[House Hearing, 110 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] SHORTFALLS OF THE 1996 IMMIGRATION REFORM LEGISLATION ======================================================================= 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 __________ APRIL 20, 2007 __________ Serial No. 110-25 __________ 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 34-759 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York JIM JORDAN, Ohio ADAM B. SCHIFF, California ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 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 Mendoza Jaddou, Chief Counsel George Fishman, Minority Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- APRIL 20, 2007 Page 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.............................................. 1 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.. 3 WITNESSES Mr. Douglas S. Massey, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, Princeton University Oral Testimony................................................. 8 Prepared Statement............................................. 11 Mr. Paul W. Virtue, former INS General Counsel and Executive Associate Commissioner, and Partner, Hogan & Hartson Oral Testimony................................................. 27 Prepared Statement............................................. 29 Mr. Hiroshi Motomura, Kenan Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law Oral Testimony................................................. 40 Prepared Statement............................................. 42 Mr. Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies Oral Testimony................................................. 48 Prepared Statement............................................. 50 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................................ 2 Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary........................... 5 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................................ 6 APPENDIX Material Submitted for the Hearing Record Submission to the Record by 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: ``Information on Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal and State Prison and Local Jails'' from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, April 7, 2005.................................................. 64 Answers to Post-Hearing Questions from Douglas S. Massey, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, Princeton University 102 Answers to Post-Hearing Questions from Paul W. Virtue, former INS General Counsel and Executive Associate Commissioner, and Partner, Hogan & Hartson....................................... 104 Answers to Post-Hearing Questions from Hiroshi Motomura, Kenan Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law.................................................. 109 Answers to Post-Hearing from Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies................................. 111 SHORTFALLS OF THE 1996 IMMIGRATION REFORM LEGISLATION ---------- FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 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 10:06 a.m., in Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe Lofgren (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Lofgren, Gutierrez, Berman, Jackson Lee, Delahunt, Sanchez, King, and Forbes. Staff present: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Majority Chief Counsel; R. Blake Chisam, Majority Counsel; George Fishman, Minority Counsel; and Benjamin Staub, Professional Staff Member. Ms. Lofgren. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law will come to order. Vigorous enforcement of the immigration laws is not only necessary, it is our responsibility. We must demand respect for the rules and also secure our borders. In 1996, Congress put forward a plan to enhance the enforcement of our immigration laws. A package of 1996 immigration reform laws further increased the number of Border Patrol agents and technology for border enforcement, required the Border Patrol to build fencing along the border, expanded the grounds of removal, and streamlined the removal process. Those laws created electronic employment verification systems and eliminated eligibility for welfare benefits. Those who wrote the bill, I am sure, meant to positively impact the situation of illegal immigration. Ending illegal immigration is an important goal. But, as we now know, the 1996 Act did not put an end to illegal immigration, not even close to it. The estimated numbers of illegal immigrants living in the United States has risen dramatically since 1996, growing from between 5 million to 6 million people to an estimated 11 million to 12 million today. Until last year, the probability of an illegal border crosser getting caught dropped precipitously since 1996, even as more money and resources were committed to border enforcement. Those crossing the border simply shifted to more remote locations, making apprehension less likely, while also making it more likely that migrants will hire coyotes or die in the desert. Congressional attempts to manage the borders have, by most any measure, failed to accomplish the goal of stopping the flow of illegal immigration. The law of unintended consequences has reared its ugly head. We still have work to do and things to fix. The Illegal Immigration and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996, referred to as IIRIRA, created traps for those here illegally. It not only increased the cost of coming to America, but it also increased the cost of leaving. This has had the unintended effect of making people stay in America even when they would otherwise have returned home. For decades before the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, illegal immigrants from Mexico came to America much as they do today. The difference between then and now is that most of them, some 80 percent, left within a couple of years. We learned in our fourth hearing that IRCA disrupted those historic patterns. The 1996 law not only continued to disrupt those patterns, they made things worse. Let me cite just one example. The 1996 Act created what are known as the 3-and 10-year bars to entry. Because these bars can only be triggered when someone departs the United States, the bars provide an incentive for undocumented immigrants to stay here, and stay they do. Instead of staying for 2 to 3 years, Mexican immigrants now tend to stay for 6 or 7 years or more. They have to. The cost to get in has gotten too high. It takes longer to pay off the coyote who has to be hired for each crossing, and because of the 3-and 10-year bars, the cost of leaving are higher still. And it has become even more dangerous and costly to reenter. The road to ruin is paved with good intentions. We must always be mindful of the law of unintended consequences. It is easy to say, we simply need to enforce the laws we have. But instead we need to work toward a comprehensive solution. We must reform our immigration laws not only to secure our borders but to provide for the safe, orderly and controlled future flow of immigrants. We must make certain that we protect American workers and safeguard the sanctity of family, and we must ensure that we do not create a permanent underclass of immigrant workers in this country. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panelists today as we explore the unintended consequences and shortfalls of the 1996 immigration reforms. I would now recognize our distinguished Ranking minority Member, Mr. Steve King, for his opening statement. [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 Vigorous enforcement of the immigration laws is not only necessary, it is our responsibility. We must demand respect for the rules and also secure our borders. In 1996, Congress put forward a plan to enhance the enforcement of our immigration laws. A package of 1996 immigration reform laws further increased the number of border patrol agents and technology for border enforcement, required the border patrol to build fencing along the border, expanded the grounds of removal and streamlined the removal process. Those laws created electronic employment verification systems and eliminated eligibility for welfare benefits. Those who wrote the bill, I'm sure, meant to positively impact the situation of illegal immigration. Ending illegal immigration is an important goal. But, as we now know, the 1996 acts did not put an end to illegal immigration. Not even close to it. The estimated number of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. has risen dramatically since 1996, going from between 5 to 6 million people to an estimated 11 to 12 million today. Until last year, the probability of an illegal border crosser getting caught dropped precipitously since 1996, even as more money and resources were committed to border enforcement. Those crossing the border simply shifted to more remote locations, making apprehension less likely, while also making it more likely that migrants will hire coyotes or die