipment at
checkpoint facilities.
The hiring and training of agents present both a challenge and an
opportunity for the Border Patrol. CBP expects all training directed at
achieving the President's target of 18,300 Border Patrol agents on
board by December 31, 2008, to be conducted at the Border Patrol
Academy in Artesia, New Mexico. CBP and the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center (FLETC) have agreed upon a plan to train a minimum of
3,600 new trainees in fiscal year 2007, 4,350 trainees in fiscal year
2008, and 850 trainees in the first quarter of fiscal year 2009. The
Academy has increased the number of permanent instructors, detailed
instructors, and rehired annuitants to meet the increased training
load. Advanced Instructor Training to ensure that instructors have
appropriate technical and teaching skills is being conducted at the
FLETC facility in Charleston, South Carolina.
In the task of achieving border security, we partner with other DHS
components and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies
and the Government of Mexico, bringing together resources and fused
intelligence into a geographical area that has been heavily impacted by
illicit smuggling activity. Our efforts include building on
partnerships with the Government of Mexico to create a safer and more
secure border through the Border Safety Initiative, Expedited Removal,
and Interior Repatriation programs. In doing so, we continue to have a
significant positive effect on fighting terrorism, illegal migration,
and crime in that border area.
On the Northern border, the vastness and remoteness of the area and
the unique socio-economic ties between the U.S. and Canada are
significant factors in implementing the Border Patrol's national
strategy. Severe weather conditions on the Northern border during
winter intensify the need to expand ``force-multiplying'' technology to
meet our enforcement needs. The number of actual illegal border
penetrations along the U.S.-Canada border is small in comparison to the
daily arrests along the U.S.-Mexico border. The threat along the
Northern border results from the fact that over ninety percent of
Canada's population of 30 million lives within one hundred miles of the
U.S.-Canada border. It is most likely that potential threats to U.S.
security posed by individuals or organizations present in Canada would
also be located near the border. While manpower on the U.S.-Canada
border has significantly increased since 9/11, the Border Patrol's
ability to detect, respond to, and interdict illegal cross-border
penetrations there remains limited. Continued testing, acquisition, and
deployment of sensing and monitoring platforms will be key to the
Border Patrol's ability to effectively address the Northern border
threat situation.
Nationally, the Border Patrol is tasked with a very complex,
sensitive, and difficult job, which historically has presented immense
challenges. We face those challenges every day with vigilance,
dedication to service, and integrity as we work to strengthen national
security and protect America and its citizens. I would like to thank
both Chairwoman Lofgren, and the members of the Subcommittee, for the
opportunity to present this testimony today at this historic location
and for your support of CBP and DHS. I would be pleased to respond to
any questions that you may have at this time.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Chief. And now we will
ask Mr. Timofeyev to make his 5-minute statement.
TESTIMONY OF IGOR V. TIMOFEYEV, DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION POLICY
AND SPECIAL ADVISOR FOR REFUGEE AND ASYLUM AFFAIRS, POLICY
DIRECTORATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Timofeyev. Madam Chairman, Representative King, Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you inviting me to testify before
you today about the role of immigration in the development of
American society. I am especially honored that my first
appearance before your Committee, indeed before any
congressional Committee, is taking place at this symbolic
location, the Ellis Island Immigration Museum.
As an immigrant myself, and as someone whose ancestors have
passed through the halls of this building, I have an immediate
appreciation of the seminal role that the Ellis Island played
in immigration history of the United States. The challenge that
the Ellis Island Station was built to meet is the same
challenge we confront today, to find a way to encourage and
promote legal immigration into the United States that benefits
our country and ensures security, while also guarding against
illegal migration by achieving effective control of the border
and improving the enforcement of immigration laws in the
interior.
To meet this challenge, the Department of Homeland Security
is committed to realizing the President's vision of immigration
reform. Today, I would like to share with you some of my views
on the history of immigration, on important initiatives the
Department of Homeland Security is undertaking, and on some of
the principles we should keep in mind as we work to reform our
immigration system.
Throughout our country's history, a hallmark of American
immigration has been an emphasis on integration and
inclusiveness. Today, our country is receiving numbers of new
immigrants and faces new challenges in upholding this ideal.
With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security,
the Federal Government is reinvigorating its efforts to be
directly involved in integration initiatives, and alongside
community-based organizations, faith-based groups, and
educational establishments.
Notably, President Bush recently created the Task Force on
New Americans, an inter-agency group designed to enhance
efforts to proactively integrate new immigrants and encourage
assimilation.
The primary efforts of a task force are directed at
promoting instruction in English language and U.S. civics and
history as ways to equip immigrants with the means they need to
succeed.
I also would like to discuss a specific facet of
immigration, namely the refuge that the United States has
provided from its inception to individuals fleeing persecution.
Since its founding, refugees have come to, and have been
welcomed, in the United States in ever-increasing numbers.
Today, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a
component of our Department, houses both a newly-minted Refugee
Corps and a well- established Asylum Corps. These are corps of
professional officers who receive special training in
international human rights law, conditions in countries or
origin, and other relevant national and international refugee
law. Officers from these corps adjudicate tens of thousands of
asylum and refugee applications every year, thereby enabling
refugees and asylum seekers from all corners of the world to
receive the protection of the U.S. Government and resettle in
communities across the United States to begin their lives anew.
To meet today's challenges in the area of immigration, we
need Congress to enact immigration reform legislation that
would be both effective and workable. Two areas that will be of
crucial importance to immigration reform legislation are
worksite enforcement and programs for temporary guest workers
and for undocumented workers already in the United States.
Improvements in worksite enforcement are central to
effective immigration reform. By closing the existing loopholes
that allow illegal aliens to find jobs, we will remove the main
economic incentives that draws illegal immigration to our
country. In this respect, we should make it mandatory for
employers to use electronic employment verification system.
This is a system that would enable employers to confirm quickly
and accurately that the new employees are United States
citizens or worker-authorized non-citizens.
Two equally important components of immigration reform are
the creation of a lawful, orderly mechanism to enable foreign
workers to enter the United States on a temporary basis to fill
jobs for which U.S. workers cannot be found and the development
of a plan to bring millions of illegal immigrants working in
the shadows of our economy under the rule of American law. The
temporary worker program should have a built-in flexibility to
periodically adjust the number of guest worker visas issued
based on the United States' economic needs at a particular
time. This program would be a part of the overall effort to
ensure that our immigration system is well geared to serve the
economic needs of our society.
We should also allow undocumented workers who are already
in the United States to come out of the shadows, pay their debt
to society, and obtain legal status. Once these individuals
have achieved full reconciliation with the law, they should not
be precluded from beginning the process of legally integrating
themselves into the American polity.
We are working today on a difficult, but vitally important
task, of creating a workable, common-sense immigration policy
for America. This policy should enhance our security,
strengthen our economy, and honor both the rule of law and our
heritage as a Nation of immigrants. I thank you for the
opportunity to share some of my thoughts on this subject, I
look forward to working with you on this task, and I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Timofeyev follows:]
Prepared Statement of Igor V. Timofeyev
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Mr. Timofeyev. We now
have an opportunity to provide questions to these witnesses,
each of us, for a maximum of 5 minutes, and I will begin.
I would first note to both of the witnesses that their full
written testimony will be part of the record. I would like to
ask you, Chief Aguilar, in your written testimony, you stated
and I quote, ``to most effectively secure our border, we must
reform our immigration system to relieve the pressure'' caused
by illegal immigration.
From your perspective, how would comprehensive immigration
reform assist you and your officers in the important job of
securing our borders?
Mr. Aguilar. A well-designed and comprehensive immigration
reform program that works will mitigate the flow across our
borders, both north and south, will allow our enforcement
officers to concentrate on the threats coming at this country
from the perspective of people wishing to do us harm.
Today, unfortunately, the high levels of illegal
immigration across our southern border are quite chaotic. They
create opportunities for terrorists or people associated with
terrorism to mix in with that elevated flow, so it would
mitigate the flow. It would be a tremendous force multiplier
for the men and women of the Border Patrol to continue
protecting this country.
Ms. Lofgren. So recently we had testimony from a U.S.
Attorney who mentioned, and I really never thought about it,
but that there have been prosecutions of smugglers instead of
what you describe as the nannies coming across the border. If
I'm hearing you correctly, it would be a lot better to get the
nannies and the husbands and wives of people who are here in a
different situation so that you could concentrate on people who
are set upon doing bad things. Would that be a correct summary
of what you just said?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, ma'am. The flow that we deal with today
is very diverse. Fortunately, a lot of that flow is a very
docile flow, but mixed in with high number of people are also
criminals, the narcotics smugglers and everybody else that we
should be focusing on, so by reducing that flow of diversity
that is looking to come into this country for other than
criminal activities, would be a tremendous force multiplier for
us.
Ms. Lofgren. Now in your written testimony, you noted that
the Border Patrol's national strategy, and you just mentioned
in your oral testimony as well, was an all threats strategy.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Lofgren. And obviously, not only do I serve on the
Judiciary Committee, I serve on the Homeland Security
Committee, and terrorism is an important element of what we are
paying attention to and what we need to pay attention to. You
mentioned in the testimony that comprehensive immigration
reform would serve to sharpen the focus of the terrorism
mandate that you have. Could you elaborate on that? Is it
really the same issue as the other criminal activity where you
get the kind of good people who haven't fallen into our
immigration system, but they're not terrorists, they're not
crooks, sort of out of the way. Is that the theory?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, ma'am. As you stated, getting the people
that are not wishing to bring harm to this country off through
a regulated system into this country, it will allow us to focus
our efforts not only through the illegal incursions that will
occur, but through the focused efforts between Canada and
Mexico and intelligence, and work very closely with them, with
us on, that will allow us to focus and to pinpoint where the
threats, vulnerabilities and risks which are specific to
terrorism and anything having to do with the terrorist nexus.
