[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: BECOMING AMERICANS--U.S. IMMIGRANT
INTEGRATION
=======================================================================
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
__________
MAY 16, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-27
__________
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
35-450 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
----------
MAY 16, 2007
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
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.. 4
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 6
WITNESSES
Mr. Gary Gerstle, Ph.D., Professor of History, Vanderbilt
University
Oral Testimony................................................. 9
Prepared Statement............................................. 12
Mr. Ruben G. Rumbaut, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, University
of California, Irvine
Oral Testimony................................................. 21
Prepared Statement............................................. 23
Mr. Donald Kerwin, Executive Director, Catholic Legal Immigration
Network, Inc.
Oral Testimony................................................. 50
Prepared Statement............................................. 51
Mr. John Fonte, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Oral Testimony................................................. 55
Prepared Statement............................................. 57
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................................ 3
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary........................... 7
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................................ 7
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Letter from a Majority of the Minority Members of the
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law requesting a Minority day of
hearing to the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chairwoman, Subcommittee
on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law.............................................. 86
Letter from Gary Gerstle, Ph.D., Professor of History, Vanderbilt
University to the Honorable Steve King, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law................................ 87
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from Gary Gerstle, Ph.D.,
Professor of History, Vanderbilt University.................... 90
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from Ruben G. Rumbaut, Ph.D.,
Professor of Sociology, University of California, Irvine....... 94
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from Donald Kerwin, Executive
Director, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.............. 108
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from John Fonte, Ph.D.,
Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute................................ 111
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: BECOMING AMERICANS--U.S. IMMIGRANT
INTEGRATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 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 9:37 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, Waters, Sanchez, Ellison, Conyers, King,
Goodlatte, and Gohmert.
Staff present: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Najority Chief Counsel;
J. Traci Hong, 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.
I would like to welcome the Immigration Subcommittee
Members, our witnesses, and members of the public who are here
today for the Subcommittee's ninth hearing on comprehensive
immigration reform.
We started our series of hearings at Ellis Island, where we
examined the need for comprehensive immigration reform to
secure our borders, to address economic and demographic
concerns, and we reviewed our Nation's rich immigrant history.
We studied immigration reform from 1986 and 1996 in an
effort to avoid the mistakes of the past. We have considered
the problems with and proposed solutions for our current
employment and work site verification systems.
In light of recent proposals by the White House to
eliminate family priorities in immigration and replace it with
a completely new and untested point system, we studied the
contributions of family immigrants to America and various
immigration point systems used around the world.
The genius of America has always been our strength as a
society. People from all over the world come to America to
become Americans with us.
When a new citizen raises her hand to become an American at
her citizenship ceremony, she pledges her future to America.
She promises to defend our country and our Constitution. And
she immediately inherits a grand history of her new country
from George Washington to today.
Today, some fear that America has lost this exceptional
status, and some contend that, unlike immigrants from other
generations, immigrants today are not assimilating fast enough
or at all.
One clear and objective sign of assimilation is the process
by which immigrants master the English language. The census and
various academic studies and research show that immigrants and
their descendants are learning English at a rate comparable to
the past waves of immigrants.
According to the 2005 American Community Survey conducted
by the U.S. Census Bureau, 82 percent of immigrants 24 and
older report that they speak English well or very well. Younger
immigrants fare even better. Ninety-five percent of immigrants
from 18 to 23 report speaking English well or very well. By the
third generation, most grandchildren of immigrants can, in
fact, speak only English, even in heavily Spanish-speaking
areas of the country such as Southern California.
Our first witness, Professor Gerstle, explains that the
Southern and Eastern Europeans who immigrated to the United
States a century ago and are now held up as model immigrants
were once depicted much as immigrants of today: unable and
unwilling to assimilate. Yet, the professor explains, these
European immigrants did well in joining American society.
He finds that these so-called new immigrants of then
successfully integrated into the United States, despite such
hostility, because of three factors: the ability of immigrants
to participate in American democracy, the natural transition
from immigrants to their children, with the ability of
immigrants to achieve economic security.
He states that the, ``ability of immigrants to participate
in politics and to feel as though their votes made a difference
was crucial to their engagement with and integration into
America.''
He also notes that an, ``immigrant population that finds
itself unable to move out of poverty or to gain the confidence
that it can provide a decent life for their children is far
more likely to descend into alienation than to embrace
America.''
What we can learn from this historical account is that
including immigrants in mainstream American society and the
economy is the quickest way to assimilation and integration.
If creating new Americans is the goal of our immigration
policy, then we should ensure that comprehensive immigration
reform reflects that objective.
Purely temporary worker programs with little opportunity
for those who contribute to our economy to become full members
of the country that they have helped to build run contrary to
the goal of Americanism and assimilation, because such programs
relegate people to a life in a permanent underclass.
Furthermore, under purely temporary worker programs, there
is little incentive and little time to learn English if, after
2 years or 3 years of full-time work in the U.S., the only
choice is returning home to a non-English-speaking country.
As we develop comprehensive immigration reform, we must not
forget that mandating and facilitating the process for
immigrants to learn English is important but not sufficient in
achieving the goal of assimilation and allowing new immigrants
to become Americans.
The opportunity to become fully participating members of
our polity, our civic society, and our economy is a key to, as
Professor Gerstle so pointedly discusses in his written
testimony, allowing new immigrants to become our new Americans.
I would now recognize the Ranking Member 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
I would like to welcome the Immigration Subcommittee Members, our
witnesses, and members of the public to the Subcommittee's tenth
hearing on comprehensive immigration reform.
We started our series of hearings at Ellis Island where we examined
the need for comprehensive immigration reform to secure our borders, to
address economic and demographic concerns, and we reviewed our nation's
rich immigrant history. We have studied immigration reform from 1986
and 1996 in an effort to avoid the mistakes of the past. We've
considered the problems with and proposed solutions for our current
employment and worksite verification system. In light of recent
proposals by the White House to eliminate family priorities in
immigration and replace it with a completely new and untested point
system, we studied the contributions of family immigrants to America
and various immigration point systems used around the world.
Today we turn our attention to the integration of immigrants in our
society. Some contend that unlike immigrants from other generations,
immigrants today are not assimilating fast enough.
One clear and objective sign of assimilation is the process by
which immigrants master the English language. The Census and various
academic studies and research show that immigrants and their
descendants are learning English at a rate comparable to past waves of
immigrants. According to the 2005 American Community Survey conducted
by the U.S. Census Bureau, 82% of immigrants 24 and older report that
they speak English well or very well. Younger immigrants fare even
better. 95% of immigrants from 18 to 23 report speaking English well or
very well. By the third generation, most grandchildren of immigrants
can in fact speak only English, even in heavily Spanish-speaking areas
of the country, such as Southern California.
More importantly, our first witness, Professor Gerstle, explains
that the southern and eastern Europeans who immigrated to the United
States a century ago and are now held up as model immigrants, were once
depicted much as immigrants of today--unable and unwilling to
assimilate.
Yet, Professor Gerstle explains, these European immigrants did well
in joining American society. He finds that these ``new immigrants''
successfully integrated into the United States despite such hostility
because of three factors: 1) the ability of immigrants to participate
in American Democracy, 2) natural transition from immigrants to their
children; and 3) ability of immigrants to achieve economic security. He
states that ``[t]he ability of immigrants to participate in politics
and to feel as though their votes made a difference was crucial to
their engagement with and integration into America.'' He also notes
that ``[a]n immigrant population that finds itself unable to move out
of poverty or to gain the confidence that it can provide a decent life
for their children is far more likely to descend into alienation than
to embrace America.''
What we can learn from this historical account is that including
immigrants in mainstream American society and the economy is the
quickest way to assimilation and integration.
If assimilation is a goal of our immigration policy, then we should
ensure that comprehensive immigration reform reflects that objective.
Purely temporary worker programs with little opportunity for those who
contribute to our economy to become full members of the country that
they've helped to build run contrary to the goal of assimilation,
because such programs relegate people to a life in a permanent
underclass. Furthermore, under purely temporary worker programs, there
is little incentive and little time to learn English if, after two or
three years of full-time work in the U.S., the only choice is returning
home to a non-English-speaking country.
As we develop comprehensive immigration reform with an eye towards
assimilation, we must not forget that mandating and facilitating the
process for immigrants to learn English is important, but it is
certainly not sufficient to accomplish assimilation. It is the
opportunity to become fully participating members of our polity and our
economy that is the key to successful immigrant assimilation, as
Professor Gerstle so poignantly discusses in his written testimony.
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
As I expressed to the witnesses this morning, I appreciate
you being here and committing your time to the knowledge base
of this Congress, this panel, and the American people.
However, nothing in these hearings will replace hearings on
national legislation when we can actually examine the language
and have input on the impact of that language on the American
life with that policy that might come from specific language.
But facing us on the back wall of this hearing room, we are
looking at our national seal. And on the seal is our Nation's
motto, ``E Pluribus Unum.'' And that means, of course, out of
many, one.
This motto was proposed by a Committee appointed by
Congress on July 4, 1776. And on that Committee were John
Adams, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson.
Lest there be any doubt about what meaning was intended by
our founders in choosing that phrase, ``E Pluribus Unum,'' I
point out that the design they proposed for the seal was not
the eagle originally as you see today, but rather a shield
containing the six symbols for ``the countries from which these
states have been peopled.''
The patriotic assimilation of new immigrants has been a
primary objective of our immigration policy since our Nation's
birth.
Washington recommended that assimilation into the
mainstream of American life and values be encouraged so that
immigrants and native-born Americans would soon become one
people.
Only within the last generation or so have the terms
assimilation and Americanization given way to cultural
pluralism and multiculturalism.
The title of this hearing uses the word ``integration,'' a
term that is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as the
bringing of people of different racial or ethnic groups into an
unrestricted and equal association as in a society or
organization or, alternatively, mostly we understand it to mean
desegregation.
That term, however, does not capture the spirit of
Americans. In a public speech after the publication of the 1995
report by the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, Barbara
Jordan declared that the term Americanization earned a bad
reputation when it was stolen by racists and xenophobes in the
1920's. But it is our word, and we are taking it back,
according to Barbara Jordan.
She explained, ``When using the term Americanization, the
commission means the cultivation of a shared commitment to the
American values of liberty, democracy and equal opportunity,
something that is possible regardless of the nationality or
religious background of immigrants and their children. We view
Americanization positively as the inclusion of all who wish to
embrace the civic culture which holds our Nation together.''
I agree with her on this policy. We need to refocus our
priorities on helping those who are here legally now and help
them embrace our new country by emphasizing the rapid learning
of our common language of English by instilling core American
values, the deals of our constitutional republic and by
ensuring that immigrants' loyalty to America and not to the
country from which they came is achieved.
There are tens of thousands of people who have marched in
the streets of America under thousands of flags of foreign
countries, chanting for another nation--this doesn't give me
confidence that we have established the Americanization or the
assimilation that we need to hold this country together under
one cultural foundation.
Teddy Roosevelt spoke to it powerfully in a number of his
writings and statements.
But I would skip forward and say that, on a different
subject, the minority requested a hearing for last week because
we were denied the opportunity to present a witness of our
choice from the previous week.
What transpired was the use of the hearing process to
demean the efforts of Mr. Willard Fair, one of our volunteer
witnesses as well. He is the President and CEO of Urban League
of Greater Miami, and he has worked for 40 years to help the
lives of African-Americans and increase their employment.
He was not allowed to answer or respond to the questions
that were peppered at him, and I believe that we need to treat
you all with that level of respect and deference. And I insist
that we do so.
But when I asked for unanimous consent for Mr. Fair to
respond to those questions, there was an objection, and that is
something that I hope does not happen again with any of the
witnesses. I want to hear it from you myself.
And so with that, I would say also that there was a
rebuttal to the Rector study, and I hope that we can have a
panel here to allow Mr. Rector to be able to face his accusers.