in the desert. Congressional attempts to manage the borders have, by most any measure, failed to accomplish the goal of stopping the flow of illegal immigration. The law of unintended consequences has reared its ugly head. We still have work to do and things to fix. The Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (referred to as the IIRIRA) created traps for those here illegally. It not only increased the cost of coming to America, but it also increased the cost of leaving. This has had the unintended effect of making people stay in America, even when they would have otherwise returned home. For decades before the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, illegal immigrants from Mexico came to America, much as they do today. The difference between then and now is that most of them--some 80%-- left within a couple of years. We learned in our 4th hearing that the IRCA disrupted those historic patterns. The 1996 laws not only continued to disrupt those patterns, they made things worse. Let me cite just one example. The IIRIRA created what are known as the 3 and 10 year bars to reentry. Because these bars can only be triggered when someone departs the United States, the bars provide an incentive for undocumented immigrants to stay here. And stay they do. Instead of staying for 2 to 3 years, Mexican immigrants now tend to stay 6 or 7 or more years. They have to. The costs to get in have gotten too high. It takes longer to pay off the coyote who has to be hired for each crossing. Because of the 3 and 10 year bars, the costs of leaving are higher still. And it has become even more dangerous and costly to reenter. The road to ruin is paved with good intentions. We must always be mindful of the laws of unintended consequences. It's easy to say we simply need to enforce the laws we have. Instead, we work toward a comprehensive solution. We must reform our immigration laws not only to secure our borders but to provide for a safe, orderly and controlled future flow of immigrants. We must make certain that we protect American workers and safeguard the sanctity of family. And, we must ensure that we do not create a permanent underclass of immigrant workers in this country. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panelists today as we explore the unintended consequences of the 1996 immigration reforms. Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you holding this hearing today and appreciate the witnesses coming forward to testify. In the mid-1990's, there was a sea change in our strategy to control the southern border. In 1994, the total complement of Border Patrol agents was 4,226. The Border Patrol let illegal immigrants cross the border and then tried to apprehend them in border communities. Now, numbers and the strategy were deficient. The southwest border was in a state of crisis. The transit routes most heavily used for illegal immigrants were in the San Diego corridor, which had become an open sieve. Then things changed. First, in El Paso, Texas, Border Patrol Chief Silvestre Reyes, now Congressman of Texas's 16th District, conceived and launched the most successful border initiative in recent memory. Pursuant to Operation Hold the Line, he placed his agents directly on the border and had them stop attempted border crossings. This visual deterrent had the effect of dramatically reducing illegal crossings, cutting crime in border communities and winning the praise of the public. When top INS officials, resentful of Reyes' success, put roadblocks in his path and resisted applying his doctrine in other areas, it got more difficult. But Immigration Subcommittee Chairman, Lamar Smith, brought Chief Reyes to testify before Congress. Subsequently, INS adopted the Reyes strategy in San Diego and dubbed it ``Operation Gatekeeper.'' It has been remarkably successful. Apprehensions have plummeted, and the INS touted the operation as one of its most successful border control initiatives ever. Next, Congressman Lamar Smith and Senator Alan Simpson wrote, and saw through to enactment, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The act authorized a yearly net increase in Border Patrol strength of a then unheard 1,000 a year. A decade later, the Border Patrol has a strength of over 13,000 agents. The act also called for the construction of a second and third row of border fencing along the southern border for 14 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. The fence, combined with ``Operation Hold the Line,'' which was facilitated by the increasing Border Patrol strength, led to the San Diego border being secured and crime in San Diego dropping by half. As a result of these actions, it has become significantly more difficult for illegal aliens and drug smugglers to cross the southwest border. Illegal immigrants must now resort to difficult routes across rugged terrain in California and in Arizona. As long as Congress continues increasing Border Patrol strength in the future, we can look forward to the day when the entire border is brought under control. Now, some make the argument that the increased border security since the mid-1990's has actually made our illegal immigration problem worse. The argument is that when illegal immigrants could cross the border at will, they practiced circular migration and went back and forth across the border. Some did. But once border security increased, many aliens who had made it across the border stayed permanently in the U.S. for fear of not being able to get back across the border after returning home. That is the argument. Now, this argument is flawed for two reasons. First, it makes little difference as to the effect of illegal immigration on the American economy and society whether illegal immigrants stayed permanently or whether they go home for Christmas vacation or any other time. Second, the very data that Mr. Massey utilizes purports to show that the percentage of illegal immigrants who return to Mexico within a year of illegal entry declined between the mid- 1980's and the mid-1990's ever since then and has stayed relatively stable. Given that the major efforts to control the southwest border did not begin until the mid-1990's, it makes no sense to argue that increased border enforcements have resulted in more permanence. But even if we accept the circulatory premise for the sake of this argument, it does not argue that we should abandon a chance to further secure our borders. It has always been the case that we can never control illegal immigration through border security alone. First, an estimated 40 percent of illegal immigrants have come to the U.S. legally on temporary visas and have simply illegally procured jobs and never left. Second, we will never be able to totally seal our thousands of miles of land and water borders. Some people will inevitably get through. For both these reasons, border security must be combined with robust interior enforcement, especially through the enforcement of employer sanctions. Unfortunately, while we made the border progressively tighter since the mid-1990's, Administrations past and present have practically abandoned worksite enforcement. That is why we have 20 million illegal immigrants today, not because we have more Border Patrol agents. I am heartened by the steps taken by Julie Myers in the past to reinvigorate enforcement. It is making a difference. But the issue has been raised about how many die in the desert, and I would say some of that is unmitigated by a reduced number that are hit by cars because of illegal crossings in the San Diego area. And the point that I would make is that there are a significant number of Americans who die at the hands of some of those who are criminals who do get across that desert, and that number is far, far greater in number, and we need to be protecting and defending the American people. That is what this policy is about. I look forward to the testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back. Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. And in the interest of proceeding to our witnesses and mindful that we will be having a series of votes in the near future, I would ask that other Members submit their statements for the record within 5 legislative days. Without objection, all opening statements will be placed within the record. And, without objection, the Chair will be authorized to declare a recess of the hearing at any point. [The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:] Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary Today we continue our examination of the earlier immigration reform efforts. As we have done with the 1986 Act, we are looking to the 1996 example to inform us as we work to get it right this time. Congress passed the IIRAIRA in 1996 as a ``get tough'' approach to immigration management. But rather than ending illegal immigration, there are more illegal immigrants ten years later than at any other time in history. Why did this ``get tough'' law fail? Perhaps it failed because it substituted an enforcement-only approach instead of an approach that was balanced and pragmatic. Like IRCA, the 1996 law turned out to lack options to meet the real-world needs of immigrants and employers. The IIRAIRA was outwardly very tough. It doubled the number of Border Patrol agents and started the spate of fence building on the Southern border. It sped removal and reduced the ability of courts and the immigration service to weigh humanitarian factors. It made refugee and asylum laws much more strict. There were some things about that law that are positive, if implemented fully. Such aspects of IIRAIRA as pilot programs to test employment eligibility verification, visa waivers for certain countries, and enhanced sentences for those who enslaved or abused immigrants seemed to be positive steps at the time. But by and large, IIRAIRA was a restrictive law in which responsibility and enforcement fell on the powerless aliens, such as through the statutory bars to re-entry for people who had to leave the country even if there were pressing humanitarian reasons. Attempts to address these problems through follow-up technical modifications were derided and dismissed as ``amnesty'' programs. And so, once again, here we are seeking a solution. None of the 1996 law's get-tough provisions addressed the root of the immigration issue. Indeed, they may have made it worse by cutting off the circular migration that has always existed in the Americas. Today we will hear from nationally recognized experts, including a witness who labored mightily to try to implement IIRAIRA while he was with the government. We hope to take away valuable lessons that will help guide our work over the coming months to develop a controlled, orderly, and fair immigration system. [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 This hearing will examine the shortfalls of 1996 Immigration Reform Legislation. The most significant bills from that period are the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of (AEDPA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). AEDPA was intended to deter terrorism, to provide justice for victims, and to provide an effective death penalty. It was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress following the Oklahoma City bombing and signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton. It also has provisions which have an impact on immigration law. Among other things, AEDPA requires mandatory detention of non- citizens who have been convicted of a wide range of criminal offenses, including minor drug offenses. IIRIRA expanded this list to include more offenses. One of the troublesome aspects of these mandatory detention provisions is that they are not restricted to serious criminal offenses. Under these provisions, mandatory detention may apply to aliens who were convicted of a crime for which no time in prison was actually served because the crime was so insignificant. Mandatory detention also is required in expedited removal proceedings. My Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2007, H.R. 750, would eliminate mandatory detention for aliens in expedited removal proceedings. This apples even if the alien has never been convicted of any criminal offense and does not pose a flight risk. This is particularly troublesome in view of the fact that many of the aliens in expedited removal proceedings are women and children or members of some other vulnerable population. Mandatory detention is wrong and it wastes resources. It requires the detention of people who do not need to be detained despite the shortage of detention space for aliens who really do need to be detained. It makes more sense to provide discretion for releasing people in detention if they are not a danger to the community or a flight risk, which is the standard for aliens who in removal proceedings but are not subject to mandatory detention. AEDPA authorized state and local police to arrest and detain aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States, which is a violation of civil immigration law, but only in the case of aliens who have been convicted of a felony in the United States. AEDPA required a nexus between civil immigration law violations and the criminal behavior before local police could detain individuals with civil violations. IIRIRA went further and authorized state and local police to enforce civil immigration laws when there is a ``mass influx'' of foreign nationals, the situation requires an immediate response from the federal government, and federal officials obtain the consent of the state or local supervising department. IIRIRA also established a mechanism which can be used to delegate immigration law enforcement authorities to state and local police provided the officers have undergone adequate training and have entered into a formal agreement with the Department of Justice. This is known as the MOU process, for ``memorandum of understanding.'' In addition, IIRIRA provides that public employees cannot be barred from reporting immigration-related information about a particular individual to the immigration service. This was done in response to state and local laws or executive orders that had been enacted around the country to prohibit such disclosures. My Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act would strike this provision. IIRIRA includes a wide variety of changes which made it far easier to deport or exclude non-citizens for minor criminal violations which occurred many years ago. Among other things, IIRIRA lowered the sentence and monetary amount thresholds for many of the crimes on the list of aggravated felonies and other excludable or deportable offenses and did so on a retroactive basis--meaning that offenses that were not previously deportable became deportable retroactively in 1996, even if they occurred in earlier years. My Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act would provide Immigration Judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals with the discretion to avoid removal on the basis of nonserious offenses. It provides that a conviction which did not result in incarceration for a year or more may be disregarded for immigration purposes as a matter of discretion. This permits the adjudicator to base the removal decision on whether the specific offense involved warrants removal. Ms. Lofgren. We have four distinguished witnesses here today to help us consider the important issues before us. First, I am pleased to welcome Dr. Douglas Massey, a professor of Sociology and Public Affairs at Princeton University. Professor Massey currently serves as the Director of Graduate Studies at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School, and his research has focused on topics ranging from international migration to urban poverty. Professor Massey currently serves as President of the American Academy of Political and Social Science and co-edits the Annual Review of Sociology. He reviewed both his master's and doctorate degrees from Princeton. We will next hear testimony from Paul Virtue, a former general counsel to the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service. During his tenure at INS, Mr. Virtue supervised over 600 attorneys on the nationwide litigation team and advised the INS Commissioner, the Commissioner of the White House and several other Federal agencies on immigration matters. Mr. Virtue currently practices law as a partner at Hogan & Hartson here in Washington and holds his law degree from the West Virginia University College of Law. I would like next to welcome Hiroshi Motomura, a professor from the University of North Carolina's School of Law. Professor Motomura co-authored the widely used law school case book, Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy. He has served as co-counsel in several recent immigration cases before the Supreme Court and is a member of the American Bar Association's Commission on Immigration. Professor Motomura is a graduate of Yale College and the University of California- Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law. Finally, I would like to welcome Mark Krikorian, the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a research organization here in Washington, DC, that examines the impact of immigration on the United States. Mr. Krikorian has published articles in The Washington Post, the New York Times and the National Review, among other publications. Mr. Krikorian holds a masters degree from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a bachelor's degree from Georgetown University. Now, as you can tell, there are bells ringing and lights flashing, and what that tells us is that we have a series of votes on the floor of the House. We have nine votes, the first one of which will be 15 minutes and the remainder of which will be 5 minutes apiece. And that is the last of the day. I apologize that your testimony has been interrupted. We should reconvene--when would be a good time--an hour, really, it will be an hour. If you can come back at, let's say, 11:15. Is that possible for the witnesses to do? There is a cafeteria in the basement where there is coffee and doughnuts. We will recess and be back here at 11:15 to hear your testimony. Thank you very much. [Recess.] Ms. Lofgren. We are back in session, and I would like to, first, apologize to the witnesses. The voting took forever. But we are here now to hear your testimony. The entirety of your written testimony will be made part of the record. I would ask that each of you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or less, and we will remain within that time limit on questions. And, Dr. Massey, if you would begin. TESTIMONY OF DOUGLAS S. MASSEY, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY Mr. Massey. Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, since 1986, the United States has pursued a politics of contradiction with respect to Mexico. On the one hand, we have joined with Mexico and Canada to create an integrated North American market and made arrangements for the free movement of goods, capital, information, resources and services across our borders. On the other hand, within this otherwise integrated market, we have acted unilaterally in a vain attempt to block the movement of labor. This contradictory policy has not only failed, it has backfired, producing outcomes that are categorically worse than if we had done nothing at all. Under pressure from U.S. Treasury in 1986, Mexico joined the general agreement on tariffs and trade and looked northward to join Canada and the United States in a new free trade agreement, which was enacted on January 1, 1994. Since that date, Mexico and the U.S. have formally been committed to unifying markets within North America. As shown in figure one, total trade between the two countries--it is not advancing--total trade between the two countries has skyrocketed, increasing eight times between 1986 and 2000. Since 1986, the number of exchange visitors from Mexico has tripled, the number of business visitors has quadrupled, and the number of intercompany transferees has grown five times. Within this rapidly integrating economy, however, U.S. policymakers have somehow sought to prevent the cross-border movement of workers, in essence, seeking to integrate all markets except for one, that for labor. To finance this fundamental contradiction, beginning in 1986 we adopted an increasingly restrictive set of immigration and border enforcement policies. Let's just do it without the slides. To connect this fundamental contradiction, beginning in 1986, we adopted an increasingly restrictive set of immigration and border policies. First, the Immigration Reform and Control Act granted $400 million to expand the Border Patrol, the 1990 Immigration Act authorized hiring of another 1,000 officers, and in 1993, these new personnel were deployed in Operation Blockade as part of an all-out effort to stop unauthorized border crossing in El Paso, a strategy that was extended to San Diego in 1994 as Operation Gatekeeper. Finally, the 1996 Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act provided funds to hire another 1,000 border officers per year through 2001. From 1986 to 2002, the Border Patrol's budget increased by a factor of 10, the number of hours spent patrolling border grew eight times, and the number of Border Patrol officers tripled. In essence, the U.S. militarized the border with its closest neighbor, its second largest trading partner and a nation which was committed by treaty to an ongoing process of economic integration. Rather than slowing the flow of immigrants into the United States, however, this policy of insisting on separation while promoting integration yielded an array of unintended and very negative consequences. The most immediate effect was to transform the geography of border crossing. Whereas, undocumented border crossing during the 1980's focused on San Diego and El Paso, the selective hardening of these borders after 1993 diverted flows to new and more remote locations. And as late as 1989, only one-third of undocumented migrants crossed outside of San Diego or El Paso, but by 2002, two-thirds were crossing somewhere else. And once they had been deflected away from traditional migration points, migrants kept on going. Before 1993, no more than 20 percent of all undocumented migrants went to States other than the three traditional destinations of California, Texas and Illinois, but by 2002, 55 percent were proceeding to some new State of destination. Undocumented migration was thus nationalized. In addition to transforming the geography of immigration, U.S. border policies had two additional unplanned effects. First, by pushing immigrants into more remote and less hospitable sectors of the border, the enforcement in San Diego and El Paso dramatically increased the number of migrant deaths. The rate of death during undocumented border crossing tripled from 1992 to 2002. In addition, although remote sectors were more dangerous, they were also less patrolled and contained fewer enforcement resources. By pushing migrants into desolate sectors of the border, U.S. polices, therefore, actually lowered the likelihood that illegal migrants would be apprehended. At first, the migrants unwittingly walked into the new wall of enforcement resources in these two built-up sectors and the probability of apprehension temporarily went up. Quickly, however, migrants got wise and went around the built-up sectors and crossed through empty deserts, sparsely populated ranch land and wild sections of the Rio Grande. And as a result, the probability of apprehension plummeted to record low levels. The financial costs of border crossing to migrants were nonetheless driven upward. The average cost of hiring a border smuggler tripled from $400 to $1,200 in real terms. Unfortunately, Mexicans did not respond to the new costs and new risks of border crossing by deciding not to migrate; rather, they decided to stay longer once they were here. As shown in the figure, the probability that a Mexican male or female would decide to undertake a first trip to the U.S. did not change from 1980 to the present. For men, the probabilities fluctuated between 1 and 2 percent per year, and for females, it has never exceeded a fraction of 1 percent. Rather than responding to the increased costs and risks of border crossing by staying home, Mexicans hunkered down and stayed once they had achieved entry. Rather than returning home, possibly to face---- Ms. Lofgren. Dr. Massey, I forgot to announce that when the red light goes on, the 5 minutes are up. I turned it off, but if you could summarize, that would be great. Mr. Massey. Basically, what I would like to say is that the attempt to close off a border with our largest trading partner has backfired, and the rate of in-migration into the United States has not changed in 20 years. What changed was the rate of out-migration, and that doubled the rate of undocumented population growth in the U.S., and that was a complete function of our border policy. [The prepared statement of Mr. Massey follows:] Prepared Statement of Douglas S. Massey [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. Mr. Virtue, we will time this. When your yellow light goes on, you have about a minute left, and when the red light goes on, your 5 minutes are up. TESTIMONY OF PAUL W. VIRTUE, FORMER INS GENERAL COUNSEL AND EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER, AND PARTNER, HOGAN & HARTSON Mr. Virtue. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member King and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon. The IIRIRA amended virtually every section of title two of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It represented the most comprehensive immigration legislation since the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952. For example, the Act authorized a substantial increase in Border Patrol agents, increased the penalties for illegal entry, eliminated the distinction concerning the rights of aliens based on entry to the United States, added a number of immigration-related crimes, including smuggling and visa fraud to the RICO predicate offenses, authorized expedited removal without a hearing for aliens who commit fraud or fail to present a proper visa, restricted eligibility for relief from removal, overhauled the process for the removal of inadmissible and deportable aliens from the United States, barred aliens from returning to the U.S. following periods of unlawful presence in the United States, added new crimes to the growing list of aggravated felonies, making that definition retroactive, and mandated detention for aggravated felons, including permanent residents, and placed significant limits on judicial review. Indeed, given the scope of the 1996 Act, it is difficult to conceive of an area, with the possible exception of a reliable system for verifying employment authorization, in which the Federal Government lacks powerful authority today to enforce our immigration laws. What we do lack, and always have lacked, are the adequate resources to secure the border against unlawful entry; to identify, detain and remove aliens who have committed serious crimes, to properly investigate and prosecute