Ms. Lofgren. Now I want to follow up. You touched on it
briefly on the--I hate the phrase, catch and release, because
it reminds me of going fishing with my dad, and it's not that.
But where people are detained and then previously were given a
ticket to show up and then they didn't. It's sort of a very
high failure to appear rate.
Has that ended? Is your testimony that that's no longer
happening?
Mr. Aguilar. The practice that we had, unfortunately, of
catch and release, related to the apprehension of people from
other countries other than Mexico, coming into this country,
being apprehended and due to a lack of housing capabilities,
bed space and things of this nature, we used to serve them with
a document, release them on their own recognizance and then
they would not show up for their deportation removal hearing.
That practice has, in fact, ended.
Today, as we speak, upwards of 95 percent of all of those
other than Mexicans are, in fact, being housed and removed from
this country effectively. The important piece of this is that
in the past, when we were releasing them, that in itself was
creating further draw into this country by actually housing
them, jailing them, removing them, that has now caused
deterrence which has caused a 50 percent drop.
Ms. Lofgren. My time has expired. So I will now turn to the
Ranking Member, Mr. King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I thank both you
gentlemen for your testimony today and in particular, Chief
Aguilar, I know what kind of a job you had ahead of you. We've
been to the border together and----
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
Mr. King. And it has helped my expanding perspective of how
big that problem is.
I turn my first question to Mr. Timofeyev, and I see here,
I didn't anticipate your testimony today, so I haven't had an
opportunity to read through it, just the verbal, but you're
here representing the Department of Homeland Security, is that
correct?
Mr. Timofeyev. That is correct.
Mr. King. And then as you speak, this would be the
Administration's policy here today?
Mr. Timofeyev. I certainly do not intend to contradict the
Administration's policy.
Mr. King. I hope that when you speak, we can count on that
as being the voice of the Administration's policy. Would that
be correct?
Mr. Timofeyev. I will do my best to do that.
Mr. King. Thank you very much. And so as--in your testimony
your talked about the--I'll use the term, the regularization of
illegals, let them pay a fine and then get them into a system.
Now the Administration has taken the position that they're
opposed to amnesty, so I'd ask you to define amnesty, if you
could, for this panel, please?
Mr. Timofeyev. Well, I think it is absolutely true. The
Administration and the President have been very clear that they
do oppose an amnesty for people who are undocumented workers,
or people who are here illegally.
So I would say that I'm not sure if I want to define
amnesty and give a dictionary definition. I think the
importance is that, as we work toward crafting the necessary
elements of immigration reform, we ensure that what we do does
not actually represent amnesty.
Mr. King. And if I might, there's been discussion out of
the White House about paying a fine of $1500 or $2000, learning
English as if that were a penalty, and I take that out of the
equation because I think that's something that's an asset, not
a penalty. But if $2000, would you presume or would you take
the position that that would substitute for the penalty for
unlawful entry into the United States and then that would not
be an amnesty, paying a fine would substitute for the penalty?
Mr. Timofeyev. Representative King, I think there are lots
of discussions going on. I know that certainly, Secretary
Chertoff has been meeting with lots of Members, both in the
House, in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, I know with
many Members of this Subcommittee, so I don't want to discuss
particular----
Mr. King. Excuse me, I can cut to the chase on that point
and that is if it's $2,000 or $1,500 or $100 or $10 or $1, it
really is a price for having a penalty absolved and so I wanted
to make sure that we had that part in the record and I
appreciate your testimony. And time going along here, with
Chief Aguilar, I wanted to explore a little bit with you, too.
I honestly have difficulty understanding how we can regularize
people in 12 million or 20 million or whatever that number is
and presume that that's going to take the load off of you. And
you had significant dialogue with the Chair here, but say if
it's 12 million people and that's the number, how do you do
background checks on people that don't really have a legal
existence in their home country and aren't you then giving them
the card that would allow them to come in and out of the United
States at will? And won't they have less scrutiny, rather than
more scrutiny on them if they happen to be carrying contraband?
Mr. Aguilar. By funneling legal people through the ports of
entry, it gives us the opportunity as a country to do what we
did with this very location here, to actually follow them
through an inspection point and make sure that they are
admissible and for purposes of contraband, also review what
they're bringing into this country. That's the first thing. So
bringing them through the legal ports of entry.
Representative King, I have been asked many, many times
this similar question. I don't know what the answer is as to
how we take care of those 12 million people, but the answer
that I have had on a constant basis is the following, that I
believe as an American, forget that I'm the Chief of the Border
Patrol, is that we need to do what is right for the 300 million
Americans today and the millions to come.
We cannot allow the 12, the 14, the 18 million that are out
there today to impact on the future of this country. I don't
know what the design is. But I do know that we need something
in place to be able to inspect, to regulate, to modify, the
situation that we have right now across our borders.
Mr. King. And I thank you, Chief. And I think this does
illustrate how difficult it is when we've got so many
hypotheticals in this comprehensive immigration proposal that
it's impossible to divine what alternatives we might have to
take down the road or year or two or five. And you'll know that
that's why I think that enforcement first is the thing we have
to do in order to get some clarity on the rest.
Mr. Aguilar. Absolutely.
Mr. King. And I point out that we're spending now $8
billion on the southern border. That's $4 million a mile and
we're getting $65 billion worth of illegal drugs coming across
that border.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
Mr. King. On an annual basis. And so your job is very, very
difficult. And I appreciate the work that you do and I yield
back to the Gentlelady.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. Next I'd like to invite
Congressman Gutierrez to ask his 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you very much. First, I'd just like to
state that it never ceases to amaze me that people will first
of all complain or make allegations that the new immigrants
that come to this country because they can communicate so
readily with their countries of origin, don't want to learn
English; and then when there are others who say we're going to
make it a requirement that they learn English, they somehow
cast that aside as something that you should do. Either we
should or we shouldn't. And I think everybody on both sides of
the aisle should say that people should learn English. I mean
it should a basic, fundamental requirement. But I would just
like to ask either of the two, is it a requirement to become a
permanent resident of the United States today in our laws to
pass an English and a civics test?
Mr. Timofeyev. It is a requirement, indeed, not to become a
legal or permanent resident, but to naturalize. There, it is a
requirement.
Mr. Gutierrez. So it is part of the legalization process of
the undocumented, we change the rules and advance learning
English and taking a civics class is that indeed not a change
in the law in order to require these people to do something
different because of their status of undocumented in this
country? The only ones that have to pass one is to become a
citizen, am I correct?
Mr. Timofeyev. That is sp currently.
Mr. Gutierrez. That is currently the law.
Mr. Timofeyev. That is currently the law.
Mr. Gutierrez. So when people propose that people we have
changed the law, we have advanced that issue and I think that's
a very, very important aspect of what we do in comprehensive
immigration reform and we should all just say good, we agree.
That is something substantially that we agree on.
I would like to say that I think that most people will
learn English. My parents only spoke Spanish. I'm sure, I know
that Congresswoman Sanchez' parents only spoke Spanish. I think
Congresswoman Sanchez is incredibly articulate and passionate
with her command of the English language. Many times I put on
the TV set and I watch highly elected officials of the United
States of America, of cities and States, that were born here
and I find a richer command of the King's English from those
that come from immigrant backgrounds than from those that have
spent many decades here in this country.
I would like to go to Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gutierrez. You--I went back and read your testimony
because I think what you do is so important and I wanted to
thank you and all the men and women in the Border Patrol.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Mr. Gutierrez. You said you caught how many people last
year trying to enter illegally?
Mr. Aguilar. Last year, between the ports of entry was just
over 1.1 million.
Mr. Gutierrez. And how many people that you inspected had
criminal records of that 1.1 million?
Mr. Aguilar. About 152,000.
Mr. Gutierrez. About 152,000.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gutierrez. So a little over, close to 10 percent, maybe
right around 9 to 10 percent.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gutierrez. And the other 90 percent crossed that border
with the intention of what, Mr. Aguilar?
Mr. Aguilar. The vast majority of that clutter, that chaos
that we have on the southwest border currently are people
looking to come into this country for the purpose of seeking
employment.
Mr. Gutierrez. Do you know how many visas are issued
annually for people to come to this country in the low-skill
category?
Mr. Aguilar. In the low-skill category, I'm going to have
to look to my partner here. He's the expert in those areas.
Mr. Timofeyev. I believe that it's around 5,000.
Mr. Gutierrez. It's around 5,000. So we have 900,000 people
ready to come to this country, crossing the border illegally
into the United States to come to look for some form of work
and I think I know what kind of form of work because every time
I sit down at a wonderful gala and I've got my suit on and my
tie and I look around the room and I see people of my social,
economic class, and then I see people who have the same last
name that I do and speak the same language that my parents
brought here, serving the plates. I think I know what kind of
work they come to do. So comprehensive immigration reform has
to include a mechanism, Mr. Aguilar, as a border enforcement
agent, do you believe that would allow people to come to this
country legally seeking those new job opportunities?
Mr. Aguilar. I agree with that statement. Yes, sir. To
regulate the flow that is currently occurring into this
country, moving it from between the ports of entry to the ports
of entry the people, the 90 some percent seeking economic
betterment, if you will, the problem with that elevated flow is
those preying on them that create the criminal organizations,
the smugglers, the dopers that create chaos.
