[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: BECOMING AMERICANS--U.S. IMMIGRANT
INTEGRATION (CONTINUED)
=======================================================================
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 23, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-39
__________
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
35-604 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts RIC KELLER, Florida
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DARRELL ISSA, California
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia STEVE KING, Iowa
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM FEENEY, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
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 23, 2007
Page
OPENING REMARKS
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
OPENING STATEMENT
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.. 1
WITNESSES
Mr. Stanley Renshon, Professor, City University of New York
Graduate Center
Oral Testimony................................................. 3
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
Mr. Roger Clegg, Center for Equal Opportunity
Oral Testimony................................................. 39
Prepared Statement............................................. 42
Mr. Tim Schultz, Director, Government Relations, U.S. English
Oral Testimony................................................. 63
Prepared Statement............................................. 64
Mr. Mark Seavey, Director of the National Legislative Commission,
The American Legion
Oral Testimony................................................. 66
Prepared Statement............................................. 68
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
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................................ 85
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................................ 86
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: BECOMING AMERICANS--U.S. IMMIGRANT
INTEGRATION (CONTINUED)
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 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 5:45 p.m., in
Room 2226, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe
Lofgren (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Lofgren, Jackson Lee, King,
Goodlatte, and Gohmert.
Staff Present: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Chief Counsel; Andrea
Loving, Minority Counsel; George Fishman, Minority Chief
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. This is a continuation of
our hearing from last Wednesday scheduled at the request of our
minority Members pursuant to clause 2(J)(1) of House Rule XI so
as to provide additional perspectives on the topic of that
hearing. Our witnesses today have been chosen by the minority,
and we look forward to hearing their testimony.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Steve King,
for his opening statement.
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for holding
this hearing today, and I thank the witnesses for being here to
testify. The title of this hearing is integration; to me, that
means assimilation. I found in one of our previous hearings
there were witnesses on the other side that weren't quite
pleased with that expression, assimilation.
I would reflect back when I was first elected to Congress,
I held a meeting in my office with a group of minority leaders
in my largest city, there were 14 of them, and as I listened to
each, and I brought them in because I wanted to open the
dialogue, all around that table of 14 it was a continual demand
upon the taxpayers for benefits, and finally I asked what are
you going to do. Well, we pay taxes, and you have to listen to
us. Well, everyone who consumes in America pays taxes of some
kind.
And so then I said I am going to ask you to respond
instantaneously to one word I am going to use, everyone get up
on the front of the chair and be ready when I say the word,
because I don't have time to listen to all 14 of you give me
your opinion. They all got ready, and I said, ``Assimilation.''
They sat back, put their hands up, gave every expression of
rejection you can imagine, all 14, and they said that means we
have to give up our culture, you are trying to take away our
culture, force us to accept your culture. And I said what you
have done by your body language and by your spontaneous
responses, you have rejected American culture by that response
to the word ``assimilation.''
Assimilation is the foundation of American culture, and the
other cultures in the world, the other nations in the world
would dream to have the kind of success that we have had here.
I look across at the Israelis who, in 1954, adopted Hebrew as
their official language. And I asked them why did you do that,
they said we saw the model of successful assimilation in the
United States. We wanted a language that identified us as a
people so they resurrected a 2,000-year-old language so that
they could identify themselves as Israelis. No matter where
they come from in the world, they speak the same language, they
make sure that they do, and they put them through the
assimilation process when they arrive in Israel, whether it is
Africa or Asia or wherever it is.
So when I look through, I sat down myself and went through
the World Book Encyclopedia because that was the only document
that I could find that actually identified whether a country
had an official language or not.
I opened up the Almanac, went to every flag there, and then
I went to the World Book Encyclopedia. There in that research
it doesn't always concur with some of the other research, and
every single country had at least one official language except
the United States.
I will say tying ourselves together with one language, one
common form of communication, currency has been the strongest,
most powerful bond known to humanity all throughout history,
from Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor in China, who in 245 B.C.
determined he was going to bind all the Chinese together by
hiring scribes to draft the Chinese language and unify them for
10,000 years. He is a fourth of the way along. We need to tie
ourselves together, we need to have a successful immigration
and assimilation program. If you call it integration, let's
make sure we are really talking about the blending of all
cultures together under one overall form, one form of common
culture that binds us together, then we have some cultures
underneath that we respect.
So if we move down this path correctly, we can have a
strong Nation and if we move this pathway by dividing
ourselves, then we will collapse as a Nation. That would be the
viewpoint that I bring to this, and I look forward to the
testimony of the witnesses, and I thank you, Madam Chair, and I
yield back the balance of my time should there be any.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. We now turn our attention to the
minority witnesses to provide their perspective. In the
interest of proceeding to our witnesses I will place my opening
statement into the record, and without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare a recess of the hearing.
I would like to introduce Dr. Stanley Renshon, Professor
and Coordinator of the Interdisciplinary Program in the
Psychology of Social and Political Behavior at the City of New
York Graduate Center. He received his doctorate from the
University of Pennsylvania, completed a post-doctoral
fellowship in Psychology and Politics at Yale University, and
did additional graduate work and psychoanalytic training at the
Training and Research Institute for Self-Psychology at Long
Island University, and the International Society of Political
Psychology elected him as its President during the 2003-2004
academic year.
I would also like to introduce Tim Schultz, Director of
Government Relations and Staff Counsel for U.S. English. Mr.
Schultz has worked for 4 years with U.S. English, focusing on
legislation. He holds his bachelor's degree from Kansas State
University and law degree from Georgetown.