I read the rebuttal. I didn't find any facts in that rebuttal.
But what I do have here is a request for a minority
hearing, Madam Chair, and I would ask unanimous consent that
the letter be introduced into the record, and hopefully we can
move forward with the proper edification of this panel and the
people of this country as they observe our process here.
This is a very pivotal issue that is before us in this
Congress. There is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube.
We had better get it right. We can learn from history. We can
learn from facts.
And as the Chair stated last week, we are entitled to our
own opinions. We are not entitled to our own facts. The facts
are in the Rector study. They do not include national interest
or national defense in his conclusions. They are only there so
that you can draw your own calculation if you choose, but not
in Rector's conclusions.
I look forward to hearing from him, and I hope that we can
have that kind of a hearing in the future.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection, the letter will be made a
part of the record and dealt with according to the rules.
[The letter referred to is inserted in the Appendix.]
Ms. Lofgren. I would now recognize the Chairman of the full
Committee, Mr. John Conyers, for his statement.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, and good morning, Madam Chairperson
and Members of the Committee and our very important witnesses
here.
This, to me--and I congratulate you, Ms. Lofgren--is a
philosophical inquiry that we are making today. Are new
immigrant groups any different from old immigrant groups? That
is a great subject to kick around on a Wednesday morning.
And I am so happy to hear that the Ranking Subcommittee
Member, Steve King, tell me that we need to refocus our
energies on those who are doing their best to make it here,
because that means he has come a little distance from an
assertion that I remember him making that we have gotten so
messed up in the immigration issue that even legal immigration
is unworkable. And I am happy to know that that is a direction
that he is moving in.
Now, are the new wave of immigrants different from the ones
that came from Germany in 1751, or Ireland in 1856, or from
China in 1882, or from Italy in 1896, or from Mexico in 1956,
and now, of course, the Latino groups from Latin America?
And what I am thinking is that this discussion becomes
critical to our understanding of what our job is about: reform,
major reform, of the immigration law, because it is very easy
to get caught in a time warp.
That is to say what we are looking at now--and some might
say, ``This is different, Conyers, don't you get it? This isn't
the 18th century or the 19th century or the 20th century. This
is different. And if you don't understand that, we are not
going to be able to get anywhere.''
And so this discussion amongst us and with our witnesses
becomes important because it attempts to pull another layer off
the onion that gets us to the importance of what it is we are
going to do legislatively.
We have been given another week by the Senate. I think that
is critical. I was very nervous when I came in to ask what
finally happened late last night.
But it just occurred to me that the first person killed in
Iraq was Lance Corporal Jose Antonio Gutierrez, an illegal
immigrant, if you please, who was undocumented. Our country
gave him a chance, a home, a career in the military, and he was
just one of millions who have embraced America's promise of
freedom and opportunity.
And so, yes, I say, time and time again, we have worried
about whether some people can assimilate satisfactorily into
this so-called American melting pot. And time and time again,
these fears have proven to be completely unfounded.
So I look forward to all of the witnesses, including the
minority's witness as well, to join us in this discussion this
morning. And I thank you for this opportunity.
[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
At an earlier hearing before this Subcommittee, one of the
witnesses remarked that while America is a nation of immigrants, it is
also a nation that loves to discuss immigration policy.
Time and time again, Americans have fretted about whether the next
new group of immigrants would ever assimilate into American society and
American values--the so-called American Melting Pot. But, time and time
again, these fears have been proven to be completely unfounded.
In the current debate on immigration, for example, conservative
commentator Selwyn Duke just yesterday inveighed against any
immigration (legal or not). He warned, ``[R]eplace our population with
a Mexican or Moslem one and you no longer have a western civilization,
you no longer have America. You have Mexico North or Iran West.''
As we have heard in other hearings before this Subcommittee,
however, nothing can be further from the truth. immigrants create jobs,
fill niches in our economy, and display American values of family and
patriotism. We find immigrants and their children in all aspects of
American life, at church, in 4-H clubs or girl scouts, and in college.
These contributions should be praised, not denigrated.
I would point out that the first American killed in Iraq, Lance
Corporal Jose Antonio Gutierrez, was an immigrant. Corporal Guitierrez
first arrived in the United States as an undocumented immigrant.
America gave him a chance--a home, a career in the military, and
something in which to believe. Corporal Gutierrez was one of the
millions of immigrants who have embraced America's promise of freedom
and opportunity.
So too did immigrants and children of immigrants in the Asian and
Hispanic communities served with distinction in World War II and other
conflicts. Nevertheless, they have had to constantly fight for
recognition of their sacrifice. The Hispanic Caucus has worked to draw
our attention to this issue, and I join them in lauding the
contributions of immigrant servicemembers to this country.
And if immigrants to our nation retain their heritage and bring it
into the American experience, so much the better for our national
culture.
We owe it to Corporal Guteirrez, and to all of those who will come
after him, to devise an immigration system that is controlled, orderly,
and fair. Just imagine all of the great things they will do for
America.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Conyers.
Noting that we have witnesses to hear from, without
objection, all Members of the Committee are invited to submit
their statements for the record.
[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
Today we continue these series of hearings dealing with
comprehensive immigration reform. This subcommittee previously dealt
with the shortfalls of the 1986 and 1996 immigration reforms, the
difficulties employers face with employment verification and ways to
improve the employment verification system. On Tuesday May 1, 2007 we
explored the point system that the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand utilize, and on May 3, 2007 the focus of the discussion
was on the U.S. economy, U.S. workers and immigration reform. Last week
we took a look at another controversial aspect of the immigration
debate, family based immigration. Today we continue the vital task of
eliminating the myths and seeking the truth. Today's hearing deals with
probably the most crucial aspect underlying the immigration debate, an
immigrant's ability to integrate, and assimilate into American society.
Let me start by quoting my predecessor the late great Barbara
Jordan: ``We are a nation of immigrants, dedicated to the rule of law.
That is our history--and it is our challenge to ourselves. It is
literally a matter of who we are as a nation and who we become as a
people.''
Allow me to talk about our nation's history. I find that quote
particularly interesting in light of the recent celebration of the 400
year anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown. Yes we are talking
about a different time period, but imagine if that first group of
individuals was met with the hostility and disregard for decency that
today's immigrant population faces. Imagine if these folks were
demonized, and disparaged by a wide network of Native Americans, in the
same manner that we demonize the current documented and undocumented
population.
It was not to long ago that we held a field hearing underneath the
shadow of the Statue of Liberty at Ellis Island. I remind my colleagues
of the famous inscription on that monument of freedom, hope, and
inspiration that many immigrants saw as they pulled into Ellis Island
full of hopes and dreams, ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled
masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming
shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I left my lamp
beside the golden door.'' Now we want to close this door because of the
lies and the hysteria created by a few in the Nativist and
Restrictionist camps.
There is an old saying, if you do not learn your history you are
doomed to repeat it. There was a time when our nation had the same
reservations about Italian and Irish immigrants that came to this
country at the start of the 20th century. Fast forward to 2007 and one
of the leading candidates for the Republican nomination for President,
Rudy Guliani is the descendant of Italian immigrants, and Bill O'Reily
an individual well respected by my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle is the descendant of Irish immigrants, and no one would argue
that they have had any problems assimilating into our society. In fact
they represent the natural progression to full fledged Americans that
occurs when the children of immigrants have kids and their kids have
kids. I look down the aisle and I see Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Member of
Congress and the child of immigrants. I look behind me and I have a
staffer Ted Hutchinson, an attorney and the child of immigrants.
Therefore it should be quite evident that immigrants have a long
successful history of assimilation and achievement in this nation.
Let me take a moment to describe how my immigration legislation,
H.R. 750, the ``Save America Comprehensive Immigration Reform''
addresses this issue of integration and assimilation. Save mandates
that immigrants earn their legalization by 1) successfully completing a
course on reading, writing, and speaking ordinary English words, and 2)
showing that he has accepted the values and cultural life of the United
States. Save also requires the completion of 40 community service
hours. For children Save requires that school age kids are successfully
pursuing an education. These are the values that make are nation great
education, community service, and the acceptance of our system of
democracy. With these requirements we can all be ensured that those who
seek a better opportunity here in the United States will embrace this
country as their own.
Likewise embracing the ideals and value systems of the United
States is something that all immigrants have exemplified from Ellis
Island to the sandy beaches of Key West, Florida. Are we no longer the
melting pot? When the pilgrims came they did not leave their culture
behind so you can not expect any group of immigrants, Latino, European,
or African to leave their culture behind either. This mixture of
cultures is what defines cities like New York, Los Angeles, Miami, and
Chicago, and makes this nation wonderful. However no groups of
immigrants come to this country as a collective whole with the purpose
of disregarding the value system that they seek to be a part of. That
does not make any sense, that is not true, and it is simply un-
American.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the hearing at any time.
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses here today to
help us consider the important issues before us.
I would like to extend a warm welcome to Dr. Gary Gerstle,
a Professor of History at Vanderbilt University. Dr. Gerstle's
research has focused on the nexus between immigration, race,
and nationhood. His co-authored college textbook, Liberty,
Equality, Power: A History of the American People, will soon
enter its fifth edition. He comes to Vanderbilt after teaching
at the University of Maryland, the University of Pennsylvania,
and the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences in
Paris. In addition to his teaching and research
responsibilities, he serves on the editorial board of the
Journal of American History. He earned his doctorate degree in
history from Harvard University.
We will next hear from Dr. Ruben G. Rumbaut, Professor of
Sociology at the University of California, my home State, at
Irvine. A native of Havana, Cuba, Dr. Rumbaut has conducted
world-renowned research on immigration, including his current
work on the landmark Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study,
which began in 1991, and the large-scale study of immigration
and intergenerational mobility in metropolitan Los Angeles. He
was a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral
Sciences at Stanford, my alma mater, and the founding chair of
the Section on International Migration of the American
Sociological Association, and a member of the Committee on
Population in the National Academy of Sciences. He received his
bachelor's degree from Washington University in St. Louis, a
master's degree from San Diego State University, and a master's
and doctoral degree from Brandeis University.
I am pleased to next welcome Donald Kerwin, the executive
director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc, or
CLINIC, since 1993. CLINIC, a public interest legal corporation
and a subsidiary of the United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops, supports a national network of 161 charitable legal
programs for immigrants, from more than 260 locations across
the Nation. Prior to his work at CLINIC, Mr. Kerwin practiced
law as an associate with the Washington law firm of Patton
Boggs. He serves as an advisor to the conference of Catholic
Bishops' Committee on Migration, a member of the American Bar
Association's Commission on Immigration, and a fellow at the
Migration Policy Institute. He earned his bachelor's degree
from Georgetown University and his law degree from the
University of Michigan Law School.
Finally, we are pleased to welcome the minority's witness,
Dr. John Fonte, the Director of the Center for American Common
Culture and Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute here in
Washington. In addition to his work at the Hudson Institute,
Dr. Fonte has worked as a senior researcher at the U.S.
Department of Education and a program administrator at the
National Endowment for the Humanities. He holds a bachelor's
and master's degree from the University of Arizona and his
Ph.D. in world history from the University of Chicago.
Each of you has written statements, which I have read with
great interest, and they will all be made part of the record in
their entirety. I would ask that each of you summarize your
testimony in 5 minutes or less, and to stay within that time
you can see there is a little machine on the desk.
When the light turns yellow, it means that you have 1
minute. And when it turns red--this always surprises witnesses
because the time flies--it means that 5 minutes are actually
up, and we would ask that you summarize your last sentence so
that we can hear from all the witnesses and then also get to
questions.
So if we would begin, Dr. Gerstle?
TESTIMONY OF GARY GERSTLE, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF HISTORY,
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY
Mr. Gerstle. I wish to thank you for the invitation to
appear before your Committee today.