those who commit alien smuggling and document fraud; and to enforce measures against unauthorized employment. The challenge, thus, facing this Congress will be to find a balance in terms of the statutory mandates and to move to efficiently enforce the immigration laws, while keeping a keen focus on excluding or deporting the bad guys. The threshold question in that analysis, one that is outside the scope of this hearing, is whether we should continue to expend limited resources on the large percentage of the undocumented population in the United States to continue to contribute to an economic boom. The question that is within the scope of this hearing, however, is, in removing discretion from the authorities charged with enforcing our immigration laws, whether IIRIRA of 1996 went too far. I submit that in a number of areas it did and by doing so actually limited the ability of the agencies responsible for enforcement to develop a rational set of enforcement priorities. Those areas are mandatory custody. Immigration detention is designed to serve two important enforcement goals. It ensures the alien's availability for proceedings and possible removal, and it protects the community from any potential danger the alien might pose. In a society like ours, however, those legitimate goals must be balanced against an alien's equally legitimate liberty interests. Historically, aliens taken into custody were afforded an opportunity to have these competing interests weighed by an immigration officer and by an immigration judge who could order them removed, or order them released or detained pending completion of removal proceedings and any appeals. In 1996, however, Congress enacted the mandatory detention scheme for aliens, including permanent residents, whose criminal convictions might subject them to removal. The impetus behind this change in the law was a concern that criminal aliens subject to removal proceedings were climbing at high rates. But even before Congress passed this legislation, concerns about absconders had been addressed effectively by the provision of increased detention resources, which gave immigration officers and judges greater flexibility and order in detention. In fact, the Clinton administration consequently advised Congress against including the broad mandatory detention provisions that ultimately were enacted. Secondly, restrictions on discretionary relief from removal. Prior to IIRIRA, aliens who were otherwise deportable could apply to an immigration judge to have their deportations suspended. If the application was granted, the alien would be eligible to adjust status. To qualify, aliens had to show they were continuously present for a minimum of 7 years, they were persons of good moral character and their deportations would result in extreme hardship. The IIRIRA changes increased that standard and severely limited the availability of discretionary relief. The other aspects are the limitations on judicial review of immigration decisions. Under IIRIRA, those court-stripping provisions provide that administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless a reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. So, consequently, those provisions have substantially diminished the ability of non-citizens to have their cases heard before a neutral arbiter. And, finally, the 3-and 10-year bars on admission. As we know, the IIRIRA created bars to admissibility for people who have been in the U.S. for more than 6 months or more than 1 year and who return to their home country. The problem that that created has been a paradoxical one and that is that it has, actually, created an incentive for people who are here unlawfully to remain here unlawfully rather than to be able to go home and apply for immigrant visas. So, in conclusion, the net result of the enforcement measures enacted in IIRIRA has been a reduction in the discretion available to immigration authorities in administering the immigration laws. I would submit that discretion should be restored in a number of years. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Virtue follows:] Prepared Statement of Paul W. Virtue [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Virtue. Mr. Motomura? TESTIMONY OF HIROSHI MOTOMURA, KENAN DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF LAW Mr. Motomura. Madam Chair, Ranking Member King, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the privilege of appearing before you today. I would like to suggest two ways to think about the 1996 Act. I will state them briefly and then elaborate. First is that an enforcement-only approach to immigration legislation will undermine the rule of law, and the second is that any evaluation of the Act needs to look closely at the effects on U.S. citizens. First, on enforcement, an immigration system that respects the rule of law needs to include not only enforcement but three other essentials of our legal system. One is discretion, subject to legal standards; second is decision-making that is based on expertise and subject to checks and balances; and the third is due process. Now, speaking to discretion, that can mean different things, but I think it is very important to see the difference between unreviewable discretion that is outside the law and the sort of discretion that respects the rule of law. Especially in the early part of the 20th century, discretion and immigration was largely discretionary. This was most extreme for Mexican immigrants. They were tolerated when the economy needed them but deported when they were deemed expendable. Now, this discretion, historically, was unreviewable and arbitrary but was gradually channeled, first for Europeans and Canadians and later for all immigrants, into formal mechanisms with legal standards, like suspension of deportation and adjustment of status. Now, the 1996 Act produced opportunities to apply discretion, subject to legal standards and review. For example, it curtailed eligibility for cancellation of removal and it provided for mandatory detention. So to illustrate the problems that result, mandatory detention makes it much harder, for example, to obtain counsel, and when we impair access to counsel, we don't know what errors are being made in rule proceedings. The 1996 Act also increased the number of discretionary decisions that aren't subject to legal standards or meaningful administrative or judicial review. For example, the Acts have really reduced judicial review or discretionary denials of relief. In short, the 1996 Act moved away from discretion that is case-by-case justice, according to legal standards, and it moved back toward discretion that can be arbitrary, unpredictable and discriminatory. Now, thinking about discretion leads us to think more generally about decision-making based on expertise and subject to checks and balances. One example here is expedited removal, which applies, in theory, only to someone who lacks any defenses to removal. But the question is whether any individual is really such a person lacking defenses. Expedited removal gives ultimate authority to low-level officials and thus eliminates the procedural protections afforded in immigration court by judges and counsel. Again, we don't know what mistakes are being made, for example, denying asylum to someone who has a right to protection under both U.S. and international law. I mentioned lack of judicial review of discretionary decisions, but lack of judicial review is a broader problem. Although the Supreme Court has essentially compelled some restorations, significant bars to review remain, and they are especially troubling because of a parallel reduction in BIA review. Along with accuracy, a related casualty is uniformity, which can only be achieved with recorded, formal administrative and judicial decisions. A lot of it isn't uniform. It is unequal, it is unpredictable, and its unpredictability means inadequate notice. Any system of immigration law is doomed to make mistakes if we simply hope that they will come to light without any mechanism being established to discover them, and a system that can't have confidence in its accuracy diminishes respect for the rule of law. And most of what I have identified as problems of discretion or decision-making can also be thought of as due process problems, but the 1996 Act has other kinds of due process problems as well. I will just mention one: retroactive changes to immigration law. This practice pre-dates '96, but the Act made it much worse by making many non-citizens deportable for reasons that had no immigration consequences originally. Retroactive laws fail to give the notice that is essential to due process so that individuals can understand the consequences of their actions, and lawyers can give reliable advice. Let me quickly address my second major theme, which is effects on U.S. citizens. An enforcement-only approach leads to mistakes that cause devastating harm to many citizens who may be the non-citizen's husband or wife, father or mother or child. When our immigration system doesn't adhere to the rule of law, we diminish and we devalue what it means for them to be American citizens. An example is the cutback on cancellation eligibility for applicants who typically have immediate family members who are citizens. Another is the failure to consider citizen children for waivers of the 3-and 10-year bar. My two main points today are that any assessment of the 1996 Act should adopt two yardsticks: The rule of law and effects on U.S. citizens. Let me close by suggesting that if we are to foster the integration of immigrants into American society, it is essential to build confidence in an immigration law system on the part of immigrants and the citizens who are closest to them. And integration of immigrants, in turn, is essential to the long-term success of any immigration policy. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Motomura follows:] Prepared Statement of Hiroshi Motomura [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. And, finally, Mr. Krikorian? TESTIMONY OF MARK KRIKORIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES Mr. Krikorian. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee. The shortcomings of the 1996 immigration law come in two parts. One is a defect in the bill itself, and I think more important is the defect in the execution of the law. As far as the bill itself, the law itself, there was one very large mistake in the 1996 law and that was rejecting the recommendations of Barbara Jordan's Commission on Immigration Reform to cut overall legal immigration. The Jordan commission recommended a reduction of about one-third in total legal immigration, focusing in particular the family portions of the flow more tightly and eliminating certain categories. The original versions of what became the 1996 law incorporated all of the Jordan commission's recommendations, including those regarding legal immigration, but Congress split the legislation and passed only the illegal immigration portions and abandoned the legal immigration parts of Ms. Jordan's recommendations. This was a mistake for two reasons. One, immigration is simply too high. Mass immigration is not compatible with the goals and the characteristics of a modern society, but that is the subject for a different hearing. Secondly, the goal of the 1996 law, ultimately, was the reduce illegal immigration, and even in this respect, the decision not to streamline and reduce legal immigration was a mistake because of the intimate connection between legal and illegal immigration. In other words, it is simply not possible to have high levels of legal immigration without at least creating very intense pressures for high levels of illegal immigration. But I would submit the bigger problem with '96 is the execution of the '96 law provisions and immigration law, in general, since then. Barbara Jordan told this very panel in 1995, ``Credibility and immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.'' And that simply hasn't happened. To understand why that hasn't happened, the storyline has developed that the enforcement efforts, starting in the 1990's, had the perverse effect of increasing settlements of illegal immigrants. This is what Professor Massey was talking about. And the storyline goes this way: that illegal aliens were happily coming and going in circular migration flow, as they put it, until enforcement made it harder to get back in, and, therefore, the incentive was to stay here rather than to come and go. The broad claim, basically, is that border enforcement creates illegal immigration. The absurdity of this claim is clear from the top of the two figures that I have here. The Census Bureau shows that long before new border enforcement measures, Mexican immigration, which is a pretty good proxy for illegal immigration since it accounts for most illegal aliens and most Mexicans either are or were illegal aliens, Mexican immigration has been growing rapidly for at least a generation. There weren't even 800,000 Mexicans in the United States in 1970, and that has doubled each decade, long before there was any border enforcement of significant consequences. But let's concede, for the sake of argument, that there actually is something to this, that the rate of return of illegals, that the minority of Mexican immigrants who went back and forth, that minority has gotten even smaller. The reason, though, is not just border enforcement because something else was going on in the 1990's, not just increases in border enforcement, modest though they were, frankly, but also an almost complete abandonment of interior enforcement, as the lower second of the figures I have shows. And so what has caused, to the extent there has been an interruption of this back and forth, it is the combination, the dysfunctional combination of increased border enforcement with the complete abandonment of interior enforcement, which simply reduces the incentive for illegal aliens to leave. This is well-documented. The bottom graph shows the number of fines issued to employers, which fell to three, a total of three in 2004. Other factors also declined related to interior enforcement. And this sends illegal aliens the message that it is hard to get in or a little harder, but if you can make it, you are home free. We have seen a minor change in that over the past year. The Administration has permitted and asked for funding for some modest increases of an enforcement, and it actually seems to be doing what it is intended to do, which is reduce illegal settlement and increase the return migration of illegal aliens. This doesn't mean the problem is solved. This means that we have taken some baby steps now over the past year in the right direction and that the proposals for what has come to be called comprehensive immigration reform would actually short-circuit this progress and return us to where we were before, which is continually increasing illegal populations. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Krikorian follows:] Prepared Statement of Mark Krikorian [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. Before we go to questions, I learned that Dr. Massey has a train to catch, and I don't know whether you want to miss your train and take our questions or have us submit our questions in writing to you. The choice is entirely yours with no hard feelings on our part. Okay. I am going to stick very closely with the 5 minutes, given the lateness of the hour. If I understand your testimony correctly, Dr. Massey, you basically are saying that the level of in-migration is about the same every year. It is who stays here that has contributed to the increase in the number of people who are here without their documents. Is that pretty much a correct summary? Mr. Massey. As far as I can tell, the rate of in-migration from Mexico hasn't changed much in 25 to 30 years. What changed was the rate of out-migration back to Mexico, and that is largely a function of our own border policy. So by militarizing the border with your friendly trading nation, you decrease the rate of out-migration. Ms. Lofgren. I have a question. I am just looking at this chart. It looks to me, and I am not suggesting that it is causative so much as correlative, that the amount of fines for employers, which I guess you could use a rough-cut measure of increased workplace enforcement, seems to correlate with an increase in the number of illegal immigrants here. I don't know, this is an interesting chart. But let me tell a story and ask a question of Mr. Virtue and Mr. Motomura, since you are experts in current immigration law from your testimony. We had a situation in Santa Clara County. Things like this happen all the time, but it was in the newspaper and there was a tremendous outcry in the public as a consequence. And here is the situation. A Jewish woman from Russia, she was a Russian, came to the United States. She didn't apply for asylum; she came on a temporary visa. I believe it was a visitor's visa. She might have actually been qualified for asylum because of the oppression against Jews in Russia at the time, but she didn't have the right visa. She overstayed her visa, she violated the rules in that regard, but she met and fell in love with an American man, and they got married, and they had a baby. And she was teaching piano in her home with the infant and was associated with the Jewish temple in Sunnyvale, CA. Well, he was an American citizen, born and raised here. They went to apply to make her a legal resident and instead they arrested her because she had overstayed her visa and they would not allow her to leave, even though she was nursing this infant. And then, ultimately, they deported her back to Russia and said that she could not come back for 10 years, even though by then her infant, obviously, would have no memory of her at all. What in the 1996 Act would lead to that result, and what changes would we need to make so that a woman like that would be able to stay with her U.S. citizen husband and infant? Mr. Virtue and Mr. Motomura, just real quickly. Mr. Virtue. As I understand the case, she actually should have been permitted to remain here, even