We would also like to welcome Mark Seavey, Director of the
National Legislative Commission at the American Legion. He
served in Afghanistan for over a year as an infantry squad
leader in the 3rd Battalion, for which we are very grateful,
and he is a graduate of the Citadel, the Military College of
South Carolina.
And finally, we would like to welcome Roger Clegg,
President and General Counsel of the Center for Equal
Opportunity. Prior to beginning his work at the Center 10 years
ago, Mr. Clegg served as Vice President and General Counsel to
the National Legal Center for the Public and as Deputy
Assistant Attorney General at the Justice Department. He earned
his bachelor's degree from Rice University and his law degree
from Yale University.
Each of your written statements will be made part of the
record in its entirety. We ask that you summarize your
testimony in 5 minutes. When you have 1 minute left, the yellow
light will go on; and when the red light flashes, it means time
is up. It always come faster than you think.
I would ask that you try and live within those time limits.
We are expecting a series of votes, and if we are prompt, we
can actually keep you from sitting here for an hour while we
vote.
So let me begin, Mr. Renshon, with you.
TESTIMONY OF STANLEY RENSHON, PROFESSOR, CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW
YORK GRADUATE CENTER
Mr. Renshon. Thank you very much. Is the mike on? Can you
hear? Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. If you could move it a little bit closer.
Mr. Renshon. Madam majority Chairman and minority Members
and members of the group, thank you for having me here again
today. I am honored to discuss something that is very important
to America's long-term national security and civic well-being.
Part of my work is on the psychology of immigration and
American national identity and some of the results of that are
published in a book called The Fifty Percent American. The
focus of that book and the foundation of my remarks here today
is that a core but neglected issue facing the American
immigration policy is our ability to integrate tens of millions
of new immigrants into the American national community. That
ability turns largely on our success in helping immigrants form
and develop emotional bonds with this country. Governments
certainly can't mandate attachments, but they can facilitate or
impede them.
I understand national attachment to include warmth and
affection for and appreciation of, a justifiable but not
excessive pride in, and a commitment and a responsibility to
the United States, its institutions and way of life and its
citizens. The success of American democracy and its cultural
and political institutions have always depended on these kinds
of emotional attachments.
Yet the degree of attachments, emotional attachments, that
immigrants feel toward their new country is rarely discussed
and almost never directly measured. Instead, we rely on
surrogate measures like whether they say they speak English or
whether they own property. Caution is in order for both of
those because self-reports are, after all, only self-reports
and owning a house is not the same thing as loving your
country.
There is in our country today an attachment gap. That gap
is the result of centrifugal forces that have buffeted the
emotional attachments of the American national community by
immigrants and Americans alike over the past four decades.
Domestically some multiculturalists have sought to substitute
ethnic and racial attachments for national ones, while
international cosmopolitans, in quotes, seek to transcend what
they see as narrow and suspect nationalist connections to the
American national community.
It is having an effect. To give you one statistic out of
many in my book, in 2002 the Pew Center asked a large sample of
Hispanics what terms they used to describe themselves. They
found about 88 percent identified themselves from their country
of origin, that is either Mexican or Cuban or Latino or
Hispanic. They were much less likely to use the term
``American.'' Surprisingly, this was true even if they were
American citizens. They were more likely to identify with their
country of origin.
This is no longer confined just to ethnic groups. I just
read yesterday a recent Pew poll on Muslim Americans. An
estimated 2.5 million Muslims, 47 percent of whom think of
themselves as Muslims first and not Americans.
Globalization and technology have allowed foreign
governments to maintain and foster the attachments of their
immigrant nationals to their, quote, unquote, home country. My
favorite illustration of this is the temporary protected status
granted to El Salvadorans in March 2001 because earthquakes had
devastated their country. It was extended for 1 year and set to
expire. At that point almost
Seven hundred and fifty thousand Salvadorans living in this
country got a recorded message from their President urging them
to urge our Government to continue on with the temporary
protected status.
We are in the midst now of a long delayed and much needed
national debate regarding immigration. In my view, any new
immigration bill should be crafted with a sharp focus to this
question, what should we ask of immigrants who want to become
Americans? My answer to that is really straightforward. We
should prefer those who come here to invest in this country as
well as in their own ambitions. We should prefer those who
invest more in learning our language, culture and politics than
they do in retaining their attachments to the countries of
their origin. We should prefer people who work hard to realize
their own ambitions and opportunities but reinvest some of that
gain back into the American community.
That said, what practically can the government do to help
this process along? First, and I would really urge this one, I
guess I will say this and that will be that, we need to
understand that becoming an American is a process that begins
when people first contemplate coming here and ends only when
they and their children feel more attached to this country
rather than any other.
I have some other comments about how we might do that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Renshon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stanley A. Renshon
Ms. Lofgren. All of which will be in the record.
Mr. Renshon. I will defer.
Ms. Lofgren. I wonder if we should try--well, we have got
15 minutes to get there to vote and we have 35 minutes of votes
and 15 minutes of testimony so there is really--unless you want
to abbreviate the testimony. I would defer to the judgment of
the Ranking Member. We will have to return.
Mr. King. From my view, as much time as they have invested,
I would like to hear their testimony.
Ms. Lofgren. Alright. We shall return at the end of our
voting. This hearing is recessed. Please return promptly after
the votes so that we can conclude.
[Recess.]
Ms. Lofgren. The hearing will come back to order and as Mr.
Schultz is not here at the moment, we will move to--Mr. Seavey
is not here. We will go to Mr. Clegg in the hopes that the
other witnesses will be here in time to testify. You are
recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF ROGER CLEGG,
CENTER FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
Mr. Clegg. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, for
inviting me to testify today. I am especially glad that you are
holding hearings at this time on the issue of assimilation. The
current debate over immigration has not given assimilation the
attention that it deserves.