Since its founding, the United States has arguably
integrated more immigrants, both in absolute and relative
terms, than any other nation.
In the years between the 1820's and 1920's, an estimated 35
million immigrants came to the United States. Approximately 40
million to 50 million more came between the 1920's and the
2000's, with most of those coming after 1965.
The immigrants who came in the first wave are thought to
have been enormously successful in integrating themselves into
American society.
We are here today because many Americans doubt the ability
or willingness of the immigrants of the second wave, especially
those who have come since 1965, to replicate the success of
that earlier wave.
I am here to offer you the benefit of my historical
knowledge regarding these earlier immigrants and to draw
conclusions about what their experience means for today's
immigrants.
My main points are as follows. First, that the integration
process of earlier immigrants, especially the 20-plus million
who came from Eastern and Southern Europe in the years from
1880 to 1920, has been mythologized as quick, easy, and
unproblematic.
In fact, these immigrants were widely regarded then as many
immigrants are regarded today, as radically different in
culture and values from Americans and as lacking the desire and
ability to integrate themselves into American society.
Their integration would ultimately be an outstanding
success, but it took about 50 years. It required a generational
transition in these immigrant communities, and engagement on
the part of these immigrants with American democracy, and an
opportunity for them to achieve economic security for
themselves and their families.
My second point: are there too many immigrants present in
American society today even to contemplate a successful
campaign to integrate them all? My answer to that is no.
Immigrant density was greater 100 years ago than it is today.
Twenty-four million came into a society in 1900 that
numbered only 76 million people. To match that immigrant
density today, we would have to admit four times as many
immigrants a year and sustain that for a decade.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In a May 22, 2007, letter to the Honorable Steve King, Gary
Gerstle revised his prediction for how many immigrants would have to be
admitted a year for the next decade in order for the immigrant density
of the early 21st century to match the immigrant density of the early
20th century. Gerstle said the correct number is one million. The
rationale for the revision was presented in substantial detail in the
letter of May 22, 2007, a copy of which was filed with the House
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law, the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chairwoman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third point: there is greater diversity culturally and
economically among today's immigrants than those who came 100
years ago.
However, for the majority of today's immigrants who are
poor and non-White, the distance of their values and cultural
traditions from mainstream America is no greater than what
separated native-born Americans and immigrants 100 years ago.
That we integrated the last wave should give us confidence
that we can integrate this wave, too.
Fourth point: that confidence must be grounded in a
realistic and robust sense of what successful immigrant
incorporation requires.
Immigrant incorporation requires two generations in time
and a generational transition within immigrant families and
communities during that time so that the power of the first
generation recedes and the power of the second generation comes
to the fore.
Successful immigrant integration also requires immigrant
engagement with American democracy, becoming citizens and
active participants in American politics. And it also requires
the achievement of economic security.
The institutions that were once so important in the early
20th century in bringing immigrants into politics and aiding
their quest for economic security--political parties and the
labor movement-- are no longer as well positioned to continue
performing that role.
Either these institutions must find ways to broaden their
involvement with immigrants, or other institutions such as the
Catholic Church must step forward to take their place.
Fifth point, and my final point, engaging immigrants in
American democracy and broadening the access of the immigrant
poor to economic opportunity and security will, in the short
term, yield as much contention as it will yield comity.
But if done right, it will work to bind together the
foreign-born and immigrant-born into one American Nation and
demonstrate yet again the remarkable ability of America to take
in people from very different parts of the world, to make them
into Americans, and in the process to reinvigorate the power of
American ideals and the promise of American life for all who
have had the good fortune to make themselves a home on U.S.
soil.
We should try to make this happen again. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gerstle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gary Gerstle
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Doctor.
Dr. Rumbaut?
TESTIMONY OF RUBEN G. RUMBAUT, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY,
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE
Mr. Rumbaut. Chairwoman Lofgren, Chairman Conyers, Ranking
Member King and Members of the Judiciary Committee and the
Immigration Subcommittee, thank you very much for the
opportunity to appear at this hearing.
I could never have imagined when I arrived in this country
on the eve of my 12th birthday, speaking no English at all,
that one day 46 years later I would be speaking to a
congressional Committee, in English, about the fate of
immigrant languages in the U.S. and of immigrants' acquisition
of English. But life, like history, is full of surprises and
often unfolds like a telenovela on a Spanish-language T.V.
channel in L.A.
I use that metaphor deliberately because two summers ago,
in the Nielsen ratings of the 10-most-watched T.V. programs in
the huge television market of greater Los Angeles, where I live
and work, nine of the top 10 prime time programs were
telenovelas, broadcast in Spanish, by KMEX, the Univision
channel. It was ``La Madrastra'' Tuesday, ``La Madrastra''
Wednesday, ``La Madrastra'' Monday, ``Apuesta Por Un Amor''
Tuesday, and number nine was ``CSI'', and then ``La Madrastra''
Friday, which, you know, came in last.
Such anecdotes would seem to support the concerns that have
been expressed by some that immigrant integration today, and
especially their linguistic assimilation, in areas of
geographic concentration is being slowed or even reversed to
the point of threatening the predominance of English in the
United States, above all, among Spanish-speaking Latin
Americans, most notably Mexicans in Southern California and
Cubans in South Florida.
However, as the evidence from the census itself, from the
American Community Survey that was just cited by Chairwoman
Lofgren, and from every major national and regional study
shows, compellingly and incontrovertibly, including cross-
sectional and longitudinal surveys carried out in Los Angeles
and San Diego and Miami, the process of linguistic assimilation
to English today is occurring perhaps more quickly than ever in
U.S. history.
I have summarized that evidence in detail in my written
statement, including an analysis of the determinants of English
fluency, et cetera, so I need not repeat it here, except to
highlight a few main points.
First, the evidence documents a pattern of very rapid
language transition from the first to the second and third
generations, a switch to English that is completed before the
third generation for most immigrant groups, and by or before
the third generation even for those of Mexican origin in Los
Angeles and of Cuban origin in Miami.
The power of assimilative forces is nowhere clearer than in
the linguistic switch across the generations.
But in addition to that, secondly, longitudinal studies,
such as our own Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study,
which have followed a large sample of children of immigrants
representing 77 different nationalities for more than 10 years
in San Diego and Miami have documented the extraordinarily
rapid switch to English in degrees of proficiency, preference
and use for all groups.
Tables 6 and 7 in my written statement have specific
information in that regard.
But just to give you a taste of it, by early adulthood, by
their mid-20's, over 93 percent of the Mexicans in San Diego
and 98 percent of the Cubans in Miami preferred English over
Spanish. And for some of the other groups, it was 100 percent.
And third, we carried out an analysis of what we call
linguistic life expectancies for all the main immigrant groups
concentrated in Southern California from San Diego on the
Mexican border to Los Angeles and demonstrated the generational
point at which language death occurs.
Even for Mexican Spanish in Los Angeles, one of the largest
Spanish-speaking cities in the world, where the adult immigrant
parents may be watching ``La Madrastra'' on T.V. in one room,
but their kids are watching ``CSI'' and ``American Idol'' in
the room next door in English. Indeed, the parents may talk to
them in Spanish but they will answer back in English.
Additional point: English proficiency has always been a key
to socioeconomic mobility for immigrants and to their full
participation in their adopted society.
The last person you need to tell that to is an immigrant,
who came to the United States precisely with that in mind.
Today is no different in that respect.
In fact, the United States has been described as a language
graveyard because of its historical ability to absorb millions
of immigrants, as Professor Gerstle mentioned, and to
extinguish their mother tongues within a few generations. And
Spanish appears to offer no threat to this reputation,
unfortunately.
English has never been seriously threatened as the dominant
language of the United States. And with nearly 250 million
English monolinguals in the U.S. today, it is certainly not
threatened today, not even in Southern California.
For that matter, English has become firmly established
throughout the world as the premier international language of
commerce, diplomacy, education, journalism, technology, the
Internet, and mass culture.
Ms. Lofgren. Dr. Rumbaut, your light is on. If you could
wrap up, that would be----
Mr. Rumbaut. What is endangered instead is the
survivability of the non-English languages that immigrants
bring with them to the United States, and whether the loss of
such assets is desirable or not is, of course, another matter.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rumbaut follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ruben G. Rumbaut
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kerwin?
TESTIMONY OF DONALD KERWIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CATHOLIC LEGAL
IMMIGRATION NETWORK, INC.
Mr. Kerwin. Madam Chairwoman, Chairman Conyers,
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today on the importance of
citizenship in immigrant integration.
There are more than 11 million lawful permanent residents
in the United States who are eligible or who will soon be
eligible to apply for citizenship. As you know, citizenship
confers important rights and responsibilities. It is a
precondition for full membership in our society.
In our experience, the naturalization process is also a
focal point for a range of integration activities. These
include English classes, citizenship classes, home ownership
seminars, and provision of public health information.
Earlier this year, my agency released a report titled ``A
More Perfect Union: A National Citizenship Plan.'' The report
is based on more than 100 interviews and the best thinking of
an advisory group of 22 experts on this issue.
It details the resources, partnerships, and commitments
that would be necessary to achieve the following goals. First,
to create a federally led citizenship initiative that could
play a central role in what we hope will be an emerging
national immigrant integration policy.
Second, to increase naturalization numbers and rates so
that more immigrants can contribute fully to our Nation.
Third, to make the naturalization process more meaningful
by deepening the knowledge and commitment of immigrants to our
Nation's history, political institutions, and democratic
ideals.
Fourth, to increase opportunities for citizenship by
expanding English-as-a-second-language and citizenship
instruction.
Fifth, to address barriers to citizenship like proposed fee
increases and security clearances that can drag on for 3 years
or 4 years.
Sixth, to build stronger bonds between the native-born and
naturalized.
And seventh, to forge strong public-private partnerships in
support of all of these goals.
Our plan details how a wide range of stakeholders--faith
communities; Federal, State and local government; business;
labor; civic organizations and others--can promote citizenship.
While it includes hundreds of recommendations, I have
included just 13 key proposals in my written testimony. For
example, we propose that charitable agencies expand their
citizenship services, particularly by offering more group
naturalization processing sessions.
My agency now funds and supports naturalization sessions in
21 communities, a number that we hope to increase, some of
those communities represented by you.
Many other networks, like the New American Initiative in
Illinois, have also mobilized to do this work. These sessions,
at modest cost, allow large numbers of immigrants to apply to
naturalize.
They also help to prepare charitable agencies for the
massive amounts of work they will need to assume if
comprehensive immigration reform legislation is to pass and be
successful.
We also recommend that the Office of Citizenship be funded
sufficiently so that it can coordinate a national citizenship
program and can support the work of community-based
organizations.
Federal leadership and coordination will be essential to a
national citizenship drive. The Office of Citizenship, which
has a $3 million budget and does not currently have grant-
making authority, needs to be strengthened if it is to play
this role.
We support increased funding for ESL and citizenship
classes. Lack of proficiency in English and the shortage of
such classes represent a major barrier to citizenship.
In addition, federally funded ESL classes do not typically
cover civics or citizenship issues.
We also support the efforts of the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services to develop a more meaningful citizenship
test, and we particularly support more meaningful preparation
for this test.
Of course, we also hope that the revised test does not
preclude worthy immigrants from taking this important step.
While immigration is a volatile issue, we have found broad
and deep support for citizenship. We worry that the national
debate over how many and what types of immigrants to accept may
overshadow the many contributions that immigrants make to our
Nation.
We also worry that this debate may obscure our need to
promote immigrant integration and attachment to our Nation's
core principles.
We believe that a national citizenship plan would represent
a step in the right direction, and we pledge our gifts and
resources to this important goal.
We thank you for taking on this issue.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kerwin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald Kerwin
Madam Chairwoman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, my
name is Donald Kerwin and I am the Executive Director of the Catholic
Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC). I appreciate the opportunity
to testify before you today on the role of citizenship in immigrant
integration.
