[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SAVE AMERICA COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 2007
=======================================================================
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
ON
H.R. 750
__________
NOVEMBER 8, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-60
__________
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
38-766 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida RIC KELLER, Florida
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California DARRELL ISSA, California
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MIKE PENCE, Indiana
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 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
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Chief Counsel
George Fishman, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
NOVEMBER 8, 2007
Page
TEXT OF THE BILL
H.R. 750, the ``Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of
2007''......................................................... 2
OPENING STATEMENTS
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 Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas, and Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law.............................................. 32
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.. 34
WITNESSES
The Honorable Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Michigan
Oral Testimony................................................. 36
Prepared Statement............................................. 37
The Honorable Barbara Lee, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California
Oral Testimony................................................. 39
Prepared Statement............................................. 41
The Honorable Silvestre Reyes, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Texas
Oral Testimony................................................. 42
Prepared Statement............................................. 44
The Honorable Nancy E. Boyda, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Kansas
Oral Testimony................................................. 45
Prepared Statement............................................. 46
Mr. William E. Spriggs, PH.D., Chairman, Department of Economics,
Howard University
Oral Testimony................................................. 53
Prepared Statement............................................. 56
Mr. Gregory Siskind, Partner, Siskind Susser Bland
Oral Testimony................................................. 64
Prepared Statement............................................. 65
Mr. Charles H. Kuck, President-Elect, American Immigration
Lawyers Association, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of
Georgia
Oral Testimony................................................. 74
Prepared Statement............................................. 76
Mr. Christopher Nugent, Senior Counsel, Community Services Team,
Holland and Knight, LLP
Oral Testimony................................................. 176
Prepared Statement............................................. 177
Ms. Kim Gandy, President, National Organization for Women
Oral Testimony................................................. 180
Prepared Statement............................................. 181
Mr. T.J. Bonner, President, National Border Patrol Council of the
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO
Oral Testimony................................................. 183
Prepared Statement............................................. 186
Ms. Julie Kirchner, Executive Director, Federation for American
Immigration Reform
Oral Testimony................................................. 192
Prepared Statement............................................. 194
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record........................ 211
SAVE AMERICA COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 2007
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship,
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe
Lofgren (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Lofgren, Berman, Jackson Lee,
King, Gallegly, Forbes, Gohmert, and Smith.
Staff Present: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Majority Chief Counsel;
J. Traci Hong, Majority Counsel; George Fishman, Minority
Counsel; and Benjamin Staub, Professional Staff Member.
Ms. Lofgren. I understand that two of our witnesses are on
their way. And so with that in mind, I would like to call the
hearing on the Subcommittee to order. I would like to welcome
all the Members, our witnesses, and members of the public to
the Subcommittee's hearing on H.R. 750, the ``Save America
Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2007.''
In the hearing on September 6, our Subcommittee examined
H.R. 1645, the ``Security Through Regularized Immigration and
the Vibrant Economy Act of 2007,'' otherwise known as the
STRIVE Act. Today we will review H.R. 750, the ``Save America
Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2007.'' Both bills contain the
necessary elements of comprehensive immigration reform to fix
our broken immigration system. In addition, the Save America
Act contains several provisions that would complement the
STRIVE Act.
I would like to commend our Subcommittee colleague,
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, for not only drafting and
introducing H.R. 750, but also for her service on behalf of
comprehensive immigration reform and immigration in general in
the 110th Congress and in many Congresses before the 110th,
especially as Ranking Member of this Subcommittee for many
years. Since I can remember, Representative Jackson Lee has
always been a tireless champion for immigration reform.
I was personally disappointed when the Senate was unable to
proceed on comprehensive reform this spring. We were prepared
on the House side to tackle this important issue. But because
of Senate inaction, we didn't get the chance to proceed on
hearings or a markup on comprehensive immigration reform.
But the details matter. And today we will get information
and details on the Save America Act. We can not know what the
future will hold for comprehensive reform, but we can be armed
with knowledge about legislation in the House to meet the
immigration challenge.
Because this hearing is about Congresswoman Jackson Lee's
bill, I would like to yield the balance of my time to my
colleague from Texas so that she may properly introduce the
subject of our hearing today, before recognizing the Ranking
Member.
And so I would yield the balance of my time to Ms. Jackson
Lee for her opening statement.
[The text of the bill, H.R. 750, follows:]
HR 750 IH ____________________________________________________
deg.
I
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 750
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to comprehensively reform
immigration law, and for other purposes.
__________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 31, 2007
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas introduced the following bill; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the
Committees on Homeland Security and Oversight and Government
Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker,
in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
__________
A BILL
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to comprehensively reform
immigration law, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES TO ACT.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Save America
Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2007''.
(b) References to the Immigration and Nationality Act.--Except as
otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or
repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be
made to a section or other provision of the Immigration and Nationality
Act.
TITLE I--FACILITATING FAMILY-BASED IMMIGRATION
SEC. 101. INCREASING THE ALLOCATION OF FAMILY-BASED IMMIGRANT VISAS.
Section 201(c)(8 U.S.C. 115(c)) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Worldwide Level of Family-Sponsored Immigrants.--The
worldwide level of family-sponsored immigrants under this subsection
for a fiscal year shall be no more than 960,000.''.
SEC. 102. PROTECTION AGAINST PROCESSING DELAYS.
(a) Age-Out Protection for Children.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 1 of title IV (8 U.S.C. 1101 note)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``age-out protection for children
``Sec. 408. (a) In General.--In the case of an application
initially to grant a benefit under this Act (other than an application
for naturalization) that otherwise would be granted only after a
determination that the beneficiary of the application is a child (such
as classification as an immediate relative under section
201(b)(2)(A)(i)), if the application is neither approved nor denied (on
procedural or substantive grounds) during the 90-day period beginning
on the date of the filing of the application, the beneficiary shall be
considered to be a child for all purposes related to the receipt of the
benefit if the beneficiary was a child on the last day of such 90-day
period, and the beneficiary shall not otherwise be prejudiced with
respect to such determination by such delay, and shall be considered to
be a child under this Act for all purposes related to such application.
``(b) Termination of Benefit.--Subsection (a) shall remain in
effect until the termination of the 1-year period beginning on the date
on which the application described in such paragraph is approved.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents is amended
by inserting after the item relating to section 407 the
following:
``Sec. 408. Age-out protection for children.''.
(b) Timeliness of Adoption for Immigration Purposes.--
(1) In general.--Section 101(b)(1)(E)(i) (8 U.S.C.
1101(b)(1)(E)(i)) is amended by striking ``a child adopted
while under the age of sixteen years'' and inserting ``a child,
under the age of 16 when adoption proceedings were
initiated,''.
(2) Special rule for siblings.--Section
101(b)(1)(E)(ii)(III) (8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(E)(ii)(III)) is
amended by striking ``adopted while under the age of 18 years''
and inserting ``under the age of 18 when adoption proceedings
were initiated''.
SEC. 103. TEMPORARY STATUS PENDING RECEIPT OF PERMANENT RESIDENT
STATUS.
(a) Classes of Nonimmigrant Aliens.--Section 101(a)(15)(K) (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(K)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (ii);
(2) by adding ``or'' at the end of clause (iii); and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(iv)(I) has concluded a valid marriage
with an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
residence, is the parent of a citizen of the
United States, or is the child, son, or
daughter of an alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence or a citizen of the United
States; (II) is the beneficiary of an approved
petition to accord immigrant status on the
basis of such family relationship that was
filed under section 204 by such family member;
(III) has available to the alien an immigrant
visa number; (IV) has waited more than 6 months
for the issuance of an immigrant visa based
upon an application made by the alien; and (V)
seeks to enter the United States to await such
issuance;''.
(b) Admission of Nonimmigrants.--Section 214(d) (8 U.S.C. 1184(d))
is amended--
(1) by striking ``(d)'' and inserting ``(d)(1)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
SEC. 104. ELIMINATION OF AFFIDAVIT OF SUPPORT REQUIREMENT.
(a) Grounds for Ineligibility for Admission.--Section 212(a)(4) (8
U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)) is amended--
(1) by amending subparagraph (B)(ii) to read as follows:
``(ii) If an alien submits an affidavit of support
described in section 213A, in addition to the factors
under clause (i), the consular officer or the Attorney
General shall also consider such affidavit in
determining whether the alien is inadmissible under
this paragraph.''; and
(2) by striking subparagraphs (C) and (D).
(b) Requirements for Sponsor's Affidavit of Support.--Subsections
(a)(1)(A), (f)(1)(E), and (f)(4)(B)(i) of section 213A (8 U.S.C.
1183a(a)(1)(A), (f)(1)(E), and (f)(4)(B)(i)) are amended by striking
``125'' and inserting ``100''.
``(2) A visa shall not be issued under the provisions of section
101(a)(15)(K)(iv) until the consular officer has received a petition
filed in the United States by the lawful permanent resident or citizen
relative of the applying alien and approved by the Secretary of
Homeland Security. The petition shall be in such form and contain such
information as the Secretary shall, by regulation, prescribe.''.
TITLE II--ESTABLISHMENT OF A BOARD OF VISA APPEALS FOR FAMILY-BASED
VISAS
SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF A BOARD OF VISA APPEALS.
(a) In General.--The Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by
inserting after section 224 the following new section:
``board of visa appeals
``Sec. 225. (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of State shall
establish within the Department of State a Board of Family-based Visa
Appeals. The Board shall be composed of 5 members who shall be
appointed by the Secretary. Not more than 2 members of the Board may be
consular officers. The Secretary shall designate a member who shall be
chairperson of the Board.
``(b) Authority and Functions.--The Board shall have authority to
review any discretionary decision of a consular officer with respect to
an alien concerning the denial, revocation, or cancellation of an
immigrant visa of someone who has the immediate relative status
described in section 201(2)(A)(i) and (ii); or a preference
classification described in section 203(a). The review of the Board
shall be made upon the record for decision of the consular officer,
including all documents, notes, and memoranda filed with the consular
officer, supplemented by affidavits and other writings if offered by
the consular officer or alien. Upon a showing that the decision of the
consular official is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence, the
Board shall have authority to overrule, or remand for further
consideration, the decision of such consular officer.
``(c) Procedure.--Proceedings before the Board shall be in
accordance with such regulations, not inconsistent with this Act and
sections 556 and 557 of title 5, United States Code, as the Secretary
of State shall prescribe. Such regulations shall include requirements
that provide that--
``(1) at the time of any decision of a consular officer
under subsection (b), the interested party defined in
subsection (d) shall be given notice of the availability of the
review process and the necessary steps to request such review;
``(2) a written record of the proceedings and decision of
the consular officer (in accordance with sections 556 and 557
of title 5, United States Code) shall be available to the
Board, and on payment of lawfully prescribed costs, shall be
made available to the alien;
``(3) upon receipt of request for review under this
section, the Board shall, within 30 days, notify the consular
officer with respect to whose decision review is sought, and,
upon receipt of such notice, such officer shall promptly (but
in no event more than 30 days after such receipt) forward to
the Board the record of proceeding as described in subsection
(b);
``(4) the appellant shall be given notice, reasonable under
all the circumstances of the time and place at which the Board
proceedings will be held;
``(5) the appellant may be represented (at no expense to
the Government) by such counsel, authorized to practice in such
proceedings, as the appellant shall choose; and
``(6) a request for review under this section must be made
in writing to the Board within 60 days after receipt of notice
of the denial, revocation, or cancellation.
``(d) Interested Parties.--The Board shall review each decision
described in subsection (b) upon request by the petitioner of an
immigrant visa petition approved under section 201(2)(A)(i) and (ii) or
203(a).
``(e) Construction.--This section may not be construed to restrict
any right to further administrative or judicial review established
under any other provision of law.
``(f) Fees.--The Secretary of State shall charge, and collect, an
appropriate fee associated with a request to the Board for a review.
Such fee shall be sufficient to cover the cost of the administration of
this section.''.
(b) Technical Amendments.--
(1) Section 222(f) (8 U.S.C. 1202(f)) is amended by adding
at the end: ``An interested party under section 225(d) or court
shall be permitted to inspect the record of proceeding as
described in subsections (c)(2) and (c)(3) of section 225.''.
(2) Section 104(a)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1104(a)(1)) is amended by
striking the ``except'' and inserting ``including''.
(3) The table of contents is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 224 the following new item:
``Sec. 225. Board of Visa Appeals.''.
TITLE III--ELIMINATION OF UNFAIR RESTRICTIONS
SEC. 301. ACQUISITION OF CITIZENSHIP FOR CHILDREN BORN ABROAD AND OUT
OF WEDLOCK TO A UNITED STATES CITIZEN FATHER.
(a) Requirements for Citizenship Eligibility.--Section 309(a) (8
U.S.C. 1409(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(2) by striking paragraph (3);
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking ``while the person is
under the age of 18 years--'' and inserting ``at any time--'';
and
(4) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).
(b) Clarification Regarding Deceased Parents of Children Born
Abroad and Out of Wedlock.--Section 309 (8 U.S.C. 1409) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude a
person who is a citizen or national of the United States by virtue of a
provision of this section from establishing such status under this
title after the death of the person's father, mother, or parents.''.
(c) Application of Citizenship Provisions.--The amendments made by
this Act shall apply to persons born out of wedlock who are alive on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 302. ALLOW AUNTS AND UNCLES OR GRANDPARENTS TO ADOPT ORPHANED OR
ABANDONED CHILDREN OF THE DECEASED RELATIVE.
Section 101(b) is amended by--
(1) striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (E) and
inserting a semicolon;
(2) striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by inserting the following subparagraph:
``(G) a child adopted in the United States or
abroad or who is coming to the United States for
adoption by a grandparent, aunt or uncle while under
the age of eighteen years, who has suffered the death
or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or
separation or loss from, both parents, or for whom the
sole or surviving parent is incapable of providing
proper care and has consented in writing to the
adoption, if the Secretary of Homeland Security is
satisfied that proper care will be furnished the child
if admitted to the United States. No natural parent or
prior adoptive parent of any such child shall
thereafter, by virtue of such parentage, be accorded
any right, privilege, or status under this Act. Nothing
in this subsection shall be construed to require the
child to be released to an orphanage as a prerequisite
for eligibility.''.
SEC. 303. RELIEF FOR SURVIVING SPOUSES, CHILDREN AND PARENTS.
(a) In General.--The second sentence of section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151 (b)(2)(A)(i)) is
amended by striking ``for at least 2 years'' and inserting ``, and if
married for less than two years at the time of the citizen's death
proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the marriage was entered
into in good faith and not solely for the purpose of obtaining an
immigration benefit,'' after ``within 2 years after such date''; and by
inserting the following sentence after the sentence ending with
``remarries'': ``In the case of an alien who was the child or parent of
a citizen of the United States at the time of the citizen's death, the
alien shall be considered, for purposes of this subsection, to remain
an immediate relative after the date of the citizen's death but only if
the alien files a petition under section 204(a)(1)(A)(ii), as amended,
within two years after such date in the case of a parent, or prior to
reaching the age of 21 in the case of a child.''.
(b) Petition.--Section 204(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154 (a)(1)(A)(ii) is amended by inserting
``or an alien child or alien parent described in the third sentence of
section 201(b)(2)(A)(i)'' after ``section 201(b)(2)(A)(i)''.
(c) Transition Period.--In applying section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, in the case of an alien
whose citizen relative died before the date of the enactment of this
Act, the alien relative may (notwithstanding the deadlines specified in
such subsection) file the classification petition referred to in such
subsection within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
In the case of an alien who was excluded, deported, removed or departed
voluntarily before the date of the enactment of this Act, such alien
shall be eligible for parole into the United States pursuant to the
Attorney General's authority under section 212(d)(5), and such alien's
application for adjustment of status shall be considered
notwithstanding section 212(a)(9).
(d) Adjustment of Status.--Section 245 (8 U.S.C. 1255) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(n) Applications for Adjustment of Status by Surviving Spouses,
Children and Parents.--
``(1) In general.--Any alien described in paragraph (2) who
applied for adjustment of status prior to the death of the
qualifying relative, may have such application adjudicated as
if such death had not occurred.
``(2) Alien described.--An alien described in this
paragraph is an alien who--
``(A) is an immediate relative as described in
section 201(b)(2)(A)(i);
``(B) is a family-sponsored immigrant as described
in section 203(a) or (d);
``(C) is a derivative beneficiary of an employment-
based immigrant under section 203(b), as described in
section 203(d); or
``(D) is a derivative beneficiary of a diversity
immigrant as described in section 203(c).''.
(e) Transition Period.--Notwithstanding a denial of an application
for adjustment of status, in the case of an alien whose qualifying
relative died before the date of the enactment of this Act, such
application may be renewed by the alien through a motion to reopen,
without fee, filed within two years after the date of the enactment of
this Act. In the case of an alien who was excluded, deported, removed
or departed voluntarily before the date of the enactment of this Act,
such alien shall be eligible for parole into the United States pursuant
to the Attorney General's authority under section 212(d)(5), and such
alien's application for adjustment of status shall be considered
notwithstanding section 212(a)(9).
(f) State Department Processing of Immigrant Visas.--Section 204(b)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(7) Effect of death.--
``(A) In general.--Any alien described in
subparagraph (B) whose qualifying relative died prior
to completion of immigrant visa processing may have an
immigrant visa application adjudicated as if such death
had not occurred, and any immigrant visa issued prior
to the death of the qualifying relative shall remain
valid.
``(B) Alien described.--An alien described in this
subparagraph is an alien who--
``(i) is an immediate relative as described
in section 201(b)(2)(A)(i);
``(ii) is a family-sponsored immigrant as
described in section 203(a) or (d);
``(iii) is a derivative beneficiary of an
employment-based immigrant under section
203(b), as described in section 203(d); or
``(iv) is a derivative beneficiary of a
diversity immigrant as described in section
203(c).''.
(g) Transition Period.--Notwithstanding a denial or revocation of
an application for an immigrant visa, in the case of an alien whose
qualifying relative died before the date of the enactment of this Act,
such application may be renewed by the alien through a motion to
reopen, without fee, filed within two years after the date of the
enactment of this Act. In the case of an alien who was excluded,
deported, removed or departed voluntarily before the date of the
enactment of this Act, such alien's application for an immigrant visa
shall be considered notwithstanding section 212(a)(9).
(h) Naturalization.--Section 319(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1429(a)) is amended by inserting ``or, if the
spouse is deceased, the spouse was a citizen of the United States,''
after ``(a) Any person whose spouse is a citizen of the United
States,''.