Mr. Gutierrez. And we want to help you keep them out. I
would like to ask the Chairwoman because I was following up on
your line of questioning, maybe we could have established what
the Department of Labor, our Department of Labor, indicates the
creation of low-skill, low-wage jobs are every year in our
economy and compare that to the 5,000 visas, what we create and
how many visas we actually have.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Gutierrez, this is the first of many
hearings, and I'm sure that is one of the issues that we will
get into at subsequent hearings. I would now like to invite the
gentlelady from Texas to ask her 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much and I
started out my remarks this morning emphasizing the fact that
we have the mandate, the absolute no choice to engage in this
Congress, comprehensive immigration reform. And I also noted
that as I traveled through this wonderful historic building
with a great sense of emotion that the stories on the walls
indicated whether the Irish came in the 1800's, the late
1800's, the mid-1800's or others in the early 1900's and others
who came continually in the 20th century, there was an economic
basis for many of those who came and maybe some fleeing
political persecution.
So Mr. Timofeyev, I would simply encourage you not to step
away from what I read in your testimony. It is a valid
statement, either immigrants who are here undocumented, can
stay beneath the shadows, or as you specifically say they can
come out of the shadows, pay their debt to society, and obtain
some form of legal status which is what is now the charge and
the challenge of the United States Congress.
My question to you, one of the failing processes of our now
years past, not being able to get this right, is an active
viable executive, whether it is the Department of Homeland
Security which I sit on the Subcommittee or the full Committee,
or the President of the United States. And so the message is
the President has to be engaged and my understanding is you
read this last part, am I to take from this sentence that
you've at least been allowed by the Administration to say come
out of the shadows, pay their debt to society, and obtain legal
status. Is that accurate?
Mr. Timofeyev. That is quite accurate.
Ms. Jackson Lee. That means now we have a partner in what
we have been calling and I'm not akin to names, I'll take any
name you call it, but we've been calling comprehensive
immigration reform. We have a partner, is that my
understanding?
Mr. Timofeyev. I think both the President, and certainly
the Department of Homeland Security, have been always very
explicit that this is one of the parts of the President's
vision of immigration reform.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And if you would for me, and certainly I
know that you would say I can speak for myself and I can, I'll
get the phone number and call up in just a moment, but would
you for me carry back the message to the President of the
United States that his activism on changing the policies
constructively to reflect the diversity of America is
imperative now? I'd appreciate if that message could be carried
back.
Mr. Timofeyev. Sure. And I would just say that the
President has certainly been very active on this issue and so
has Secretary Chertoff. I will be happy to carry back that
message.
Ms. Jackson Lee. We thank you so very much. Chief, might I
probe you as my colleagues have probed, because one of the
interesting points that you have made is the massiveness of the
work that you have on that border. Sometimes we are jaded by
your single focus.
Let me just ask a logistical question. Over the sessions
I've carried legislation dealing with equipment and I'm going
to ask this question because I know that if you got equipment
last year, some other equipment have aged out.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. In the course of you securing the borders,
can you use more power boats, laptops, night goggles,
technology that can help you be more effective in the securing
of the border in the 21st century?
Mr. Aguilar. Absolutely. Yes, ma'am. And I'm happy to
report that we are getting a lot of that equipment, literally
as we speak. The hiring of the agents that is occurring now,
2500 this year, 3000 next year, and 500 by the year after that,
commonly referred to as a modular cost that equips all of our
agents with that. The SBInet contract that was let in September
also, $1.2 billion, in order to get us the technology to do our
jobs, absolutely.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me, because my time is short, just say
that I assume that as new personnel are coming in, more
equipment and more sophisticated equipment might be needed.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So we should be vigilant on those issues?
Mr. Aguilar. Absolutely.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me point you again to the question of
what you do on the border. My understanding, I serve on the
Subcommittee on Crime on Judiciary, as well, worked on these
issues of drug interdiction and drug smuggling. My
understanding is that you have really been challenged with
respect to drug cartels and drug violence on the border. And I
think it is very important to distinguish and highlight that
work versus what I believe you answered my colleague,
Congressman Gutierrez, to say that you have a docile economic
seeking group of individuals that are coming, different from
the violence of drug individuals or drug cartels and others.
May I yield to you for the answer on that?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, ma'am. And I'm very glad that you asked
that question because just as an example.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And you should not mix apples and oranges.
Mr. Aguilar. Absolutely.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Illegal immigrants or undocumented
individuals either whether here--well, let me just say that by
and large coming across, your numbers suggest by and large
economic, even though we know there's some mixture in there.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. But go ahead, let me yield to you.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes. Absolutely. That's a very important part
of what I need to communicate--what the men and women of the
Border Patrol are doing.
As an example, on the 23rd of March, I received the
invitation to come here and testify. Since that day, we have
had 17 assaults against our Border Patrol officers. We have
apprehended 52,000 pounds of narcotics; 1100 pounds of cocaine.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Those are assaults by drug actors, if you
will.
Mr. Aguilar. And smugglers, yes, ma'am. A total of over 400
assaults against our officers this past year. So it is a very
dangerous job. It is a very critical job to this country and
the portion of illegal immigration is the portion that creates
that clutter that has to be mitigated.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Madam Chair, I will just simply say that I
wanted that clearly on the record because whenever there is
violence at the border, whether northern or southern border, we
seem to have one pool of population that we seem to blame.
There are other challenges at the border. I look forward to
working with the Chief on these challenges, and my
understanding of his testimony is it would help him if we had
comprehensive immigration reform to separate out those
populations for him to be able to do his job.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. And our final Member is
Congresswoman Sanchez for her 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Madam Chair. My first question is
for Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Sanchez. When discussing the situation at the border,
you observed that securing every mile of diverse terrain is an
important and complex task that cannot be resolved by a single
solution such as installing a fence alone.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Sanchez. Now lately in Congress, the fence idea has
gained a lot of traction and for many people it's become the
solution in their mind. If we just build a fence that's big
enough and long enough and thick enough, that's going to be the
solution to our immigration problem.
I want you to discuss for us some of the potential
downfalls of building a fence along the border and also perhaps
elaborate on some other solutions that might make our border
less porous, that might work a little bit better than a fence.
Mr. Aguilar. Okay. It would usually take me about an hour
and a half to 2 hours to cover this----
Ms. Sanchez. If you could do it in a few minutes----
Mr. Aguilar. I'll condense this very quickly. A fence will
be utilized where it makes sense and where it makes sense is
going to be very specific to the terrain that we're going to be
addressing. We have three environments in which operate in the
United States Border Patrol; an urban environment, downtown San
Diego, a fence makes sense. In a rural or remote environment,
it might and it might not. The challenges that a fence brings
with it is the ability to defend that fence. I have often used
the analogy of what happens when a tree falls in the forest,
does anybody hear it? What happens when somebody crosses a
fence in a wide open space, or rural or remote area that we
can't defend? So what we need is a combination of
infrastructure, technology and personnel that will give us the
following capabilities. One, is to detect an illegal incursion.
Two, is to deter it, if at all possible. Three, is to respond.
And four, is to bring resolution, a proper law enforcement
resolution to that incursion. We do that by technology,
personnel and some infrastructure.
Ms. Sanchez. I appreciate your answer. Mr. Timofeyev, one
of the reasons that so many people in the past were able to
immigrate to this country legally, and in particular I'm
referring to what we learned about Ellis Island today, is
because of the efficiency of the system in which they process
people. And in fact, we learned that passengers in first class
weren't even really inspected when they got here. They were
just allowed to enter the country and they didn't need to be
processed.
About 80 percent of the case work that I get in my District
office is some kind of immigration-related case work, and we
found that sometimes people wait 10, 15, 20 years or more to
reunite with their families. So I'm interested in knowing in
your opinion how we could rectify that wait time and make it a
little more efficient so that our system is a little more
humane.
Mr. Timofeyev. I certainly think we should do everything we
can to have an efficient processing and inspecting system and
these are somewhat different issues, in fact.
And I actually think we've always been careful to inspect
everyone. I think actually the first class passengers, if I
remember my history lessons correctly, were usually inspected
right on the boat, so they were treated a little bit
preferentially than people like my great grandfather, who came
in the third class, who had to be processed here on the island.
I think that CIS, Citizenship and Immigration Services, has
certainly done a lot to make sure that the backlog of
applications they had in recent years is being cleared, that
they processed all the applications where individuals were
entitled to get the visa benefit at that time.
I think with respect to the family, a lot of family-based
applications for green cards for people to come here, I think
the question often is the question of how many visa slots are
allotted to those people. So it is not just a processing
question, though that is a part of it, but it's also a question
of how our system is structured. Our system today is
structured, I think, so that about 60 percent of people who
come to become legal residents do so on the basis of
connections. So it's a sizeable portion.
Ms. Sanchez. And just very quickly, last question that I
have time for, I'm particularly interested in some of the
comments that you had about the temporary worker program. We've
had them in the past, the Bracero Program and that program
lacked meaningful enforcement of wage and labor condition
protections and that led to unsafe and unsanitary working
conditions and allegations of extremely poor wages.
After looking at the history of that system, I'm interested
in knowing what you believe would be the necessary components
of a guest worker program to help ensure that workers both
foreign and American workers are protected?
Mr. Timofeyev. I'm not sure I have an exactly answer for
you today. I think--I certainly agree that we should--the
questions of wage differential, worker conditions and
protections for American workers, those are important
questions. And we should make sure that, however the program is
structured, that we guard against potential exploitation.
I mean this is a very large question on which really our
Department, the Department of Labor and I think this Committee,
other Members of Congress have to engage in a lot of
discussions to see what can we learn from history, what are the
appropriate moving parts of the immigration reform in that
particular structure.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. And we thank the two of
you very much for your being here with us this morning, not
only for the testimony, but the opportunity to take a look at
this magnificent place and to start our discussions with that
weight of American history behind us. So thank you both very
much.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Timofeyev. Thank you very much.