Americans need not all eat the same food, listen to the
same music, or dance the same dances, but assimilation does
mean that we must all aim to have certain things in common.
America has always been a multiracial and multiethnic society,
but it is not and should not be multicultural. You can come to
America from any country and become an American, but that means
accepting some degree of assimilation. It is not diversity that
we celebrate most but what we hold in common: E pluribus unum.
Accordingly, it makes sense to set out some rules essential
for a multiracial, multiethnic America, rules that all
Americans should follow wherever they or their ancestors came
from.
In fact, these 10 rules apply to all of us, native and
immigrant alike. Let me just run through them quickly.
One, don't disparage anyone else's race or national origin.
If we are to be one Nation, we cannot criticize one another's
skin color and ancestors.
Two, respect women. Just as we do not tolerate a lack of
respect based on race or ancestry, we also demand respect
regardless of sex. Some cultures, foreign and domestic, put
down women. That is not acceptable. If you come from a country
or a culture where women are second-class citizens, you must
leave that behind.
Three, learn to speak English. This doesn't mean that you
can't learn other languages, too, or keep up a native language,
but you and your children must learn English, standard English,
as quickly as you can, and if you expect to be accepted, you
should avoid speaking another language when you are with people
who don't understand it. We have to be able to communicate with
one another.
Four, don't be rude. Some people apparently view it as
unmanly or uncool to be polite. Too bad. Customers, coworkers,
fellow students, strangers all expect to be treated
courteously, and rightly so.
Five, don't break the law. If you want to participate in
this republic, if you want a say in making the rules and
electing those who make them, you have to follow the laws
yourself. That means among other things that you can't use
illegal drugs, which is just as well since there is no surer
way to stay at the bottom of the heap or to find yourself there
in a hurry.
Six, don't have children out of wedlock. Moral issues
aside, illegitimacy is a social disaster for women and children
alike. Here again, it is a sure way to stay poor and raise poor
children. I should note that the pathology of illegitimacy is
more widespread among some native-born groups than among some
immigrants.
Seven, don't demand anything because of your race or
ethnicity. You have the right not be discriminated against
because of these factors, and it follows that you also cannot
demand discrimination in your favor. The sooner you can stop
thinking of yourself first as a member of a particular
demographic subset, and instead as human being and an American,
the better.
Eight, working hard in school and on the job and saving
money are not ``acting White.'' Bill Cosby is right; America
owes her success to a strong work ethic and to parents
instilling that ethic in their children. Here again, this is an
area where some immigrant groups have much to teach some
nonimmigrant groups.
Nine, don't hold historical grudges. There is not a single
group in the United States that has not been discriminated
against at one time or another. But we are all in the same boat
now, and we all have to live and work together. Your great,
great grandfather may have tried to kill or enslave mine, but
we are a forward-looking country and so we cannot afford to
dwell in the past.
Finally, number ten, be proud of being an American. You can
hardly expect to be liked and accepted by other Americans if
you don't love America. This is not a perfect country and it
does not have a perfect history--and there are lots of other
countries that have good qualities--but there is no country
better than the United States. If you disagree, then why are
you here? Be a patriot.
Now obviously not all of these 10 items are suitable for
Federal legislation, but in my written statement I have
mentioned a number of things that Congress should and shouldn't
do to encourage rather than discourage successful assimilation.
In conclusion, let me just emphasize some of the most
important, which should be included in the immigration
legislation you are now debating.
First, you should declare English to be the official
language of the United States. Make clear that Federal law does
not require foreign languages to be used, and create incentives
for the provision of English instruction.
Second, you should make clear that no immigrant ought to be
discriminated against or given a preference on account of his
or her race, color, or national origin.
Third, greater civic literacy should be encouraged both in
the naturalization process and, again, in instruction provided
by public and private entities besides the Federal Government.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, for inviting me to
testify today. I look forward to trying to answer any further
questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clegg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Roger Clegg
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. Mr. Schultz, you are now recognized
for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF TIM SCHULTZ, DIRECTOR,
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, U.S. ENGLISH
Mr. Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for the
opportunity to testify regarding the issues of language and
assimilation. U.S. English is a grassroots organization based
in Washington, DC and we were founded by Senator S.I. Hayakawa,
a former Senator from California, in 1983 and he himself was an
immigrant. Our organization focuses on public policy issues
related to language and national identity, particularly English
as the official language laws.
I thank the Committee for its wisdom in exploring the topic
of assimilation. Regardless of where you come down, I think it
is fair to say that there has been a lot of discussion in this
town about the contours of immigration policy and much less
thought going into what I call immigrant policy. That is what
is our policy toward immigrants once they actually arrive here.
Your former colleague, the late Barbara Jordan, wrote a
1997 New York Times Op. Ed advocating what she called the
Americanization ideal. Of course Barbara Jordan was a well
known Democratic legislator.
I suggest two facts should guide our thinking about the
Americanization ideal. First, English language learning is a
crucial element of Americanization, and second, we face a
language challenge in the United States that won't solve
itself. Since 1906, some capacity in English has been a formal
legal requirement for naturalization but as Professor Renshon
already mentioned, before the swearing in ceremony there is a
process by which an immigrant comes to self-identify as an
American.
Two years ago, the Pew Hispanic Center conducted a study
about civic attitudes of Hispanics in America, which
demonstrates a very tight link between English and
Americanization. Professor Renshon has already mentioned some
of these numbers about national identity, but I think it is
even more interesting to note that Pew found among Hispanics
living in households where little or no English is spoken, only
3 percent self-identify as Americans. 68 percent self-identify
first or only with their native country. But conversely, among
Hispanics in English-dominant households, 51 percent self-
identify first or only as Americans. In other words, those who
speak English are 17 times more likely to self-identify as
Americans than those who don't.