SEC. 304. ELIMINATING THE WIDOWED PERMANENT RESIDENT'S NATURALIZATION
PENALTY.
Section 319(a) (8 U.S.C. 1429(a)) is amended by inserting ``or, if
the spouse is deceased, the spouse was a citizen of the United
States,'' after ``(a) Any person whose spouse is a citizen of the
United States,''.
TITLE IV--PREVENTING SEX OFFENDERS FROM USING OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS TO
BRING INNOCENT, UNSUSPECTING VICTIMS INTO THE UNITED STATES
SEC. 401. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Immigration law allows citizens and aliens lawfully
admitted for permanent residence to bring foreign family
members to the United States on the basis of immediate relative
status or a preference classification.
(2) Immediate relative status and preference
classifications are obtained by filing petitions with the
Secretary of Homeland Security.
(3) For national security purposes, the Secretary of
Homeland Security conducts background checks on the
beneficiaries of such petitions and, since September 11, 2001,
on the petitioners as well.
(4) The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has
determined that, in fiscal year 2005, at least 398 of the
petitioners who filed family-based visa petitions were on the
National Sex Offender Registry maintained by the Federal Bureau
of Investigations.
(5) GAO was only able to ascertain the nature of the sex
offense for 194 of the 398 petitioners.
(6) GAO was able to ascertain, however, that 119 of the
convictions were for sex assault, 35 for child fondling, 9 for
strong arm rape, 9 for carnal abuse combined with a sexual
assault, 7 were for statutory rape, 4 for crimes against
persons, 3 for indecent exposure, 2 for kidnapping, 2 for
obscene material possession, 1 for exploitation of a minor with
photographs, 1 for incest with a minor, 1 for sodomizing a boy,
and 1 for restricting movement.
(7) At least 14 of the 398 petitioners were classified as
``sexual predators'', which means a determination had been made
that they are likely to commit additional sex offenses.
(8) At least 45 of the petitioners were convicted of sex
offenses against children.
(9) The Immigration and Nationality Act does not provide
the Secretary of Homeland Security with authorization to deny
family-based petitions on the basis of a petitioner's
conviction for a sex offense, even when the conviction record
indicates that a spouse or a child beneficiary may be in grave
danger.
SEC. 402. DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO DENY FAMILY-SPONSORED
CLASSIFICATION PETITION BY PETITIONER LISTED ON
NATIONAL SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY.
Section 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(l) Authority To Deny Family-Based Petition by Petitioner Listed
on National Sex Offender Registry.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary Homeland Security may, in
the discretion of the Secretary, deny a petition under
subsection (a) for classification of a spouse or child if--
``(A) the Secretary has confirmed that the
petitioner is on the national sex offender registry
maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a
conviction that individually (disregarding any
aggregation due to any other conviction) resulted in
incarceration for more than 1 year;
``(B) the petitioner has been given at least 90
days to establish that the petitioner is not the person
named on the registry or that the conviction did not
result in incarceration for more than 1 year and has
failed to establish such fact; and
``(C) the Secretary finds that granting the
petition would put a primary or derivative spouse or
child beneficiary in grave danger of being sexually
abused.
``(2) Determining danger.--In making the determination
under paragraph (1)(C), the Secretary shall use the following
principles:
``(A) Nature of the relationship.--In evaluating a
petitioner who has filed a petition for a spouse,
consideration should be given to indications of how
well the petitioner and the spouse know each other.
Petitions filed on the basis of marriages between men
and women who have had little direct, personal contact
with each other should be viewed with suspicion. In
cases where the petitioner and the spouse have had
little direct, personal contact with each other,
evidence should be submitted to establish that they
have gotten to know each other in some other way.
``(B) Nature of the sex offense.--Consideration
should be given to when each offense occurred for which
the petitioner was incarcerated for more than a year,
how serious it was, the sentence that was imposed, how
long the petitioner was incarcerated, the age of the
petitioner when it was committed, and the
characteristics of the victim.
``(C) Rehabilitation.--Evidence of rehabilitation
should be evaluated with respect to whether it
diminishes the risk of sexual abuse to the primary or
derivative spouse or child beneficiaries.
``(D) Previous visa petitions.--The records for any
previous petitions shall be examined to determine
whether they provide or might lead to evidence that is
pertinent to determining whether granting the petition
would put a primary or derivative spouse or child
beneficiary in grave danger of being sexually abused.
``(3) Rebuttal.--If the Secretary intends to deny a
petition under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall provide the
petitioner with a notice that states the reasons for the
intended denial and provides the petitioner with at least 90
days to submit rebuttal evidence. Rebuttal should focus
primarily on the factors that led the Secretary to believe that
granting the petition would put a primary or derivative spouse
or child beneficiary in grave danger of being sexually abused.
``(4) Post-denial remedies.--
``(A) Appeal.--All final denials under paragraph
(1) may be appealed to the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
``(B) New petition.--The petitioner may file a new
petition whenever the petitioner has additional
evidence that the petitioner believes might be
sufficient to warrant granting the new petition.
``(5) Disclosure by the secretary of homeland security to
beneficiaries.--In all cases in which it has been confirmed
that the name of a petitioner under subsection (a) is listed on
the national sex offender registry maintained by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, and regardless of whether the
Secretary may exercise discretion under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall give the petitioner at least 90 days to
establish that the petitioner is not the person named on the
registry. If the petitioner fails to establish that the
petitioner is not the person named on the registry within the
time allotted, the Secretary shall provide the beneficiaries
with a written copy of the information on the registry that is
available to the public before making a decision on the
petition. The beneficiary shall be informed that the registry
information is based on available records and may not be
complete.
``(6) Disclosure to department of state.--In all cases in
which it has been confirmed that the name of a petitioner under
subsection (a) is listed on the national sex offender registry
maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
regardless of whether the Secretary may exercise discretion
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall provide the Secretary
of State with--
``(A) a separate document with information about
the record on the national sex offender registry that
is available to the public;
``(B) any additional information it has that raises
concern that a primary or derivative spouse or child
beneficiary may be subject to sexual abuse, including
information from the registry that is not available to
the public; and
``(C) information about any previous petitions
under subsection (a) filed by the petitioner.
``(7) Disclosure by consular officer to beneficiaries.--
When a petition under subsection (a) is granted, if the
petition is filed by a petitioner who has failed to make the
demonstration of mis-identification described in paragraph (5),
the consular officer shall conduct an interview with the
primary or derivative spouse or child beneficiary of the
petition before issuing a visa to the beneficiary. At least
part of the interview must be held without the presence of the
petitioner. During the private part of the interview, the
beneficiary will be given a written copy of the information
about the petitioner from the registry that is available to the
public. This document must be written in the beneficiary's
primary language. The consular officer is required to advise
the beneficiary that approval of the visa petition does not
mean that there are no reasons to be concerned about his or her
safety.
``(8) Additional responsibilities of consular officer.--The
consular officer may return files to the Secretary of Homeland
Security for further consideration in cases where the consular
officer is concerned that granting the visa might put a primary
or derivative spouse or child beneficiary in grave danger of
being sexually abused. When returning a file under the previous
sentence, the consular officer may add any additional
information or observations the officer has that might have a
bearing on whether the visa should be granted, including the
results of any field examination that has been conducted.''.
SEC. 403. REMOVAL OF CONDITIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS.
(a) Identify and Provide Assistance for Spouses and Children Who
Are Subject to Sexual Abuse or Related Types of Harm.--Section
216(d)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1186a(d)(3))
is amended--
(1) by inserting before ``The interview'' the following:
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
interview''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Petitioner listed on national sex offender
registry.--In all cases where the Secretary of Homeland
Security has confirmed that a petitioning spouse is
listed on the national sex offender registry maintained
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an interview
with the alien spouse, and any alien sons or daughters,
shall be required prior to removal of the conditional
status, and at least part of the interview shall be
held without the presence of the petitioning spouse.
During the private portion of the interview, questions
will be asked to determine whether an investigation
should be conducted regarding the welfare of the alien
spouse, or any alien son or daughter. If it is
determined that any alien spouse, son, or daughter is
being abused or harmed by the petitioning spouse, the
victim shall be offered whatever assistance is
appropriate, including information on ways to remain in
the United State that do not depend on continuing the
qualifying marriage.''.
(b) Hardship Waiver in Cases Where the Alien Spouse or Child Is
Subject to Sexual Abuse.--Section 216(c)(4) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1186a(c)(4)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``, or''; and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
``(D) the qualifying marriage was entered into in
good faith by the alien spouse and during the marriage
the alien spouse, or a son or daughter of the spouse,
was sexually abused and the alien was not at fault in
failing to meet the requirements of paragraph (1).''.
SEC. 404. SPECIAL TASK FORCE TO IDENTIFY PEOPLE NAMED ON THE NATIONAL
SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY WHO HAVE FILED FAMILY-BASED
CLASSIFICATION PETITIONS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish
a task force, to be known as the ``Task Force to Rescue Immigrant
Victims of American Sex Offenders''. The task force shall consist of
officials from Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies with
experience in domestic violence, sex crimes, immigration law,
trafficking in humans, organized crime, or any other area of experience
which may be useful in completing the duties described in subsection
(b).
(b) Duties.--The duties of the task force shall be the following:
(1) Working back in time from the date of the establishment
of the task force, identifying individuals on the Federal
Bureau of Investigation's sex offender registry who have filed
family-based petitions under section 204(a) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act. When a confirmed match has been made with
the sex offender registry, the task force should ascertain
whether the petitioner filed previous petitions.
(2) Maintaining the information about the petitioners in a
comprehensive database.
(3) Prioritizing the information according to the
likelihood that primary or derivative spouse or child
beneficiaries are in danger of sexual abuse.
(4) Developing a system for investigating the cases in
which beneficiaries may be at risk and providing them with
information on how to seek assistance if they are abused.
(5) Except for information on the registry that is
available to the public, protecting the information produced by
its investigations in accordance with the privacy rights of
everyone involved in the investigation.
(6) Taking whatever other actions as are reasonable and
appropriate when investigations lead to information about
sexual abuse or other criminal activities, including notifying
State and local police departments, government offices, public
organizations that provide assistance to victims of sexual
abuse, and religious organizations.
(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 270 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Congress a
report on the findings and recommendations of the task force. The
report shall include the following:
(1) An analysis of the information obtained in searching
visa petition and national sex offender registry records.
(2) The results of any investigations conducted by the task
force.
(3) Recommendations on administrative and legislative
actions that would assist in identifying and protecting
immigrant victims of sexual abuse or related harm.
SEC. 405. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. Amounts appropriated
under this section shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 406. REGULATIONS.
Regulations implementing this Act shall be promulgated in final
form not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
TITLE V--LEGALIZATION FOR LONG-TERM RESIDENTS
SEC. 501. EARNED ACCESS TO LEGALIZATION.
(a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title II (8 U.S.C. 1255 et seq.) is
amended by inserting after section 245A the following:
``adjustment of status on the basis of earned access to legalization
``Sec. 245B. (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security
may adjust the status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence if the alien--
``(1) was physically present in the United States for a
continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately
preceding the date on which this provision was enacted and has
maintained continuous physical presence since then;
``(2) has at all times been a person of good moral
character;
``(3) has never been convicted of a criminal offense in the
United States;
``(4) in the case of an alien who is 18 years of age or
older, but who is not over the age of 65, has successfully
completed a course on reading, writing, and speaking words in
ordinary usage in the English language, unless unable to do so
on account of physical or developmental disability or mental
impairment;
``(5) in the case of an alien 18 years of age or older, has
accepted the values and cultural life of the United States; and
``(6) in the case of an alien 18 years of age or older, has
performed at least 40 hours of community service.
``(b) Treatment of Brief, Casual, and Innocent Absences.--An alien
shall not be considered to have failed to maintain a continuous
presence in the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) by
virtue of brief, casual, and innocent absences from the United States.
``(c) Admissible as Immigrant.--
``(1) In general.--The alien shall establish that the alien
is admissible to the United States as immigrant, except as
otherwise provided in paragraph (2).
``(2) Exceptions.--The provisions of paragraphs (5),
(6)(A), (6)(B), (6)(C), (6)(F), (6)(G), (7)(A), (9)(B), and
(9)(C)(i)(I) of section 212(a) shall not apply in the
determination of an alien's admissibility under this section.
``(d) Security and Law Enforcement Clearances.--The alien, if over
15 years of age, shall submit fingerprints in accordance with
procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such
fingerprints shall be submitted to relevant Federal agencies to be
checked against existing databases for information relating to
criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that
would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this
section. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a process for
challenging the accuracy of matches that result in a finding of
ineligibility for adjustment of status.
``(e) Inapplicability of Numerical Limitations.--When an alien is
granted lawful permanent resident status under this subsection, the
number of immigrant visas authorized to be issued under any provision
of this Act shall not be reduced. The numerical limitations of sections
201 and 202 shall not apply to adjustment of status under this section.
``(f) Termination of Proceedings.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security may terminate removal proceedings without prejudice pending
the outcome of an alien's application for adjustment of status under
this section on the basis of a prima facie showing of eligibility for
relief under this section.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 245A the following:
``Sec. 245B. Adjustment of status on the basis of earned access to
legalization.''.
SEC. 502. LEGALIZATION PROVISIONS FOR CHILDREN.
(a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title II (8 U.S.C. 1255 et seq.), as
amended by section 201, is further amended by inserting after section
245B the following:
``adjustment of status for certain children
``Sec. 245C. (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security
may adjust the status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence if the alien is a child at the time of filing
the application for such adjustment and establishes that the alien, at
such time--
``(1) has been physically present and enrolled in school in
the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5
years immediately preceding the date of such application, and
during that period has been a person of good moral character;
``(2) has fully integrated into life in the United States;
``(3) has learned English or is satisfactorily pursuing a
course of study to achieve an understanding of English;
``(4) is successfully pursuing an elementary school, middle
school, high school, or college-level education; and
``(5) if older than 13 years of age, has performed at least
60 hours of community service.
``(b) Treatment of Brief, Casual, and Innocent Absences.--An alien
shall not be considered to have failed to maintain a continuous
presence in the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) by
virtue of brief, casual, and innocent absences from the United States.
``(c) Admissible as Immigrant.--
``(1) In general.--The alien shall establish that the alien
is admissible to the United States as an immigrant, except as
otherwise provided in paragraph (2).
``(2) Applicability of certain provisions.--
``(A) Grounds of inadmissibility not applied.--The
provisions of paragraphs (5), (6)(A), (6)(B), (6)(C),
(6)(F), (6)(G), (7)(A), (9)(B), and (9)(C) of section
212(a) shall not apply in the determination of an
alien's admissibility under this section.
``(B) Waiver of other grounds.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in
clause (ii), the Secretary of Homeland Security
may waive any other provision of section 212(a)
in the case of an individual alien for
humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity,
or when it is otherwise in the public interest.
``(ii) Grounds that may not be waived.--The
following provisions of section 212(a) may not
be waived by the Secretary under clause (i):
``(I) Paragraphs (2)(A) and (2)(B)
(relating to criminals).
``(II) Paragraph (2)(C) (relating
to drug offenses), except for so much
of such paragraph as relates to a
single offense of simple possession of
30 grams or less of marijuana.
``(III) Paragraph (3) (relating to
security and related grounds).
``(d) No Numerical Limitations.--The numerical limitations of
sections 201 and 202 shall not apply to adjustment of status under this
section.
``(e) Confidentiality of Information.--Except as provided in this
section, neither the Secretary of Homeland Security, nor any other
official or employee of the Department of Homeland Security, may--
``(1) use information furnished by applicant for an
application filed under this section for any purpose other than
to make a determination on the application;
``(2) make any publication whereby the information
furnished by any particular applicant can be identified; or
``(3) permit anyone other than the sworn officers and
employees of the Department, the applicant, or a representative
of the applicant to examine individual applications.
``(f) Dissemination of Information.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security shall broadly disseminate information respecting the benefits
which aliens may receive under this section and the requirements to
obtain such benefits.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents, as amended by
section 201, is amended further by inserting after the item relating to
section 245B the following:
SEC. 503. UPDATED REGISTRY PROVISION.
(a) In General.--Section 249 (8 U.S.C. 1259) is amended--
(1) in the section heading by striking ``1972'' and
inserting ``1986''; and
(2) in paragraph (a), by striking ``1972'' and inserting
``1986''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections is amended in the
item relating to section 249 by striking ``1972'' and inserting
``1986''.
``Sec. 245C. Adjustment of status for certain children.''.
TITLE VI--BORDER SECURITY PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Rapid Response Measures
SEC. 601. EMERGENCY DEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES BORDER PATROL AGENTS.
(a) In General.--If the Governor of a State on an international
border of the United States declares an international border security
emergency and requests additional United States Border Patrol agents
from the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary is authorized,
subject to subsections (b) and (c), to provide the State with up to
1,000 additional United States Border Patrol agents for the purpose of
patrolling and defending the international border, in order to prevent
individuals from crossing the international border and entering the
United States at any location other than an authorized port of entry.
(b) Consultation.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult
with the President upon receipt of a request under subsection (a), and
shall grant it to the extent that providing the requested assistance
will not significantly impair the Department of Homeland Security's
ability to provide border security for any other State.
(c) Collective Bargaining.--Emergency deployments under this
section shall be made in conformance with all collective bargaining
agreements and obligations.
SEC. 602. ELIMINATION OF FIXED DEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES BORDER
PATROL AGENTS.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that no United
States Border Patrol agent is precluded from performing patrol duties
and apprehending violators of law, except in unusual circumstances
where the temporary use of fixed deployment positions is necessary.
SEC. 603. HELICOPTERS AND POWER BOATS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall increase
by not less than 100 the number of United States Border Patrol
helicopters, and shall increase by not less than 250 the number of
United States Border Patrol power boats. The Secretary of Homeland
Security shall ensure that appropriate types of helicopters are
procured for the various missions being performed. The Secretary of
Homeland Security also shall ensure that the types of power boats that
are procured are appropriate for both the waterways in which they are
used and the mission requirements.
(b) Use and Training.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
establish an overall policy on how the helicopters and power boats
described in subsection (a) will be used and implement training
programs for the agents who use them, including safe operating
procedures and rescue operations.
SEC. 604. CONTROL OF UNITED STATES BORDER PATROL ASSETS.
The United States Border Patrol shall have complete and exclusive
administrative and operational control over all the assets utilized in
carrying out its mission, including, aircraft, watercraft, vehicles,
detention space, transportation, and all of the personnel associated
with such assets.