Ms. Lofgren. We will now hear from our panel of
distinguished speakers. First we will hear from Daniel J.
Tichenor, Associate Professor in the Department of Political
Science at Rutgers University. Aside from his position at
Rutgers, Professor Tichenor is an External Faculty Research
Fellow at the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the
University of California, San Diego. He has also served as a
visiting research scholar the Center for the Study of
Democratic Politics at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson
School of International and Public Affairs.
Our next witness is Dowell Myers, a Professor of Urban
Planning and Demography, at the University of Southern
California, where he serves as Director of the Population
Dynamics Research Group. Professor Myers is an advisor to the
U.S. Census Bureau and has authored the most widely referenced
work on census analysis. He recently published a book with the
Russell Sage Foundation titled Immigrants and Boomers--I'm
one--Forging a New Social Contract for the Future of America.
Next we have Dan Siciliano, Executive Director of the
Program in Law, Economics, and Business, at Stanford Law
School; a former Truman Scholar, Professor Siciliano has taught
and researched at Stanford's Hoover Institute and conducted
macro economic policy analysis at the U.S. Congressional Budget
Office in Washington, D.C. He is also a research fellow with
the Immigration Policy Center.
Our fourth witness is Mr. Jack Martin, Director of Special
Projects at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, as
Washington-based national immigration reform organization. Mr.
Martin formerly served as a Foreign Service Officer in the U.S.
Department of State and on U.S. delegations to the U.N. General
Assembly.
Mr. Bruce DeCell is a member of the 9/11 Victims for a
Secure America. His son-in-law was killed while in a meeting on
the 92nd flood of the World Trade Center on 9/11. He is reading
the testimony of our witness, Michael Cutler, who fell ill this
morning. Mr. Cutler is a former INS Agent and current Fellow
for the Center of Immigration Studies. So Mr. DeCell will be
reading his abbreviated testimony and we do appreciate your
filling in.
So, as before, the written statements, the entire written
statements, will become part of the record and I will note that
there's already been demand from some of our colleagues in
Congress for the witness statements.
So if we could start with you, Dr. Tichenor.
TESTIMONY OF DANIEL J. TICHENOR, Ph.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
Mr. Tichenor. Madam Chairwoman, Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you
today. My name is Dan Tichenor and I am a Research Professor at
the Eagleton Institute of Politics and an Associate Professor
of Political Science at Rutgers University.
I have researched and written extensively on our Nation's
immigrant past and the development of our immigration policies
over time. I am delighted to provide some historical
perspective on contemporary immigration reform. As one of our
most beloved historians, David McCulloch, aptly observed, ``a
Nation that forgets its past can function no better than an
individual with amnesia.''
Let me begin by highlighting that the American people and
their leaders have been debating about immigrant admissions and
rights since the earliest days of our Republic. It is a debate
that defies the standard partisan divides of our politics,
reflecting four ideological traditions that are captured in my
written statement.
In today's often contentious political environment, I think
it is useful to appreciate that each of these durable
ideological perspectives on immigration is driven by a concern
for the national interest. Alexander Hamilton soberly pointed
to the value of immigrant labor for national growth and
prosperity. Henry Cabot Lodge emphasized the importance of
national security and sovereignty. Frederick Douglass urged us
to achieve greater economic and social justice for our least-
advantaged citizens when we think about immigration. And Jane
Addams and John F. Kennedy reminded us of the universality of
our republican experiment, noting that our democracy not only
survived but grew stronger and more vibrant with new
immigrants.
At a time when opposing viewpoints are too easily denounced
and vilified, I think we would benefit from recognizing the
well meaning and patriotic reasons for many of our
disagreements over immigration. I also want to underscore that
our past reveals that each wave of ``new'' immigrants has been
scorned by critics as incapable of successfully joining our
ranks only later to be distinguished among our most loyal and
accomplished citizens. We see an historic pattern of xenophobic
reactions to groups such as Irish Catholics, who were
associated with Papal conspiracies; the Chinese, whose
religious and racial dissimilarity inspired brutal exclusion;
and Southern and Eastern Europeans, who were deemed too
radical, criminal and intellectually inferior to admit.
We have tended for some time to celebrate our immigrant
heritage while dreading the immigrant present. As early as
1751, Benjamin Franklin fumed that Germans were ``swarming''
into Pennsylvania neighborhoods without regard for our laws,
customs, and shared values. These newcomers were so culturally
and linguistically different from his English brethren that he
was convinced that Germans would never assimilate like previous
settlers--noting that they would ``Germanize us instead of our
Anglifying them.''
As the descent of German immigrants, I'm happy to report
that while my family probably eats more sausages and potatoes
than the Surgeon General recommends, we are otherwise well
assimilated. Our Nation's nativist past should remind us that
anxieties about the latest newcomers have often proven to be
overwrought and unfounded.
Finally, the origins and development of our illegal
immigration dilemma highlight a series of compromises over time
that fed the Nation's appetite for cheap labor, while creating
a vulnerable shadow population and undermining the rule of law.
Deals were struck among policymakers in the 1920's, for
instance, whereby national origins quotas all but closed
overseas, immigration from Europe and Asia while legal and
unauthorized Mexican labor was encouraged to flow easily across
our southern border.
At the same time, as Ellis Island and other stations gave
way to draconian consular inspection overseas with tragic
consequences for Jewish refugees in World War II, Mexican labor
flows overwhelmed an underfunded and undermanned Border Patrol.
Later mass deportation campaigns proved to be capricious and
ineffective. As the late President Ford's Domestic Counsel
Committee concluded 30 years ago, ``mass deportation is both
inhumane and impractical,'' requiring police state tactics
``abhorrent to the American conscience.''
We finally enacted employer sanctions one decade later, but
they never stood a chance of working. America's checkered
illegal immigration history underscores why our generation must
make tough choices to fix the system, recognizing the practical
and ethical reasons for giving work place enforcement real
teeth and for giving undocumented immigrants an opportunity to
earn legal status. I look forward to answering your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tichenor follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel J. Tichenor
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
Dr. Myers.
TESTIMONY OF DOWELL MYERS, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF URBAN PLANNING
AND DEMOGRAPHY, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Mr. Myers. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Members of the
Committee. It really gives me great pleasure to appear before
you today and I thank you for the opportunity. My name is
Dowell Myers. I'm a demographer and professor at the University
of Southern California. I hope Madam Chair won't hold that
against me. It's the wrong part of California.
Ms. Lofgren. We've got someone from Stanford sitting next
to you, so it's all right.
Mr. Myers. It all evens out. Over the last decade, my
research group has conducted a number of studies about
immigration and immigrant well-being in America. I'm pleased to
report that a number of these findings have now been summarized
in a book just released this month, a great accomplishment for
me, a book called Immigrants and Boomers. I will try to
highlight some of the main points in that book into my
testimony today.
So I really have just four points to make in my oral
statements. First, the social changes we find underway in the
United States are part of a global demographic transition.
They're not unique to the United States alone. Throughout the
whole developed world birth rates have fallen, far below the
replacement level and populations are rapidly aging. Not only
is there a surging number of older people to be supported, but
at the same time for lack of sufficient young people, labor
force growth is slowing down markedly. It is this overall
demographic transition that is one of the main reasons why
immigrants are being drawn into so many countries.
Now the second point I want to make is about how this aging
problem impacts the United States specifically. Now the good
news here is that we are in much better shape than are all the
European nations or Japan. Our birth rates are higher and our
aging is slower. Hear that, aging is slower. It's great to be
an American. Nonetheless, we do face a dramatic crisis because
of our Baby Boom generation which you all have heard so much
about already, I know. But it's really no exaggeration here.
There are 76 million Americans who are rapidly aging led by, by
coincidence, Presidents Bush and Clinton, who were both born in
the first year of the Baby Boom, 1946. They're leading the
charge.
Now beginning right after the year 2010, 3 years from now,
this tidal wave of older Americans will cross age 65. And the
ratio of all those aged 65 and older compared to all those who
are prime working age which I call 25 to 64, will rise
dramatically. In fact, the ratio of elderly will grow by 30
percent for two decades in a row, totalling a 60 percent
increase by the Year 2030. This has, as you might imagine,
tremendous consequences for Social Security, Medicare and other
old age support systems that fund the services entitled by our
elderly. This crisis starting in 3 years is one of double
decades of 30 percent growth. So what does this have to do with
immigration?
Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, my major point today
is that immigration plays an important role in moderating the
impact of these growing elderly numbers. Certainly immigration
cannot stop the aging of America, but it can help to blunt the
impact of the growing elderly ratio we must absorb. My
calculations suggest that without immigration, the impact of
the rising elderly ratio would be about 20 to 25 percent more
severe.
My final point is just how much immigrants can benefit us
by their economic mobility after they arrive and as they settle
in longer. Too often we judge immigrants only when they're
newcomers, not after they have been here. The longer immigrants
reside in the United States, the higher is their economic
status. Let me just describe one fact that I think illustrates
the magnitude of the point that I'm making here. Homeownership
is widely regarded to be the American dream and a prime
indicator of entry into the middle class. My studies have shown
a pervasive pattern of strong upward mobility into
homeownership by immigrants, including those living in
California, New York, Texas, Florida and the whole of the
United States.
Let's talk about Latino immigrants, who are not always the
most advantaged when they first arrive. The stunning fact is
that after they have lived in this country for more than 20
years, more than 55 percent have become homeowners. After 30
years, the figure grows even higher. It is clear from these
data that Latino immigrants are climbing into the ranks of the
middle class. They can help us close the gap caused by so many
retiring Baby Boomers.
Madam Chair, let me just close my remarks by reiterating
that immigrants and the aging of the Baby Boom are closely
related. One can help address the problems and challenges posed
by the other.