CLINIC, a subsidiary of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
(USCCB), supports a national network of 161 charitable legal programs
for immigrants. These programs represent roughly 400,000 low-income
immigrants each year, including lawful permanent residents who wish to
become U.S. citizens. Over the last decade, CLINIC has directed
programs that have assisted more than 80,000 immigrants to obtain
citizenship. We now fund and support group naturalization processing
events in 21 communities, including in communities represented by
several Members on the Judiciary Committee. We hope to expand this
number in the upcoming weeks.
Earlier this year, CLINIC published a report titled A More Perfect
Union: A National Citizenship Plan which can be found at http://
www.cliniclegal.org/DNP/citzplan.html. The report reflects extensive
research, more than 100 interviews with immigration service and policy
experts, and the best thinking of a 22-person advisory committee. It
attempts to set forth the resources, activities, and partnerships that
would be required to carry out a national citizenship plan. The report
will form the basis of this testimony.
citizenship and immigrant integration
The strength and vitality of our nation will increasingly depend on
the contributions of its 37 million foreign-born residents. We cannot
afford to assume that the integration of a population of this magnitude
and diversity will occur automatically or easily. As President Bush
recognized in creating the Task Force on New Americans, integration
will require sound policies, contributions from all the key sectors in
society, and a coordinated strategy. Citizenship should play a central
role in an immigrant integration strategy for four main reasons.
First, citizenship represents a pre-condition to the full
membership of immigrants in our nation. Its benefits include the right
to vote and to hold public office, timely family reunification, and
enhanced employment and educational opportunities. It allows immigrants
to contribute more fully to the good of our nation.
Second, the naturalization process represents a focal point for
immigrant integration activities. Most importantly, it provides the
occasion to educate immigrants on U.S. history, civic values and
political institutions. This effort must go beyond preparing immigrants
for the civics test. Naturalization--culminating in the oath of
allegiance at the swearing-in ceremony--should lead immigrants to
become better informed about the Constitution, fully committed to our
democratic ideals, engaged in the political process, and represented in
the political system. In a nation united by a common creed, this goal
could not be more important. Citizenship programs also provide services
as diverse as English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) instruction,
citizenship classes, home-ownership seminars, and medical information.
These activities contribute to greater proficiency in English, closer
community ties, and integration into a wider circle of people and
institutions.
Third, a national citizenship plan would address an immense need.
According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 8.5 million U.S. residents were
eligible to naturalize in 2005 based on their years as lawful permanent
residents, with an additional 2.8 million soon to be eligible (Passel,
2007, pp. 7-8). A national citizenship initiative would benefit
millions of immigrants and their families.
Fourth, citizenship offers a unique opportunity for collaboration
between different sectors of society. CLINIC developed A More Perfect
Union: A National Citizenship Plan based on the input of experts with
different competencies and perspectives. Although immigration can be a
volatile issue, CLINIC has found wide and bi-partisan support for
citizenship. Our plan details how key ``stakeholders''--government at
all levels, schools, faith communities, business, labor unions, civic
organizations, and others--can contribute to a coordinated citizenship
program. Of course, these institutions have historically served as
vehicles for immigrant integration.
Immigrants also value citizenship. Fully 90 percent view
citizenship as something ``necessary and practical'' or ``a dream come
true'' (Farkas, Duffett and Johnson, 2003, p. 29). This should come as
no surprise. The vast majority of immigrants want what most of the rest
of us do in life: to pursue a livelihood, to support their families, to
contribute to their nation, to live in security and to practice their
faith.
While naturalization rates and numbers have increased in recent
years, only 53 percent of those admitted as lawful permanent residents
11 to 20 years ago have naturalized (Passel, 2007, p. 15). Any
citizenship plan would need to address why millions fail to apply to
naturalize when they become eligible. Lack of proficiency in English
represents the most common reason. Fifty-five (55) percent of
immigrants who are otherwise eligible to naturalize and 67 percent of
those who will soon be eligible have limited English proficiency
(Passel, 2007, p. 11). In many communities, waiting lists for English
classes stretch several months. Yet these programs represent the only
structured way for many low-income immigrants to learn English.
Other barriers to citizenship include lack of knowledge about the
legal requirements and benefits of naturalization, a paucity of
professional assistance to guide immigrants through this process, the
inability to afford the application fee (a problem that will increase
if proposed fee increases go into effect), and application processing
problems. As an example of the latter, FBI Director Mueller reported
security delays of more than one year in 44,843 naturalization cases as
of May 2006. While we support strong security clearance procedures,
CLINIC's network of charitable programs handles many naturalization
cases that have been pending for three and even four years.
recommendations
Despite the widely acknowledged benefits of citizenship, the United
States does surprisingly little to promote the naturalization process.
A More Perfect Union: A National Citizenship Plan calls for a national
mobilization in support of citizenship, identifying the roles of
government, immigrant service agencies, and other sectors of society.
It describes a program that could serve as the linchpin of an emerging
U.S. immigrant integration strategy. A few key recommendations follow.
First, immigration service providers should significantly expand
their naturalization work, offering group workshops and related
services. These events should be sponsored and supervised by charitable
organizations with immigration attorneys or with staff ``accredited''
by the Board of Immigration Appeals. In addition, they should use
trained volunteers and follow stringent quality control standards for
eligibility screening and application review.
CLINIC and other immigrant-service networks have significantly
increased their commitment to naturalization services in recent months,
both as a good in itself and as a way to prepare to implement
immigration reform legislation. These workshops require charitable
programs to rent space, to conduct community outreach, to serve large
numbers of people, and to recruit and train volunteers (including pro
bono attorneys). This work anticipates what they will need to do in
order to ensure the success of comprehensive immigration reform
legislation.
Second, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service's (USCIS's)
Office of Citizenship (OoC) should receive sufficient federal funding
to coordinate a national citizenship program. At present, OoC's annual
budget of roughly $3 million and its lack of grant-making authority
significantly limit its activities. Similarly, USCIS should not be
required to support its operations entirely on fee revenue. Adequate
funding would allow USCIS to forego onerous fee increases that will
deny access to citizenship to many immigrants. It would also help USCIS
to reduce its backlogs, update its technology, and improve its customer
services. USCIS should also be given greater access to fee-account
revenue so that it can respond to sudden increases in applications.
Third, charitable agencies need additional resources to expand
their significant work in this area. Of course, this need will increase
dramatically if comprehensive immigration reform legislation passes.
Federal support should be provided to networks of direct service
providers that are engaged in naturalization outreach, intake,
application assistance, ESL classes, citizenship instruction, and test
preparation. Non-profit organizations that are ``recognized'' by the
Board of Immigration Appeals or supervised by an attorney should be the
preferred anchors in local collaborative programs. Charitable service
agencies, including those in CLINIC's network, stand ready to partner
with the federal government on a national citizenship effort, as well
as on implementation of comprehensive immigration reform legislation.
Fourth, the federal government should help to coordinate, increase,
and sustain the citizenship work now being performed by others; it
should not supplant existing efforts. State, local, philanthropic, and
corporate interests should partner with the federal government--perhaps
matching federal dollars--to expand naturalization services, including
English language instruction. The Office of Citizenship should track
funding from these sources and issue an annual report that publicizes
the achievements of a national program.
Fifth, a national citizenship program should bring together the
leadership, resources, and talents of the nation's public and private
sectors. It should also engage the native-born, naturalized, and future
citizens in the program's design and implementation. A national program
should ensure that lawful permanent residents enjoy access to
citizenship, regardless of their socio-economic status or ethnic
background. It should make a special effort to reach those who
naturalize at the lowest rates. However, it should also assure that
sufficient services be provided to those who can self-file and who need
less information and assistance.
Sixth, the Office of Citizenship's budget should come chiefly from
public funds; its dependence on USCIS application fees should be
reduced. The OoC should steer corporate and foundation funding to
charitable agencies; it should not compete for sparse private funding.
The OoC should hire community liaison officers for each USCIS district
to coordinate local initiatives, to conduct outreach, to share
successful program models, and otherwise to build partnerships with
charitable agencies.
Seventh, the Office of Citizenship should initiate a process to
identify the research and demographic data that will be needed to
conduct a national citizenship program. This data should be used to
develop outreach strategies, to design media campaigns, to allocate
funding, to build service capacity, to strengthen ESL and citizenship
instruction, and to provide benchmarks and tools for evaluation.
Similarly, immigration experts should convene a national citizenship
conference to share new research, knowledge, program models, and best
practices. It will be crucially important that any national citizenship
program have a methodologically sound evaluation component. Program
evaluation should document not only numbers of new citizens, but
significant community interventions and steps contributing to
citizenship. Protocols and controls should be developed to restrict
government and grantee access to confidential information.
Eighth, USCIS should explain naturalization eligibility
requirements in its approval notice for lawful permanent residence. In
addition, the USCIS should make the OoC's guide titled Welcome to the
United States, A Guide for New Immigrants available to all immigrants
and refugees. USCIS should notify immigrants when they become eligible
to apply for citizenship. It should refer applicants that fail the
citizenship test to ESL and citizenship courses. In addition, the
Office of Citizenship should partner with charitable agencies and
networks to provide outreach on citizenship to immigrant communities.
Appropriate content should be developed by experts in media messaging
and by immigration advocates. Outreach should highlight naturalization
requirements, as well as the benefits, rights, and responsibilities of
citizenship.
Ninth, naturalization oath ceremonies should be the defining moment
of the citizenship process and a key feature of a national citizenship
program. USCIS should direct its district offices to offer same-day
oath ceremonies if possible. The Office of Citizenship should expand
its efforts to organize high-profile naturalization ceremonies,
including those on days of national significance. Court- and USCIS-
administered ceremonies should be open to the public and to service
organizations. All oath ceremonies should conclude with voter
registration. Local boards of election should oversee voter
registration activities and encourage civic organizations to provide
this service.
Tenth, ESL and citizenship instruction should be expanded through
adult basic education classes and community-based organizations.
Classes should be available at different English language levels,
including short-term, high-impact instruction for advanced students and
long-term, tailored instruction for students with low literacy.
Standards should be established for both professional and volunteer
instructors. Instructors should refer legal questions to immigration
attorneys or accredited non-attorneys. ESL and citizenship curricula
should cover the naturalization test and interview, but include broader
content that fosters an informed and engaged citizenry.
Eleventh, USCIS should expand the availability of citizenship
application fee waivers for low-income immigrants. It should liberalize
its fee waiver policy, create a fee waiver application form to
standardize the application process, explain the availability of
waivers and the application process in its informational materials,
establish an application filing discount for poor working families who
wish to apply for citizenship together, and offer an option of paying
the application fee in two installments.
Twelfth, USCIS should continue its efforts--which it began in
earnest in 2002--to develop a more meaningful citizenship test. The
revised test should adhere to the current legal requirements for level
of difficulty and use of discretion, include consequential material on
U.S. history and civics presented at a basic English level, and be able
to accommodate applicants with special needs. It should not adversely
impact vulnerable applicants or those who are members of specific
ethnic, national or language groups.
Thirteenth, USCIS should train and monitor its officers to ensure
proper implementation of the redesigned citizenship test. In addition,
the Office of Citizenship should partner with nonprofit organizations
to create: (1) a curriculum and study guide at basic and advanced
English levels for use in preparing applicants for the citizenship
test; (2) a teacher's guide; and (3) multi-modal citizenship promotion
materials. It should also establish a clearinghouse of citizenship
materials, fund training and technical assistance for ESL and
citizenship teachers, and promote standards in citizenship education.
conclusion
These recommendations form the basis of the more detailed analysis
provided in A More Perfect Union: A National Citizenship Plan. CLINIC's
network is fully committed to the integration of our nation's
immigrants and their families. A national citizenship plan would make
an indispensable contribution to this goal. It would also serve our
nation's interest. We thank you for your leadership on this issue and
encourage you to move ahead on this important issue.
work cited
Jeffrey Chenoweth and Laura Burdick, A More Perfect Union: A National
Citizenship Plan (Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., Jan.