SEC. 605. MOTOR VEHICLES.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish a fleet of motor
vehicles appropriate for use by the United States Border Patrol that
will permit a ratio of at least one police-type vehicle per every 3
United States Border Patrol agents. Additionally, the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall ensure that there are sufficient numbers and
types of other motor vehicles to support the mission of the United
States Border Patrol. All vehicles will be chosen on the basis of
appropriateness for use by the United States Border Patrol, and each
vehicle shall have a ``panic button'' and a global positioning system
device that is activated solely in emergency situations for the purpose
of tracking the location of an agent in distress. The police-type
vehicles shall be replaced at least every 3 years.
SEC. 606. PORTABLE COMPUTERS.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that each police-
type motor vehicle in the fleet of the United States Border Patrol is
equipped with a portable computer with access to all necessary law
enforcement databases and otherwise suited to the unique operational
requirements of the United States Border Patrol.
SEC. 607. RADIO COMMUNICATIONS.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall augment the existing radio
communications system so all law enforcement personnel working in every
area where United States Border Patrol operations are conducted have
clear and encrypted two-way radio communication capabilities at all
times. Each portable communications device shall be equipped with a
``panic button'' and a global positioning system device that is
activated solely in emergency situations for the purpose of tracking
the location of the agent in distress.
SEC. 608. HAND-HELD GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM DEVICES.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that each United
States Border Patrol agent is issued a state-of-the-art hand-held
global positioning system device for navigational purposes.
SEC. 609. NIGHT VISION EQUIPMENT.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that sufficient
quantities of state-of-the-art night vision equipment are procured and
maintained to enable each United States Border Patrol agent working
during the hours of darkness to be equipped with a portable night
vision device.
SEC. 610. BORDER ARMOR.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that every United
States Border Patrol agent is issued high-quality body armor that is
appropriate for the climate and risks faced by the individual officer.
Each officer shall be allowed to select from among a variety of
approved brands and styles. Officers shall be strongly encouraged, but
not mandated, to wear such body armor whenever practicable. All body
armor shall be replaced at least every 5 years.
SEC. 611. WEAPONS.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that United States
Border Patrol agents are equipped with weapons that are reliable and
effective to protect themselves, their fellow officers, and innocent
third parties from the threats posed by armed criminals. In addition,
the Secretary shall ensure that the Department's policies allow all
such officers to carry weapons that are suited to the potential threats
that they face.
SEC. 612. UNIFORMS.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that all United
States Border Patrol agents are provided with all necessary uniform
items, including outerwear suited to the climate, footwear, belts,
holsters, and personal protective equipment, at no cost to such agents.
Such items shall be replaced at no cost to such agents as they become
worn, unserviceable, or no longer fit properly.
Subtitle B--Detention Pending Removal
SEC. 621. DETENTION FACILITIES FOR ALIENS ARRESTED FOR ILLEGAL ENTRY.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall make arrangements for the
availability of 100,000 additional beds for detaining aliens taken into
custody by immigration officials. Some of these beds shall be rented
from Federal, State, and local detention facilities. The remainder of
the 100,000 shall be constructed to meet this demand on a temporary
basis and then converted to other use when they are no longer needed as
detention facilities.
SEC. 622. EXPANSION AND EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF DETENTION FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--Subject to the availability of appropriations, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall fully utilize--
(1) all available detention facilities operated or
contracted by the Department of Homeland Security;
(2) all possible options to cost effectively increase
available detention capacities, including the use of State and
local correctional facilities, private space, and secure
alternatives to detention; and
(3) the Department's Office of Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties shall monitor all facilities that are being used to
hold detainees for more than 72 hours.
The monitoring will include an evaluation of whether there is
compliance with the requirements of the Department's Detention
Operations Manual.
(b) Secure Alternatives to Detention Program.--
(1) Nature of the program.--For purposes of this section,
the secure alternatives to detention referred to in subsection
(a) is a program under which eligible aliens are released to
the custody of suitable individual or organizational sponsors
who will supervise them, use appropriate safeguards to prevent
them from absconding, and ensure that they make required
appearances.
(2) Program development.--The program shall be developed in
accordance with the following guidelines:
(A) The Secretary shall design the program in
consultation with nongovernmental organizations and
academic experts in both the immigration and the
criminal justice fields. Consideration should be given
to methods that have proven successful in appearance
assistance programs, such as the appearance assistance
program developed by the Vera Institute and the
Department of Homeland Security's Intensive Supervision
Appearance Program.
(B) The program shall utilize a continuum of
alternatives based on the alien's need for supervision,
including placement of the alien with an individual or
organizational sponsor, a supervised group home, or in
a supervised, non-penal community setting that has
guards stationed along its perimeter.
(C) The Secretary shall enter into contracts with
nongovernmental organizations and individuals to
implement the secure alternatives to detention program.
(c) Eligibility and Operations.--
(1) Selection of participants.--The Secretary shall select
aliens to participate in the program from designated groups
specified in paragraph (4) if the Secretary determines that
such aliens are not flight risks or dangers to the community.
(2) Voluntary participation.--An alien's participation in
the program is voluntary and shall not confer any rights or
benefits to the alien under the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
(3) Limitation on participation.--
(A) In general.--Only aliens who are in expedited
removal proceedings under section 236 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226) may
participate in the program.
(B) Rules of construction.--
(i) Aliens applying for asylum.--Aliens who
have established a credible fear of persecution
and have been referred to the Executive Office
for Immigration Review for an asylum hearing
shall not be considered to be in expedited
removal proceedings and the custody status of
such aliens after service of a Notice to Appear
shall be determined in accordance with the
procedures governing aliens in removal
proceedings under section 240 of such Act (8
U.S.C. 1229a).
(ii) Unaccompanied alien children.--
Unaccompanied alien children (as defined in
section 462(g)(2) of the Homeland Security Act
(6 U.S.C. 279(g)(2))) shall be considered to be
in the care and exclusive custody of the
Department of Health and Human Services and
shall not be subject to expedited removal and
shall not be permitted to participate in the
program.
(4) Designated groups.--The designated groups referred to
in paragraph (1) are the following:
(A) Alien parents who are being detained with one
or more of their children, and their detained children.
(B) Aliens who have serious medical or mental
health needs.
(C) Aliens who are mentally retarded or autistic.
(D) Pregnant alien women.
(E) Elderly aliens who are over the age of 65.
(F) Aliens placed in expedited removal proceedings
after being rescued from trafficking or criminal
operations by Government authorities.
(G) Other groups designated in regulations
promulgated by the Secretary.
(5) Implementing regulations.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall promulgate regulations to implement the secure
alternatives to detention program and to standardize the care
and treatment of aliens in immigration custody based on the
Detention Operations Manual of the Department of Homeland
Security.
(6) Decisions regarding program not reviewable.--The
decisions of the Secretary regarding when to utilize the
program and to what extent and the selection of aliens to
participate in the program shall not be subject to
administrative or judicial review.
(d) Reporting Requirements.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the Secretary
shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives, the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate
a report that details all policies, regulations, and actions taken to
comply with the provisions in this section, including maximizing
detention capacity and increasing the cost-effectiveness of detention
by implementing the secure alternatives to detention program, and a
description of efforts taken to ensure that all aliens in expedited
removal proceedings are residing under conditions that are safe,
secure, and healthy.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland Security such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this section. Amounts appropriated pursuant to
this section shall remain available until expended.
Subtitle C--Recruitment and Retention of Additional Immigration Law
Enforcement Personnel
SEC. 631. ADDITIONAL UNITED STATES BORDER PATROL AGENTS.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall increase the number of
United States Border Patrol agents by--
(1) 2,500 in fiscal year 2008;
(2) 2,750 in fiscal year 2009;
(3) 3,000 in fiscal year 2010;
(4) 3,250 in fiscal year 2011; and
(5) 3,500 in fiscal year 2012.
SEC. 632. PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE EXERCISE OF CERTAIN APPOINTMENT
AND OTHER SIMILAR AUTHORITIES WITH RESPECT TO THE
UNITED STATES BORDER PATROL.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
(1) all authority described in subsection (b) that (but for
this section) would otherwise be vested in the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall instead be vested in the head of the
United States Border Patrol;
(2) an individual may not be appointed or continue to serve
as the head of the United States Border Patrol if, at the time
of appointment, such individual has not completed at least 20
years of service, within the competitive service (as defined by
section 2102 of title 5, United States Code), as a United
States Border Patrol agent; and
(3) all activities described in subsection (b) shall be
considered inherently Governmental functions and may not be
carried out by any persons other than employees of the United
States Border Patrol.
(b) Authorities Described.--This section applies with respect to
any authority relating to the recruitment, selection, and appointment
of applicants (including the conducting of any investigation necessary
to approve or grant security clearances) for United States Border
Patrol agents, law enforcement officers (other than United States
Border Patrol agents), and such other positions within the United
States Border Patrol as the head of the United States Border Patrol may
by regulation determine.
(c) Regulations.--The head of the United States Border Patrol shall
by regulation identify the specific authorities, including citations to
the relevant provisions of law, rule, or regulation, to which this
section applies.
SEC. 633. TRAINING FACILITIES.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that the training
facilities used to train newly-hired United States Border Patrol agents
are sufficiently spacious and modern to ensure that all recruits are
afforded the highest possible quality training, as well as reasonably
comfortable living conditions. All dormitories shall be constructed so
that each trainee is housed in separate quarters. Moreover, the
Secretary shall ensure that the training sites selected contains
adequate housing for all permanent and temporary instructors within the
local commuting area.
SEC. 634. OPERATIONAL FACILITIES.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that all
operational facilities of the United States Border Patrol are well-
equipped and sufficiently spacious and modern to enable all of the
personnel assigned to such facilities to efficiently accomplish the
agency's mission.
SEC. 635. MAXIMUM STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENTS FOR UNITED STATES BORDER
PATROL AGENTS.
Section 5379(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(4) In the case of an employee (otherwise eligible for benefits
under this section) who is serving as a full-time active-duty United
States Border Patrol agent within the Department of Homeland Security--
``(A) paragraph (2)(A) shall be applied by substituting
`$20,000' for `$10,000'; and
``(B) paragraph (2)(B) shall be applied by substituting
`$80,000' for `$60,000'.''.
SEC. 636. RECRUITMENT AND RELOCATION BONUSES AND RETENTION ALLOWANCES
FOR PERSONNEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that the authority
to pay recruitment and relocation bonuses under section 5753 of title
5, United States Code, the authority to pay retention bonuses under
section 5754 of such title, and any other similar authorities available
under any other provision of law, rule, or regulation, are exercised to
the fullest extent allowable in order to encourage service in the
Department of Homeland Security.
SEC. 637. REPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HUMAN RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.
(a) Repeal.--
(1) In general.--Effective as of the date specified in
section 4 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101
note), chapter 97 of title 5, United States Code (as added by
section 841(a)(2) of such Act), section 841(b)(3) of such Act,
and subsections (c) and (e) of section 842 of such Act are
repealed.
(2) Regulations.--Any regulations prescribed under
authority of chapter 97 of title 5, United States Code, are
void ab initio.
(b) Nullification of Previous Exclusions.--Effective as of the date
of the enactment of this Act, all previous determinations as to
whether--
(1) an agency or subdivision of the Department of Homeland
Security (or a predecessor agency or subdivision transferred
into the Department) is excluded from coverage under chapter 71
of title 5, United States Code,
(2) a unit or subdivision of a unit within the Department
of Homeland Security (or a predecessor agency or subdivision
transferred into the Department) is not appropriate for
representation by a labor organization under such chapter, or
(3) an employee or position within the Department of
Homeland Security (or a predecessor agency or subdivision
transferred into the Department) is within a unit that is not
appropriate for representation by a labor organization under
such chapter,
are null and void, except to the extent that such determinations were
made in accordance with the criteria outlined in paragraph (1), (2),
(3), (4), or (7) of section 7112(b) of such title 5.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part III of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating
to chapter 97.
SEC. 638. ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIALIZED INSPECTOR OCCUPATIONS.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish within the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 3 distinct inspectional
occupations: immigration, customs, and agriculture. These divisions
shall coordinate closely with each other under the direction of a high-
level official within the Bureau, but shall report to separate
operational chains of command.
SEC. 639. INCREASE IN INSPECTORS AT AIRPORT AND LAND BORDER INSPECTION
STATIONS.
In each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012, the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall increase by not less than 1,000 the number of
positions for full-time active duty immigration inspectors at airport
and land border inspection stations within the Department of Homeland
Security above the number of such positions for which funds were
allotted for the preceding fiscal year.
SEC. 640. LAW ENFORCEMENT RETIREMENT COVERAGE FOR INSPECTION OFFICERS
AND OTHER EMPLOYEES.
(a) Amendments.--
(1) Federal employees' retirement system.--
(A) Paragraph (17) of section 8401 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``and'' at
the end of subparagraph (C), and by adding at the end
the following:
``(E) an employee (not otherwise covered by this
paragraph)--
``(i) the duties of whose position include
the investigation or apprehension of
individuals suspected or convicted of offenses
against the criminal laws of the United States;
and
``(ii) who is authorized to carry a
firearm; and
``(F) an employee of the Internal Revenue Service,
the duties of whose position are primarily the
collection of delinquent taxes and the securing of
delinquent returns;''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 8401(17)(C) of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking
``(A) and (B)'' and inserting ``(A), (B), (E), and
(F)''.
(2) Civil service retirement system.--Paragraph (20) of
section 8331 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after ``position.'' (in the matter before
subparagraph (A)) the following: ``For the purpose of this
paragraph, the employees described in the preceding provision
of this paragraph (in the matter before''including``) shall be
considered to include an employee, not otherwise covered by
this paragraph, who satisfies clauses (i)-(ii) of section
8401(17)(E) and an employee of the Internal Revenue Service the
duties of whose position are as described in section
8401(17)(F).''.
(3) Effective date.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
the amendments made by this subsection shall take effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply only in the
case of any individual first appointed (or seeking to be first
appointed) as a law enforcement officer (within the meaning of
those amendments) on or after such date.
(b) Treatment of Service Performed by Incumbents.--
(1) Law enforcement officer and service described.--
(A) Law enforcement officer.--Any reference to a
law enforcement officer described in this paragraph
refers to an individual who satisfies the requirements
of section 8331(20) or 8401(17) of title 5, United
States Code (relating to the definition of a law
enforcement officer) by virtue of the amendments made
by subsection (a).
(B) Service.--Any reference to service described in
this paragraph refers to service performed as a law
enforcement officer (as described in this paragraph).
(2) Incumbent defined.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term ``incumbent'' means an individual who--
(A) is first appointed as a law enforcement officer
(as described in paragraph (1)) before the date of the
enactment of this Act; and
(B) is serving as such a law enforcement officer on
such date.
(3) Treatment of service performed by incumbents.--
(A) In general.--Service described in paragraph (1)
which is performed by an incumbent on or after the date
of the enactment of this Act shall, for all purposes
(other than those to which subparagraph (B) pertains),
be treated as service performed as a law enforcement
officer (within the meaning of section 8331(20) or
8401(17) of title 5, United States Code, as
appropriate), irrespective of how such service is
treated under subparagraph (B).
(B) Retirement.--Service described in paragraph (1)
which is performed by an incumbent before, on, or after
the date of the enactment of this Act shall, for
purposes of subchapter III of chapter 83 and chapter 84
of title 5, United States Code, be treated as service
performed as a law enforcement officer (within the
meaning of such section 8331(20) or 8401(17), as
appropriate), but only if an appropriate written
election is submitted to the Office of Personnel
Management within 5 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act or before separation from
Government service, whichever is earlier.
(4) Individual contributions for prior service.--
(A) In general.--An individual who makes an
election under paragraph (3)(B) may, with respect to
prior service performed by such individual, contribute
to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund the
difference between the individual contributions that
were actually made for such service and the individual
contributions that should have been made for such
service if the amendments made by subsection (a) had
then been in effect.
(B) Effect of not contributing.--If no part of or
less than the full amount required under subparagraph
(A) is paid, all prior service of the incumbent shall
remain fully creditable as law enforcement officer
service, but the resulting annuity shall be reduced in
a manner similar to that described in section
8334(d)(2) of title 5, United States Code, to the
extent necessary to make up the amount unpaid.
(C) Prior service defined.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``prior service'' means, with
respect to any individual who makes an election under
paragraph (3)(B), service (described in paragraph (1))
performed by such individual before the date as of
which appropriate retirement deductions begin to be
made in accordance with such election.
(5) Government contributions for prior service.--
(A) In general.--If an incumbent makes an election
under paragraph (3)(B), the agency in or under which
that individual was serving at the time of any prior
service (referred to in paragraph (4)) shall remit to
the Office of Personnel Management, for deposit in the
Treasury of the United States to the credit of the
Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, the
amount required under subparagraph (B) with respect to
such service.
(B) Amount required.--The amount an agency is
required to remit is, with respect to any prior
service, the total amount of additional Government
contributions to the Civil Service Retirement and
Disability Fund (above those actually paid) that would
have been required if the amendments made by subsection
(a) had then been in effect.
(C) Contributions to be made ratably.--Government
contributions under this paragraph on behalf of an
incumbent shall be made by the agency ratably (on at
least an annual basis) over the 10-year period
beginning on the date referred to in paragraph (4)(C).
(6) Exemption from mandatory separation.--Nothing in
section 8335(b) or 8425(b) of title 5, United States Code,
shall cause the involuntary separation of a law enforcement
officer (as described in paragraph (1)) before the end of the
3-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(7) Regulations.--The Office shall prescribe regulations to
carry out this section, including--
(A) provisions in accordance with which interest on
any amount under paragraph (4) or (5) shall be
computed, based on section 8334(e) of title 5, United
States Code; and
(B) provisions for the application of this
subsection in the case of--
(i) any individual who--
(I) satisfies subparagraph (A) (but
not subparagraph (B)) of paragraph (2);
and
(II) serves as a law enforcement
officer (as described in paragraph (1))
after the date of the enactment of this
Act; and
(ii) any individual entitled to a survivor
annuity (based on the service of an incumbent,
or of an individual under clause (i), who dies
before making an election under paragraph
(3)(B)), to the extent of any rights that would
then be available to the decedent (if still
living).
(8) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall
be considered to apply in the case of a reemployed annuitant.