Thank you for receiving this testimony today here on Ellis
Island.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Myers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dowell Myers
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Dr. Myers.
Mr. Siciliano.
TESTIMONY OF DAN SICILIANO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE PROGRAM
IN LAW, ECONOMICS, AND BUSINESS, STANFORD LAW SCHOOL
Mr. Siciliano. Madam Chair, and Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My
name is Dan Siciliano and I am the Executive Director of the
Program in Law, Economics and Business at Stanford Law School.
I'm also the Senior Research Fellow for the Immigration Policy
Center that is a nonpartisan think tank for these matters.
I've submitted written testimony with detailed analysis
outlining various economic principles and for the interest of
brevity and to try to make some things that are sometimes
confusing a little less confusing, I have four main points
which I've categorized.
First, a discussion about a storm, a demographic storm
which I will make more brief because Dr. Myers covered it so
well; a war, which is really a war for talent; an experiment
which is underway; and then an opportunity that I think
lawmakers face now.
First, we have a looming super storm, a demographic storm
with tremendous economic consequences which I'll expand on in a
second. We also have a quiet and profoundly impactful war for
talent, entrepreneurial spirit, drive and the spirit to strive
and succeed that is going on for people who we need to ensure
our Nation's dominance over this next century.
We also have an experiment that has been underway for
almost 40 years, one that has already run most of its course
and tests the premise that immigration, both skilled and
unskilled, is good for an economy, generally good for workers
and businesses alike. That experiment is called California. And
it's been underway for 40 years. And California is one of the
most successful and vibrant States of our Nation and in the
world, and yet it has experienced over these 40 years, both at
the skilled and unskilled levels, levels of immigration that
are sometimes two to three times in excess of the national
average.
And then finally, we have an opportunity. The economy is
something hard to understand. We pretend sometimes that know a
lot more than we actually end up knowing, but we can observe
one thing and that is that the economy is consistently telling
us that there is a divide between what we say we want to do
about immigration and what the economy needs in terms of
immigration at both levels, the unskilled and the highly
skilled. And I think we are well served to listen to that.
To summarize the issue about the storm which I'll make
briefer, productivity growth we know is peaking. We wish it
wasn't, but it happens to be peaking at this time, more in the
2 to 2.5 percent annual range instead of the 3.5 or 4 percent
we experienced before. Labor participation rates in our country
at about 66 percent or more are among the highest in the
industrialized nations and are also probably peaking.
Retirement looms for tens of millions and our native-born work
force grows gracefully older and better education, which is a
testament to success in other areas of our public policy, but
presents a tremendous challenge.
This means that between 2002 and 2012, we will generate at
our trend rate of 3 percent GDP growth, about 14.6 percent more
jobs. Our population rate of growth for workers will be at
about 11.7 percent across that same time frame, even accounting
for all types of immigration. This will leave millions of jobs
lacking and impair the economy and over time either adjust that
trend growth rate down or create dysfunction inside the economy
which could result in other issues.
We are at war over talent and talented people, not just
smart people with double Ph.D.s coming from other places to
populate our research labs, although that's a very important
part of it, but also people who have the chutzpa, the desire to
show up with $200 something in their pocket and do whatever
they can to become successful. And that talent battle is one
that is always waging. There's no easy solution as to how to
win it, but we do know from an economist's viewpoint, the issue
of national security, for example, from an economist's
viewpoint is one as much of who we let in and who we manage to
keep and whose interest we capture and whose children we
excite, as it is as much who we keep out, because over time,
the vibrancy of our economy is essential to our national
security.
And then finally, the experiment which is California. It's
clear from the studies of the likes of Giovanni Peri and others
that taking even the historical Borjas data set we know that 9
out of 10 U.S. born native workers benefitted from 1990 to 2006
to the tune of between 2 and 3 percent total wage growth
because of immigration. One out of 10 did not. Those were high
school dropouts and others in the same demographic category,
but most everyone benefitted. We know that in California the
story with the backdrop of more immigration is even stronger
and more profound. And so we can discern from this that done
correctly immigration benefits the average worker.
Finally, and in summary I think that we must listen to the
economy, acknowledge that it has been vibrant and successful
and ask what part of that has been very important and one part
was acknowledging the need for skilled and unskilled labor and
to normalize what our laws say by allowing more people in to
address that need and ensure continued economic growth.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Siciliano follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dan Siciliano
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
Mr. DeCell, thank you for coming today.
TESTIMONY OF BRUCE DeCELL, MEMBER OF THE 9/11 VICTIMS FOR A
SECURE AMERICA (READING THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL W.
CUTLER, FORMER SENIOR SPECIAL AGENT OF THE INS, FELLOW AT THE
CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES)
Mr. DeCell. Thank you very much.
``Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, Members of
Congress, ladies and gentlemen; it is an honor and a privilege
to''--I'm sorry--``it is an honor and a privilege to appear
before this subcommittee. It is especially fitting to conduct a
hearing about the past, present and future of immigration at
this important historical location, Ellis Island. According to
the Ellis Island Museum, from 1892 until 1954, this historic
facility processed nearly 12 million aliens seeking to begin
their lives anew in our land of freedom and opportunity.''
Being that I'm reading this for my, he says, ``My mother, in
fact, was one of those who first set foot on American soil when
she stepped off the ocean liner that brought her to the United
States a few short years before the onslaught of the Holocaust
that caused the death and suffering of so many millions of
innocent people. My grandmother, for whom I was named, was one
of the 6 million who was killed for no reason other than the
fact that she was a Jew. My father was born in the United
States but his parents and most of his siblings arrived at
Ellis Island in 1908 from Russia seeking the freedom and
economic opportunity that were not possible in their homeland.
``The United States was indeed built by immigrants and New
York City is perhaps one of the most ethnically diverse cities
in the entire United States of America. New York is not only an
extremely diverse city; it is a city that celebrates its
diversity with a great deal of passion. During the summer
months there is rarely a weekend when there isn't a parade,
street fair or food festival that celebrates the many different
cultures, ethnicities and religions. Our nation is greatly
enriched by this diversity, living up to its motto, E Pluribus
Unum, `From one, many. From many, one.' I am nearly as proud of
being a New Yorker as I am of being a citizen of the United
States.
``However, as we celebrate the lawful immigration of people
from all over the world who enter our nation in accordance with
our laws, to share the `American Dream' I believe it is
critically important that we distinguish between those aliens
who enter our nation lawfully and those who enter our country
in violation of law. Not long ago I sat in an auditorium at a
college on Long Island, watching a series of panel discussions
as I awaited my turn to participate in a discussion about
immigration. I heard one of the speakers make a disturbing
point. She said that in the old days immigrants came through
Ellis Island, today they come across the Mexican border. That
simple statement illustrated that the debate about immigration
often loses sight of reality. Ellis Island was not simply a
terminal where aliens arrived and then waited to catch a ride
to some town in the United States. Ellis Island was a facility
that provided immigration inspectors, public health officials
and others the opportunity to screen those aliens who were
seeking to enter the United States to enjoy a better life, a
better way of life than was possible in their native countries.
Simply arriving here was no guarantee of being admitted to the
United States. Ellis Island was, in effect, America's waiting
room.
``If there was a doubt that the arriving alien might harbor
a dangerous communicable disease, that person was kept here as
long as necessary, until public health officials could
determine if that applicant for admission posed a health risk
to our citizens. Similarly, Ellis Island provided law
enforcement officials with adequate time to identify those who
might be fleeing criminal prosecution in their homelands. In
those days there were no computers that could assist with this
vital issue.
``Today when aliens run our nation's borders without being
inspected, the potential exists that these aliens may carry
disease. These aliens may be fugitives from justice in their
home countries who have extensive criminal backgrounds. In this
perilous era, the potential also exists that these aliens may
be involved directly or indirectly with terrorism. This is not
a matter of xenophobia; it is a matter of common sense. Our
nation needs to know who is entering or seeking to enter our
country. At present it has been estimated that there are from
12 million to twenty million illegal aliens in our country
whose true identities are unknown and ultimately unknowable.
Because they are undocumented, we cannot be certain of when
they entered the United States and in fact, we cannot even be
certain as to their true nationalities. The President has
called for legalizing illegal aliens which would require our
beleaguered adjudications officers at USCIS to suddenly have to
confront many millions of applications for amnesty filed by
aliens whose identities can not be verified. I fear that
terrorists and criminals would seize this opportunity to
acquire official identity documents in fictitious names in
conjunction with such a guest worker amnesty program and use
those documents as breeder documents to create new identities
for themselves, obtaining driver's licenses, Social Security
cards and other such documents. They could then use these
officially issued documents to embed themselves in our country
and also circumvent the various terror watch lists and so-
called no fly lists.
``I started out by telling you how proud I am to be a New
Yorker. On September 11, 2001 the United States was attacked
but the focal point for much of the destruction was the iconic
World Trade Center complex that would have been easily visible
from this island on which we are now conducting this hearing.
Our nation needs to balance its desire to open its doors to
legitimate visitors and immigrants with the need to protect our
nation and our citizens from those who would come here and do
us harm.
``Virtually all homes and apartments come equipped with a
front door that has a peephole and a door bell. This is
provided so that the responsible homeowner may determine
whether or not to open his door to the stranger who shows up on
his doorstep. For the United States, Ellis Island provided that
peephole. Today millions of aliens enter our nation in
accordance with law through many ports of entry. Many come for
a temporary visit to engage in commerce, tourism, education or
to visit a friend or family member. These visitors are
inspected by an inspector of CBP who can attempt to determine
the intentions of aliens seeking entry into the United States.
It is a daunting job with a serious responsibility. I speak
from experience because for the first 4 years of my career with
the INS I worked as an immigration inspector at John F. Kennedy
International Airport located not far from here.