Now I have no reason to believe that this would be
different for any other group of immigrants. I think it has to
do with a fairly universal process of becoming an American. For
an immigrant who does not speak English, civic engagement with
a vast majority of one's fellow Americans is simply impossible.
Our common civic culture presupposes a common language, which
is why Alexis de Toqueville observed that the tie of language
is perhaps the strongest and most durable that can unite
mankind.
Now let me suggest that in the United States that tie which
we have historically had is facing some unprecedented
challenges. Three years ago a Pulitzer prize winning Los
Angeles Times reporter named Hector Tobar did a 2-year
Toquevillian experiment crisscrossing the country reporting on
the civic morass of Latino immigrants. His book is called
Translation Nation.
And he argued that in today's United States, living an
English-optional existence is increasingly common and
increasingly accepted. Now Tobar's subtitle is, quote, Defining
a New American Identity in the Spanish-Speaking United States.
He generally thinks that an English optional United States is a
welcome development. Now I disagree with that. But his
diagnosis of the social trend deserves great weight.
We also have some hard numbers to back up Tobar's
anecdotes. The 2000 census found that there are over 2 million
people born in the United States, citizens of the United
States, who can't speak English well enough to hold a basic
conversation. The Pew Hispanic Center did a separate survey of
Mexican migrants in 2005 and found that among those residing in
the United States for 6 to 10 years, 45 percent still did not
speak English.
They also found that for those residing in the United
States for 15 or more years, that same number, 45 percent still
did not speak English. Now the lesson I think is clear, that if
immigrants are not on the road to learning English relatively
quickly upon arrival, probably limited English proficiency is
going to be terminal. Because the grandchildren of immigrants
would usually learn English by growing up in America, I don't
believe the English language itself is under any, quote,
unquote, threat, but our national aspiration that has
historically been that all immigrants will seek to become
Americans, if half of immigrants or even 10 percent are locked
out of that process, we would be removing part of the
foundation that has allowed our Nation of immigrants to be
successful.
Public policy has a role to play in closing the English
acquisition gap. It includes increasing opportunities to learn
English and the avoidance of policies that promote an English
optional existence and the insistence that, as Congresswoman
Jordan wrote, the immigrant has mutual obligations to the
United States.
I would like to close just by repeating Congresswoman
Jordan's words in that New York Times Op. Ed. She said that
Americanization has ``earned a bad reputation in the 1920's
when it was temporarily stolen by racists and xenophobes.'' But
she said, ``It is our word, and we are taking it back.'' If we
are to reclaim Americanization in policy as well as in spirit,
a hard but cool headed look at our policies surrounding English
and assimilation is long overdue.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schultz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tim Schultz
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify regarding
the issues of language and assimilation.
My name is Tim Schultz, and I am Director of Government Relations
for U.S. English, Inc., a grassroots organization based in Washington,
DC. U.S. English was founded in 1983 by Senator S.I. Hayakawa, who was
himself an immigrant. Our organization focuses on public policy issues
that involve language and national identity, particularly official
English laws.
I thank the committee for its wisdom in exploring the topic of
assimilation. Regardless of where you come down on the various
immigration proposals before Congress, I think it's fair to say that a
number of people are doing a great amount of thinking about the
contours of immigration policy. Much less thought is going into what
I'd call ``immigrant policy'': that is, what is our policy toward
immigrants once they arrive? Your former colleague, the late Barbara
Jordan, wrote a 1997 New York Times Op-Ed calling it ``The
Americanization Ideal.''
I suggest two facts should guide our thinking here: First, English
language learning is the crucial element of Americanization. Second, we
face a language challenge in the United States that won't solve itself.
Since 1906, the demonstrable capacity to speak English has been a
formal legal requirement for naturalization. We know that. But before
the swearing in ceremony, there's a process by which an immigrant comes
to self identify as an American. Two years ago, the Pew Hispanic Center
did a remarkably detailed study about civic attitudes of Hispanics in
America, which contains perhaps the best data to date on the link
between English and Americanization.
Pew found that among Hispanics living in what they called ``Spanish
dominant Households''--where little to no English is spoken--only 3
percent self-identify as ``Americans.'' 68 percent self-identify first
or only with their native country. Among Hispanics in English-dominant
households, 51 percent self identify first or only as Americans. In
other words, those who speak English are 17 times more likely to self
identify as Americans than those who don't. Those who don't speak
English are 22 times more likely to identify primarily with their home
country than with the United States. I have no reason to believe this
would be different with any other group of immigrants, by the way. I
think it has to do with a fairly universal process of becoming an
American.
It has been said that the First Amendment is ``First'' in the Bill
of Rights because the freedom to speak is the right that enables all of
the others. All of our rights as Americans flow from this first
freedom. But for an immigrant who does not speak English, civic
engagement with one's fellow Americans is impossible. Our common civic
culture presupposes a common language. Alexis de Tocqueville, the
preeminent observer of American civic culture, wrote ``The tie of
language is perhaps the strongest and most durable that can unite
mankind.''
Well now, let me suggest that in the United States, that tie is
facing some challenges.
Three years ago, a Pulitzer Prize winning Los Angeles Times
reporter named Hector Tobar did a 2 year long Toquevillian-experiment,
crisscrossing the country reporting on the civic mores of Latino
immigrants in the United States. Tobar's resulting book, ``Translation
Nation'' argued that in today's United States, living an English-
optional existence is increasingly common and increasingly accepted.