SEC. 641. REESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BORDER PATROL ANTI-
SMUGGLING UNIT.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall reestablish the Anti-
Smuggling Unit within the Office of United States Border Patrol, and
shall immediately staff such office with a minimum of 500 criminal
investigators selected from within the ranks of the United States
Border Patrol. Staffing levels shall be adjusted upward periodically in
accordance with workload requirements.
SEC. 642. ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIALIZED CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR
OCCUPATIONS.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish specialized
Criminal Investigator occupations within the Department: one for the
investigation of violations of immigration laws, another for customs
laws, and a third for agriculture laws. These divisions shall
coordinate closely with each other under the direction of a high-level
official within the Department, but shall report to separate
operational chains of command.
SEC. 643. ESTABLISHMENT OF CAREER PATHS TO CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR
POSITIONS.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that all persons
selected for criminal investigator positions within the Department of
Homeland Security possess a minimum of 3 years of field experience
within the Department or its predecessor agencies in the specialized
area of law that will be investigated.
SEC. 644. ADDITIONAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AGENTS.
In each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012, the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall increase by not less than 500 the number of
positions for full-time active duty immigration enforcement agents
responsible for transporting and guarding detained aliens above the
number of such positions for which funds were allotted for the
preceding fiscal year.
SEC. 645. INCREASE UNITED STATES BORDER PATROL AGENT AND INSPECTOR PAY.
(a) In General.--Effective as of the first day of the first
applicable pay period beginning on or after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the rate of basic pay for all employees of the Department
of Homeland Security described in subsection (b) shall be increased in
accordance with subsection (c).
(b) Employees Described.--This section applies to any individual
who, as of the date of the enactment of this Act--
(1) is a journey level United States Border Patrol agent or
immigration, customs, or agriculture inspector within the
Department of Homeland Security, whose primary duties consist
of enforcing the immigration, customs, or agriculture laws of
the United States;
(2) has completed at least one year of service as a United
States Border Patrol agent or inspector (whether as an employee
of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of
Justice, or both agencies combined); and
(3) is receiving an annual rate of basic pay for positions
at GS-11 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5,
United States Code.
(c) Increase Described.--The basic rate of pay for the employees
described in this subsection shall increase from the annual rate of
basic pay for positions at GS-11 of the General Schedule to the annaul
rate of basic pay for positions at GS-13 of such schedule.
SEC. 646. FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OVERTIME.
Notwithstanding any other provisionof law, all overtime hours
worked on and after the date of the enactment of this Act by all
employees of the Department of Homeland Security who are at or below
the second-line level of field supervision shall be compensated in
accordance with the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Subtitle D--Enforcement Tools to Diminish Entries Using Fraudulent
Documents and Commercial Alien Smuggling
SEC. 651. FOREIGN LANGUAGE TRAINING.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall require all officers of
the Department of Homeland Security who come into contact with aliens
who have crossed the border illegally to take Spanish and other
appropriate foreign language training courses to facilitate
communication with the aliens.
SEC. 652. FOREIGN LANGUAGE AWARDS.
(a) Special Rules.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall apply
section 4523 of title 5, United States Code, in conformance with the
following:
(1) Any law enforcement officer within the Department of
Homeland Security whose primary duties involve--
(A) the enforcement of the immigration laws of the
United States,
(B) the detention or transportation of violators of
the immigration laws of the United States, or
(C) both,
shall, for purposes of such section 4523, be presumed to make
substantial use of a foreign language in the performance of
such officer's official duties.
(2)(A) Any individual who successfully completes a foreign
language program as part of their agency-sponsored or agency-
approved training shall be deemed to possess the foreign
language proficiency necessary to qualify for an award under
such section for so long as such individual serves as a law
enforcement officer within the Department of Homeland Security.
(B) Nothing in this paragraph shall, in the case of any
individual who does not satisfy subparagraph (A), prevent such
individual from being allowed to demonstrate foreign language
proficiency in accordance with the criteria and procedures that
would otherwise apply under such section.
(3) For purposes of applying subsection (a) of such section
4523, substitute ``equal to'' for ``up to''.
(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``law
enforcement officer'' has the meaning given such term by section 4521
of such title 5.
SEC. 653. ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL FOR INVESTIGATION OF FRAUDULENT SCHEMES
AND DOCUMENT FRAUD.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall hire at least 1000
additional investigators for investigating fraudulent schemes,
including benefit application schemes, and fraudulent documents used to
enter or remain in the United States unlawfully.
SEC. 654. ESTABLISH A SPECIAL TASK FORCE FOR COORDINATING AND
DISTRIBUTING INFORMATION ON FRAUDULENT IMMIGRATION
DOCUMENTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish
a Fraudulent Documents Task Force to carry out the following:
(1) Collect information from Federal, State, and local law
enforcement agencies, and foreign governments on the
production, sale, distribution and use of fraudulent documents
intended to be used to enter, travel or remain within the
United States unlawfully.
(2) Maintain the information described in subpart (1) in a
comprehensive database.
(3) Maintain a repository of genuine and fraudulent travel
and identity document exemplars.
(4) Convert the information collected into reports that
provide guidance to government officials in identifying
fraudulent documents being used to enter into, travel within or
remain in the United States.
(5) Develop a system for distributing these reports on an
ongoing basis to appropriate Federal, State, and local law
enforcement agencies.
(b) Distribution of Information.--The task force will distribute
the reports to appropriate Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies on an ongoing basis.
SEC. 655. NEW NONIMMIGRANT VISA CLASSIFICATION TO ENABLE INFORMANTS TO
ENTER THE UNITED STATES AND REMAIN TEMPORARILY.
(a) In General.--Section 101(a)(15)(S) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(S)) is
amended
(1) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in clause (ii), by striking the comma at the end and
inserting ``; or'';
(3) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
``(iii) who the Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Secretary of State, or the
Attorney General determines--
``(I) is in possession of critical
reliable information concerning a
commercial alien smuggling organization
or enterprise or a commercial operation
for making or trafficking in documents
to be used for entering or remaining in
the United States unlawfully;
``(II) is willing to supply or has
supplied such information to a Federal
or State court; or
``(III) whose presence in the
United States the Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Secretary of State, or
the Attorney General determines is
essential to the success of an
authorized criminal investigation, the
successful prosecution of an individual
involved in the commercial alien
smuggling organization or enterprise,
or the disruption of such organization
or enterprise or a commercial operation
for making or trafficking in documents
to be used for entering or remaining in
the United States unlawfully.'';
(4) by inserting ``, or with respect to clause (iii), the
Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, or the
Attorney General'' after ``jointly''; and
(5) by striking ``(i) or (ii)'' and inserting ``(i), (ii),
or (iii)''.
(b) Admission of Nonimmigrants.--Section 214(k) (8 U.S.C. 1184(k))
is amended--
(1) by adding at the end of paragraph (1) the following:
``The number of aliens who may be provided a visa as
nonimmigrants under section 101(a)(15)(S)(iii) in any fiscal
year may not exceed 400.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) If the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary
of State, or the Attorney General determines that a
nonimmigrant described in clause (iii) of section
101(a)(15)(S), or that of any family member of such a
nonimmigrant who is provided nonimmigrant status pursuant to
such section, must be protected, such official may take such
lawful action as the official considers necessary to effect
such protection.''.
SEC. 656. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS WHEN NEEDED TO PROTECT INFORMANTS.
Section 245(j) (8 U.S.C. 1255(j)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``(1) or (2),'' and
inserting ``(1), (2), (3), or (4),'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (5);
(3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) if, in the opinion of the Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Secretary of State, or the Attorney General--
``(A) a nonimmigrant admitted into the United
States under section 101(a)(15)(S)(iii) has supplied
information described in subclause (I) of such section;
and
``(B) the provision of such information has
substantially contributed to the success of a
commercial alien smuggling investigation or an
investigation of the sale or production of fraudulent
documents to be used for entering or remaining in the
United States unlawfully, the disruption of such an
enterprise, or the prosecution of an individual
described in subclause (III) of that section,
the Secretary of Homeland Security may adjust the status of the
alien (and the spouse, children, married and unmarried sons and
daughters, and parents of the alien if admitted under that
section) to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
residence if the alien is not described in section
212(a)(3)(E).
``(4) The Secretary of Homeland Security may adjust the
status of a nonimmigrant admitted into the United States under
section 101(a)(15)(S)(iii) (and the spouse, children, married
and unmarried sons and daughters, and parents of the
nonimmigrant if admitted under that section) to that of an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence on the basis of
a recommendation of the Secretary of State or the Attorney
General.''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) If the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary
of State, or the Attorney General determines that a person
whose status is adjusted under this subsection must be
protected, such official may take such lawful action as the
official considers necessary to effect such protection.''.
SEC. 657. REWARDS PROGRAM.
(a) Rewards Program.--Section 274 (8 U.S.C. 1324) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(e) Rewards Program.--
``(1) In general.--There is established in the Department
of Homeland Security a program for the payment of rewards to
carry out the purposes of this section.
``(2) Purpose.--The rewards program shall be designed to
assist in the elimination of commercial operations to produce
or sell fraudulent documents to be used for entering or
remaining in the United States unlawfully and to assist in the
investigation, prosecution, or disruption of a commercial alien
smuggling operation.
``(3) Administration.--The rewards program shall be
administered by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation, as appropriate, with the Attorney General and the
Secretary of State.
``(4) Rewards authorized.--In the sole discretion of the
Secretary of Homeland Security, such Secretary, in
consultation, as appropriate, with the Attorney General and the
Secretary of State, may pay a reward to any individual who
furnishes information or testimony leading to--
``(A) the arrest or conviction of any individual
conspiring or attempting to produce or sell fraudulent
documents to be used for entering or remaining in the
United States unlawfully or to commit an act of
commercial alien smuggling involving the transportation
of aliens;
``(B) the arrest or conviction of any individual
committing such an act;
``(C) the arrest or conviction of any individual
aiding or abetting the commission of such an act;
``(D) the prevention, frustration, or favorable
resolution of such an act, including the dismantling of
an operation to produce or sell fraudulent documents to
be used for entering or remaining in the United States,
or commercial alien smuggling operations, in whole or
in significant part; or
``(E) the identification or location of an
individual who holds a key leadership position in an
operation to produce or sell fraudulent documents to be
used for entering or remaining in the United States
unlawfully or a commercial alien smuggling operation
involving the transportation of aliens.
``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to
carry out this subsection. Amounts appropriated under this
paragraph shall remain available until expended.
``(6) Ineligibility.--An officer or employee of any
Federal, State, local, or foreign government who, while in
performance of his or her official duties, furnishes
information described in paragraph (4) shall not be eligible
for a reward under this subsection for such furnishing.
``(7) Protection measures.--If the Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Secretary of State, or the Attorney General
determines that an individual who furnishes information or
testimony described in paragraph (4), or any spouse, child,
parent, son, or daughter of such an individual, must be
protected, such official may take such lawful action as the
official considers necessary to effect such protection.
``(8) Limitations and certification.--
``(A) Maximum amount.--No reward under this
subsection may exceed $100,000, except as personally
authorized by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
``(B) Approval.--Any reward under this subsection
exceeding $50,000 shall be personally approved by the
Secretary of Homeland Security.
``(C) Certification for payment.--Any reward
granted under this subsection shall be certified for
payment by the Secretary of Homeland Security.''.
SEC. 658. OUTREACH PROGRAM.
Section 274 (8 U.S.C. 1324), as amended by subsection (a), is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Outreach Program.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation, as appropriate, with the Attorney General and the
Secretary of State, shall develop and implement an outreach program to
educate the public in the United States and abroad about--
``(1) the penalties for--
``(A) bringing in and harboring aliens in violation
of this section; and
``(B) participating in a commercial operation for
making, or trafficking in, documents to be used for
entering or remaining in the United States unlawfully;
and
``(2) the financial rewards and other incentives available
for assisting in the investigation, disruption, or prosecution
of a commercial smuggling operation or a commercial operation
for making, or trafficking in, documents to be used for
entering or remaining in the United States unlawfully.''.
TITLE VII--EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATION
SEC. 701. UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES.
Section 274B (8 U.S.C. 1324b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(5)--
(A) by amending the paragraph heading to read
``Prohibition of Intimidation, Retaliation, or Unlawful
Discrimination in Employment'';
(B) by moving the text down and to the right 2 ems;
(C) by inserting before such text the following:
``(A) in general.--''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Federal labor or employment laws.--It is an
unfair employment practice for any employer to directly
or indirectly threaten any individual with removal or
any other adverse consequences pertaining to that
individual's immigration status or employment benefits
for the purpose of intimidating, pressuring, or
coercing any such individual not to exercise any right
protected by State or Federal labor or employment law
(including section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act (29 U.S.C. 157)), or for the purpose of retaliating
against any such individual for having exercised or
having stated an intention to exercise any such right.
``(C) Discrimination based on immigration status.--
It is an unfair employment practice for any employer,
except to the extent specifically authorized or
required by law, to discriminate in any term or
condition of employment against any individual employed
by such employer on the basis of such individual's
immigration status.''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by adding at the end the
following: ``The Special Counsel shall not disclose to the
Secretary of Homeland Security or any other government agency
or employee, and shall not cause to be published in a manner
that discloses to the Secretary of Homeland Security or any
other government agency or employee, any information obtained
by the Special Counsel in any manner concerning the immigration
status of any individual who has filed a charge under this
section, or the identity of any individual or entity that is a
party or witness to a proceedings brought pursuant to such
charge. The Secretary of Homeland Security may not rely, in
whole or in part, in any enforcement action or removal
proceeding, upon any information obtained as a result of the
filing or prosecution of an unfair immigration-related
employment practice charge. For purposes of this paragraph, the
term `Special Counsel' includes individuals formerly appointed
to the position of Special Counsel and any current or former
employee of the office of the Special Counsel. Whoever
knowingly uses, publishes, or permits information to be used in
violation of this paragraph shall be fined not more than
$10,000.''.
SEC. 702. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TASK FORCE.
The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Attorney General
and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall conduct a national study
of American workplaces to determine the causes, extent, circumstances,
and consequences, of exploitation of undocumented alien workers by
their employers. As part of this study, the Secretary of Labor shall
create a plan for targeted review of Federal labor law enforcement in
industries with a substantial immigrant workforce, for the purpose of
identifying, monitoring, and deterring frequent or egregious violators
of wage and hour, antidiscrimination, National Labor Relations Act, and
workplace safety and health requirements. Not later than 18 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor
shall submit to the Congress a report describing the results of the
study and the Secretary's recommendations based on the study.
SEC. 703. RECRUITMENT OF AMERICAN WORKERS.
Section 214 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (m) (as added by section
105 of Public Law 106-313), (n) (as added by section 107(e) of
Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1513(c) of Public
Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1102(b) of the Legal
Immigration Family Equity Act), and (p) (as added by section
1503(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act) as
subsections (n), (o), (p), (q), and (r), respectively; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(s)(1) No petition to accord employment status under the
nonimmigrant classifications described in sections 101(a)(15)(E)(iii)
and (H) shall be granted in the absence of an affidavit from the
petitioner describing the efforts that were made to recruit an alien
lawfully admitted for permanent residence or a citizen of the United
States before resorting to a petition to obtain a foreign employee. The
recruitment efforts must have included substantial attempts to find
employees in minority communities. Recruitment efforts in minority
communities should include at least one of the following, if
appropriate for the employment being advertised:
``(A) Advertise the availability of the job opportunity for
which the employer is seeking a worker in local newspapers in
the labor market that is likely to be patronized by a potential
worker for at least 5 consecutive days.
``(B) Undertake efforts to advertise the availability of
the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking a worker
through advertisements in public transportation systems.
``(C) To the extent permitted by local laws and
regulations, engage in recruitment activities in secondary
schools, recreation centers, community centers, and other
places throughout the communities within 50 miles of the job
site that serve minorities.
``(2)(A) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a 10
percent surcharge on all fees collected for petitions to accord
employment status and shall use these funds to establish an employment
training program which will include unemployed workers in the United
States who need to be trained or retrained. The purpose of this program
shall be to increase the number of lawful permanent residents and
citizens of the United States who are available for employment in the
occupations that are the subjects of such petitions. At least 50
percent of the funds generated by this provision must be used to train
American workers in rural and inner-city areas.
``(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall reserve and make
available to the Secretary of Labor a portion of the funds collected
under this paragraph. Such funds shall be used by the Secretary of
Labor to establish an `Office to Preserve American Jobs' within the
Department of Labor. The purpose of this office shall be to establish
policies intended to ensure that employers in the United States will
hire available workers in the United States before resorting to foreign
labor, giving substantial emphasis to hiring minority workers in the
United States.''.
TITLE VIII--FAIRNESS IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
SEC. 801. RIGHT TO COUNSEL.
Section 292 (8 U.S.C. 1362) is amended by striking the matter after
the section designation and inserting the following: ``In any bond,
custody, detention, or removal proceedings before the Attorney General
and in any appeal proceedings before the Attorney General from any such
proceedings, the person concerned shall have the privilege of being
represented (at no expense to the government) by such counsel,
authorized to practice in such proceedings, as he shall choose. With
consent of their clients, counsel may enter appearances limited to
bond, custody, or other specific proceedings.''.
SEC. 802. PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION FOR
ADMISSION.
Section 235(a)(4) (8 U.S.C. 1225(a)(4)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(4) Withdrawal of application for admission.--
``(A) Presumption in favor of withdrawal.--The
Attorney General shall permit an alien applying for
admission to withdraw the application and depart
immediately from the United States at any time, unless
an immigration judge has rendered a decision with
respect to the admissibility of the alien, except that
the Attorney General may deny permission for the
withdrawal when warranted by unusual circumstances.
``(B) Permissive withdrawal.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (A), an alien applying for admission may,
in the discretion of the Attorney General and at any
time after a decision described in such subparagraph
has been rendered, be permitted to withdraw the
application and depart immediately from the United
States.''.
SEC. 803. ABSENCES OUTSIDE THE CONTROL OF THE ALIEN.
Section 101(a)(13)(C) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13(C)) is amended by
amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
``(ii) has been absent from the United
States for a continuous period in excess of one
year unless the alien's return was impeded by
emergency or extenuating circumstances outside
the control of the alien,''.
SEC. 804. REINSTATEMENT OF REMOVAL ORDERS AGAINST ALIENS ILLEGALLY
REENTERING.