2007), available at http://www.cliniclegal.org/DNP/citzplan.html.
Steve Farkas, Ann Duffett and Jean Johnson, Now That I'm Here: What
America's Immigrants Have to Say about Life in the U.S. Today
(Public Agenda, 2003), 29.
Jeffrey Passel, Growing Share of Immigrants Choosing Naturalization
(Pew Hispanic Center, Mar. 28, 2007), 7-8, available at http://
pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=74).
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Kerwin.
And Dr. Fonte?
TESTIMONY OF JOHN FONTE, Ph.D., SENIOR FELLOW,
HUDSON INSTITUTE
Mr. Fonte. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren and Ranking Member
King.
What do we mean by integration? Let's start by using a more
vigorous term, assimilation. There are different types of
assimilation: linguistic, economic, civic, patriotic.
Linguistic assimilation means the immigrant learns English.
Economic assimilation means the immigrant does well materially.
Civic integration means the immigrant is integrated into our
political system, votes and has some involvement in civic
affairs.
These forms of assimilation are necessary but not
sufficient. We were reminded again with the Fort Dix conspiracy
that there are naturalized citizens, permanent residents and
illegal immigrants living in our country who speak English, are
gainfully employed and would like to kill as many Americans as
possible.
The type of assimilation that matters most is patriotic
assimilation, political loyalty, and emotional attachment to
the United States.
This was accomplished in the days of Ellis Island because
America's leaders, including Democrat Woodrow Wilson and
Republican Theodore Roosevelt, believed that immigrants should
be Americanized.
They were self-confident leaders. They didn't use weasel
words like ``integration.'' They talked openly about
Americanization.
July 4, 1915, President Woodrow Wilson declared National
Americanization Day. The President and his cabinet addressed
naturalization ceremonies around the Nation.
The most powerful speech was delivered by Supreme Court
Justice Louis Brandeis in which Brandeis declared
Americanization meant that the newcomer should possess the
national consciousness of an American.
In the 1990's, the late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan called
for revival of Americanization and a new Americanization
movement.
Yesterday, I was at a conference where Henry Cisneros said
the best term is ``Americanization.'' Unfortunately, for
decades, we have implemented anti-Americanization policies--
multilingual ballots, bilingual education and Executive Order
13166. This hurts assimilation.
Traditionally, the greatest indicator of assimilation is
intermarriage between immigrants and the native-born.
A major new study published in the American Sociological
Review found a big decline in interethnic marriage. The author
declared, ``These declines are a significant departure from
past trends and reflect the growth in the immigrant
population,'' in which Latinos are marrying Latinos, Asians
marrying Latinos--and the paths are reversed, so the 1970's and
1980's and 1990's were reversed.
The Pew Hispanic Survey found that 7 months after 9/11,
only 34 percent of American citizens of Latino origin consider
their primary identification as American first. On the other
hand, 42 percent identified with their parents' country,
Mexico, El Salvador, so on--24 percent, ethnic identity first.
Professor Rumbaut's excellent work on the children of
immigrants showed that after 4 years of American high school,
self-identification with America and as hyphenated Americans
went down. Identification with parents and birth country went
up.
An article in the Chicago Tribune Friday, April 6 about the
person in charge of the New Americans Office is, I think, very
revealing.
The State official declared, ``The nation-state concept is
changing, where you don't have to say I am Mexican or I am
American. You can be a good Mexican citizen and a good American
citizen, and it is not a conflict of interest. Sovereignty is
flexible.''
Well, a very different view was given by the President of
the United States 100 years ago in 1907. President Theodore
Roosevelt said, ``If the immigrant comes here in good faith,
assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on exact
equality with everyone else. But this is predicated upon that
person becoming an American and nothing but an American. There
can be no divided allegiance here. We have room for but one
loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.''
So we are presented with two very different views of the
oath of allegiance and what this means in the Chicago Tribune
article of 2007 and Theodore Roosevelt in 1907. We will have to
choose. What should we do today?
Well, it makes no sense to enact comprehensive immigration
reform which means a slow-motion amnesty, a massive increase in
low-skilled immigration, further exacerbating our assimilation
problem.
What we need first is comprehensive assimilation reform for
those immigrants who are here legally.
One, first we should dismantle the anti-assimilation regime
of foreign language ballots, voting in foreign countries by
dual nationals, bilingual education and Executive Order 13166.
Second, we should follow Barbara Jordan and Henry
Cisneros's lead and call for Americanization, not integration.
Third, we should enforce the oath of allegiance.
I have six or seven points. They are in the written
statement. I can take questions on that.
We need comprehensive assimilation reform first.
Comprehensive immigration reform is not comprehensive. That is
the problem. It is basically not comprehensive. It doesn't deal
with assimilation.
Comprehensive immigration reform is primarily about the
special interest needs of particular businesses, not the
interests of the American people as a whole. It ignores
assimilation and puts the market over the Nation.
But Americans must remember, we are a Nation of citizens
before we are a market of consumers. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fonte follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Fonte
--------
*Mr. Fonte's statement records the date of the ``Chicago Tribune
article'' as appearing on April 7. The correct date that the article
appeared is April 6.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Dr. Fonte.
We will now begin questioning by Members of the Committee,
and I will start off. We have just 5 minutes apiece.
I would like to ask Dr. Rumbaut" Dr. Fonte just mentioned
you and a study that you did about the affiliation of teenagers
and their loyalty to the United States. Have you done any
additional longitudinal studies on that subject?
Mr. Rumbaut. Yes. Dr. Fonte was referring to data from the
second wave of interviews from our CILS study, which were
published in a book called Legacies that he was referring to.
We have continued to follow that sample of thousands of
young people into their mid-20's, and we have continued to ask
questions about language, about identity, about some of the
issues that he has been talking about.
I would make a couple of comments in response to that.
First, when you ask young people when they are 17 years old and
18 years ago what their identity is, and they are in high
school and so on, their sense of self, their self definitions,
their identities and so on reflect the context of an adolescent
culture in high school, their peers and so on.
In the United States, that is heavily weighted to racial
notions of racial identities which are made in the USA.
A lot of kids are using the national origin of their
parents as a response to what their racial identity is, and
they are not talking really about national identity or
patriotic identities, but how they fit in the particular
subculture of the high school where they happen to be at.
Ms. Lofgren. Does that change after graduation?
Mr. Rumbaut. It changes. By their mid-20's, we saw a
complete reversal back to patterns that had been seen at the
time one baseline survey, so that dissipates.
Second, some of the most striking responses to a national
identity that we observed in 1995, which is what Dr. Fonte was
referring to, was among Mexicans in Southern California.
We went into the field immediately after the passage of
Prop 187 in California and it was in reaction to that, what we
call reactive ethnicity, that an assertion of a national
identity as Mexican was made even by U.S.-born Mexican-
Americans because of perceived discrimination and prejudice
against their nationality as a whole.
That again dissipates. When we asked the same question to
Mexicans in Florida at the same time that Prop 187 was passed
in California, we saw an assimilative pattern among Mexicans in
Florida, but we didn't see that among those that were
responding to conditions of discrimination and prejudice.
So a lot of what this debate about identities entails is a
response to what the larger context in which they are
assimilating--it is composed of.
Assimilation has never been about simply individual
acculturation on the part of an immigrant. It has always
entailed an absence of prejudice and discrimination on the part
of the whole society. It takes two to assimilate. It takes two
to tango.
It was Robert Park 100 years ago, one of the leading
sociologists of assimilation in the country at the University
of Chicago at the time, who said that the most acculturated
American at the time was the American Negro.
He said the American Negro is an English-only-speaking
Protestant. And yet, he was the least assimilated in this
society----
Ms. Lofgren. Because of discrimination.
Mr. Rumbaut [continuing]. Not because of a lack of
acculturation but because of the caste restrictions that were
imposed on him by the host country.
Ms. Lofgren. I found your study on language absolutely
fascinating, because it matches so much what I find at home,
where my colleagues who are second generation are pulling their
hair out because their kids are monolingual English and cannot
speak to their grandparents.
And you really identified the death of foreign languages in
the United States, which I think adds some other issues that--
it would be nice if we had more people who could speak another
language.
But do you see any chance that English will stop being the
common language of the United States from your studies?
Mr. Rumbaut. Absolutely not. In fact, you talk about what
you see at home. My wife, who is of Mexican origin, and I have
been trying to raise a bilingual child. If there is anyone
committed to bilingualism in the United States and sees the
benefits of it, it is me.
It was my wife and me against Michigan. And now we moved to
Southern California and we thought he would be in a context
where he is bilingual. We talk to him in Spanish, and he
answers only in English.
Ms. Lofgren. Right. My time is almost up.
I would like to ask Dr. Gerstle, is there a preset number
where America should say, ``We can't accept any more immigrants
because they would not become American because there are too
many of them,'' in your judgment?
Mr. Gerstle. I don't think there is a preset number. I made
the point in my statement today and in the longer statement
that immigration density was far greater 100 years ago than it
is today.
Ms. Lofgren. My time has expired, and I am going to try and
be good about that.
Mr. King?
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First, I would note that although when the process kicked
off some time yesterday afternoon, by the time the testimony
reached me, the chickens had gone to roost, so I didn't have an
opportunity to read thoroughly through all the testimony. I
have scanned most of it.
Dr. Rumbaut, I understand that you have a lot of material
here, and I appreciate that input, and hopefully I can review
it after this hearing.
I would like to turn first to Dr. Gerstle and your
statement about the numbers of immigrants and the percentage
and the concentration.
If I recall, and I do, the U.S. census reports, the first
ones we got on immigration were in 1820, and you go to that
year yourself when you tabulate those numbers.
And I have done back to those PDF files and reviewed--and
they are a little hard to see, but they are on the computer and
you can find them on the Internet--and totaled those numbers
from 1820 until the year 2000, which would be our last census.
And there, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, we have
66.1 million immigrants in that number. That doesn't match up
with the numbers in your testimony. Can you explain that
discrepancy?
Mr. Gerstle. Well, calculating the total number of
immigrants who have come to this country turns out to be rather
difficult because one has to account not only for those who
came and stayed but for the very significant numbers who came
and went home, so I think----
Mr. King. Where do your numbers come from, though, please?
Mr. Gerstle. They come from the census materials.
Mr. King. Then why don't we match?
Mr. Gerstle. Well, because there are instances in the past
where those who have come have sometimes gone home, and
sometimes those who came have also gone unrecorded and have
been undocumented.
Mr. King. But do you use some other information to add to
that number? Because when I look at those numbers, they are
finite numbers, so I don't see any latitude there to expand
that number or subtract from it.
Mr. Gerstle. I can get those--I don't have that data with
me today, but----
Mr. King. I would appreciate it if you would----
Mr. Gerstle [continuing]. I can get those for you.
Mr. King [continuing]. For the benefit of this Committee.
And then I look at today, we are 11 percent immigrants, and
that includes 35 million, 12 million of which are counted as
illegal. And a lot of us believe that number is greater. That
takes us up to 11 percent.
And if you go to the high water mark, the immigrant number
concentration in the population is 14 percent roughly a century
ago.
So I am having trouble understanding the statement that we
would have to multiply our current immigration number by a
factor of four to meet the concentration level at the high
water mark.
Mr. Gerstle. Well, I was referring to those who are coming
in annually at the height of that immigration period, where the
numbers approached or exceeded a million a year.
And a few years ago, the numbers coming into the United
States were calculated to have reached that level. And that was
advertised at the time as being the all-time high.
My point there is those million a year coming into the
United States now are coming into a society of approximately
300 million people.