Now, Tobar's subtitle is ``Defining a New American Identity in the
Spanish Speaking United States.'' He generally thinks that an English
optional United States is acceptable. I disagree. But his diagnosis of
the social trend deserves great weight.
We also have some hard numbers to back up Tobar's anecdotes.
The 2000 Census found that there are over 2 million people born in
the United States--citizens of the United States--who can't speak
English well enough to hold a basic conversation.
The Pew Hispanic Center did a separate survey of Mexican migrants
in 2006, and found that among those residing in the United States for
6-10 years, 45 percent still did not speak English. Pew also found that
among those residing in the U.S. for 15 or more years, an identical 45
percent still do not speak English. In other words, if an immigrant
does not start on the path to English upon arrival, chances are high
that that person will never learn it.
And let me repeat: I use Latino immigrants as an example because
they are the most numerous and we have the largest and best data.
Remember too, a majority of Latino immigrants DO learn English, so the
suggestion that they can't or shouldn't is ridiculous.
Because the grandchildren of immigrants will usually learn English
by growing up in America, I don't believe that the English language is
under ``threat.'' But our national aspiration has historically been
that immigrants--yes, first generation immigrants--seek to become
Americans. If half of immigrants--or even ten percent--are locked out
of that process, we would be removing part of the foundation that has
allowed our nation of immigrants to be successful.
I'm not here today testifying about particular legislation, but we
should agree that public policy has a role to play in closing the
English acquisition gap. It includes increasing opportunity--more desks
for more people who want to learn English. But it also includes the
avoidance of policies that promote an English optional existence, and
the hard headed insistence that, as Congresswoman Jordan wrote, the
immigrant has mutual obligations.
In Jordan's words, 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.'' If we are to reclaim
Americanization in policy as well as in spirit, a hard but cool-headed
look at our policies surrounding English and assimilation is long
overdue.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Schultz. Mr. Seavey, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MARK SEAVEY, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE
COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION
Mr. Seavey. Thank you, ma'am. Madam Chairwoman, Mr. King,
on behalf of the nearly 3 million members of the American
Legion, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
testify today on this vitally important issue. The Preamble to
the Constitution of the American Legion states that we
associate ourselves together for the following purposes, to
uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, to
maintain law and order, and to foster and perpetuate a 100
percent Americanism.
These words are recited in unison at American Legion
meetings and represent a continuing contract of service to
benefit America, and it is this commitment by legionnaires that
is the fuel for action on immigration, both legal and illegal.
The American Legion has been a leader in mentoring candidates
for U.S. citizenship dating back to the beginning of our
organization. Working closely with the U.S. Federal courts, the
American Legion has conducted naturalization services
throughout the country, teaching immigrants how to become
proficient in the English language and about lessons in U.S.
history and about government.
The American Legion helped the new citizens become
contributing members of our society. But the security, economy,
and social fabric of the United States of America is seriously
threatened by individuals who come to this country with no
interest in assimilating into our culture and, in failing to do
so, divide America into ethnic, racial, or cultural enclaves.
The American Legion has long opposed any great influx of
immigrants but instead has encouraged a path of moderation,
embracing a concept that immigration should be regulated so
that immigrants could be readily absorbed into the general
population.
Assimilation was important to both the government and the
American Legion in the '20's and '30's, but it lost some of its
luster in recent years as America directed its attention to the
illegal migrant population and homeland security issues.
But assimilation into our society by new citizens remains
important to the welfare of the United States. The failure of
this country to absorb new immigrants into its society divides
the Nation and promotes racial and cultural biases. Immigration
into the United States should be based on a two-way contract,
that being a commitment by the United States to treat the new
immigrants with respect and provide them with the rights and
privileges guaranteed to all citizens by the rule of law;
nothing more, nothing less. The immigrants must also pledge
their loyalty and allegiance to the United States, and that
allegiance must take precedence over and above any ties that
they may have to their native country.
Candidates for citizenship express that allegiance in a
naturalization ceremony when they are asked to take an oath, an
oath of renunciation and allegiance. This oath has various
elements that are important to the American Legion, and we have
solidified our beliefs on these in Resolution 356, which I have
put into my testimony. But essentially those elements are
renunciation of all allegiances to foreign states or
sovereignties; support foreign defense of the United States
Constitution; to bear truth, faith, and and allegiance to the
U.S., to bear arms, perform noncombat service or perform work
of national importance; and they take that oath without mental
reservation or purpose of evasion.
The American Legion believes strongly in maintaining the
sanctity of this oath and supports language in the oath that is
prescribed by the Congress of the United States for purposes as
outlined in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Legion
also calls upon Congress to reject dual allegiance in principle
and restrict and narrow its application in process.
The American Legion is not opposed to legal immigration.
There are, however, provisos to that statement. As a
resolution-based organization, the American Legion has voiced
its position on patriotic assimilation of new Americans in many
of our resolutions. For instance, the American Legion has
voiced longstanding opposition to any great influx of legal
immigrants and has called for immigration quotas which should
be set on a moderate and regulated scale in numbers that enable
them to be readily absorbed into the culture and life stream of
the United States.
We have also worked with the Hudson Institute to make the
intellectual and moral case for a substantially strong and
ceremonially rich citizen naturalization process. The
partnership jointly supports the position that candidates for
U.S. citizenship possess a level of proficiency with the
English language and an understanding of our country's history
and its government. The American Legion believes that this
naturalization ceremony should be made mandatory and conducted
in a U.S. district court and, as everyone else here, we also
support English as the official language of the United States.