Section 241(a)(5) (8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(5)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``, after a hearing by an immigration
judge,'' after ``If'';
(2) by inserting ``, on or after September 30, 1996,''
after ``alien has'';
(3) by striking ``is reinstated'' and inserting ``may be
deemed to be reinstated'';
(4) by striking ``and is not subject'' and all that follows
through ``under this Act''; and
(5) by striking the period at the end and inserting the
following: ``subject to reopening and review of the previous
order. Nothing in this section shall preclude an alien from
applying for any relief from removal under this Act.''.
SEC. 805. PERMANENT APPLICATION OF SECTION 245(I).
Section 245(i) (8 U.S.C. 1255(i)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1)(A);
(2) by amending paragraph (1)(B) to read as follows:
``(B) who is the beneficiary (including a spouse or
child of the principal alien) of--
``(i) a petition for classification under
section 204; or
``(ii) an application for a labor
certification under section 212(a)(5)(A);'';
(3) by striking paragraph (1)(C); and
(4) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place such term
appears and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''.
SEC. 806. DISCRETIONARY WAIVER OF INADMISSIBILITY BASED ON UNLAWFUL
PRESENCE, FAILURE TO ATTEND REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS,
AND MISREPRESENTATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 212(i) (8 U.S.C. 1182(i)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(i) The Secretary of Homeland Security may waive the application
of subparagraph (A)(i) or (B), or clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph
(C), of subsection (a)(6) in the case of an immigrant who is the
parent, spouse, child, son, or daughter of a United States citizen or
of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent
residence, if it is established to the satisfaction of the Secretary
that the refusal of admission to the United States of such immigrant
would result in hardship to the immigrant or to such citizen or lawful
permanent resident parent, spouse, child, son, or daughter.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 212(a)(6) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6))
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by adding at the end the
following:
``(iii) Waiver authorized.--For a provision
authorizing the waiver of clause (i), see
subsection (i).'';
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by inserting ``(i)'' after the subparagraph
heading; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Waiver authorized.--For a provision
authorizing the waiver of clause (i), see
subsection (i).''; and
(3) in subparagraph (C)(iii), by inserting ``or (ii)''
after ``(i)''.
SEC. 807. WAIVER OF INADMISSIBILITY FOR MINOR CRIMINAL OFFENSES.
Section 212(h) (8 U.S.C. 1182(h)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of
marijuana'' and inserting ``controlled substance offense for
which the alien was not incarcerated for a period exceeding 1
year''; and
(2) by striking the final two sentences.
SEC. 808. GENERAL WAIVER FOR ALIENS PREVIOUSLY REMOVED AND FOR THE
UNLAWFUL PRESENCE BARS.
(a) In General.--Section 212(d) (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(14) The Secretary of Homeland Security may, in the discretion of
the Secretary, for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or
when it is otherwise in the public interest, waive the application of
subparagraph (A) or (B)(i) of subsection (a)(9).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 212(a)(9)(B) of such Act (8
U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)) is amended by striking clause (v).
SEC. 809. WAIVER OF AGGRAVATED FELONY CONSEQUENCES.
Section 101 (8 U.S.C. 1101) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(j) For purposes of this Act, and notwithstanding subsection
(a)(43), the Secretary of Homeland Security may treat any conviction
that did not result in incarceration for more than 1 year as if such
conviction were not a conviction for an aggravated felony. This
discretion may be exercised for humanitarian purposes, to assure family
unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest.''.
SEC. 810. DISCRETIONARY WAIVER TO ADMIT PERSONS IN UNUSUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES.
(a) New General Waiver.--Section 212(d) (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(13) The Secretary of Homeland Security may, in the
discretion of such Secretary for humanitarian purposes, to
assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public
interest, waive the application of subparagraph (B) or (G) of
subsection (a)(6), clause (i) or (ii) of subsection (a)(9)(A),
or subsection (a)(9)(B)(i), in unusual circumstances. For
purposes of the preceding sentence, an instance of battering or
extreme cruelty is deemed to constitute unusual circumstances
in the case where it is inflicted on an alien (or a child of an
alien) by the alien's United States citizen or lawful permanent
resident spouse, parent, child, son, or daughter.''.
(b) Waiver for Aliens Previously Removed.--
(1) Certain aliens previously removed.--Section
212(a)(9)(A) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(A)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(iv) Waiver authorized.--For provision
authorizing waiver of clause (i) or (ii), see
subsection (d)(13).''.
(2) Aliens unlawfully present.--Section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) (8
U.S.C. 1182(A)(9)(B)(v)) is amended to read as follows:
``(v) Waiver authorized.--For provision
authorizing waiver of clause (i), see
subsection (d)(13).''.
SEC. 811. RESTORATION OF SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION.
(a) Cancellation of Removal.--Section 240A(a)(3) (8 U.S.C.
1229b(a)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) has not been convicted of an aggravated felony for
which the sentence imposed is five years or more.''.
(b) Repeal of Rule for Termination of Continuous Period.--
(1) Section 240A(d)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1)) (8 U.S.C.
1229b(a)) is repealed.
(2) Section 240A(d) (8 U.S.C. 1229b) is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as
paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end of
paragraph (1) (as redesignated) the following: ``,
unless the alien's departure from the United States was
due to a temporary trip abroad required by emergency or
extenuating circumstances outside the control of the
alien''.
(c) Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment for Certain Nonpermanent
Residents.--Section 240A(b)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(1) In general.--The Attorney General may cancel removal
in the case of an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from
the United States if the alien--
``(A) has been physically present in the United
States for a continuous period of--
``(i) 7 years immediately preceding the
date of application in the case of an alien--
``(I) who is deportable on any
ground other than a ground specified in
clause (ii)(I); and
``(II) whose deportation would, in
the opinion of the Attorney General,
result in extreme hardship to the alien
or the alien's spouse, child, parent,
son, or daughter, who is a citizen of
the United States or an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence; or
``(ii) 10 years immediately preceding the
date of application in the case of an alien--
``(I) who is deportable for
conviction of an offense under section
212(a)(2), 237(a)(2), or 237(a)(3); and
``(II) whose deportation would, in
the opinion of the Attorney General,
result in exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship to the alien or the
alien's spouse, parent, child, son, or
daughter, who is a citizen of the
United States or an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence; and
``(B) has been a person of good moral character
during such period.''.
(d) Elimination of Annual Limitation.--Section 240A (8 U.S.C.
1229b) is amended by striking subsection (e).
TITLE IX--REMOVAL GROUNDS BASED ON CRIMINAL OFFENSES
SEC. 901. DEFINITION OF MORAL TURPITUDE.
(a) Equitable Definition of ``Moral Turpitude''.--
(1) Conviction of certain crimes.--Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)
(8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)) is amended by striking ``of, or who
admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which
constitute the essential elements of--'' and inserting ``of--
''.
(2) Exception.--Section 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) (8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``the maximum'' and all that
follows through ``such crime,''; and
(B) by striking ``6 months'' and inserting ``1
year''.
(b) Equitable Definition of ``Crimes of Moral Turpitude''.--Section
237(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(II)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(II) for which the alien has been
incarcerated for a period exceeding one
year,''.
SEC. 902. ``AGGRAVATED FELONY'' DEFINITIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 101(a)(43) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)) is
amended by striking ``The term `aggravated felony' means'' and
inserting ``Aggravated felony means a felony''.
(b) Illicit Trafficking.--Section 101(a)(43)(B) (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(43)(B)) is amended by striking ``Code);'' and inserting
``Code), except it does not include simple possession of a controlled
substance;''.
(c) Crimes of Violence and Theft Offenses.--Subparagraphs (F), (G),
(R), and (S) of section 101(a)(43) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F), (G), (R),
and (S)) are each amended by striking ``imprisonment'' and all that
follows through the semicolon and inserting ``imprisonment of more than
five years;''.
(d) Corrupt Organizations and Gambling Offenses.--Section
101(a)(43)(J) is amended by inserting ``more than five years'' after
the words ``sentence of''.
(e) Alien Smuggling.--Section 101(a)(43)(N) (8 U.S.C.
101(a)(43)(N)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``committed for the purpose of commercial
advantage,'' after ``smuggling),''; and
(2) by adding at the end a semicolon.
(f) Discretionary Waiver in Cases of Other Minor Felonies.--Section
101 (8 U.S.C. 1101) is amended by adding at the end the following:
SEC. 903. DEFINITIONS OF ``CONVICTION'' AND ``TERM OF IMPRISONMENT''.
Section 101(a)(48) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``court'' and all that
follows through the period at the end and inserting ``court. An
adjudication or judgment of guilt that has been expunged,
deferred, annulled, invalidated, withheld, or vacated, an order
of probation without entry of judgment, or any similar
disposition shall not be considered a conviction for purposes
of this Act.''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by inserting ``only'' after ``deemed to
include''; and
(B) by striking ``court of law'' and all that
follows through the period at the end and inserting
``court of law. Any such reference shall not be deemed
to include any suspension of the imposition or
execution of that imprisonment or sentence in whole or
in part.''.
``(i) For purposes of this Act, and notwithstanding subsection
(a)(43), the Attorney General may treat any conviction that did not
result in incarceration for more than 1 year as if such conviction were
not a conviction for an aggravated felony.''.
SEC. 904. ELIMINATING RETROACTIVE CHANGES IN REMOVAL GROUNDS.
(a) Application of Aggravated Felony Definition.--The last sentence
of section 101(a)(43) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)) is amended to read as
follows: ``The term shall not apply to any offense that was not covered
by the term on the date on which the offense occurred.''.
(b) Grounds of Deportability.--Section 237 (8 U.S.C. 1227) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an alien
is not deportable by reason of committing any offense that was not a
ground of deportability on the date the offense occurred.''.
(c) Grounds of Inadmissibility.--Section 212 (8 U.S.C. 1182) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(p) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an alien
is not inadmissible by reason of committing any offense that was not a
ground of inadmissibility on the date the offense occurred.''.
SEC. 905. ELIMINATING UNFAIR RETROACTIVE CHANGES IN REMOVAL RULES FOR
PERSONS PREVIOUSLY REMOVED.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish a process by
which an alien described in subsection (b) may apply for reopening a
proceeding so as to seek relief from exclusion, deportation, or removal
under section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as such
section was in effect prior to the enactment of the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, or section 240A of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, as amended by this Act.
(b) Alien Described.--An alien referred to in subsection (a) is an
alien who received a final order of exclusion, deportation, or removal,
or a decision on a petition for review or petition for habeas corpus,
on or after September 30, 1996, and who was--
(1) excluded, deported, or removed from the United States
by reason of having committed a criminal offense that was not a
basis for removal, exclusion, or deportation on the date on
which the offense was committed;
(2) excluded, deported, or removed from the United States
by reason of having committed a criminal offense that is not a
basis for removal, exclusion, or deportation on the date of
enactment of this Act; or
(3) excluded, deported, or removed from the United States
by reason of having committed a criminal offense prior to April
24, 1996, for which there was relief from exclusion,
deportation, or removal available prior to such date.
(c) Parole.--The Attorney General may in her discretion exercise
the parole authority under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A)) for the purpose of permitting
aliens excluded, deported, or removed from the United States to
participate in the process established under subsection (a), if the
alien establishes prima facie eligibility for the relief.
TITLE X--DIVERSITY VISAS
SEC. 1001. INCREASE IN WORLDWIDE LEVEL OF DIVERSITY IMMIGRANTS.
Section 201(e) (8 U.S.C. 1151(e)) is amended by striking ``55,000''
and inserting ``110,000''.
TITLE XI--HAITIAN PARITY
SEC. 1101. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS FOR HAITIANS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title II (8 U.S.C. 1255 et seq.), as
amended by section 202, is further amended by inserting after section
245C the following:
``adjustment of status of certain haitian nationals
``Sec. 245D. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 245(c), the
status of any alien who is a national or citizen of Haiti, and who has
been physically present in the United States for at least one year, may
be adjusted by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in the Secretary's
discretion and under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe,
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, if the
alien makes an application for such adjustment and the alien is
eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United
States for permanent residence. Upon approval of such an application
for adjustment of status, the Secretary shall create a record of the
alien's admission for permanent residence as of a date 30 months prior
to the filing of such an application or the date of the alien's last
arrival into the United States, whichever date is later. The provisions
of this Act shall be applicable to the spouse and child of any alien
described in this section, regardless of their citizenship and place of
birth, if the spouse or child is residing with such alien in the United
States.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents as amended by
section 202, is further amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 245C the following:
``Sec. 245D. Adjustment of status of certain Haitian nationals.''.
(c) Sunset.--The amendments made by this section shall cease to be
effective on the date that is 3 years after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 1102. LIMITATION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL'S BOND DISCRETION.
Section 236 (8 U.S.C. 1226) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f) Exercise of Authority for Arrest, Detention, and Release.--
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall exercise the discretion
afforded under subsection (a) on a case-by-case basis. If bond is to be
denied on the ground that the alien's release would give rise to
adverse consequences for national security or national immigration
policy, the finding of such adverse consequences shall be based on
circumstances pertaining to the individual alien whose release is being
considered.''.
SEC. 1103. ELIMINATION OF MANDATORY DETENTION IN EXPEDITED REMOVAL
PROCEEDINGS.
Section 235(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV) (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(IV) Detention.--Aliens subject
to the procedures under this clause
shall be detained in accordance with
section 236.''.
SEC. 1104. AMENDMENTS TO HAITIAN AND IMMIGRANT FAIRNESS ACT OF 1998.
(a) Ground for Inadmissibility for Document Fraud Does Not Apply.--
The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998 (8 U.S.C. 1255
note) is amended in subsections (a)(1)(B) and (d)(1)(D) of section 902
by inserting ``(6)(C)(i),'' after ``(6)(A),''.
(b) Determinations With Respect to Children.--Section 902(d) of
such Act is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Determinations with respect to children.--
``(A) Use of application filing date.--
Determinations made under this subsection as to whether
an individual is a child of a parent shall be made
using the age and status of the individual on the date
of the enactment of this section.
``(B) Application submission by parent.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(C), an application under
this subsection filed based on status as a child may be
filed for the benefit of such child by a parent or
guardian of the child, if the child is physically
present in the United States on such filing date.''.
SEC. 1105. NEW APPLICATIONS AND MOTIONS TO REOPEN.
(a) New Applications.--Notwithstanding section 902(a)(1)(A) of the
Haitian and Immigrant Fairness Act of 1998, an alien who is eligible
for adjustment of status under such Act, as amended by section 804 of
this Act, may submit an application for adjustment of status under such
Act not later than the later of--
(1) 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act;
and
(2) 1 year after the date on which final regulations
implementing section 804 are promulgated.
(b) Motions To Reopen.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
establish procedures for the reopening and reconsideration of
applications for adjustment of status under the Haitian Refugee
Immigration Fairness Act of 1998 that are affected by the amendments
under section 804 of this Act.
(c) Relationship of Application to Certain Orders.--Section
902(a)(3) of the Haitian and Immigrant Fairness Act of 1998 shall apply
to an alien present in the United States who has been ordered excluded,
deported, removed, or ordered to depart voluntarily, and who files an
application under subsection (a), or a motion under subsection (b), in
the same manner as such section 902(a)(3) applied to aliens filing
applications for adjustment of status under such Act before April 1,
2000.
SEC. 1106. TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS FOR HAITIANS.
It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of Homeland
Security should be more liberal with respect to Haiti in deciding
whether to designate that country for temporary protected status under
section 244(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality (8 U.S.C.
1254(b)(1)(A)). It is the sense of the Congress that this decision has
sometimes been made without due regard to the serious threat to
personal safety that results from sending Haitians back to Haiti during
a period of ongoing armed conflict in that country.
TITLE XII--FAIRNESS IN ASYLUM AND REFUGEE PROCEEDINGS
SEC. 1201. REFUGEE STATUS FOR UNMARRIED SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF REFUGEES.
Section 207(c)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1157(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(C) When warranted by unusual circumstances or to
preserve family unity, the Attorney General may, in the
Attorney General's discretion, consider an unmarried
son or daughter of a refugee to be a child of the
refugee for purposes of this paragraph.''.
SEC. 1202. ASYLEE STATUS FOR UNMARRIED SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF ASYLEES.
Section 208(b)(3) (8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(3)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(C) When warranted by unusual circumstances or to
preserve family unity, the Attorney General may, in the
Attorney General's discretion, consider an unmarried
son or daughter of an alien who is granted asylum under
this subsection to be a child of the alien for purposes
of this paragraph.''.
SEC. 1203. ELIMINATION OF ARBITRARY TIME LIMITS ON ASYLUM APPLICATIONS.
Section 208(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (B);
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``(D),'' and inserting
``(C),'';
(3) in subparagraph (D)--
(A) by striking ``subparagraphs (B) and (C),'' and
inserting ``subparagraph (B),'';
(B) by striking ``either''; and
(C) by striking ``asylum or extraordinary'' and all
that follows through the period at the end and
inserting ``asylum.''; and
(4) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as
subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively.
SEC. 1204. GENDER-BASED PERSECUTION.
(a) Treatment as Refugee.--Section 101(a)(42) (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(42)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(C) For purposes of determinations under this
Act, a person who establishes that he or she suffered
persecution in the past, or has a well-founded fear of
persecution, on account of gender shall be considered
to have suffered persecution, or to have a well-founded
fear of persecution, on account of membership in a
particular social group.''.
(b) Restriction on Removal to Country Where Alien Would Be
Threatened.--Section 241(b)(3) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Gender-based persecution.--For purposes of
determinations under this paragraph, an alien who
establishes that the alien's life or freedom would be
threatened in a country on account of gender shall be
considered to have established that the alien's life or
freedom would be threatened in that country on account
of membership in a particular social group.''.
TITLE XIII--TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS
SEC. 1301. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS FOR CERTAIN RECIPIENTS OF TEMPORARY
PROTECTED STATUS.
(a) In General.--Section 245 (8 U.S.C. 1255) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(n)(1) If, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Homeland
Security Department, a person granted temporary protected status under
section 244--
``(A) has been physically present in the United States in
that status for a continuous period of at least 5 years;
``(B) has at all times been a person of good moral
character;
``(C) has never been convicted of a criminal offense in the
United States;
``(D) in the case of an alien who is 18 years of age or
older, but who is not over the age of 65, has successfully
completed a course on reading, writing, and speaking words in
ordinary usage in the English language, unless unable to do so
on account of physical or developmental disability or mental
impairment;
``(E) in the case of an alien 18 years of age or older, has
accepted the values and cultural life of the United States; and
``(F) in the case of an alien 18 years of age or older, has
performed at least 40 hours of community service;
the Secretary may adjust the status of the alien to that of an alien
lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
``(2) An alien shall not be considered to have failed to maintain a
continuous presence in the United States for purposes of subsection
(a)(1) by virtue of brief, casual, and innocent absences from the
United States.