Mr. King. That would be the legal ones.
Mr. Gerstle. Yes, whereas those coming in----
Mr. King. Excuse me, Dr. Gerstle. I do have to measure my
time a little bit. But I appreciate your testimony and your
answers.
And I would like to turn, if I could, to Mr. Kerwin, and in
your testimony, your statement here that there is a real
concentrated interest in naturalization--and if I look at the
naturalization numbers--I go back to 1970 of those--and
according to the USCIS, they show that immigrants who were
admitted prior to 1970 naturalized at a rate of 82 percent.
Those from 1970 to 1979 naturalized at a rate of 66
percent, and from 1980 to 1989, 45 percent. You see the trend.
From 1900 to the year 2000, it fell to 13 percent.
So how can U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services have a
number that shows a dramatic decline over a period of 30 years
from 82 percent to 13 percent--how can that comport with your
statement that there is an interest in naturalization?
Mr. Kerwin. Well, as I understand it, the most recent study
by Pew Hispanic Center shows that there has actually been an
increase in naturalization among lawful immigrants, legal
permanent residents. It is not----
Mr. King. Would you allow there is a lot of room for
improvement?
Mr. Kerwin. Oh, absolutely. And that is the point of our
study. And what we would like to do is we would like to take
the entities that were involved and key in integrating
immigrants in the past and get them together--the Federal
Government, churches, charitable agencies, civic associations--
--
Mr. King. Let me say, if I might, Mr. Kerwin, you make a
lot of good points in your testimony.
Mr. Kerwin. Thank you.
Mr. King. And I could take issue with some parts of it, but
there are a lot of good points that I think we all need to
review.
And I would like to quickly, if I could, turn to Dr. Fonte,
and you referenced intermarriage, and I would ask this
question.
The reduction in the amount of intermarriages that we have,
interracial intermarriage--could that be--and what are your
thoughts on it--being the result of the effects of
multiculturalism that might tend to isolate young Americans in
those ethnic enclaves rather than being further assimilated
into the broader society where they would have contact with
people of different areas of the society?
Mr. Fonte. Yes, I think that is part of it, and the
research from a Ohio State University professor said the main
point was we are bringing in large numbers of unskilled
immigrants with low education, and people usually marry within
their group in this particular category, so Latinos are
marrying Latinos, and Asians are marrying Asians.
So this is a complete reversal in the 1990's from what we
saw in the 1970's and 1980's. So it has something to do with
numbers, and as you suggest, large numbers of unskilled folks
are marrying each other.
Mr. King. Thank you, Dr. Fonte.
I would yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
The Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers, is
recognized.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is a great discussion we are having. And if we could
only find a way to get around the 5-minute rule, because there
is so much. I have been looking very carefully, Dr. Fonte, to
find something that you and I agree upon. We have got to have a
starting point here.
And I may have it when you say that multiethnicity and
ethnic subcultures have enriched America and have been part of
our past since Colonial days.
Now, that is a good starting point, isn't it?
Mr. Fonte. We agree.
Mr. Conyers. But the executive orders--intermarriage--it
was against the law until 1967 when a Supreme Court case made
it legal for couples to decide to cross the line. The Clinton
executive order didn't bother me that much.
But let's get to what seems to be the heart of the matter
in a couple minutes. English-language-only laws--that is what
seems to be bugging a lot of people in the Congress and
outside, too.
Now, would English-language-only laws help promote
immigrants into Americanization? There, I used your term.
Mr. Fonte. And Barbara Jordan's term.
Mr. Conyers. Who wants to try that?
Dr. Rumbaut?
Mr. Rumbaut. I would argue that exactly the opposite would
happen. Much as you saw with the instance of identity
expressions and so on, the moment you try to coerce and to
impose a rule on someone and tell them what you can and you
cannot speak, you are going to engender a reaction to that.
The best way to Americanize, in Barbara Jordan's sense, is
to treat the process of assimilation or Americanization as a
seduction.
People will become American because they desire to. They
don't become American or speak English because they are told
to, or because they are required to.
All that would do is end up driving a wedge in immigrant
families, between parents and children, and it would end up
creating far more unintended but serious problems than you are
trying to achieve.
Besides, there is no need for it when you look at the
evidence that you have in front of you. There is no need to
require people to speak a language when they are all moving
toward it at historic speeds.
Mr. Conyers. Dr. Gerstle, answer that, and talk with me
about the impression I have had since the mid-1960's that
innumerable swearing-in ceremonies of people becoming
naturalized citizens--where the pride and the patriotism, the
loyalty, the excitement, the dedication is so overpowering--I
mean, you take that away, and then they have--in Detroit, you
have--right outside the swearing-in ceremony, you can register
to vote, right on the spot, as soon as you are given the oath.
Talk to me about that and the previous question with the
time I have left.
Mr. Gerstle. I second what Dr. Rumbaut said. We are
struggling with this issue in Nashville, Tennessee, now, where
an English-only ordinance was put forward by the city council,
attracted hundreds of people to meetings. It was ultimately
passed by the council and then vetoed by the mayor--splits
among Democrats and Republicans in that place.
And I think the feeling was, and it is a feeling that I
agree with, that it would be more of a barrier to integration
and involving people in America than it would be a benefit.
Historically, there were efforts in the 1920's to have
English-only laws. There were efforts to banish private schools
where any language was taught other than English.
There was an effort to impose on public schools complete
teaching of English every period of the day. The teaching of
foreign languages was curtailed.
Several of these were thrown out by the courts. It did have
this effect. It did mobilize the immigrant community and made
them realize the importance of participating in politics,
naturalizing, engaging American democracy, learning it,
participating in it. And that, I believe, is their most
important school.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte?
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate your
holding this hearing. It is, I agree with the Chairman, very
interesting.
Dr. Gerstle, I was very interested in your testimony
regarding the capacity of our country to assimilate. And I am
not sure that I disagree with you, but I am very concerned that
it is not happening.
The evidence cited by the gentleman from Iowa regarding the
dramatic downward trends of permanent residents applying for
citizenship from 80 percent in the 1960's down to 13 percent in
the last decade is very disturbing.
What do you attribute that to? Why are we failing to
assimilate?
Mr. Gerstle. The first thing I would say is that this
country went through a really tough period in the 1960's and
1970's, where all kinds of people became very anti-American,
native-born and foreign-born alike.
And this had to do with frustration over civil rights, a
frustration over the Vietnam War. The origins of
multiculturalism are as an anti-American creed--one's
ethnicity, one's ethnic identity, is preferable to one's
American identity.
So I think the decline in loyalty and belief in America
happened across the board, and it happened among immigrants and
the native-born.
Mr. Goodlatte. During that decade, 82 percent of permanent
residents who became eligible for citizenship during that
decade applied for citizenship. In the 1980's, when you didn't
have that, it was dramatically down.
In the 1990's, the so-called Clinton era, it was
plummeting. And I don't know what it has been for the last
decade, but those figures would seem to rebut, not support,
your contention that----
Mr. Gerstle. Well, I would be very interested to see--I
don't have them handy--what the figures are for the last couple
years, and to see if they have ticked upward in that regard.
A couple things are important. First, I think length of
residence of time is very important in terms of naturalization.
If we look at the historical period, we find very low rates of
naturalization among European groups for very long periods of
time.
In fact, if you look at the census and naturalization
figures in 1920, you would find only a quarter of many of these
Eastern and Southern European populations having naturalized,
and many of those people had been there 20 years or 25 years.
The 1920's and 1930's are the big decades of naturalization.
Mr. Goodlatte. All right. We will take a look at that.
Let me ask you about another subject, dual citizenship. As
you may know, the Supreme Court ruled a number of years ago
that you couldn't deprive an individual of their citizenship in
another country. They could maintain that even upon swearing
allegiance to the United States.
Do you think that is a good thing or a bad thing? Does that
help assimilation? Is it good that somebody is voting for
elected officials in another country elsewhere in the world as
well as participating in the United States?
Mr. Gerstle. I think it is a worldwide phenomenon that most
countries are moving toward this and reflects, I think, the
degree to which people move around the world and are
comfortable with that. I think it would be difficult to resist
that.
I would say that the most----
Mr. Goodlatte. Is it dual citizenship or is it no
citizenship if effectively people are choosing in such low
numbers to affiliate themselves with the United States?
Mr. Gerstle. I don't think it is no citizenship. I think
citizenship and integration--and I am very comfortable using
the word Americanization. Assimilation is a more problematic
term that maybe we can talk about later.
But these happen through institutions and through the
engagement of immigrants in the practice of American politics.
If we find ways to do that, to bring them into American
politics, give them a sense of a stake in the political system
through their representatives, mobilize them in this way, that
will lead to a deepening attachment to America and appreciation
for this country's heritage of freedom.
Mr. Goodlatte. I hope you are right.
Let me ask Dr. Fonte, would an official English language be
helpful in promoting that assimilation?
Mr. Fonte. I think that that would be fine as a statement
of E Pluribus Unum. I think there is no reason we shouldn't all
be voting in English. That gives the signal that we are all in
this together.
It hurts the immigrant and the ethnic group if the
immigrant is only following the election--you could do this--
following the foreign-language venue, but you wouldn't have a
full range of the debates. You wouldn't have all the arguments
out there. So it hurts the immigrant more than anyone else, I
would think.
Mr. Goodlatte. What about the issue of dual citizenship?
Mr. Fonte. I think dual allegiance is a problem. If someone
is voting and holding office, running for office in a foreign
country--Felix Frankfurter, one of our great Supreme Court
justices, says this shows allegiance to a foreign power
incompatible with allegiance to the United States.
Mr. Goodlatte. Could we retest that in the Supreme Court?
Mr. Fonte. What we could do is pass legislation. Earl
Warren, who favored this decision, said you couldn't lose your
citizenship, but he said there could be laws against voting in
a foreign country, serving in a foreign government.
So it could be made simply against the law by legislation,
and not--someone wouldn't lose their citizenship, but they are
unlikely to do it if it is against the law.
So measures could be taken. I think they should be taken,
because this is going to be a major problem for us and in the
past. We had a person elected to the Mexican Congress last--in
2004 who is an American citizen, and his loyalty now is
obviously to the Mexican Congress.
Ms. Lofgren. Dr. Fonte, if you could wrap up.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. The gentleman's time is expired.
The gentleman, Mr. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois?
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you very much.
I want to thank all of the panel. I hope that the Ranking
Member does find time to read Dr. Rumbaut's documentation that
he sent before the Committee.
I think it is very important that the one time that we do
have somebody from the Latino community come before this
Committee that we at least read the testimony that he or she
has submitted, given that most of the ire and focus has been on
the Latino community and Latino immigrants, as though they were
the only immigrants to the United States of America, when,
indeed, we know that 40 percent of the undocumented never
crossed that border.
They came here through a legal fashion--and that there are,
indeed, millions of undocumented immigrants.
We watched LegalizeTheIrish.org come here before the
Congress, and the Polish community, and the Ukranian community,
the Filipino community, from so many different other nations,
enriching this great Nation. So I hope that we would take time.
I would like to also say to Dr. Rumbaut, thank you so much
for coming and giving the personal testimony, and I just want
to share with you, the only reason my daughters speak Spanish
is because we enrolled them in Spanish immersion classes from
kindergarten to eighth grade.
And I thank the public school system of Chicago for having
those classes, because if it were up to me and my wife, who are
bilingual but only speak English at home and rarely watch
Univision or Telemundo--unless, of course, we want news that is
relevant to our community in the evening, and we want to find
out what really happened in our neighborhood and in our life--
well, we put them on. But this is the experience.
I would hope that Members of the Committee would just take
some time to visit immigrant communities and walk among the
immigrant community, and they would find that if you want to
pass English-only, that is fine.
It is a waste of time, a waste of money, to enforce it,
because obviously--my parents didn't come here as immigrants.