Everyone else has ended with a quote, and I would be remiss
if I didn't also do that, but mine is from nearly a hundred
years ago. In 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt said, ``In the
first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes
here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself
to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone
else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man
because of creed, of birth place or origin. But this is
predicated upon the person becoming in every facet an American,
and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance
here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else
also, isn't an American at all. We have room but for one flag,
the American flag. We have room but for but one language here,
and that is the English language, and we have room but for one
sole loyalty, and that is a loyalty to the American public.''
One hundred years ago, and the words of Teddy Roosevelt are
still appropriate today, and at the American Legion we urge
that no one in Congress forget them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Seavey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Seavey
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Seavey. We thank all the
witnesses for their testimony. I would turn now to the Ranking
Member, Mr. King, for his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair. I ask that Mr. Goodlatte
be recognized in my stead in deference to his schedule.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Goodlatte.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I thank the
Ranking Member for his courtesy.
We at the last hearing had considerable testimony about the
issue of assimilation and I raised the question, and I think
the Ranking Member as well, with regard to dual citizenship. I
would like to ask each of you to comment on that, too. I am
disturbed by the Supreme Court decision that we are confronted
with, which is now 40 years old but which has I think caused a
growth in the number of people who have essentially retained
dual citizenship, even upon becoming a citizen of the United
States.
So my question is two-fold. First of all, do you believe
that dual citizenship further complicates the further process
of assimilation among immigrants to the United States and,
secondly, if you agree with that, what can and should the
Congress do today to ensure that those who seek to become U.S.
citizens do not retain allegiances to other nations in light of
that Supreme Court decision? I will start with you, Mr.
Renshon.
Mr. Renshon. Thank you. As it happens, I wrote a book on
that very subject called The Fifty Percent American, and as a
psychoanalyst as well as a political scientist, I think you
have to distinguish between the emotional level and the
practical level.
Frankly speaking, people have lots of different attachments
and that is really a matter of human nature, and I don't think
we can legislate it one way or the other.
Mr. Goodlatte. It does bother me that some people may have
the ability to vote, run for office and so on in another
country at the same time that they are exercising those same
rights here.
Mr. Renshon. That bothers me as well, and I think it should
be specifically outlawed. The reason for that is what you want
to do in the United States is to tilt people toward an American
identity, and the way that you do that is by casting their
circumstance as such that they don't keep looking back over
their shoulder at the country they used to belong to.
One way in which that is done is by paying attention to the
politics back there, to voting back there, to perhaps having
people visit and take money back to their home countries and so
forth. As far as I understand it, it should be a relatively
simple matter for Congress to declare its views that people
should not be allowed to vote in a foreign election, they
should not be allowed to serve in an army in a foreign country,
they should not be allowed to either run for office abroad or
advise foreign governments abroad in a particular way.
There is another element of this as well which I take up in
my book, which is you have now a number of Americans who could
or maybe do hold dual citizenship who are in our governmental
organizations. They may be members of State legislatures, they
may be members of the judiciary, they may be----
Mr. Goodlatte. Do you think we could restrict that?
Mr. Renshon. I think we should have a norm in which it
becomes very clear that people who are in positions of
leadership or authority should not be carrying passports or
otherwise being associated with countries elsewhere.
Mr. Goodlatte. I appreciate your answer. Let me allow the
others to answer as well.
Mr. Schultz. Congressman, my answer is I think that the
fact that dual citizenship is more of a reality for the last 40
years, regardless of the wisdom of that Supreme Court decision,
shows that there is potential complication in people
transferring their allegiance to the United States. We don't
want citizenship to be just merely a transaction like getting a
driver's license. It is not something like you get like a visa
card or something like that, it is also part of an emotional,
as the professor noted, an emotional transference of your
identity to the United States when you become a naturalized
citizen here, and the ability for people to do that 50 percent
or even 33 percent I think complicates that.
I think we have to kind of recognize that is, as a Supreme
Court decision, not something Congress can overrule but points
us to the fact that we are in a different era now and we face
different challenges in Americanization than we faced at the
beginning of the century. I think people who think
Americanization is just going to happen automatically with no
problems, I think they are failing to recognize there are a
substantial number of factors, including that one, that
complicate the Americanization process and make it less
automatic than maybe would have happened at the beginning of
the century.
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Seavey.
Mr. Seavey. I am not sure I have a great deal to add more
than they have already, but the American Legion has passed a
resolution specifically on this topic and we would like to see
a little more teeth given to the oath of renunciation. If you
give an oath, there should be something that actually holds you
to it. As far as we are concerned, that is something that you
all could give some teeth to, the exact form of that.
But the oath of renunciation, specifically I think that
perhaps when they give the oath of renunciation, if it really
doesn't have any bearing, there is probably no point to it in
the first place if you can't hold someone to it. I think there
is probably some constitutional route that you can take to give
it some teeth without violating the Supreme Court decision.
Mr. Goodlatte. I agree. I like some of the ideas expressed
by Mr. Renshon as well. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gohmert. We do appreciate your patience with us. I
appreciate your being here and your thoughtfulness in your
comments and the research that you obviously have all done. I
would like to follow up on the topic that you were just
discussing, the consequences of voting, running for office in
another country, or voting in another country; that is, getting
a passport in another country. There are apparently a litany of
things that can be listed as truly requiring dual masters, and
I do believe the teaching that persons cannot serve two
masters; one is going to end up getting shorter devotion.
But as I understand it, the 1967 Supreme Court case
basically said you cannot involuntarily terminate American
citizenship and if that is the case, it does seem as though
there may be room for legislation that would do as has been
suggested, putting teeth in that. Perhaps requiring an oath
both orally, in writing, with whatever translation is needed to
make sure they understand even though they speak some English,
make sure they understand exactly what is being signed, that
indicates that if they do one of these itemized things, commit
one of these acts, then they are voluntarily relinquishing
their American citizenship. It does seem quite offensive that
someone could hold office in a foreign country, that the office
which they ran, convincing voters there that they had those
voters' interests at heart, yet still hold American
citizenship. Clearly you can't love and serve honorably both of
them. So that would be in the legal community what we would
call a conflict of interest, clearly.