``(3)(A) The alien shall establish that the alien is admissible to
the United States as immigrant, except as otherwise provided in
paragraph (2).
``(B) The provisions of paragraphs (5), (6)(A), (6)(B), (6)(C),
(6)(F), (6)(G), (7)(A), (9)(B), and (9)(C)(i)(I) of section 212(a)
shall not apply in the determination of an alien's admissibility under
this section.
``(4) When an alien is granted lawful permanent resident status
under this subsection, the number of immigrant visas authorized to be
issued under any provision of this Act shall not be reduced. The
numerical limitations of sections 201 and 202 shall not apply to
adjustment of status under this section.
``(5) The Secretary of Homeland Security may terminate removal
proceedings without prejudice pending the outcome of an alien's
application for adjustment of status under this section on the basis of
a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief under this section.''.
(b) Limitation on Consideration in the Senate of Legislation
Adjusting Status.--Section 244 (8 U.S.C. 1254a) is amended by striking
subsection (h) and redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (h).
SEC. 1302. FOREIGN STATE DESIGNATIONS.
Section 244(b)(1)(C) (8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(C)) is amended to change
the following phrase ``the Attorney General finds that there exist
extraordinary and temporary conditions in the foreign state that
prevent aliens who are nationals of the state from returning to the
state in safety,'' so that it reads as follows: ``the Secretary of
Homeland Security finds that extraordinary and temporary conditions in
the foreign state make returning aliens to the state undesirable for
humanitarian reasons,''.
TITLE XIV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 1401. NATURALIZATION PROVISIONS.
(a) Physical Presence Requirement.--Section 316(a) (8 U.S.C. 1427)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) When warranted by extraordinary circumstances, the Secretary
of Homeland Security may reduce, by not more than 90 days, the physical
presence requirement described in the preceding sentence.''.
(b) Absences From the United States.--Section 316(b) (8 U.S.C.
1427(b)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``one year'' and
inserting ``18 months''; and
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``continuous period
of one year'' and inserting ``continuous period of 18 months''.
SEC. 1402. PREVENTING INAPPROPRIATE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
INVOLVEMENT IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CIVIL IMMIGRATION
PROVISIONS UNDER THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
ACT.
(a) Elimination of Ban on State and Local Governments From
Preventing Communications With the Department of Homeland Security.--
(1) In general.--Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373)
is repealed.
(2) Verification of eligibility for federal public
benefits.--Section 432 of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1642) is
repealed.
(b) Elimination of Authority To Permit State Personnel To Carry Out
Immigration Officer Functions.--Section 287(g) (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)) is
repealed.
SEC. 1403. NONIMMIGRANT CATEGORY FOR FASHION MODELS.
(a) Elimination of H-1B Classification for Fashion Models.--Section
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or as a fashion model''; and
(2) by striking ``or, in the case of a fashion model, is of
distinguished merit and ability''.
(b) New Classification.--Section 101(a)(15)(O) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(O)) is amended--
(1) in clause (iii), by striking ``clause (i) or (ii)'' and
inserting ``clause (i), (ii), or (iii)'' and by redesignating
clause (iii) as clause (iv); and
(2) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new
clause:
``(iii) is a fashion model who is of distinguished
merit and ability and who is seeking to enter the
United States temporarily to perform fashion modeling
services that involve events or productions which have
a distinguished reputation or that are performed for an
organization or establishment that has a distinguished
reputation for, or a record of, utilizing prominent
modeling talent; or''.
(c) Effective Date and Implementation.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Regulations, guidelines, and precedents.--The
regulations, guidelines, and precedents in effect on the date
of the enactment of this Act for the adjudication of petitions
for fashion models under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b))
shall be applied to petitions for fashion model under section
101(a)(15)(O)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(O)(iii)), as added by this section, except
that the duration of status approvals shall be based on
regulations applicable to other occupations under section
101(a)(15)(O) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(O)).
(3) Construction.--Nothing in this section, or the
amendments made by this section, shall be construed as
preventing an alien who is a fashion model from obtaining
nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(O)(i)) if
such alien is otherwise qualified for such status.
(4) Treatment of pending petitions.--Petitions filed on
behalf of fashion models under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)) that are pending on the date of the
enactment of this Act shall be treated as if they had been
filed under section 101(a)(15)(O)(iii) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(O)(iii)), as added by
this section.
(5) Visa validity period.--The validity period for visas
issued to beneficiaries of petitions filed under section
101(a)(15)(O)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(O)(iii)) shall be for the full period of
approval notwithstanding the reciprocity validity periods that
would otherwise be applicable.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and
particularly for your leadership on this issue and the
opportunity to work with you, not only in this Congress but in
past Congresses. And thank you for recognizing the
complementary role that H.R. 750 can play in comprehensive
immigration reform.
Might I also suggest to this hearing that there are many
ways of looking at comprehensive immigration reform? And I am
delighted that as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus
and a co-chair of their Immigration Task Force, we have been
studying this issue for a very long time, and the Congressional
Black Caucus has made a commitment on the record that they
understand the value and the importance of comprehensive
immigration reform, which includes border security and earned
access to citizenship, but an economic opportunity with fair
wages and diversity for equal treatment of immigrants coming
from all backgrounds.
Madam Chair, I would like to ask unanimous consent to put
into the record the CBC statement on immigration reform.
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to is available in the Appendix.]
Ms. Jackson Lee. As it relates to H.R. 750, as I indicated,
it is a complementary step among the number of immigration
bills that have been offered. And it recognizes in particular
the diversity of America and, of course, those who come from
the fields of Mississippi and Alabama, factories in Detroit and
Cleveland, the packinghouses and office buildings of Chicago,
and the shipyards of Philadelphia and Los Angeles. It
recognizes that as we look toward comprehensive immigration
reform, we must address the question of ensuring the protection
of American jobs, the American dream, and the training of
Americans so that we can parallel the need for more workers
with the opportunity for American workers.
I think it is a creative approach to addressing the
question of assuaging, or, if you will, comforting Americans
who are concerned about the loss of their jobs. It is important
in this legislation to note also that we in fact are concerned
about fair wages and the treatment of the undocumented,
providing them with access to protecting themselves from abuse.
In addition, this has a strong component on border
security. We are realistic about the needs of Americans and,
frankly, we stand strong on covering the issues of border
security with something unique: professional development and
training for our Border Patrol agents, acknowledgement of their
service, technology and new equipment so that they can perform
in the most effective way.
It addresses the question of security in relation to the
idea of sex abuse of those who come into the United States who
may be abused, and they may come in on a legal aspect.
As I close, let me say that this bill has been recognized
by a number of individuals, including the Border Patrol
Association. It has been acknowledged by Senator Kerrey, which
admitted it into the legislation that was passed in the Senate,
the rapid response measures. A lot of them are also in the
STRIVE Act.
So we have led out on this issue, and we believe this is an
important hearing because our bill also includes a number of
provisions dealing with legal immigration that many of our
legal immigrant advocates, and particularly our Bar Association
has asked for relief in order to be able to prosecute and to
maintain the right kind of balance in helping those who are
here legally and are seeking greater opportunity.
So I am delighted with the witnesses that will be here
today, which I will compliment them as they come forward. I
certainly thank the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus,
Congresswoman Carolyn Kilpatrick, for her leadership in working
with me not only on this bill, but on our principles, as we
have tried to be a very, very large participant in this
important debate.
Let me thank the first Vice Chair, Congresswoman Barbara
Lee, who is present here today, and we thank her for her
presence. And, as well, we thank our good and dear friend--and
I assume in a hearing we don't call them a dear friend, we call
them the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee--but a leader
on these issues, Silvestre Reyes from Texas.
And we do thank Nancy Boyda who is here as a frontliner,
but a new leader in the community, and raises important issues
which we look forward to hearing.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I yield back my time.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
I would now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. King of Iowa,
for his opening statement.
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I must be frank and
express my disappointment with the subject of this hearing.
H.R. 750, the Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act
really is quite a title for a bill that grants amnesty to the
large majority of the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens currently
residing in the United States. America has rejected mass
amnesty by a large margin. And amnesty, I believe, is an
affront to native-born Americans, to naturalized citizens, to
legal immigrants, and to the very concept of the rule of law.
Amnesty rewards law breakers and will only encourage new waves
of illegal immigration. Amnesty will doom millions of the most
underprivileged Americans to a future without any hope of good
jobs or a good education as recipients continue to depress the
labor market and crowd our children's schools. And amnesty will
cost American taxpayers billions of dollars a year as illegal
aliens become eligible for a whole host of Federal, State and
local welfare programs.
The Senate Democrats' plans for mass amnesty were defeated
in June by an unprecedented outpouring of opposition by the
American people. It shut down the switchboards in the Senate.
When has that happened and what was the subject matter?
Immigration would have to be it. I had thought that the Senate
defeat convinced the House leadership to abandon its own plans
for a mass amnesty in this Congress. And after all, Rahm
Emanuel got into some hot water about immigration policy when
he said no way comprehensive reform would happen until the
second term of the next Democrat President.
However, I can only assume that since the Subcommittee is
holding a hearing at this late date on mass amnesty
legislation, that the House Democratic leadership still
entertains plans for passing mass amnesty. Apparently the House
Democratic leadership has not heard the pleas of the American
people to secure our borders, uphold the rule of law, stand up
for American workers and American communities.
Apparently the House Democratic leadership has heard the
pleas of States and localities for the Federal Government to
take charge--has not heard the pleas of States and localities
for the Federal Government to take charge of immigration law
enforcement so that they do not have to. But we are hearing
from the States, the counties, the political subdivisions, as
they step up and do what they can within the limits and the
constraints of the Constitution.
But, most startlingly, the House Democratic leadership has
apparently not heard the pleas of members of its own Caucus who
ask that Congress step up to the plate and pass meaningful
immigration enforcement legislation.
Only this week, freshman Democrat Heath Shuler introduced
his bipartisan immigration law enforcement legislation with the
support of 44 of his Democratic colleagues and 40 Republicans.
The Shuler bill contains no mass amnesty. And in fact, the
Shuler bill--Mr. Shuler has said about his bill that he would
oppose his own bill should an amnesty ever be attached. What
the bill does contain are a number of significant provisions to
end the job magnet that draws most illegal aliens to this
country.
I would point out the definition of amnesty. To grant
amnesty is to pardon immigration law breakers and reward them
with the objective of their crime. The Shuler bill sends an
important message that some Democrats are now joining
Republicans in calling for serious immigration law enforcement.
And yet we are heeding this hearing today on mass amnesty
legislation, mass amnesty legislation that doesn't even pretend
to address the job magnet for illegal aliens. I can only assume
that the House Democratic leadership has not yet heard the
message that Mr. Shuler and his Democratic colleagues have
sent.
I haven't even mentioned all of the other objectionable
provisions in H.R. 750. The bill dramatically increases legal
immigration, which is contrary to the wishes of the vast
majority of the American people. The bill perversely makes it
much easier for criminal aliens to avoid deportation. It
actually puts up roadblocks in the way of effective immigration
law enforcement, such as empowering--such as by empowering
sanctuary cities.
I again want to express my disappointment with today's
hearing. I would urge instead that the Chair consider holding a
hearing on Mr. Shuler's bill at the earliest opportunity,
followed by a markup. There are 80 cosponsors there. I don't
believe there are anywheres near that many cosponsors on this
bill. In fact, it is 22 cosponsors on this bill.
So with that encouragement, Madam Chair, I would yield back
the balance of my time. I look forward to the testimony of the
witnesses and thank them for being here.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman yields back and we will reserve.
If the Ranking Member of the full Committee and the
Chairman of the full Committee come, we will of course hear
their statements at that time. Other Members are asked to
submit their statements for the record.
We have two distinguished panels of witnesses here today to
help us consider the important issues before us.
Seated at our first panel are our colleagues. It is my
pleasure to introduce our friend and colleague, Congresswoman
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, born and raised in Detroit, MI.
Congresswoman Kilpatrick has represented her hometown in
Congress since 1997. She is a leader on the Appropriations
Committee and she was unanimously elected to chair the
Congressional Black Caucus earlier this year.
Next, I am pleased to welcome my fellow Californian,
Congresswoman Barbara Lee. Congresswoman Lee has served the
people of the Ninth District since 1998, and she currently
serves also on the Appropriations Committee. Born in El Paso,
we know her as the first Vice Chair of the Congressional Black
Caucus, a senior Democratic whip, and co-chair of the
Progressive Caucus.
Next, we have Congressman Silvestre Reyes who has served in
the House for 11 years as a Representative from the Texas 16th
District. He began his career with the U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service and the U.S. Border Patrol. He started
as a Border Patrol agent, later rose through the ranks of
immigration inspector, instructor at the Border Patrol Academy,
and assistant regional Border Patrol commissioner, and, of
course, now serves as Chair of our Intelligence Committee.
Finally, I am pleased to welcome Congresswoman Nancy Boyda,
serving her first term in Congress as the Representative of
Kansas' Second District. Congresswoman Boyda grew up in
Marshall County, Kansas and served with distinction in the U.S.
Marine Corps. She serves on the Committees of Agriculture and
Armed Services, and it is a real pleasure to serve with her in
Congress as well. So we look forward.
As you know, your full statements will be admitted into the
record. We are advised that we have votes at around 11. So we
will look forward to your testimony orally of about 5 minutes,
beginning with you, Congresswoman Kilpatrick.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CAROLYN CHEEKS KILPATRICK, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you, Madam Chair, and for your hard
work and the work of the Committee who have held several
hearings on immigration in general, and comprehensive
immigration in some regards.
I want to thank our colleague, Sheila Jackson Lee, who co-
chairs our task force for the Congressional Black Caucus, 43
Members from 21 States who represent over 40 million Americans;
18 of our members have less than 50 percent African Americans;
5 of our members have less than 15% African Americans. So we
represent the conglomerate: Asian Americans, African Americans,
European Americans, Native Americans, Latino Americans, and the
like.
We are here today to put our statement in the record and
our principles. And we choose to call the glass half full legal
access to immigration. And that is what we want, legal access
to immigration.
I represent the largest port in North America in the
northern part of our country. My city, the City of Detroit,
borders an international crossing with Canada, one of our
friendly partners. So I as a member and Chair of this
Congressional Black Caucus, as well as all of our members and
many Members of Congress, want legal access to immigration in a
comprehensive way.
I would like to put on the record--and my full statement in
the record--the principles of the Congressional Black Caucus.
We want earned access to lawful, permanent resident status for
persons currently in the United States. Earned access.
We want to assure education, job training,
nondiscriminatory employment, and livable wages for all legal
workers; immigration regulations that will increase diverse
immigration among historically underrepresented regions such as
the Caribbean and Africa; a strong border security and
comprehensive immigration reform.
We know that much work has been done. That when we get
through with this, we hope we will attack and have a good
policy for legal immigration; that people must earn their
status, must file the papers, must do the proper procedures
before they become current citizens of our country. We are not
asking for a mass illegal immigration of anyone. We want to
work with you.
We intend to do that forthwith, and thank you for the
opportunity to come before you today.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Congresswoman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kilpatrick follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan
Madame Chair, Members of the Immigration Subcommittee, and my
colleagues:
Giving thanks to God, who is the guide of my life, I welcome you on
behalf of the 43 Members of the Congressional Black Caucus or CBC. Next
year, I will celebrate three decades of public service to the people of
the great State of Michigan and of the United States of America. One of
the key issues that face all Americans today is that of immigration. It
is my hope that the Committee analyzes H.R. 750, the Save America
Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2007, as a bill worthy of serious
consideration if we are going to move forward with immigration reform.
I want to thank all of the Members of both this subcommittee and the
full committee. However, I once again, want to commend the gentlelady
from Texas, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, for her hard work, her
diligence, and her dedication and that of her staff in drafting H.R.
750 and for her continued effort in helping to educate the CBC on this
issue.
The Congressional Black Caucus has issued four guiding fundamental
principles as Congress tackles immigration reform:
Earned access to lawful permanent resident status for
persons currently in the United States;
Assure education, job training, non-discriminatory
employment and livable wages for all legal workers;
Immigration regulations that will increase diverse
immigration from historically underrepresented regions, such as
the Caribbean and Africa; and
Strong border security and comprehensive immigration
reform.
H.R. 750 contains all of these provisions, and much more. This bill
ensures that families of immigrants will be allowed to stay together.
It tackles the challenge of human trafficking in its establishment of a
task force to rescue immigrant victims of American Sex offenders. It
helps immigrants, who want to come to American lawfully, who are
victims of document fraud and unscrupulous lawyers. It strengthens our
border patrol system, provides more pay for Border Patrol Agents, and
speeds up deportation proceedings against those who have been found
guilty of breaking American laws. And, finally, it changes the
complexion of the issue of the immigration of Haitian Refugees to
ensure that the children and families of Haitian immigrants can remain
whole. When we think ``immigration,'' we don't think about the hundreds
of thousands of individuals who cross into my home city of Detroit,
Michigan, home to the largest port in North America. When we think
``immigration, we don't consider those hundreds of thousands of
families who want to become American citizens from the land that is the
origin of all of us, Africa. When we think ``immigration,'' we don't
remember the fact that the fabric that makes up the blanket of America
is made of human beings who represent all of God's children.
Most importantly, H.R. 750 gives our nation, and other citizens of
the world, hope. H.R. 750 re-establishes part of the inscription that
is at the base of the Statue of Liberty:
``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!''
H.R. 750 lifts the lamp of freedom, of justice, of fairness and of
equality to those who sometimes risk their very lives to become nothing
more than hard-working, tax paying American citizens. It ensures that
jobs and job training for Americans will not be eroded. In summary,
this bill meets all of the dynamics and recommendations of the
Congressional Black Caucus.
Among other things, according to the Congressional Research
Service, this bill will:
Direct the Secretary of State to establish a Board of Family-
based Visa Appeals within the Department of State.
Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) to
deny a family-based immigration petition by a U.S. petitioner
for an alien spouse or child if: (1) the petitioner is on the
national sex offender registry for a conviction that resulted
in more than one year's imprisonment; (2) the petitioner has
failed to rebut such information within 90 days; and (3)
granting the petition would put a spouse or child beneficiary
in danger of sexual abuse.
Direct the Secretary to establish the Task Force to Rescue
Immigrant Victims of American Sex Offenders.