under the laws that existed in the 1996 Act, because she came lawfully on a visa, and even though she overstayed and was now out of status, her marriage to a U.S. citizen should have made her eligible. The agency, however, doesn't have to permit the person to pursue the green card, pursue the visa petition and adjust status, but normally they would. So, I am not exactly sure what happened in that particular case, but I---- Ms. Lofgren. Maybe it is not fair to ask the particulars of the case, but there have been many cases on the 3- and 10-year bar that have come to--I hear that all the time on the floor of the House where Members on both sides of the aisle say they have these situations that are just really very tough ones and how do we fix this. How would we fix this? Mr. Virtue. If she had come without a visa, for example, she had come from--well, if she had come in without a visa, then she would not be eligible to adjust her status here because of the elimination of section 245(i), and the 3-and 10- year bar would prevent her from returning to her home country to apply for an immigrant visa without a waiver that is pretty difficult to get. So a change would be to eliminate the 3-and 10-year bar. That would---- Ms. Lofgren. Or maybe make it some other way that it is applied? Mr. Virtue. Exactly. Maybe have a waiver that is more reasonable in terms of approval. Ms. Lofgren. My time is almost up. Mr. Motomura, do you have anything to add? Mr. Motomura. Well, I would endorse everything that Mr. Virtue said on the legal front. I would only add that this may illustrate a couple of other points. One is that we have processing delays that make it very difficult for people to obtain the relief to which they are entitled. And, secondly, we have information gaps in this and in other areas, particularly where there is no right to counsel. You have to add those to the legal issues that Mr. Virtue addressed. Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. I will now yield to Mr. King for his 5 minutes. Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, Mr. Massey, you testified that the numbers of deaths in the desert between 1992 and 2002 essentially tripled over that decade period of time. Would you care to reiterate your analysis of the reasons for that? Mr. Massey. The concentration of enforcement resources in urban areas, namely San Diego and El Paso, basically diverted the flows around them. Mr. King. And those resources would be? Mr. Massey. Those resources would be more Border Patrol officers, more equipment, more intensive patrolling efforts and building of walls. Mr. King. And in fact if we looked at the Border Patrol increase in numbers, that took place in probably the second half of that decade rather than the first half. So one might believe that the facilities had the initial impact on that, that being the physical structures, such as the fencing? Mr. Massey. People went around the fencing. Mr. King. I thank you. And so, Mr. Massey, if we could build--and what you said is fencing is effectively, at least for that area, and they will go around the end. Mr. Massey. They will go around the end, right. Mr. King. So if we could build a fence from San Diego to Brownsville--and let me go to the extreme and hypothetical so we don't have to do definitions here--all the way down to hell and all the way up to heaven, it was entirely impermeable but directed all traffic to the ports of entry and we had our ports of entry beefed up so that we had the kind of surveillance there that is more effective than we have today, would you agree that that would solve a lot of the illegal traffic across our border? Mr. Massey. Not unless you had officers patrolling---- Mr. King. I would agree with that. Mr. Massey. If you had officers stationed every 500 yards along the entire border and built a fence, you would probably-- -- Mr. King. Let me say it is impermeable. Our hypothetical covers that. Mr. Massey. Well, if you assume the border is impermeable, then it is, by definition, impermeable. Mr. King. Okay. And I am going to go to another point here then, and I didn't think you could actually out-hypothetical me here. [Laughter.] Let me go to another point. If you were going to import people from another population, and they had a violent crime rate of, say, three times greater than the one of the recipient population, would you expect then to see the crime rate increase in the recipient nation? Mr. Massey. No, I would not. Mr. King. Would you care to explain that answer? Mr. Massey. Because migration is highly selective, and the criminals aren't the ones that are likely to be moving. Mr. King. Could you explain why 28 percent of the inmate population in our Federal penitentiaries are criminal aliens? Mr. Massey. They are largely on immigration offenses, immigration-related offenses. Mr. King. That really, I don't think, will hold up under analysis. But, also, a GAO study that was done and released in April of 2005 does report to those things and has analyzed the staff funding, and I would ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record the GAO study from 2005. Ms. Lofgren. Without objection. [The information referred is available in the Appendix.] Mr. King. Thank you. Just to make a couple of points here is that I think this analysis actually does hold up and that if you are going to take a general population of a country that is more violent, you can expect at least a cross-section of those people to yield a more violent result. If there are $65 billion worth of illegal drugs coming across that border, that also is a self-filtration process that brings in people that are more likely to at least be involved in the drug trade and one would presume more violent. And if you bring in people who demographically are more violent, for example, young men, you can expect your crime rate to go up. And I would submit that the violent death rate here in the United States is 4.28 per 100,000; in Mexico, it is 13.2 per 100,000; in Honduras, it is nine times; in Colombia, it is 15.4 times. There are no numbers for El Salvador. I think that it adds up, and the demographics that we know predict why 28 percent of our population in our prisons are criminal aliens, Mr. Massey. In the short time that I have--and I thank you for you answers--Mr. Krikorian, would you care to comment on that, on what one could expect if one looked at those demographics? Mr. Krikorian. Well, there actually has been a report on this not that long ago that actually contradicted the point you are making, in other words, that immigrants are less likely to engage in crime. Unfortunately, the data source used from the census was a corrupted source. The point is we don't really know the answer to this using data. What we do know, though, or what we are pretty sure of is that the crime rate explodes from the first to the second generation, that actually the children of immigrants are dramatically more likely to engage in criminal activity than native-born Americans, and that is a consequence, clearly, of immigration policy and one we have to address. Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Krikorian. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for just 5 minutes. Mr. Delahunt. I thank the Chair. These are all very fascinating figures, and we can do an analysis on a gut basis. I have my own analysis about the $65 billion. If we didn't have people consuming the drugs in this country that are violating our own statutes, then maybe we wouldn't be having the $65 billion coming from South America. So I don't know if we are doing a very good job about treating in a holistic way the--but why don't--and I would ask the Chair and the Ranking Member if there ought to be an examination in terms of whether this 28 percent--I mean, if there are immigration violations, then let's find out the answers to this. I think we should know that because I think it is important we get on the same page as far as the statistics are concerned. I have heard everywhere from 8 million to 20 million undocumented, illegal---- Ms. Lofgren. If the gentleman will yield. Mr. Delahunt. I will yield. Ms. Lofgren. We are going to have a series of hearings, two to three a week, and we will be examining many of the data points, because we can argue about our opinions but hopefully we will not be arguing about the facts. Mr. Delahunt. Yes. I mean, my opinion and yours, the Chair, and the Ranking Member's opinion is just simply that, opinion, and it has no validity in terms of the discussion, with all due respect to all of us. I would also like to pose a question. You know, we hear a lot about our labor needs, and there was a panel yesterday that talked about our labor needs, and of course that shifts over time. And one problem that was put forth was that it is not timely in nature or timely in reality. How do we go about determining what our labor needs are to continue to fuel our national economy appropriately? And ought there be, if none really exists other than snapshots at a particular time, should there be some sort of advisory group, comprised