``Other aliens enter our country as immigrants, seeking to
reside in the United States permanently, contributing to the
vibrant tapestry that comprises the United States of America.
``Of course, this inspection process is not without its
failings and, indeed, it is estimated that perhaps as many as
40 percent of the illegal alien population of the United States
did not run our nation's borders but were admitted through the
inspections process and then, in one way or another, violated
the terms of their admission into the United States, either by
overstaying the temporary period for which a nonimmigrant alien
was admitted, accepting----''
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. DeCell, you're about 6 minutes over. I
wonder if you could summarize or leap to the end. It's hard
when you're reading someone else's testimony, I know.
Mr. DeCell. I'm sorry.
Ms. Lofgren. That's all right.
Mr. DeCell. In summary, what it boils down to is that it
sounds nice to let everybody come into our country, but there
are people out there who are going to do us harm and before we
open up our doors, we have to secure our borders and make sure
that the people are here that we know who they are and their
documents are verified.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cutler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael W. Cutler
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much and for filling in at the
last minute.
Mr. Martin, we're going to expect you to stay within the 5
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF JACK MARTIN, SPECIAL PROJECTS DIRECTOR, FEDERATION
FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM
Mr. Martin. Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, Members
of the Committee, this site here at Ellis Island is important
in reminding us of our immigration history. Actually, we should
remember that during a period of the development of our
country, we didn't have an immigration policy. We had open
borders. I think that it's also worthwhile remembering that
during part of our history, the States actually recruited for
immigrants, sending missions abroad to attract immigrants to
this country. But the country changes and the needs of the
country change. And immigration policy is a discretionary
policy. It is set by our policy makers presumably to be in the
national interest. And what is to be the best benefit of the
country.
The fact is that Ellis Island was a screening station. It
was not intended to simply admit everyone, but rather to admit
those people who by our policy we considered would be a benefit
to the country and to exclude those who would--were not
admissible under our laws. Our immigration policy has changed
over time. The most recent reminder was this morning in reading
in the Washington Post the Administration is apparently
considering as part of its comprehensive immigration policy
eliminating sibling reunification. We have to remember that the
Jordan Commission in the mid-1990's recommended a significant
reduction in legal immigration as well as new controls against
illegal immigration. One of those recommendations was doing
away with extended family reunification. Another was
eliminating unskilled immigration. Yes, the number is only
5,000, but we have more people in this country that are
unemployed, under employed, seeking their first jobs than we
have people illegally working in this country. We have to
consider those people as well.
My other major point that I would like to make is that it
is important in any analysis of the effects of immigration on
the United States to make a very clear distinction between
those people who are admitted into the country legally pursuant
to our immigration policies that have been designed in the
national interest and those people who have come into the
country outside of those immigration laws basically to suit
their own interests whether it's economic advantage of taking
advantage of gullibility of the American people.
In particular, I would like to suggest that any study that
lumps together legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, whether
assessing education, assessing economic impact, assessing
impact on crime rates, basically does a disservice to people
who are legally admitted because those people have been
subjected to screening. They're screened, for example, for
previous criminal activities or the likelihood of engaging in
criminal activities. I've done so myself as a consular officer
abroad. I know how that works. Whereas those people who come
into the country illegally are not screened. And they are much
more likely to be attracted into some type of criminal
activity, whether they came in for that purpose or not. And I
don't mean to say that all people in the country illegally are
involved in criminal activities. That certainly is not true.
But my own studies have found that the incidents of criminal
activities by those people who are in the country illegally is
higher than those of the general public. And I would suggest
that you can derive from that a conclusion that it is not
irrational for a country or a community to want to screen out
people who have come into the country not subject to our
criteria of admission.
And I know that there are communities across the country
that have become increasingly concerned with regard to the
settlement of people illegally residing in this country, not
only because of the fact that they have seen association with
crimes, but other fiscal impacts and other impacts that are
harmful to their communities. And they, of course, are looking
to the U.S. Congress to offer relief from this situation which
has not been forthcoming thus far. But I think that if we take
an accurate focus on how the United States has changed over
time, what the economic needs of the country have changed over
time, what those needs are at the present time, we will come to
a more intelligent decision with regard to designing an
immigration policy for the future.
And lastly, I would simply note that during the period of
time that we had restrictive immigration between 1914 and 1965,
I don't know of any study that suggests that the United States
was harmed economically, or militarily, or industrially.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jack Martin
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. Your time has expired. And we will
now go to questions for the witnesses, noting that their full
testimony is a part of the record and an important part it is.
I will begin, and I'd like to talk first to Dr. Myers. Your
entire testimony is very interesting to me and I plan to share
it with the Administration and others who are looking at this.
You mentioned that we face two decades of 30 percent increases
in what you call the elderly burden, in other words, people
like well, I was born in 1947, not the oldest Baby Boomer, but
close to it, that basically I'm going to be looking to the
younger people to work and pay my Social Security and in the
sense that I hear you right, you're saying if we don't make
sure we have an adequate flow of immigration when I'm in the
nursing home, there's going to be no one to help me out with my
dribble on the chin. Is that about right?
Mr. Myers. Not quite. Certainly you need help in a nursing
home, but you're going to need help with a lot more than that.
I was reflecting that here we are on Ellis Island. I'm looking
at my data. It's in a chart, Figure 1 in my testimony. And back
in 1900, the heyday of Ellis Island's admissions, there was one
senior, aged 65 and older for every 10 workers, aged 25 to 64.
And then in the most recent decades, last three or four
decades, it's been about 2.5 senior for every 10 workers. And
coming up here in the next 10 years, and the next 20 years,
we're going to 4 seniors for 10 workers. And that really alters
the nature of America. We used to have just a lot of people at
the bottom supporting the top. And now we're going to have a
lot more people at the top expecting support from the bottom
and it's going to really press us to deliver all the services
that seniors need, not just nursing home attendants.
Ms. Lofgren. And because of our birth rate, immigration can
help ameliorate that phenomena.
Mr. Myers. It won't solve the aging problem, but it can
definitely make a contribution in maybe a quarter of solving
the problem.
Ms. Lofgren. Let me ask Mr. Siciliano, we appreciate your
coming out as well all the way from California, you cite the
work of the economist Giovanni Peri and many of us are from
California. His study found no evidence that immigrants
worsened the employment of native-born workers with similar
educational experiences, and in fact, his study showed that
between 1990 and 2004, immigration actually led to a 4-percent
real wage increase for average native-born workers. Now people
are worried about the impact of immigration on the wage rates
of Americans. How could he find--what's going on here?
Mr. Siciliano. Thank you. I think it's important to note
that in the last five or 6 years our demographic and
econometric tools, the way we look at data and how we analyze
and how we isolate factors has improved tremendously and Dr.
Peri is kind of leading that front.
The reason, the difference, the way he concludes this fact
that, in fact, wages are going up because of immigrants is by
isolating the behavior of how small and medium size businesses
invest capital. Obviously, it takes labor and capital to run a
business and when you have constraints in both you have to make
decisions. It turns out that our old models which kind of held
capital as fixed and then we just fluctuated the labor and
looked to see what would happen, were not the appropriate
approach. In fact, we know in the real world what happens is
small and medium size businesses, when they're faced with
different opportunities for hiring different levels of skilled
labor, alter their capital mix and optimize. The classic
example is the same restaurant, same table, same cutlery has a
dinner session, but can't do lunch because it can't find the
right qualified people. With the right qualified people it adds
lunch. That capital is more efficiently deployed and that
business owner might then open another restaurant across town.
Everyone grows and benefits and that's the insight from
Giovanni Peri's work which supports that conclusion.
Ms. Lofgren. Dr. Tichenor, your full testimony is wonderful
and so--I learned so much reading it. As a matter of fact, it
filled in some gaps in my own family history. Lots of times
people say well, we're for immigration, but we want it to be
the way it used to be. I hear that all the time, and many of us
do in our districts. My grandmother actually was stuck with her
mother and younger brother in Sweden for 13 years while her
father earned enough money to send them second class. What--
explain how the immigration worked at that time in terms of
first class, second class? What was the rejection rate at Ellis
Island and put a little context in how was it the legal way
then?
Mr. Tichenor. What's interesting is that we had different
tiers of admission. So that, for instance, if you came over on
a steamship and you were riding in first class, you, in fact,
didn't come through Ellis Island. You would actually have one
of our agents who would come and inspect the passage
information from the captain of the ship and you would go on
your way. And it was, in fact, those who were in steerage
class, who would then be funnelled through like my grandparents
were funnelled through Ellis Island. We have from the very
beginning a kind of a first class entry and a second class
entry system. And if we add the undocumented experience today,
I guess we have a third version.
So one of the things that's quite striking is that when
Ellis Island and other inspection stations and key ports of
entry were in operation, the focus was on individual issues of
whether we wanted to exclude someone for basically individual
reasons, whether it was for health problems or clear signs of
criminality and so forth. It was the great exception, in fact,
to exclude someone under those conditions. And what became
unfortunate is that our shameful national origins quota system
that was enacted in 1924 created a system where we focused on
groups and that's really where we went wrong. One of the
effects of that was that families were separated. Those who
came in, in the earlier part of this century, after the quotas
were in place, the flow slowed to a trickle and as a result
many families were separated for decades and it was very
tragic.
Ms. Lofgren. My time has expired, so I will turn now to Mr.
King, the Ranking Member.
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to thank all the
witnesses for their testimony and say it's a rare opportunity
to have. I understand the security position the two witnesses
have delivered here. So we're an opportunity to have in
addition an historian, a demographer and an economist in front
of me and try to put this together in 5 minutes to figure out
how to solve this intractable problem.