Authorizes the Secretary to adjust the status of aliens who
would otherwise be inadmissible (due to unlawful presence,
document fraud, or other specified grounds of inadmissibility)
if such aliens have been in the United States for at least five
years and meet other requirements.
Authorizes the emergency deployment of Border Patrol agents to
a requesting border state.
Sets forth provisions for Border Patrol acquisition and use of
specified equipment.
Direct the Secretary to: (1) provide for additional detention
space for illegal aliens; (2) increase Border Patrol agents,
airport and land border immigration inspectors, immigration
enforcement officers, and fraud and document fraud
investigators; (3) enhance Border Patrol training and
operational facilities; (4) establish immigration, customs, and
agriculture inspector occupations within the Bureau of Customs
and Border Protection; (5) reestablish the Border Patrol anti-
smuggling unit; (6) establish criminal investigator occupations
within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); (7) increase
Border Patrol agent and investigator pay; (8) require foreign
language training for appropriate DHS employees; and (9)
establish the Fraudulent Documents Task Force.
Redefines the term ``law enforcement officer'' under provisions
of the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) and the Civil
Service Retirement System (CSRS) to include: (1) federal
employees not otherwise covered by such term whose duties
include the investigation or apprehension of suspected or
convicted individuals and who are authorized to carry a
firearm; and (2) Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employees whose
duties are primarily the collection of delinquent taxes and the
securing of delinquent returns.
Authorizes S (witness or informant) nonimmigrant status for
aliens in possession of critical reliable information
concerning commercial alien smuggling or trafficking in
immigration documents.
Establishes a reward program to assist in eliminating
immigration-related commercial document fraud operations.
Sets forth unfair immigration-related employment practices.
Requires petitioners for nonimmigrant labor to describe their
efforts to recruit lawful permanent residents or U.S. citizens.
Makes permanent an INA provision allowing adjustment of status
of certain aliens for whom family-sponsored or employment-based
applications or petitions were filed by a specified date.
Lessens immigration consequences for minor criminal offenses.
Eliminates retroactive changes in grounds of inadmissibility
and removal.
Amends criminal offense removal-related provisions.
Increases the worldwide level of diversity immigrants.
Authorizes adjustment of status for certain nationals or
citizens of Haiti.
Eliminates mandatory detention in expedited removal
proceedings.
Amends the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998 to:
(1) waive document fraud as a ground of inadmissibility; and
(2) address determinations with respect to children.
Eliminates the one-year filing requirement for asylum
applicants. Includes gender persecution within the particular
social group category of persecution.
Provides for the permanent resident status adjustment of
certain temporary protected status persons.
Amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 to eliminate a provision prohibiting
restrictions on the communication of immigration status
information by a government entity.
Replaces the existing fashion model H-1B visa classification
with an O-visa classification.
As elected officials, we can worry about our next elections, or we
can worry about the next generation. The Congressional Black Caucus has
historically chosen the path least taken and the road less traveled as
we continue to be the conscience of the Congress. If we do not tackle
the challenge of immigration now, it will be something that will haunt
my children, our children, and my five grandsons, our grandsons, for a
generation to come. This not only affects our families, but it affects
the safety and security of our nation, and the businesses of our
country. This is too important a matter to allow to lie dormant.
In summary, I applaud the Committee for continuing to focus on this
matter. If Congress does not tackle this matter, we will have abdicated
our responsibility to the many states, cities and counties of this
nation. You cannot pick up a newspaper with another new, often
politically expedient and sometimes draconian measure that has been
passed regarding immigration.
H.R. 750, the Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act, while not
perfect, is a step in the right direction regarding immigration reform.
It will help bring the more than 12 million undocumented immigrants out
of the shadows of our economy because it creates a clear path to lawful
residency for those willing to pay fines and demonstrate a commitment
to America and becoming Americans. It protects our nation by
strengthening our Border Patrol agents and speeds up the lawful
immigration process. It eliminates the onerous backlogs in our family
immigration system. It ensures that due process of the law and protects
legal immigrants from fraudulent lawyers and unscrupulous operators. It
changes the dynamic of immigration to include the issues of Northern
border states and the unique challenges of Caribbean and African
immigrants. It protects the jobs and job training opportunities of hard
working, tax paying Americans. It is a common-sense bill that, based
upon its merits, deserves complete, comprehensive and fair
consideration by all Members of Congress.
I thank the Committee for inviting me to this most important
hearing, and for its time.
Ms. Lofgren. Next we turn to our friend, Barbara Lee.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BARBARA LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. Let me also thank you, Madam
Chair, for your leadership and for really conducting the
hearings and an agenda on immigration reform that has been very
thorough and very comprehensive. And thank you, Congresswoman
Jackson Lee, for oftentimes being the voice in the wilderness
on immigration reform and why we cannot allow immigration
policy, immigration reform, to become a wedge issue. And thank
you for your legislation and for your leadership.
Let me commend this esteemed panel. We all have different
points of views on immigration, but I think everyone agrees
that our Nation--we understand that our Nation is a Nation of
immigrants and that immigration really is an issue of family
values, opportunity, and it is a core issue of civil rights.
My view, of course, is shaped by my own personal history. I
grew up in El Paso, Texas, which is represented by my
colleague, Congressman Silvestre Reyes, who is doing a
phenomenal job not only for his congressional district but for
my home city, and I consider him my Congressman. So I attended
school in El Paso, Texas and got to know the immigrant
community in a very intimate way because of my upbringing, and
understand very clearly that immigrants have contributed
immeasurably to American ingenuity and innovation and to our
economy. So even though we have different histories, all of us,
and exposure to immigrants and their contributions, we all
should be able to agree that the current system of immigration
is not meeting the current needs and that we do need to move
forward on comprehensive immigration reform.
Now, as the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive
Caucus, I am proud to share that that caucus has outlined a
series of principles to sum up our position on immigration and
immigration reform. Simply put, we must have a fair and
equitable immigration policy that provides a well-defined and
time-bound path to permanent residency and citizenship, and I
would like to ask these principles to also be included in the
record.
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection, they will be.
[The information referred to is available in the Appendix.]
Ms. Lee. Let me just summarize what some of these
principles are, because I want to make sure it is very clear
that we are talking about:
A clear and legal and earned access as the path to
permanent residency and citizenship for all of the millions of
undocumented workers and their immediate families.
A policy that works to unite families and not to separate
children from their parents.
A system that is timely and straightforward without
charging excess fees or fines that are out of reach for
immigrant families.
The ability of children to pursue an education and have
access to student loans and in-State tuition.
A system that minimizes mandatory and indefinite detention
of noncitizens and safeguards the universal human rights of
every person.
A plan that provides for equitable and nondiscriminatory
enforcement of laws, that does not make first responders like
firemen and -women and police into immigration agents. We want
to encourage employers--for employers to citizens and legal
residents first, but does not make them into immigration
officers either.
And a strong, of course, and sensible border security plan.
We all agree border security must be essential and central to
any immigration policy to ensure the safety of our country.
Also we heard from our esteemed Chair of the Congressional
Black Caucus, which I am honored to serve as Vice Chair, and
the principles which the Congressional Black Caucus has put
forth does quite a bit to make certain, first of all, that
immigrants do not become--or immigration does not become a
wedge issue.
And I want to thank the Congressional Black Caucus because
it recognizes the importance of job training, education, and
jobs for American workers in its principles.
Congresswoman Jackson Lee, your bill, H.R. 750, the ``Save
America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2007,'' really does
move us forward in terms of strengthening the focus on family
reunification and also making sure that we increase the level
of diversity of immigrants worldwide, which is very important.
Oftentimes we forget that there are immigrants from Haiti
and Liberia, which have been treated unfairly in our
immigration policy. So your legislation does put us forward--
makes a major step forward to make sure that our immigration
policy is not discriminatory and that it is fair.
So, Madam Chair, I am here today to urge this Subcommittee
to provide, really, the support for a morally correct, tough,
comprehensive immigration plan and to consider Congresswoman
Jackson Lee's bill in a way that all of us have, because we
think it is an excellent bill and we appreciate the opportunity
to provide some input and share our principles with you. And
thank you again for your leadership.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Congresswoman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lee follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Barbara Lee, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren for holding this important hearing
today. And let me thank my colleague Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee
for inviting me to join this accomplished panel to share our
perspectives on immigration.
Also, thank you for your strong leadership and unwavering
commitment to one of the most important issues facing America today:
ensuring that our immigration system works.
Even though America is a nation of immigrants, we may have
different views of what immigration means to America. To me,
immigration is an issue of family values, opportunity, and at it's
core, an issue of civil rights.
My view is shaped by my personal history. I grew up in an El Paso
border town and lived and learned in a community of immigrants. I
attended college and university in and now am lucky enough to represent
another community of immigrants, the Ninth District of California.
I have always known and valued the contributions of immigrant
communities. I know that immigrants have contributed immeasurably to
American ingenuity, innovation, and the economy.
Still, I understand that we may have different histories and
exposure to immigrants and their contributions to our nation. We may
have different views on what immigration means to America's future. But
what we can all agree on is that the current system of immigration is
not meeting the current needs.
As the Co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, I'm proud
to share that the Caucus has outlined a series of principles to sum up
our position on immigration and immigration reform. Simply put, we must
have a fair and equitable immigration policy that provides a well
defined and time bound path way to permanent residency and citizenship.
More specifically, the Progressive Caucus believes that
comprehensive immigration reform must include:
a clear legal path to permanent residency and
citizenship for all the millions of undocumented workers and
their immediate families;
A policy that works to unite families and not to
separate children from their parents;
a system that is timely and straightforward without
charging excessive fees or fines that are out of the reach for
immigrant families;
the ability for children to pursue an education, and
have access to student loans and in-state tuition;
a system that minimizes mandatory and indefinite
detention of non-citizens and safeguards the Universal Human
Rights of every person;
a plan that provides for the equitable and non-
discriminatory enforcement of laws that does not make first
responders like firemen and police into immigration agents;
encouragement for employers to hire citizens and
legal residents first, but does not make them into immigration
officers either;
a strong and sensible border security plan to ensure
the safety of our country
In the same vein, I'm a pleased to share the perspective of the
Congressional Black Caucus for which I'm honored to serve as Vice-Chair
under the leadership of our friend and colleague Congresswoman
Kilpatrick.
The CBC's immigration reform goals also include a call for a
pathway for earned access to citizenship that focuses on the
reunification of families and provides a pathway for permanency for
every immigrant in America.
The Congressional Black caucus also understands that we must not
allow outdated policies to unfairly discriminate between immigrants
from one part of the world from another.
This is why I am pleased that you, Chairwoman Jackson Lee have
introduced, H.R. 750, the Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of
2007. H.R. 750 provides a platform to move America forward by providing
a new framework to acknowledge the cultural and economic benefit that
immigration provides for all Americans.
This bill will strengthen the focus on family reunification,
provide the flexibility for the Department of Homeland Security to make
status adjustments for immigrants who have been in the US for at least
5 years. It will also increase the level of diversity immigrants
worldwide and fixes the unfair provisions that apply to citizens of
Haiti and Liberia. In short this legislation represents an important
step forward towards bringing our immigration policy into the 21st
century.
We have all heard the fear-mongering from some parts and the bottom
line is that we must stop playing politics with immigration. We must
focus on legislation that will get this country headed in a direction
that will make sense for everyone.
Madam Chair, I am here today to urge this committee to support a
fair and moral comprehensive immigration plan and to support an end to
the attacks on hard-working, law-abiding members of our immigrant
community, our American community.
Again Congresswoman Jackson Lee thank you for your leadership and
your vision on this issue and I look forward to working with you as we
craft a solution to this important challenge
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE SILVESTRE REYES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Reyes. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I want to thank you
and the Ranking Member for holding this very important hearing
this morning. Special thanks from me to my fellow Texan, Sheila
Jackson Lee, both for inviting me to speak to your Committee
this morning and, most importantly, for being a champion in
working on the three and very important aspects of
comprehensive immigration reform.
As most of you know, before coming to Congress, I served
for 26-1/2 years in the U.S. Border Patrol where I began as an
agent and was fortunate enough to work my way through the ranks
and be chief for the last 13 years, at two different locations.
I think I am the only Member of the Congress with a background
in border enforcement. So I have firsthand knowledge of what we
need to do in order to reduce illegal immigration while keeping
our borders and the Nation safe.
This, I want to be clear, is a national security issue.
Right now we have an underground world of, take your pick, from
9 to 12--I just heard Ranking Member King talk about 20
million--so somewhere in that range we have a world of people
living in our own country who are those that would want to hurt
our communities, can move around freely. So, to me
comprehensive immigration reform makes sense. It is a national
security issue.
During my tenure, I not only oversaw long stretches of
terrain between the ports of entry, but for 4 years I also
worked the international bridges. I have a broad understanding
of what it takes in order to secure the many components of our
Nation's borders.
With that, Madam Chairwoman, I am going to applaud your
efforts to keep comprehensive immigration reform at the
forefront of our discussions here in Congress. I have always
said that we needed a comprehensive immigration reform plan
with three main components: number one, strengthen border
security; number two, earned legalization for those who
qualify; and, three, a guest-worker program with tough employer
sanctions and provisions.
Comprehensive reform for me is like a three-legged stool.
Without one leg, the stool topples over. Our Nation's current
immigration system is broken, and, as I think a lot of us
recognize, is in desperate need of repair. For the past few
years, Congress and the Administration have been very concerned
with cracking down on illegal immigration and have focused much
of their energy on security and the security-only concept in
legislation. While I will certainly agree that we need to focus
on assuring everyone that enters our country enters legally, we
must also remember not to put all of our attention and
resources into one particular agency or one leg of the stool.
While I do not this morning have enough time to address
each of the legs that I feel are equally important, I would
like to comment on one border security aspect which is, I
think, very prominent not just around the country, but
certainly in a district like mine. I represent a border
district. While the number of United States Border Patrol
agents has risen dramatically, the other agencies that assist
in the security effort, sometimes with equal importance, have
often been neglected.
When the average person thinks about the men and women
overseeing our Nation's borders, the first group, and
understandably so, that comes to our minds are the men and
women that serve us proudly wearing that green uniform of the
Border Patrol. However, people often forget about the men and
women in blue, the customs and border protection officers who,
for instance, like in my district, saw more than 28.5 million
individuals traveling by car or truck, this fiscal year alone,
into our country through our international bridges.
Our international bridges are suffering because attention
has not been placed on them as a top priority. Over the last
several months, constituents in my district and across the
Nation have faced the increased wait times, and recent reports
state that times have escalated upwards from 2 to 3 hours. This
problem must be stopped and help directed in order to keep
security high, while at the same time allowing the free flow of
trade, commerce, and the everyday interchange between
communities at the border region. I might add that applies not
just to the U.S.-Mexico border but the U.S.-Canada border as
well.
I would also at this point take a moment and talk
specifically to a section in my colleague Ms. Jackson Lee's
bill H.R. 750, which is the Save America Comprehensive
Immigration Act. Section 639 would increase the number of
inspectors at our land and ports of entry. And while I applaud
the 1,000 additional officers as a much-needed increase, we
simply need to do more.
In El Paso alone, in my district, we have four
international bridges that are in need of a total of more than
150 additional CBP officers just to maintain the already
authorized on-duty force. That doesn't include expansion, just
the on-duty force.
We must continue to look at the current state of our
Nation's ports of entry and commit to properly funding staffing
levels which would be adequate enough to provide security for
our Nation. Being understaffed and underfunded simply in
today's world, with the challenges that we face as a Nation, is
unacceptable.
We must also remember all the agencies that have a role in
securing the border along with the Border Patrol. We must
increase the number of United States attorneys, immigration and
customs enforcement inspectors, immigration judges, Federal
judges, U.S. marshals, as well as Bureau of Prisons personnel.
Immigration reform must continue to move forward and we
must take, in my opinion, a holistic approach to ensure that we
encompass all relevant agencies. They are all important in this
process, just like a comprehensive approach.
So I appreciate, Madam Chairwoman, the opportunity to
testify this morning. And I look forward to continuing to work,
certainly with my colleague from Texas, but from every Member
of this Committee as you do very important work for our
country. Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reyes follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Silvestre Reyes, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Texas
I would like to begin by thanking Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren and
Ranking Member Steve King for holding this very important hearing
today. Special thanks to my fellow Texan, Representative Sheila Jackson
Lee, for inviting me to testify on an issue very familiar to me.
As most of you know, before coming to Congress, I served for 26 1/2
years in the U.S. Border Patrol where I began as an agent and was
fortunate enough to be chief in two different locations for the last
thirteen of those years. As the only Member of Congress with a
background in border enforcement, I have first-hand knowledge of what
we need to do in order to reduce illegal immigration while keeping our
borders and the nation safe.
During my tenure, I not only oversaw long stretches of terrain
between the ports of entry, but for four years, I also worked at the
international bridges. I have a broad understanding of what it takes in
order to secure the many components our nation's borders.
Madame Chairwoman, I applaud your efforts to keep comprehensive
immigration reform at the forefront of discussion. I have always said
that we need a comprehensive immigration reform plan with three main
components: strengthened border security; earned legalization for those
who qualify; and a guest worker program with tough employer sanctions.
Comprehensive reform is like a three-legged stool. Without one leg, the
stool topples.
Our nation's current immigration system is broken and is in
desperate need of repair. For the past few years, Congress and the
Administration have been very concerned with cracking down on illegal
immigration and have focused much of their energy on security-only
legislation. While I certainly agree that we need to focus on assuring
everyone enters our country legally, we must also remember not to put
all of our attention and resources on one particular agency or leg of
the stool.
While I do not have enough time to talk to each leg of the stool, I
would like to comment on the border security aspect which is very
prominent in my district of El Paso, Texas. While the number of United
States Border Patrol agents has risen dramatically, the other agencies
that assist in the security effort have been neglected. When the
average person thinks about the men and women overseeing our nation's
borders the first group that comes to mind is the men and women in
green. People often forget about the men and women in blue, the Customs
and Border Protection Officers (CBOs), those who, for instance in my
district, saw more than 28.5 million individuals traveling by car over
this past fiscal year alone.
Our international bridges are suffering because attention has not
been placed on them. Over the last several months, constituents in my
district and across the nation have faced increased wait times, and
recent reports state that times have escalated upwards from two to
three hours. This problem must be stopped and help must be directed in
order to keep security high while allowing for the free flow of trade
and commerce.