They came here as migrants from Puerto Rico, but they were
monolingual. They only spoke Spanish.
And as we look at assimilation, I think we also have to
look at segregation, the kind of society that we live in.
The fact is I became more assimilated as I grew older,
because economic and social possibilities were afforded to me
that were not afforded to me as a youth.
I grew up in a Puerto Rican neighborhood. Most everyone I
knew was Puerto Rican--my parents, my family, the church I went
to on Sunday, where my parents worked almost every--I mean,
that is part of American society.
It is an unfortunate part of American society that
segregation exists, but if we are going to deal with this
``assimilation,'' I think we should also look at the underlying
bias and prejudice that sometimes raises its ugly head,
unfortunately, in our great American society that stops people
from becoming assimilated into American society.
As you become older--well, my kids are now going to
college. And my grandson--we are going to have a real big
problem with the grandson. Unfortunately, it is going to be a
tough battle.
Mr. Rumbaut. As they say in Brooklyn, ``Fuggetaboutit.''
Mr. Gutierrez. ``Fuggetaboutit.'' We are going to have a
tough problem. And I shared this with my colleagues on the
other side to say fear not, my parents only spoke Spanish.
I obviously have some English proficiency that has allowed
me to come here to the Congress of the United States. It may
not be as great as Members on the other side of the aisle, but
I try each and every day.
And my daughters--I assure you, we have spent an inordinate
amount of money. I do it because I want to maintain that rich
cultural history and linguistic history. But I also do it
because I want to make sure the job opportunities and economic
opportunities are available to them as things are posted in the
newspaper, bilingual preferred, by a large American national
corporation, so that American citizens can produce goods and
distribute those goods throughout the world, and we can become
a more prosperous Nation.
People do buy goods because they are advertised in another
language. And as Dr. Rumbaut knows, Univision isn't entirely
owned by Latinos, much less Telemundo, which is owned by G.E.
and NBC. I mean, so these corporations are not just Latino
corporations.
I would like to say to all of the witnesses thank you so
much, and I would hope that we would simply read the
literature, because instead of English-only, I wish we could
all get together, because I could join my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle.
Let's fund English classes. Let's fund them and let's open
up centers, and you will find that they will be filled to
capacity. People want to learn English in this country.
They aren't given the ability to learn English, number one.
Well, part of the reason is the segregation, and the other is
access to educational opportunities.
I thank the witnesses.
And I want to thank the gentlelady from California, our
Chairwoman, for putting this wonderful panel together.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Gohmert?
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And I do appreciate my colleague's comments about English
classes. You probably have a very good idea there.
One of my closest friends in Tyler, Texas, said, you know,
his parents, both of them, came from Mexico, and speaking
English was a struggle, but they opened two restaurants that
are two of our best in Tyler. And they made clear that their
children were to learn English, that if they were going to
reach their potential in this country they needed to speak good
English. And they speak probably better than I.
But it does seem that some well-meaning people encourage
and want to allow people to continue to speak Spanish, which to
me is almost a form of discrimination, because that would
prevent individuals from reaching their potential.
And my friend, Mr. Ramirez, at home has been a city
councilman and a county commissioner, and that wouldn't have
happened had he not spoken such excellent English and been able
to communicate ideas so effectively.
But I go back to some of those things that were said here,
and I admire greatly, Dr. Rumbaut, your testimonial. My great-
grandfather came over in the late 1700's, didn't speak English,
but he did two things. He learned to speak English and he
worked his tail off.
And within 25 years, he built one of the nicest homes in
Cuero, Texas. It is still there with a historic marker on it.
I am curious, just as a hypothetical, if something tragic
happened and all of us in this room were wiped out--although
there are those that might say if I were wiped out it wouldn't
be all that tragic, but for the rest it might be--this is being
recorded.
Dr. Rumbaut, where would you want your loved ones to have
your remains placed, whether cremation or burial? Where would
you want them to place you? You have moved around. You have
seen the best of all kinds of places. What do you think?
Mr. Rumbaut. I can tell you that my brother is here. I have
a sister in Texas that has an urn containing the ashes of my
father.
And we are waiting for the politically appropriate moment
in which, at his request, to take his ashes to Cienfuegos,
which is a city in Cuba where he was born and where he first
saw the sea, and so on. On the other hand, his name was Ruben
Dario Rumbaut.
My son is named Ruben Dario Rumbaut after my father. He was
born in Michigan. He is a Detroit Pistons fan, a Detroit Red
Wings fan. He is a Detroit Tigers fan. We are in Anaheim now,
but he doesn't follow the Angels. He doesn't follow the Ducks.
He is, ``The Red Wings, go, Red Wings,'' and so on.
He knows that his grandfather came from Cuba and so on, but
he would have no attachment to that whatsoever. He would not
want to be buried there. If anything, he would want to go back
to Detroit.
We all form our own attachments in the context of our
lives. There is no plot out there that says that immigrants
want to go back and that they are fifth columns----
Mr. Gohmert. Okay, but I take it from your answer you
hadn't made that decision yet yourself.
And I appreciate the discussion of other individuals.
Mr. Rumbaut. Unimportant.
Mr. Gohmert. Where you would want----
Mr. Rumbaut. It is unimportant, what happens to me. What is
important is what I do with my life. It is as I told Mr.
Conyers, ``Aspire to inspire before you expire''----
Mr. Gohmert. Okay. So that is what you want your loved ones
to know.
If you go back to my question, it was--but you say it
doesn't matter.
Mr. Rumbaut. It will be in the United States.
Mr. Gohmert. Okay. Well, there we go. We got to the answer
eventually. Thank you.
But you know, I appreciate--Dr. Gerstle, you had indicated
about immigration in the last century or so--how many of the
individuals back 100 years ago--I know my great-grandfather
would be in this group.
He put his stake down in Texas, and despite nearly all of
his family being in Europe, he had no intention of going back
there. Do you know how many in those days asked to be buried or
had their remains sent back to their country of origin?
Mr. Gerstle. No, I don't think we have that kind of data.
In fact, it is tremendously hard simply to find out who went
back and how many.
We have historians looking at ship registers to find out
when they came, and then other ship registers in the subsequent
5 years, 10 years, 15 years to find out when they went back. So
it is incredibly hard to do that.
Not every group who came here looked to go back. It is just
among the majority of Eastern and Southern Europeans who came
for the first 10 years or 15 years, probably a majority were
thinking of going back. Some went back and some didn't make it.
Mr. Gohmert. In conclusion, if I could--as a history major
and a fan of history, I can't help but wonder--as nations
throughout world history rose and fell, often they were
becoming more fractured from more widespread de-assimilation.
And I can't help but wonder if there weren't experts back in
those days saying, ``It is not happening, and if it is, it is a
good thing,'' so----
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentlelady from Texas?
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairwoman, and I certainly
thank the indulgence of the Ranking Member.
I thank the witnesses for their very thoughtful testimony.
The lack of questions to any of you does not reflect the
importance of your testimony.
But this is a very emotional roller coaster that we are on.
It is a chicken and egg, Dr. Rumbaut, frankly. If we don't have
comprehensive immigration reform, we never get to where our
colleagues are wanting us to go.
Many of us have legislative initiatives that really speak
to some of their concerns, if we could get out of the start
gate.
Our language in the Save America Comprehensive Immigration
bill that I have, the STRIVE Act--all talk about--in the earned
access to legalization talks about an English requirement,
talks about--in particular, my bill talks about community
service. And in fact, it has the word Americanization, words
that we are not really running away from, and words that you
are speaking to.
So, first of all, I would like you to just say yes or no.
These are elements that populations would not run away from if
we had comprehensive immigration reform--that people are not
running away from learning English. They are not running away
from--if you wanted to do community service, our Chairman of
the full Committee already said the first person that lost
their life in Iraq was an undocumented person.
When I traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan, and I see the
array--the potpourri of faces that represent the United States
that are American, I have never seen any diminishing of
patriotism among those young Hispanic soldiers, young Asian
soldiers, young African-American soldiers.
So I guess just a yes or no, do you think the immigrant
community, if a comprehensive immigration reform bill--would
run away from the concept of English, Americanization,
community service?
Mr. Rumbaut. Absolutely not.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And let me probe you a little bit more,
because this is an important question. And I wish the honorable
Barbara Jordan that preceded me some few years back was here to
speak for herself, because one thing that I knew her as in life
was a person who grew, who looked at the landscape and would
not stand for denying due process or fairness to anyone.
So she is not here to speak for herself, and the word
``Americanization'' and all of her language--I guess they don't
remember the words in this Committee that said, ``We, the
people,'' will not be denied constitutional rights.
But moving forward, I raised teenagers. I raised them in an
integrated high school, so call it, in Houston, Texas. There
was the Latino-Hispanic table, the African-American table, the
Caucasian table, the Asian table. And if anybody saw the movie
Freedom Writers, that really captures what our young people are
going through. And they achieve this identity.
If you remember the Black Power movement, if you remember
the movement where I was in in college, all of us were going
back to Africa, and we were citizens, but we were all going
back. We were going to the motherland.
There is this emotional draw to your ethnicity. But I tell
you, as somewhat of an adult over 21, the tragedy of 9/11--I
didn't see one dry eye, no matter what color you were.
I don't know why we are struggling and caught in the
quagmire of people's identity, when identities give pride, are
valuable for America. So could you just respond to this--I
think you did talk about it--teenagers' identity?
It is completely different from rejecting becoming
Americanized, completely different.
And if there are other panelists--Mr. Kerwin, you want to
speak, too, and Dr. Fonte--completely different from this
concept of never learning English and never becoming American.
I will start with you, Dr. Rumbaut.
Mr. Rumbaut. I would say very briefly----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you remember the Black Power movement
and all of us--many of us of my culture going to the
motherland?
Mr. Rumbaut. I was marching----
Ms. Jackson Lee. We still do want to go.
Mr. Rumbaut. I understand completely. I remember Barbara
Jordan very, very well. You resemble her in many ways. And I
would say simply, very briefly, that part of the problem is
framing all these issues in either/or terms.
There is no contradiction in being proud of one's heritage
and being proud of one's roots, in wanting to go back to Africa
at the time that you were--the golden days--and at the same
time being an American citizen concerned with the best
interests of this country and wanting to give it all,
including, as you mentioned and as Chairman Conyers mentioned,
even one's very life.
There is simply no contradiction between the two, and we
need to frame it in larger terms. So let me just stop there. I
mean, I could say many other things, but there are other
members of the panel who want to respond.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Go ahead, Dr. Kerwin, please.
Mr. Kerwin. Just to repeat, I think that it is absolutely
true that the foreign-born want to learn English. The average
wait for ESL classes by professionally credentialed people is
now 6 months.
Ms. Jackson Lee. It is a crisis.
Mr. Kerwin. It is a crisis, yes. And I don't think people
dispute the need for patriotic assimilation. You know, there
may be some out there that do, but I think in general it is
understood that that is necessary.
It is also true what you say, that legal status is crucial
to integration. There is no doubt about that.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you.
Sorry, Dr. Fonte.
Mr. Fonte. Was I supposed to speak, or----
Ms. Lofgren. Well, the gentlelady's time is expired.
Mr. Fonte. Okay.
Ms. Lofgren. But without objection, we will extend her time
for 1 minute so Dr. Fonte can respond.
Mr. Fonte. Okay. As I said to Chairman Conyers, we agree
that ethnic subcultures have always been an important part of
American life.
But the key factor in immigration is when the new citizen
takes the oath of allegiance--I absolutely and entirely
renounce all allegiance to my foreign state or country, and so
on.
In other words, it is a political transfer of allegiance.
Someone is transferring political allegiance from the birth
nation to the United States. So that is either/or. You are
either loyal to the United States, as Theodore Roosevelt said,
and no other country.