So I'm going to ask macro questions here and hopefully it's
going to bring some illustrations. First of all, you mentioned,
Mr. Tichenor, a xenophobic reaction and you talked about
Franklin saying they will have Germanized us before we
Americanize them. I'm going to ask a hypothetical then. Let's
just say the Isle of Atlantis emerged and there were a billion
people on the Isle of Atlantis and we decided we're going to
take them all in in one fell swoop in a given year. They have a
different language, a different culture, a different religion
and they refuse to assimilate. Does it affect our culture?
Mr. Tichenor. Oh absolutely. One of the punch lines for Ben
Franklin was that, in fact, the Germans did help Germanize the
United States as much as they were affected by the English
population. So there was a blending. I'm sorry, you wanted----
Mr. King. My point will be then is culture a part of this
debate, this immigration debate, and is there is a missing
component to the American culture that we should be reaching
out, trying to fill? Is there a void like we might have an
economic void that's in our culture, or would you conclude we
have a fairly complete culture? What's missing?
Mr. Tichenor. I don't think we're missing anything in our
culture. I would say that we've always been a Nation becoming
and so as such we've always added extra layers to it and if
anything, those who are the biggest critics over time, of a new
wave of immigrants bringing in a new culture that they find
threatening, it's that they've been impatient with how long it
takes, in fact, for newcomers to assimilate.
Mr. King. So we'll conclude then that it is, that it can be
overdone, that there is a pace that would be an appropriate
pace. We just probably don't know that.
Mr. Tichenor. I think that's correct, yes.
Mr. King. And I thank you. And then Dr. Myers, the
demography, the question I would have on the macro scale would
be, I know you're familiar with the kind of chart that shows a
different generation, the sizes of the generations, kind of
like stacked checkers, one bigger, one smaller and we are Baby
Boomers, pretty good sized checkers here. And so what is the
optimum configuration of the generations of a society so that
the younger generations can sustain the older generations? Is
there a way to do this with a static population and get it
right or are we always going to have to go for growth in order
to meet it and at the bottom of this question is who is going
to take care of the retirement of the millions of people whom
you have proposed to bring in here to pay for the retirement of
the people like the Chair and myself.
Mr. Myers. That's some very good reasoning you have there.
It's called a population pyramid and traditionally it's a
pyramid shape, but the way it's evolving in Europe and North
America is to more of a cylinder. But temporarily, we have a
problem. Because we had so many kids in the Baby Boom----
Ms. Lofgren. Could you pull the microphone a little bit
closer? Thank you.
Mr. Myers. Sorry, I didn't realize. We have a problem in
that we had so many kids during the Baby Boom that now they're
moving up into the elderly ranks, so where it should be
tapered, it's bulging at the top. Our problem is the next 20
years, sir. We have to get past the next two decades and absorb
this bulge.
Mr. King. But what's optimum?
Mr. Myers. Optimum would be, I think if it was not top
heavy, it was a little larger at the bottom, but you can't have
optimum because whoever is in one age group moves up. So if you
have two few kids, they move up and become two few workers. If
you have too many kids, then you have too many workers.
Mr. King. So if you exceed your growth, then you're locked
in to having to continue to exceed your growth in order to
adapt, unless you would have the kind of prosperity that will
allow the senior people to take better care of themselves
economically.
Mr. Myers. In the long run, it will smooth out, but we have
to get past the next 20 years. So all I'm saying is that this
crunch that we're facing needs to be softened.
Mr. King. And I understand that. Mr. Siciliano, then--and I
read through your testimony with great interest. It's detailed
and I appreciate the thought you put into it. My question comes
back to it seems as though as you extrapolate this and use your
dynamic model that there isn't a place where you have
demonstrated in your testimony, at least, where you hit the law
of diminishing returns. Where is that? Let's go to the billion
people from the Isle of Atlantis who had come over here and
work for a dollar an hour and consume $15 an hour. Where do you
cross that line and can you produce for this Committee a matrix
of how we could set up the optimum economic impact on America's
economy by identifying the very best demographic of immigrants?
Mr. Siciliano. I think it's hard to understand where that
point comes. And you're right, you can't just extrapolate this
argument to an infinite level. One thing we know with certainty
is that if we look backwards and we say let's take a snapshot
of the last 16 years. We have 1990 to 2006 data which is very,
very good. And let's ask the question how many immigrants
impacted the work force and the answer, depending on how you
counted both documented and undocumented, ranges from 800,000
to 1.4 million a year. And then we ask the question how did the
economy do during that time? And the answer turns out to be
really, really well, all things considered. We have deep
resiliency and growing wages. And so one thing we can say with
fairly high certainty without knowing what the upper bound is
is to say that the mid-bound which is relatively safe and maybe
even necessary is in the range of what we've experienced
historically in the last 16 years and hence we need to alter
the--if we all agree with the premise that all immigration
should be legal and planned and deliberate and screened, then
we need to alter what we're doing now to accommodate that
historical trend.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Siciliano. And a very quick
question then back to Dr. Tichenor. When General Winfield Scott
was in Mexico and we signed the Treaty of Hidalgo in I believe
1848, why didn't the United States when they were in the middle
of Manifest Destiny just stay there? There must be a historical
reason for that and I don't know the answer.
Mr. Tichenor. I don't know. We can find out for you.
Mr. King. I look forward to that and I thank the
gentlelady, and yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. King. We'll now go to the
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Gutierrez.
Mr. Gutierrez. Yes. The microphones. Well, thank you all
for your wonderful testimony this afternoon. I'm going to go
back to Dr. Tichenor. So if I were to say that in the 1840's,
1850's, if we were in Boston, there might be news accounts
about these immigrants that were coming to the United States
that were hungry, not very well educated and apart from that
could corrode or undermine our American way of life because
they were Catholic and not White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Would
that be correct?
Mr. Tichenor. That's absolutely right.
Mr. Gutierrez. And if it were the turn of the century, we
were here in New York, we might even pick up the venerable New
York Times and find someone accusing the Italian immigrants of
coming here and undermining our society because somehow they
had a suspect criminal element to them. Would that be correct?
Mr. Tichenor. Right on target.
Mr. Gutierrez. Okay, so if they were wrong about the Irish
and they were wrong about the Italian immigrants as has been
evidenced in the history of the United States, tell me how they
won't be wrong making those same arguments about today's
immigrants?
Mr. Tichenor. We're obviously on the same wave length, as
you know, from my testimony on this. And we make these mistakes
all the time and one of the best funded, but poorly researched
studies was the Dillingham Commission Reports which occurred in
1911. You can go to the library and find 40 plus volumes there.
It spent a record amount of money to investigate the question
of these new immigrants. And they were focused particularly on
Southern and Eastern Europeans at the time. And we carted out,
I hate to say, our best social scientists and scholars on the
issue, and we got it wrong.
Mr. Gutierrez. And indeed, the history of America is
replete with even political parties in and of themselves and
political parties taking up the issues of immigration as a
focal point of what they believe in and stand for and asking
people to vote for them based on their immigration policy.
Mr. Tichenor. Yes, that's right. And on occasion, parties
decided to go in an anti-immigrant direction. The Whig Party,
for instance, in 1844 with Henry Clay, and decided afterwards
that they had gotten whipped badly by these new immigrants who
had become assimilated into the political system quickly.
Mr. Gutierrez. It's interesting because the Pew Research
Group yesterday indicated to us that last year more people
applied in unprecedented numbers, statistically speaking,
unprecedented, for American citizens, that's legal, permanent
residents. And I always tend to think that maybe that's come
around again since let me see, in January, February and March
of last year, the hits on the U.S. citizenship for petitions,
let me see, for applications to become American citizens, just
off the charts. I don't know maybe, we passed some very
repressive legislation, anti-immigrant legislation, but I don't
think it was their New Year's resolution from that immigrant
community. So that's happened before.
Mr. Tichenor. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Gutierrez. I mean in terms of immigrants playing a key,
and changing the political dynamics in this country.
I'd like to now go to Mr. Siciliano. I want to get this
right. You're saying that the productivity of Americans workers
is at an all-time high, that is, the people that are working
are producing really well. They're very productive. And that
those that can work are able to work, our labor participation,
that is those that can work, have ample opportunity to--we've
got lots of people working and very low unemployment in terms
of them. But then we have this older population of people as we
have. So I guess what you're saying is that workers that we've
got working are working real well and most people who can and
are able to work are working and our economy continues to
expand at who's going to do that work?
Mr. Siciliano. It looks like our short-run constraint is
likely to be people to be labor. Because though our
productivity does continue to advance, we become more
productive every year and it is the source of our great wealth
among other things. It isn't going to be four or 5 percent
gains. It's going to be 2 percent, maybe 1.8 percent and that
means you have to turn and find more people to produce the
economic gains that we have and to work on the jobs. And the
participation rates, we don't have the ability to have women
join the work force or have others join the work force.
Mr. Gutierrez. Let me ask you a question, so we know we
need to secure our borders, and I know that we are going to
find fundamental agreement among all the Members of the House
of Representatives, we know we're going to do that. I think
America, the tradition of immigration has always been based on
the unity of families, so I don't think we're going to change
that or there might be some attempt to change that, but in the
end economic security is also a basic fundamental part of our
immigration policy, and if we don't deal with new workers and
having those workers, do we put at risk our economic security
of this country?
Mr. Siciliano. Economic security is arguably, in my
opinion, the foundation of democratic stability and national
security. Without economic security, everything starts to fall
apart.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you all so so much. I'm going to read
all the other stuff that you put out in the books to read.
Thank you.
Mr. Siciliano. Thanks.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Gutierrez. We now turn to the
gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, again, and thank all of the
gentlemen for their testimony and might I offer to Mr. Cutler
my best wishes. We've worked together in the past. So thank you
so very much.