So I would like to get your comments on what might be done
to provide the teeth that we were talking about and what your
thoughts are about possibly having that as part of the
naturalization oath.
Start with you, Mr. Renshon.
Mr. Renshon. I probably will stand a step apart from your
perspective. I think the whole idea of taking away citizenship
because people have attachments is likely to run into a buzz
saw and wind up in the courts, and I have no idea how the
courts would rule on that.
Mr. Gohmert. But to elaborate, even if they commit an act
such as getting a passport in a foreign country or running for
office in a foreign country?
Mr. Renshon. I find those things very unsettling and almost
as an American reprehensible in some respects. I think the way
to approach it is to establish a norm very early on with regard
to the expectations there. For example, when people apply for a
green card or apply to come to the United States, I might have
them sign something at the time which acknowledges that they
will, if they are permitted to come here, do none of the
following things, or affirmatively do certain things.
I would reinforce that along the way, maybe have it yet
again at the naturalization process. I would have people hand
in their passports when they get American citizenship. It would
be in my view just that simple. I think that that is a real
issue, the issue that you raise, but I think if we approach it
in an overall way to try to ask ourselves at each step of the
immigration process, from the time that people want to come
here to the time that their children are here what can we do
step by step along the way to help cement attachment to the
American system, I think that overall process if you look at it
that way might be a better way to go.
Mr. Gohmert. If I can get quick responses from everybody
else.
Mr. Clegg. Well, I agree that it is a problem. I agree that
it is not only a problem in itself, but also that it is
evidence of a symptom as well that needs to be treated--that
the underlying cause, the reasons why people would want to
maintain dual citizenship, is a problem. I don't understand, I
am not as familiar with, the Supreme Court decision, but as you
describe it, all the Supreme Court was doing was to put a limit
on one kind of penalty that you all can place on individuals
who maintain dual citizenship or do other things that are
perceived as being disloyal, and while you can't strip people
of citizenship, there are other things, other kinds of
punishment that you could propose.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Clegg. Finally, the last thing is to put pressure on
the foreign countries that are allowing dual citizenship.
Ms. Lofgren. Does the gentlelady from Texas wish to be
recognized?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Just briefly, Madam Chair. I won't ask any
questions. I do want to thank the gentlemen for their testimony
and what I have seen of Mr. Renshon's testimony just requires a
very abbreviated response. I come from Texas and we are very
proud of what could be called a bifurcated history. We know
that we have a large population of first, second, and third
generation Mexican Americans, people who have a strong heritage
as relates to Mexico because of the geographics of that area.
I raise some concern about your reference to a Pew study
that indicates in Texas, we refer to them as Hispanics, 88
percent of Hispanics identify themselves as Hispanics. I would
venture to say 100 percent of African Americans identify
themselves as African American or Black, but they also
recognize that they are American.
So I know this is about Americanization. I think all of us
are committed to making sure that our allegiance is to one
flag, our pride is in America and what she represents and that
is unity and certainly a belief in her values. But this
testimony strikes me as very much uninformed about people's
identity, and I would hope that you would do some further study
so that you could understand fully when people express the fact
that they are Hispanic, that it doesn't mean they deny a love
for the country in which they are in. Many of us are hyphenated
Americans but we are Americans and we believe in what America
represents, Italian Americans, Irish Americans. And I think
that you will find that the next generations of individuals
have all of the attachment to America, all of the culture of
America, all of the language of America. Maybe you will support
English as a second language, more of those classes, because
there is standing room only to be had in those classes.
In any event, Madam Chair, I just want to speak for those
who did not speak for themselves. I haven't met a group of
immigrants who are not excited about the opportunity to be here
and excited about being an American. The more we work together,
I think the more we will achieve what the gentlemen are
testifying to. But I really don't see that as a rising problem.
I frankly think it is a tribute to America as a democracy and
the freedom that it exudes that we can express ourselves, yet
express our commitment to this country.
With that, I yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Renshon. May I respond to that, please?
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady yields back, and I recognize
Mr. King. He may want to recognize you further.
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair. Maybe we can return back
to Mr. Renshon toward the end. I have something I would like to
address to Mr. Seavey and the American Legion testimony that
you have.
It occurs to me that down in the Mississippi River bottom,
at Keokuk, IA, there is a big stone there, a boulder about the
size of a Volkswagon, and that is the site of a Federal
hospital that was formed during the Civil War so that the
wounded soldiers could be brought up aboard riverboats there on
the Mississippi River and could be brought into that Federal
hospital.
There is also a Federal cemetery there where the graves of
hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of brave Americans who gave
their lives to free the slaves are buried. There at the
Mississippi River bottom--and I regret the gentlelady from
Texas has left and is not able to hear this--on a brass plate
on that boulder is ``DAR,'' Daughters of the American Republic,
``one country, one flag, one language.'' that was the clarion
call then, during and post the Civil War, and that sTems to be
somewhat the message that you have delivered here today in your
testimony.
I will just ask if you would care to reflect upon that and
the meaning of that in the American Legion principles.
Mr. Seavey. I think it is obvious. If you look at the
demographics of voters and things of that nature, the
demographic that votes the most are veterans. I think, if you
look at any sort of civic thing that goes on, it is veterans.
And I know that--I just got out of the Army about a year ago,
and I cannot even tell you how many times we all told each
other there are no Hispanic American soldiers or African
American soldiers or anything else. We are all green, I think.