of members of the business community, members from academia, members of organized labor, working with the appropriate Federal agency to determine what our labor needs are so we can match the availability of the slots for legal immigrants to come into this country to assist us in terms of meeting our economic needs as far as the workforce is concerned? Mr. Krikorian. Is that a question for any of us? Mr. Delahunt. Yes. Mr. Krikorian. I would like to respond to that. I would have to say it is really not Congress or the executive's job to gauge labor needs; that is for the market to deal with. And we have---- Mr. Delahunt. But I am relating it, Mr. Krikorian, to that might be for the market to do, but if we don't have enough workers in this country to meet the demand, then the market is fine, but I want to make sure that our economy continues or hopefully prospers. Mr. Krikorian. But that is what I would challenge. Labor shortage is just a market signal that employers need to both pay more for the available labor and use the available labor more efficiently. In other words, my view would be that there should be no solely labor-related immigration at all, that people should be admitted for some other reason, family members, what have you, and then allowed to make their own way within the labor market. Mr. Delahunt. Fair point. But my point is, is there any gauge that currently exists that---- Mr. Krikorian. There is no good gauge for that. If there were, the Soviet Union would still be around, because, in a sense, it is a kind of central planning---- Mr. Delahunt. No. Don't try to---- Mr. Krikorian. I am not trying to---- Mr. Delahunt. What I am talking about is to have available data so that employers, the business community, can make decisions. Mr. Krikorian. By the time that data gets to someplace, it is already too old. That is the whole problem. Mr. Delahunt. My point is then, is it possible to make that data timely for a decision, to the other three witnesses? Mr. Motomura. Well, what I would add to that is that I agree that the market is important and determinative in many respects. I would agree with the gentleman's suggestion that the information needs to be had, but I also would caution against seeing labor needs as the ultimate driving force. Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired. And we ask, since people are running for planes, the gentlelady from Texas to ask her 5 minutes' worth of questions, understanding that follow-on in writing questions are available to all of them. Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank the gentlelady for holding this important hearing and also to compliment this Subcommittee for the approach which we are now taking, which we have taken in the past but now taking it, I hope, with a direct target, and that is to try and, if you will, to move toward reasonable, rational but with certainty for immigrants, status immigrants who are likewise in limbo, those who are documented, and that is, I think, the important responsibility that we have. So I thank the witnesses, and I do apologize for not hearing your testimony. I was in a Homeland Security hearing. But I do know that IRCA, having been here at that time, was supposed to be the great savior. I think it was a great boon for lawyers, and I have no angst against them, being one myself, but it greatly limited the availability of discretionary relief. I think it even presented some of the concerns we have about immigration judges who failed to listen to any reputable response on confusion that might have abounded and caused the individual before them to be in this dilemma. We know that the INS lost fingerprints, applications. We know that children that were on lines with their families aged out waiting so long. We know that the IRCA restricted access to Federal courts, I think, in complete objection to the values we have here on due process. It established expedited removal proceedings unfairly, and it imposed mandatory detention, and it also, I think, had this uncanny ability to send thousands home deported who had never been to their home place, based upon some juvenile infraction that was turned into a felony. Some might think that my position is to be loose on immigration, and that is not the case. I want to be balanced and fair. So let me ask Dr. Massey, we have had a decade of enforcement, and as we look at Mr. Krikorian's graph, I don't think it shows anything except for the fact that we have failed in some way. Can we solve this problem with enforcement, enforcement, enforcement or do we need to fix some aspect of what was called 696--or not 696, what was called the 1996 bill? Do we need to fix '96 with some consideration on these restrictive procedures, and we do we need to balance enforcement with a reasonable structure of immigration? Mr. Massey. I think that '96 and other legislation has really created a very unforgiving system and a very rigid system that needs to be reformed, because it limits discretion and puts people in impossible positions and forces them out of status, sometimes even if they tried to play by the rules. In terms of enforcement, I don't think that more border enforcement is going to help anyone. It is as if a homeowner has built a steel wall in the front of his house and he wants to get more secure so he is going to build a second layer of steel wall but he has no wall on either side and his back door is flapping open. It is not going to enhance your security in any way. I think if you want to do enforcement, it should be internal enforcement and for that you would need some kind of tamper-proof ID card that an employer could use to verify the right to work in the United States. Border enforcement is not a good way to control immigration, and my data shows that it backfired. Ms. Jackson Lee. Not the only way. Mr. Virtue, I have legislation that has a provision for providing immigration judges with discretion when the basis for removal is a non-serious incident. As you well know, '96 wanted to go back and get--and I don't promote any of this, I want to criminals in jail, but is it important to train immigration judges and give some discretion as lawyers present hardship cases in the courtroom? Mr. Virtue. I don't think there is any question about that, Mrs. Jackson Lee. It is going to be important to make a judgment about where we use our limited resources, because they are always going to be limited. And so I think we have to make a judgment about whether we continue to expend resources to detain and deport people whose only offense is to be here unlawfully. We also have to make a judgment about whether we mandatorily detain and eliminate relief for permanent residents who have committed crimes 20 years ago that are coming back because of the retroactive effect of the definition of aggravated felony. So I agree with you, that, yes, there has to be discretion restored, not just at the immigration judge level, although that is very important, but also at the officer level. Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired. I would note that we have gotten a tremendous amount out of this hearing, despite the fact that we were interrupted by more than an hour of voting on the House floor, and I do thank all the witnesses for their testimony, their written testimony as well as their willingness to stick with us for questions. Member will have 5 legislative days to pose additional questions in writing to the witnesses, and we ask that you answer as promptly as you are able to so that your answers may be made part of the record. And, without objection, the record will remain open for 5 legislative days for the submission of any other additional materials. This hearing has helped illuminate numerous issues about the 1996 Act. I know that it will prove helpful to us as we move forward in our consideration of comprehensive immigration reform. We will see everyone at Tuesday, 11 a.m. next week for our next hearing, which will begin to examine enforcement, workplace enforcement. With that, this hearing is adjourned, with thanks. [Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- Material Submitted for the Hearing Record Submission to the Record by the Honorable Steve King, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law: ``Information on Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal and State Prison and Local Jails'' from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, April 7, 2005 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Answers to Post-Hearing Questions from Douglas S. Massey, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, Princeton University [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Answers to Post-Hearing Questions from Paul W. Virtue, former INS General Counsel and Executive Associate Commissioner, and Partner, Hogan & Hartson [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Answers to Post-Hearing Questions from Hiroshi Motomura, Kenan Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Answers to Post-Hearing from Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]