The history of this building that we're in is, I think,
complemented by the individual stories that you've heard most
of the members, I believe all of the members of the panel,
recount their immigrant histories, their grandparents, and I
might note that you sense that we said it with a sense of
pride. I think that is the downfall of the undermining of our
basic values that we have demonized immigration, immigrants. We
have labeled them and therefore it clouds the political process
of getting to the right solution. For example, I always try to
put on the record that immigration and in this city of such
great history of the moment, dealing with 9/11, I still try to
make clear that immigration does not equate to terrorism. And
my good friend indicated that I don't think you could find one
partisan divide on the question of securing the homeland, both
the northern and southern border. There is no doubt.
So once we get that on the table, and I don't see anyone
here shaking their head saying no, I don't think we want to
secure the homeland. We want these borders to be secure. Part
of that is a system that works, that deals both with legal
immigrants, because we don't need to reflect on 9/11 where some
were statused or had visas and also those who may not be
documented. Let's look at the holistic issue that we're
confronting.
Let me quickly then raise these questions with you and try
to get this sense. First, Dr. Tichenor, and because of my
opening remarks I beg of your indulgence for quick answers.
We've been erratic in the United States Congress. We started
probably way back in the 1800's and before, but 1924, I cited
in my opening remarks we then said you know what, I don't want
these Eastern Europeans, I don't want to these Asians, let me
just stick with the Western Hemisphere. Then we came back in
1965 and said okay, we've got an overload, let's go back to two
hemispheres and then we'll let family members in. Would
consistency and structure help us be more adaptable? Because
what I'm asking you is we've been moved by politics, by
emotion, by someone is taking my job, would we now need to look
to this concept of comprehensiveness so that it can be a
breathing law that grows with America?
Mr. Tichenor. I think absolutely and to give one quick
example, one of the sources for undocumented immigration are
the huge backlogs in terms of reunited families. And so----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Not that we have that policy as a
suggestion by the Administration, we'll cut down on reuniting
families, but let me not interrupt. Go right ahead.
Mr. Tichenor. The quick point is simply that decoupling
these aspects of our immigration policy between cracking down
on porous borders and on undocumented immigration from legal
immigration preferences is I think one of those examples of
inefficiency.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And I want to just emphasize that we had a
1924 bill that shut down on the Europeans and Asians and we
went back to 1965, we changed it again. And we went to 1986 and
we got something that everybody calls amnesty, and it's a
bitter taste in some of our Members and others that have
different perspective. But coming now, Dr. Myers, full circle,
let it be clear that those of us who are looking at
comprehensive now are starting out with English even before the
citizenship track. I think that should be well noted. And I
just--your demographics, and I want to just raise this quick
question about the fact of more foreign doctors and nurses
which have become a source, a needed source, but can't we
parallel that, and Mr. Siciliano, would you comment, too,
because I see the yellow light on. Can't we parallel the need
for foreign nurses and doctors in this instance? I think that's
been proven that our numbers have gone down, with the idea of
investing in American workers by way of training and otherwise,
so that immigration does not equate to my job being lost
because there's certainly a dearth of professions or trained
persons in a lot of the areas that immigrants are in, besides
the unskilled, nurses, doctors, because you have the
professionals saying I'm losing my job. How do we match the
engine of immigration with making sure Americans have jobs and
retain jobs?
Mr. Myers. Well, we have this shortage of workers that's
coming up because of the retirements. And we have some
neglected youth who we could train up. And I think as part of
this package, it would be good to think about how do we invest
in the youth we have here today now, because the more they can
fill those jobs, you wouldn't need to have, import so many
doctors, perhaps.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Nurses.
Mr. Siciliano. I think that's exactly right. It's a 20-year
plan and we need to have a plan for Year 0 through 20 and we
need to begin investments so that after Year 20, it starts to
pay off. And I think it really does have to be a comprehensive
approach, and it's not a displacement. It is complementary, an
augmentation. If people can't be taken care of and be made
healthy and if health care becomes too expensive, that offsets
other pieces of the economy, so we have to take care of that
now, not just in 20 years.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And so training American workers is also a
component of the economic----
Mr. Siciliano. It's not mutually exclusive. In fact, you
almost, at a certain level with the nursing shortage, have to
make sure you have immigrants available so that you have
sufficient training staff. Our shortage has become so critical
that you almost can't secure the next generation of nurses.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentle lady's time has expired. And we
will go to our last questioner, the gentlelady from California,
Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all
of the witnesses. I don't know when I've been so excited about
the information that I've received from a congressional panel,
so I have to say you've all done an excellent job.
I want to start my questions with Mr. Siciliano. Lower-
skilled immigrant workers tend to be over-represented in
certain industries, agriculture, for example, landscaping,
textile, etcetera. I'm interested in knowing if you could tell
us what would be the economic impact if we restricted immigrant
labor in those industries?
Mr. Siciliano. I think a lot of people wonder if the impact
would be that wages would simply go up, right, because people
wouldn't be available, so they'd have to pay more wages and you
would get higher wages in those industries. We know from
empirical evidence that that probably isn't the case. The
bottom line is many industries would become non-viable and
after initial spike in inflation related to those industries,
the industries themselves would probably go away. People would
simply not be able to access landscapers, and the like.
The long run is a little more complex, but in the short run
I think it would collapse those industries.
Ms. Sanchez. One of the arguments that is often used
against immigrants coming to this country is that they take
American jobs away from American workers, and something that I
am familiar with, both with experiences my family has had and
constituents that I represent, is that folks that are in the
country in undocumented status often work for the lowest wages
and in the most dangerous or inhumane working conditions. How
would this country--what would the economy look like if people
who are currently working in an undocumented status could get
their citizenship and would pay taxes on their wages and the
underground economy didn't exist? If we could clean that up
through getting these folks into a legal, viable work program?
Mr. Siciliano. That's a hard question, but I think one
thing that can be said is that we'd be benefitted by the fact
that there are people in the economy, particularly undocumented
workers who are sometimes taken advantage of and where wage and
hour rules are not applied correctly, where OSHA rules are not
applied correctly. By bringing those people into the regular
economy, we can enforce that more aggressively and any worker
who takes advantage and violates these now should be stopped
and punished. I think everyone generally agrees with that, but
this would make that easier.
And in the long run it would also make it easier for the
children of these immigrants, and this is important, to
continue what we refer to as the virtuous cycle of climbing up
the economic and social ladder of the United States. Right now,
the underground economy such as it is may make that harder
which I think a dangerous trend which should be interrupted.
Ms. Sanchez. Okay, Dr. Myers, this sort of dovetails very
nice into that last point. In your written testimony, you state
that immigration has a role to play with respect to the aging
Baby Boomer crisis, but you also state that those who are
already settled and becoming incorporated into our communities
can provide even more assistance. I'm intrigued to know what
you mean by this and comparatively speaking, compared to other
countries, how has America fared in trying to integrated
immigrants and allow them to rise up the economic ladder?
Mr. Myers. Let me just take that last question first, if I
may. I don't know any other country on the planet where some of
the poorest immigrants that they bring to the country can
become home owners after 20 years. The fact that over half of
Latino immigrants in California, a high priced State, become
home owners is astounding. It's not possible in Germany or
France or any of those other countries.
The beauty of immigration is that immigrants don't remain
constant. They're not frozen in time. And as they settle in,
they develop this power, this upward mobility that invigorates
our whole economy. The housing market in California is
notorious for its high prices and you wonder how do immigrants
survive in that. They buy at the bottom of the market and it's
through their energies that they push up the market from the
bottom and the person in Beverly Hills then has the high priced
house supported by the infrastructure of all these small owners
at the bottom. It's that energy of immigrants who are settling
in and incorporating and they're working their way up the
ladder that pushes up the economy from the bottom. And I think
that we shouldn't think about immigrants coming in new and all
of a sudden playing that role. It's when they get settled on
the ground or their children and then they come up from the
bottom that that's the real advantage.
Ms. Sanchez. Okay, I have one last question. I wonder if
you could speak to the changing settlement patterns of new
immigrants. Do they generally help rejuvenate communities with
shrinking populations, or do they simply push out native born
workers out of those communities?
Mr. Myers. Well, there are a class of Americans who wish
they had some immigrants coming to their town. But immigrants
really only go where there's job opportunities that are
growing. For example, in Texas, Houston is the mecca for
immigration, not San Antonio, which has the most Mexican-
Americans, but it doesn't have the job growth. And so
immigrants gravitate to where the new openings are, not where
existing workers are they're pushing aside. They really a
growth oriented.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you very, very much. I would like
to thank all of the witnesses for their testimony today.
Without objection, Members will have five legislative days to
submit any additional written questions for you which we will
forward and ask that you answer as promptly as you can to be
made part of the record and without objection, the record will
remain open for five legislative days for the submission of
other additional materials.
I would just like to close by thanking not just the
witnesses for truly exceptionally fine testimony, but for
members of the public who have sat here with us, to listen. You
are sitting on the benches that the immigrants sat on waiting
to be called when they were here at Ellis Island. We thank you
for listening and participating in that way. I'd like to thank
also the Park Service and the Border Patrol for their wonderful
participation.
I'd like to thank the staff of the Committee on both sides
of the aisle for their hard work in making this hearing
possible at such a wonderful and historic place and I would
like to thank the Members of the Committee for coming up here
this morning from Washington, so that we could help illuminate
the numerous issues that concern us in our wonderful country,
both in the past, in the present, so that we can create a
future for America that's as vibrant and exciting and
prosperous as our wonderful history has been. So with that,
this hearing is adjourned with thanks to all.
[Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the hearing was concluded.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Michael Chertoff, Secretary,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security