For us in the military, there is no segregating in the
military.
We had 10 guys living in a hut that was about 10 feet by
about 40 feet, and so you are forced to assimilate; and
culturally speaking, I think that even within the squads that
we had, you take on a sort of culture that is an amalgam of
everyone in it.
I think that, as a whole, veterans view citizenship
differently because they have actually been on the front lines,
and they see these things.
From my own personal feeling, I was an election monitor in
Afghanistan, and I saw the trouble that the people went through
over there to vote, and I saw the ethnic difficulties and the
religious difficulties. So any time that we, as veterans, can
help someone come and enjoy all of the benefits that America
has to offer, we certainly leap at it.
So I certainly concur with that. I think that there is
nothing to be gained from having separate little enclaves, or I
think that, you know, the melting pot perhaps has gotten off
track here, but certainly the American Legion feels that we can
right the ship if we slow down the----
Mr. King. There is no necessity for enclaves in the
barracks. There is no necessity for enclaves in America.
Mr. Seavey. Exactly.
Mr. King. I thank Mr. Seavey.
I will turn now to Mr. Renshon, and I appreciate your
presentation, and I appreciate everyone's testimony.
I reflect back in last week's testimony, where there was a
witness who testified that intermarriage between ethnicities or
races has been in a significant decline over the last several
decades, three or four decades. And I do not know what those
numbers are, but I can tell you what they are with
naturalization statistics as produced by USCIS, Citizenship
Immigration Services.
That is, in 1970, the naturalization rate was 84 percent,
and it dramatically dropped off at each census from 1970 to
1980 to 1990 to the year 2000, where that 84 percent
naturalization rate had slid out at the year 2000 at 13
percent. Now, I will submit that intermarriage rates and
naturalization rates are two empirical indicators of
assimilation or Americanization integration if we want to use
that rather inaccurate term, I believe.
Do you know of any empirical measures of assimilation, or
would you just simply care to comment upon those statistics
that I have delivered to you?
Mr. Renshon. Well, the first I am not familiar with. I was
under the impression that intermarriage rates were rising.
Mr. King. It was a surprise to me, too.
Mr. Renshon. Yes. So I would be interested to see that and
to take a look at it.
The second is really discouraging and dismal because
naturalization is a very important part of the Americanization
process, and when people do not take advantage of the
opportunity to become citizens, that is saying something about
us. And it is also saying something about them and a
relationship that I find very disturbing.
Mr. King. Would you concur that those two are the two
empirical indicators we have and are both going wrong; and if
they are both going the wrong direction, we do not have any
kind of sign that it is going the opposite way?
I would ask Mr. Seavey also to answer if I have got time.
Mr. Renshon. Well, you know, people use education and
people use home ownership as indicators, and as I said in my
comments, they are suspect indicators. Language is another.
Mr. King. Could I just get a brief answer? Again, I know
you spoke about assimilation. I would appreciate it if you
could answer in a few seconds.
Mr. Seavey. Sure.
The one caveat that I would raise, Representative King, is
that I think that among Hispanics, in particular, there is
actually good evidence that second and third generation
Hispanics are doing a very good job of assimilating.
That is not to say that, you know, there is not room for
improvement, but that is the one caveat that I would raise in
this area.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
I would like to thank the witnesses for their testimony
today. I have not made an opening statement, but I would just
observe that there is actually not as big an argument as some
would think on some of these questions.
Listening to you, I am reminded of meeting with a group of
Vietnamese, who were in the Vietnamese army, who fled the
Communist government, who came to San Jose in the 1970's. I was
with the Red Cross, volunteering to help get them settled.
I remember I had been teaching immigration law, and I
remember telling these really very brave men that their
children would not be Vietnamese in America. In America, they
would be Vietnamese Americans, but their grandchildren would be
Americans of Vietnamese descent. They scoffed at that, but it
has turned out to be true.
We have a rapid Americanization in our country. It is one
of our great strengths.
I appreciate your testimony today. Without objection,
Members will have 5 legislative days to submit any additional
written questions for you, which we will forward and ask that
you answer as promptly as you can. Without objection, the
record will remain open for 5 legislative days for the
submission of other additional materials.
Because we are operating under the 5-minute rule and all
time has expired, we must now adjourn our hearing.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 7:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
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
Pursuant to House Rule XI clause 2(j)(1), the minority in the
Subcommittee is entitled,
[U]pon request to the chairman by a majority of them before the
completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the
minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter
during at least one day of hearing thereon.
Last week, the Subcommittee held a hearing on ``Comprehensive
Immigration Reform: Becoming Americans--U.S. Immigrant Integration.''
At the request of the Ranking Member and a majority of the minority on
this Subcommittee, today the Immigration Subcommittee is holding a
minority hearing to continue the discussion on the effects of
immigrants on the nation's economy.
As we learned last week, Southern and Eastern Europeans who
immigrated to the United States a century ago and who are now held up
as model immigrants, were once depicted much as immigrants of today--as
being unable and unwilling to assimilate.
Our witnesses last week explained that these European immigrants
did well in joining American society. Professor Gerstle explained 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) the ability of immigrants to
achieve economic security. He noted 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 noted 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 have learned from this historical account is that including
immigrants in mainstream American society and the economy is the
quickest way to assimilation and integration.
Assimilation should be a goal of any rational immigration policy.
And we must 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 toward
assimilation, we must not forget that mandating and facilitating the
process for immigrants to learn English is essential, but it is
certainly not sufficient by itself to ensure 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 discussed last week.
Now we turn our attention to the minority witnesses to provide
their perspective.
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-tossed to me, I lift 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.