That is different from pride in ethnicity, which we all
have.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Reclaiming my time, just 1 minute, I have
never seen the two mixed together, apples and oranges, taking
the oath and a denial of your culture being--let me just say
this--taking the oath and having to reject your culture and
having your culture being non-patriotic.
I don't think that makes sense at all. They take the oath
and they still believe in singing the songs and understanding
their culture. Believe me, they are still Americans. That is
what America is----
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The gentlelady from California?
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I do have questions, but I have a few comments first,
because I have been listening very intently to the conversation
and to your testimony.
I want to tell you a story. It is about two immigrants that
came from Mexico, probably would have been considered without
skill, one who worked himself from a factory shop floor to
being a successful small business owner, the other who raised
seven children who all went to college and then, in her mid
40's, went back to school to get her GED, her A.A. and her
B.A., her teaching credential, and still teaches today in the
public school system.
Of the seven children that they raised, all of them went to
college, two of them are now serving in Congress, and we are
the first women of any relation to serve in Congress. I am
talking about my family and my parents here.
So you can call it integration, or assimilation, or
Americanization, or any other thing you want to call it, but it
is an American success story that begins with immigrants.
Dr. Fonte, I take great issue with your assertion that
English-only laws with respect to elections are necessary. My
mother, who came to this country and became a teacher--she is a
public school teacher.
She teaches other people's children English, sometimes
finds it easier to understand the nuances of complex ballot
initiatives if they are provided in the first language that she
ever learned, Spanish.
This does not mean she is not fluent in English, because
she is, she teaches it. But she is a more informed voter
sometimes when she receives those materials in her native
language.
So I don't think that takes anything away from her loyalty
to this country, her love of this country, her desire to
continue teaching English in this country.
And I really, really take issue with the idea that if we
make English-only laws for voting that that is somehow going to
create a more informed citizen or a more desirous citizen for
voting, because my mother already has that desire.
Dr. Rumbaut, you mentioned telenovelas. I am a big fan of
telenovelas. But even our telenovelas have been linguistically
assimilated, because I used to watch ``Betty La Fea'' in
Spanish, and we now have the English counterpart, ``Ugly
Betty,'' which is a huge, successful show. In fact, America
Ferrera, who stars in that telenovela, the U.S. version, won a
Golden Globe for her performance.
But I do want to get down to some of the questions.
Professor Rumbaut, I know that you have been studying
immigrant integration and linguistic assimilation for
approximately 30 years. Based on your research, do you believe
that there is a danger that English is going to stop being the
common language of the United States? Is there a real threat of
that?
Mr. Rumbaut. No. Well, as I mentioned, no. If anything,
English is the official language of the Milky Way Galaxy
already. And its headquarters are right here in the United
States, and with 250 million English monolinguals, it has
absolutely nothing to worry about.
However, as I mentioned, something that I think one might
worry about is the fate of the immigrant languages that
immigrants bring free of charge to the United States. This is a
human capital asset in a global economy. It is a national
asset.
It is even a national security asset. The Iraq Study Group
mentioned that only six out of 1,000 American embassy personnel
in Iraq are fluent in Arabic.
There is no contradiction in trying to be bilingual, and at
the same time, as your mother, at being fluent in English.
Ms. Sanchez. I understand that, and I think it is
interesting that in this country we don't want bilingual
education, yet we require 4 years of a foreign language in
order to get into college. I think that is a contradiction that
I have never quite been able to understand.
I am interested in knowing a little bit more about how
linguistic assimilation occurs. You mentioned that the way to
encourage it is not to force somebody to speak in English only,
but can you talk a little bit about linguistic assimilation?
Mr. Rumbaut. Yes. Far and away, the number one determinant
of becoming fluent in English and the acquisition of English
fluency among immigrants is age at arrival.
There is a biology and a neurology of language acquisition.
That is why children pick it up so quickly. That is why if you
learn it after puberty, you may be able to learn English, but
not without a telltale accent. And the older you are at
arrival, the thicker your accent. You will sound like Desi
Arnaz, you know.
So that alone will ensure the acquisition of English and
speaking it and so on like a native. With the media, the
pressure of peers and so on, that is going to take its way, and
English is going to triumph no matter what.
If you arrive here, as an elderly person, however, there is
no way, no matter how interested you are in learning English,
that you will be able to command it, let alone speak it like a
native.
Ms. Sanchez. May I ask the Chairwoman for unanimous consent
for an additional 30 seconds to ask a very simple yes or no
question?
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
And, Professor Rumbaut, last question. Is there any reason
to believe that the immigrants that we have seen of today--the
last couple of decades--are any less desirous of learning
English than were the immigrants of the 1920's and 1930's?
Mr. Rumbaut. If anything, I would say that immigration is
the sincerest form of flattery.
Mr. Gerstle. Can I add something brief to that? I want to
emphasize how important longitudinal studies are of the sort
that Dr. Rumbaut is doing.
If you look at a population at any point in time, it may
appear to you that everyone is speaking Spanish or some other
language. But if you break that population down for age and
generation, you get a very different picture.
In 1918 or 1915 or 1910, if you got an impression walking
down the street of any major American city in the Northeast,
Midwest or West Coast, you might be overwhelmed by the degree
to which people did not seem to be able to speak English.
But if you were to do the kind of longitudinal study that
Dr. Rumbaut and his colleagues are doing for the present
moment, you would see a similar kind of progress.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired, and we will
grant an additional 30 seconds so Dr. Fonte can----
Mr. Fonte. Just a word about 1918 and 1920. One thing we
are forgetting is one of the reasons there was a great success
in the immigration was there was a cutoff bill in 1924 that--I
wouldn't have been for it; it kept my relatives literally out
of the country.
But there was an immigration cutoff bill in 1924, so we
basically had a pause from 1924 to 1965. We had low numbers of
immigration that certainly helped the Americanization and
assimilation process.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Ellison?
Mr. Ellison. Thank you, Madam Chair.
My question, Dr. Fonte, is this. What year was the highest
year of immigration in American recorded history? It is not a
trick question.
Mr. Fonte. It was around, I think, the early 20th century.
Mr. Ellison. And in that year, what percentage of people
living in America spoke a language other than English as their
first language?
Mr. Fonte. There was a very large percentage who did not
speak English.
Mr. Ellison. And America did okay, didn't it?
Mr. Fonte. Did okay, yes. I just said the immigration
cutoff of 1924 had a lot to do with it.
Mr. Ellison. Right.
Well, I mean, what do you think about that, Dr. Rumbaut?
Was 1924 a year that sort of saved Americanism due to
immigration?
Mr. Rumbaut. Well, in the first place, the 1924 laws were
not fully implemented until 1929. That is when the market
crashed. It was the Great Depression that was most responsible
for not letting people come into this country.
You can pass all sorts of immigration laws, and
undocumented immigration might follow because of the demand by
the American economy, et cetera.
If the issue is about language, however, then the passing
of a law in 1924 is not what determined whether Italian-
Americans became fluent in English or not.
What determined that, first and foremost, as I said, is age
at arrival and generation. The second generation--at best,
their Italian would be Italianish, like Spanglish. It would be
that kind of a version.
And the grandchildren of them, regardless of whether you
passed a law or not, they would be speaking English only,
because of the assimilative forces in American society with
respect to language and the issue that I mentioned before about
the biology of language acquisition, the schools, the pressure
from peers, the media and all of that.
Mr. Ellison. Dr. Gerstle?
Mr. Gerstle. I agree with that. I think the cessation of
immigration in 1924 in terms of the Eastern and Southern
Europeans--it did not affect any peoples from the Western
Hemisphere, so we should be very clear about that, who
continued to come in large numbers, unless they were not
allowed to come by other means.
I think it was a factor only in terms of accelerating the
transition demographically from the first to the second
generation. And it also reminds us that the present day can
never be precisely like the past.
There are other elements of that history that are also
different. The World War I army--even more importantly, the
World War II army, which took 16 million young men and a few
women out of their homes everywhere across America, put them
together with each other in a way that was also probably
important in terms of their Americanization and integration.
My point is that we are unlikely to reproduce a 16-million-
person conscription army in 2007, 2008 or 2009, but we have to
think hard about those institutions that will perform the kind
of service that these other institutions did 30 years, 40
years, 50 years ago.
Mr. Ellison. You know, just an observation. I mean, part of
what we seem to be debating today is what does it mean to be an
American, and what impact does language have on that identity.
And you know, I think that the fact that we have at least a
chance to have those assets that Dr. Rumbaut talked about,
which is the multiplicity of languages that people bring here
when they immigrate, is--doesn't diminish American identity,
and actually may add to it.
And if American identity means anything, hopefully it means
a respect for law, a respect for the first amendment to allow
people to express themselves.
So I mean, we are the only country that I know of that is
bound together by a Constitution as opposed to long tradition,
history, and culture. And maybe that is what we need to be
focusing on, and maybe you don't need to speak English to do
that.
So, I mean, the founders of this country, did they say that
we needed to speak English? And did they consider it?
Dr. Rumbaut, do you know if Washington and Jefferson and
Franklin thought about the need to have a national language?
Mr. Rumbaut. Actually, Thomas Jefferson spoke fluent
Spanish, and----
Mr. Fonte. I have written on this. The founders definitely
support English and a common culture. They have written on it
extensively.
Mr. Ellison. Well, why didn't they put it in the
Constitution? I mean, they could have but they didn't.
Mr. Fonte. Yes, it wasn't necessary to put it in the
Constitution.
Mr. Ellison. Well, why not? I mean, they knew that----
Mr. Fonte. They wanted a minimal constitution, limited
government.
Mr. Ellison. But, Doctor, they put the things in there that
needed to be there. Why didn't they put English?
Would anybody else like to venture a view? No?
Mr. Rumbaut. There is no need to do so.
Mr. Ellison. Maybe they considered it and rejected it
because they thought that English was not a sine qua non of
American identity. Perhaps that is true.
Mr. Gerstle. I think they also did feel, though, that the
freedom of the new world would be so intoxicating that people
would want to learn English.
Mr. Fonte. Congressman King just quoted a letter from
George Washington to John Adams in which he said he wants--the
immigrants should be assimilated to our ways, our customs, our
way of life, and we would become one people. Obviously, knowing
English would be part of that.
Mr. Ellison. They didn't put it in the Constitution.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
And we have come to the conclusion of this hearing. I want
to thank all the witnesses for their testimony today.
And without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit additional written questions to you, which we will
forward. And we ask that you answer as promptly as you can so
that we can make your answers part of the record.
Without objection, the record will remain open for 5
legislative days for the submission of any other materials.
You know, Dr. Rumbaut, you mentioned as you started your
testimony, what a country, really, that you came here as a
young man, never expecting to be a witness here before the
Congress.
Ms. Hong, the counsel for the Subcommittee, wrote me a
little note saying she came as an immigrant at age 12, never
dreaming that she would be the counsel to the Immigration
Subcommittee in the United States Congress.
So we have much to be proud of in our wonderful country,
and your testimony has been very helpful to us today.
I would like to extend an invitation to everyone here today
to attend our next hearing on comprehensive immigration reform.
We will have one tomorrow afternoon at 3 p.m. in this very same
room during which we will explore the impacts of immigration on
State and local communities.
Then on Friday morning at 9 a.m., we will focus again on
comprehensive immigration reform as it relates to the future of
undocumented students and reform.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Letter from a Majority of the Minority Members of the Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International
Law requesting a Minority day of hearing to the Honorable Zoe Lofgren,
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law
Letter from Gary Gerstle, Ph.D., Professor of History, Vanderbilt
University to the Honorable Steve King, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International
Law
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from Gary Gerstle, Ph.D., Professor
of History, Vanderbilt University
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from Ruben G. Rumbaut, Ph.D.,
Professor of Sociology, University of California, Irvine
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from Donald Kerwin, Executive
Director, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from John Fonte, Ph.D., Senior
Fellow, Hudson Institute