I would like to take a moment and talk specifically to a section in
Ms. Jackson Lee's bill, H.R. 750, the Save America Comprehensive
Immigration Act. Section 639 would increase the number of inspectors at
our air and land ports of entry. While 1,000 additional officers is an
increase, we need to do more. In El Paso alone, four international
bridges are in need of a total of more than 150 Custom and Border
Protection Officers. We must look at the current state of our nation's
ports of entry and commit to properly funding staffing levels adequate
enough to provide security for our nation. Being understaffed and
underfunded is unacceptable.
We must also remember all the agencies securing the border along
with Border Patrol. We must increase the number of United States
Attorneys, Immigration and Customs Enforcement inspectors, immigration
judges, federal judges, U.S. Marshals, as well as Bureau of Prison
personnel.
Immigration reform must continue to move forward, and we must take
a holistic approach to ensure we encompass all relevant agencies. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning, and I look forward
to working on this important mission together. Thank you for giving me
time to testify, and I would be happy to answer any questions you might
have.
Ms. Lofgren. And our last witness is our colleague,
Congresswoman Boyda.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE NANCY E. BOYDA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS
Mrs. Boyda. Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member King, and
thanks to Barbara Jackson Lee as well, for having the
discussion, at least on this issue.
Thanks for inviting me to testify on this critical issue of
immigration. We are at a crisis. The lack of enforcement of our
immigration laws has in fact led to increased illegal
immigration. Quite honestly, this is simply unacceptable to the
people of the Second District of Kansas. And I agree, like you,
that it is time, it is actually past time that we find real
solutions to the problem.
In addition to my concerns about what has become a flood of
illegal immigrants, I am concerned about where the immigration
conversation is going in our country. We are losing control not
only of our borders, but we are also losing control of the
conversation on illegal immigration and how to fix the problem.
The longer we delay action, the worse the problem gets and the
worse the rhetoric gets. At this time we are still able to have
a conversation that discusses how we can move forward to secure
our borders, to verify unemployment, and to enforce our laws.
My fear is if we do not address this immigration crisis soon,
that we will no longer be able to have a conversation about how
we fix the problem; instead, we may end up in a yelling match
with heated rhetoric against immigration and immigrants.
That is not what our country is about. It would be--could
be a conversation truly about hatred. This is not a
conversation that represents America at its finest, and it is a
not a conversation that we need to have. Again, I agree with
this Committee that it is time, it is past time, that we find
solutions.
I believe that there are three steps to stopping the flow
of illegal immigrants. We have to secure our borders. But we
must require that employers verify employment eligibility and
we must enforce our immigration laws. Congress must and can
demonstrate to the American people that we are willing and able
to protect our Nation's borders. We are a Nation of laws and
they must be enforced. Those violating laws cannot be rewarded.
Enforcement of immigration laws would substantially reduce
illegal immigration and greatly increase border security.
This is why I have serious concerns about some of the
provisions of H.R. 750, the ``Save America Comprehensive
Immigration Act of 2007.'' I believe that several provisions
actually reward people who have broken our laws, and all that
does is encourage more to do the same.
I believe that the three steps to stopping the flow of
illegal immigrants--securing our borders, requiring employers
to verify employment eligibility, and to enforce immigration
laws--are the answer. Congress can and must demonstrate to the
American people that we are willing and able to control our
borders.
To that end, H.R. 750 has worthwhile provisions. It
increases, as Mr. Reyes has said, it increases the number of
Border Patrol agents by significant numbers, and it contains
much-needed provisions to retain those agents with loan
repayments, easement of the regulations on recruitment and
retention, and the repeal of the DHS human resources management
system which has been the cause of much of the career disaster
that has happened to this vital agency lately.
H.R. 750 also pays particular attention to addressing
concerns about sex offenders already abusing our dysfunctional
immigration system. For that I congratulate you and say thank
you.
We are at a turning point. The longer that we delay action,
the more the rhetoric I am concerned will get out of hand. If
that happens, our ability to come together to solve this
problem will in fact get farther and farther away. The solution
is clear: Secure our borders, eliminate the job magnet, and
enforce our laws.
Madam Chairwoman, I yield back. Thank you so much for
allowing me to testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Boyda follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Nancy E. Boyda, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Kansas
Madam Chair, and fellow Members, thank you for inviting me to
testify on the critical issue of immigration.
We are at a crisis. The lack of enforcement of our immigration laws
has led to increased illegal immigration. This is unacceptable to the
people of the Second District of Kansas.
In addition to my concerns about the flood of illegal immigrants, I
am concerned about where the immigration conversation is going in our
country. We are losing control, not only of our borders, but also of
the conversation on illegal immigration and how to fix the problem. The
longer we delay action, the worse the rhetoric is going to get. At this
time we are able to have a conversation that discusses how we move
forward securing our borders, verifying employment and enforcing our
laws. If we do not address the immigration crisis soon, we will no
longer be able to have a conversation about how we fix the problem--it
will instead be a yelling match with heated rhetoric against immigrants
and immigration. That would be a conversation about hatred. That is not
a conversation that represents America at its finest and it is not a
conversation that we need to have.
I believe that there are three steps to stopping the flow of
illegal immigrants--secure our borders, require employers to verify
employment eligibility and enforce immigration laws. Congress can and
must demonstrate to the American people that we are willing and able to
protect our nation's borders.
We are a nation of laws--and they must be enforced. Those violating
these laws cannot be rewarded. Enforcement of immigration laws would
substantially reduce illegal immigration and greatly increase border
security. This is why I have serious concerns about some of the
provisions of H.R. 750, the Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act
of 2007. I believe that several provisions reward those who have broken
our laws. And all that does is encourage others to do the same.
I believe that there are three steps to stopping the flow of
illegal immigrants--secure our borders, require employers to verify
employment eligibility and enforce immigration laws.
Congress can and must demonstrate to the American people that we
are willing and able to control our nation's borders. To that end, H.R.
750 has some worthwhile provisions. It increases the number of border
patrol agents by significant numbers and it contains much needed
provisions to retain those agents with loan repayments, easing of the
regulations on recruitment and retention bonuses, and the repeal of the
DHS Human Resources Management System which has been the cause of much
of the career dissatisfaction in this vitally important agency.
H.R. 750 also pays particular attention to addressing concerns
about sex offenders abusing our already dysfunctional immigration
system.
We are at a turning point, the longer we delay action, the more the
rhetoric will get out of hand. If that happens, we will not be able to
solve this problem.
The solution is clear--secure our borders, eliminate the jobs
magnet and enforce our laws.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much for your testimony and
thanks to all of you for your testimony. We note that
Congresswoman Kilpatrick has had a conflict and has had to
leave the hearing, So if we have questions for her, we will
submit them to her in writing. And we will now go to our
questions for our colleagues. And I will turn first to the
Ranking Member, Mr. King, to begin.
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to thank all
the witnesses. And certain things have raised my curiosity.
I will go first to the gentleman, Mr. Reyes. And as you
spoke to this, I will say that I agree with you, we need to
enhance our ability at a lot of the ports of entry. I see
traffic backed up for hours and miles. And I would say widen
that, add to the personnel, be more effective and efficient on
screening those that come in. That would be my view.
But I would ask you, you have read this bill; and do you
then support H.R. 750?
Mr. Reyes. I do support it. I will tell you that we need to
do more. I think it is a good starting point. I think that
there are sections that we do need to look at and expand. I
think we----
Mr. King. Are there sections you disagree with?
Mr. Reyes. Well, in the concept of comprehensive
immigration reform, I haven't seen, at least from my viewpoint,
a process that takes into account all three different areas,
which are border enforcement, the legalization process for
those that have earned it, and, most importantly, a guest-
worker program with employer sanctions, provisions, because I
think that is----
Mr. King. Excuse me. Those sections that diminish the
standards that--let's see--that allow people to have a path to
an LPR and citizenship, that may have served less than a year
to a sentence, those kind of things that lower our standards to
identify those people who are criminals, is that a part of
concern to you?
Mr. Reyes. Of course. Those are all--that is why I say I
have not seen a piece of legislation that I completely agree
with, including this bill. But it is important that through
these hearing processes that we have--that we honor the process
that gets us to a position of compromise that takes into, in my
opinion, those three different areas.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Reyes.
And I turn to Ms. Lee. And as I listened to your testimony,
I see this word ``immigrants'' come up, but I never see a
reference there to illegal immigrants or illegal aliens. Do you
in your mind draw a distinction between illegal aliens and
immigrants? Because a lot of immigrants out there that came
through the legal process don't really want to be marked with
the commingling of that concept by the illegal aliens who
didn't come through the process.
Ms. Lee. Well, sir, first, ``aliens'' is an alien term to
me. These are----
Mr. King. Let's go with illegal immigrants then.
Ms. Lee. Illegal immigrant workers, primarily. And there is
a distinction between those who have come through the
legalization process and those who haven't.
Mr. King. In your testimony when you refer to immigrants,
then----
Ms. Lofgren. I ask the Ranking Member to show enough
courtesy to allow the witnesses to answer.
Ms. Lee. And in my testimony, I believe--I generally refer
to those coming here illegally as undocumented workers;
primarily they are coming here to work. And I believe that as
part of comprehensive immigration reform, we have to have an
earned access and earned pathway to citizenship. I believe the
bureaucracy--oftentimes there is a lot of red tape, first of
all. And I think that people should be able to become citizens
as quickly as possible.
Border security is very important. We heard Silvestre Reyes
talk about and this has got to be a comprehensive approach.
Mr. King. Hopefully I have shown adequate courtesy. But I
don't think I understand the distinction, then, when you refer
to the word ``immigrant'' in your testimony, which group you
might be referring to if there is a distinction.
Ms. Lee. In terms of what? What are you talking about? In
terms of--those that we are talking about, that I am talking
about who should be allowed to become citizens are
undocumented. And my position is, like that of the Progressive
Caucus, that there should be earned access to legalization. And
those are the individuals that we hope we can come up with a
policy to allow this to take place. Of course, within whatever
laws we come up with, with whatever time frames we come up
with, and with whatever criteria we come up with.
Mr. King. And I ask the gentlelady--and still it is not
clear to me what you mean when you say ``immigrants.'' I do
think it is in the blood. I take you back to, if I might ask my
question, I take you back to the term ``undocumented'' then.
And I ask you that when you refer to undocumented immigrants,
do you--and I want to make sure this panel understands that
most of them are documented, it is just that they have a lot of
counterfeit documents. So when we use the term
``undocumented,'' it is hard to understand by using Noah's
dictionary what we really mean by that. And what do you mean?
Ms. Lee. I mean--when I talk about undocumented immigrants,
I am talking about those immigrants who have come to this
country without the legal documents that are required by law,
that come here to work, primarily in the farm, in the
agricultural fields. They come to work, as we know, primarily
in a lot of the service industries, and without legal
documents.
And what I am saying, I think you understand, I hope the
Committee understands, that it is these individuals, those
individuals that we believe should have the earned access to
legalization in a way that makes sense, that is within the
jurisdiction of the laws that we pass here, and it has got to
be comprehensive.
Mr. King. I would ask unanimous consent to ask one
additional question.
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection, the gentleman has another
minute.
Mr. King. Thank you, Chairwoman. It takes--is this part--I
have many other questions, but I do want to focus it to one.
And that is, as I read your testimony, Ms. Lee, and as I read
through the summaries of the bill presented by Ms. Jackson Lee,
I begin to see that this list of people who would be brought in
under this bill is a vastly expanded list from anything that we
have contemplated in this Congress before, and it takes me
clear to the other side of this analysis. I used to analyze
this legislation on how many more would be added to the list of
those legalized in each of the categories to try to get a sense
of the magnitude of the bills that would open up through this
guest-worker status, for example. This bill takes me clearly to
the other side of that concept, to asking the question who
would be excluded?
And I would pose that question to you, Ms. Lee. Who would
be excluded under this bill?
Ms. Lee. Well, Mr. King, I am not certain that I could
answer that question with regard to who would be excluded. I
think the purpose of this bill is very clear in terms of what
it states, and I want to--you know, one section of this bill, I
think, that is very important for us to understand, which I
have to commend Congresswoman Jackson Lee for including, and
that is making sure that the immigration laws don't
discriminate between immigrants from some countries and
immigrants from Haiti and Liberia, for example. That is a very
important provision.
You may think that may include additional individuals, but
I think that it is important that whatever immigration policy
we come up with, that it be fair and that it not discriminate
against those from countries such as Haiti or Liberia.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's extension of time has expired,
and I would turn now to the author of the bill, Congresswoman
Jackson Lee, for her questions.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I am
delighted with the testimony of all of the witnesses. And let
me thank you very much for taking your time to be here and
elaborate for us that there is a need for comprehensive
immigration reform and that H.R. 750 is a complement to bills
like the STRIVE Act and a number of others, including our good
friend Heath Shuler.
Let me just put into the record, Madam Chair, I think an
important quote that helps me explain my good friend from
Iowa's line of questioning. President Kennedy said: The great
enemy of truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived
and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic. Beliefs in myths allow the comfort of opinion
without the discomfort of thought.
Let me simply indicate aspects of the bill that go to
earned access, Mr. Reyes. My bill says that if you are here in
the country for 5 years--I think other bills may say 6 years or
more--no criminal record. And therefore as you well know, there
would be a vetting. You would already be here. You might be a
family member. You might have been working. And then once you
get in line and have a process, then we even require community
service. Some bills don't require that, but you are here in the
country for a 5-year period.
The other aspect of the bill provides facilitating for
family-based immigration. And I know that many of us have heard
of, say, the Philippines, family members here on line for 13,
14 years. I remember going to a hearing with then-Chairman Hyde
of the Judiciary Committee when we had a crisis, with lines
around the building, the immigration services, before Homeland
Security, when people were waiting in line for access to legal
immigration. And so I am very proud that in this bill we have
that aspect.
And let me quickly, so that I can ask a question, cite as
well some of the elements that Mr. Bonner will testify to. But
in this question of inspectors, I agree with you. We should
amend the bill to include more. But the bill has, of course,
helicopters and powerboats controlled by the United States
Border Patrol agents. But what it does do--and I think this was
taken by the Governor of New Mexico. It was going to have an
emergency dispatching to the border of States who call for
additional Border Patrol agents at the time, so that if a State
declares a crisis, the Federal Government could dispatch
immediately and enhance the number of those individuals.
So I would like to pose a question first to Mr. Reyes,
Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, without asking for
classified information. Is there a benefit to Americans to know
who is in the country, to be able to get your hands around, in
a documented satisfactory fashion, identifying everybody? Is
there a definitive security benefit to Americans to have that--
to have that process in place?
Mr. Reyes. Absolutely. That was the genesis of my comment
that this in fact is a national security issue. This country
after 9/11 cannot afford a shadow world of 9 to 12 million
people, where those that would be intent on harming us can move
about at will. So there is definitely, I think, that is why it
cries out for comprehensive immigration reform.
The reality that I think we have to recognize is that we
are not going to get those 9 to 12, or, if you use Ranking
Member King's estimate of 20 million, you are not going to get
people to voluntarily come forward, and we are not going to be
able to address it in a timely fashion as we are concerned
about the potential for another terroristic threat, terroristic
act, here within our own country.
So it is imperative that we look at this from a national
security issue. That is why these kinds of hearings are so
important.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you think there is a benefit to the
provision that if Governors declare a crisis or an emergency in
their State, they could appeal to the Federal Government for a
dispatching of an additional thousand troops, for example--
excuse me, Border Patrol agents, for example, as did New
Mexico, where they did it on their own. And that is a provision
in this bill. Is that a viable----
Mr. Reyes. Absolutely. As you and I discussed a number of
these provisions, I think that kind of flexibility in this
legislation is not only a good idea, but post-9/11, imperative
that we include it.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Ms. Lee, thank you very much. And if you
would look to--and you don't have to look to section 703. It
talks about recruitment of American workers. As you know, the
principles of the CBC talks about the economic arm of
paralleling comprehensive immigration reform with protecting
American workers. And just quickly, it says that in order to
get visas for particular positions, you have to have an
affidavit that attests that you have tried to recruit American
workers and that you have looked for them and that you cannot
find them; for example, historically Black colleges.
In addition, it provides a fee for training of American
workers. How does that--is that a good focus to ensure the
protection of American workers?
I would like to ask Ms. Boyda, just quickly, the idea
should we be concerned about American workers even as we look
at immigration reform in a different way? And, Madam Chair, I
thank you for yielding. If they could answer the questions, I
would appreciate it.
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection, an additional minute is
granted. We do have votes pending. So, Ms. Lee, quickly answer.
Ms. Lee. I think that is a very important provision of this
bill, which I haven't seen in many of the immigration bills. It
is very important for several reasons. But when you look at,
especially minority communities in the United States,
communities that have high rates of unemployment, oftentimes
jobs aren't available, job training, educational efforts--
educational initiatives are not available for a lot of
historical reasons. And providing this provision in an
immigration bill does make it comprehensive because it makes
sure that, one, American workers are protected, but it also
gives an incentive and gives resources for those communities
which have high rates of unemployment to be able to move
forward with job training and education and employment
opportunities. So I think this is a major, major provision.
And, finally, let me just say it helps reduce the tensions
in terms of the immigration debate because America is a country
of immigrants. We cannot forget that African Americans have
come to this country in chains, have built this country, built
this capital. And it is important to recognize the labor, the
historical contributions of our country by the African American
community, and recognize that in a comprehensive immigration
reform bill. So I thank you for including that provision.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired. Ms. Boyda,
very quickly, because we have one more Member.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Does the idea of protecting American
workers through legal visas that companies may seek--there is a
provision in here that talks about attesting to the fact that
you cannot find an American worker.
Mrs. Boyda. I think, again, in the Second District of
Kansas, the biggest issue is how do we enforce when we don't
have a way to come back and enforce? We have many, many
different proposals that have been made. The question is
constantly, Tell me how you are going to enforce it and then
we'll talk.
I think people have been asked to trust so much, that at
some point they are just saying I can't trust anymore; show me
how you are going to enforce, and then talk to me about how we
are going to do everything. I am hoping perhaps the Committee
might be able to hear--would hear Heath Shuler's bill at some
time as well.
Ms. Jackson Lee. There is enforcement through an affidavit.
And I appreciate your comment on that. Thank you very much.
Mr. Reyes, the idea of ensuring recruitment of American
workers to those who want the legal visas so that the community
has access to jobs?
Mr. Reyes. Absolutely. You know, we have had a number of
studies--and I would ask that you allow me to provide those
studies for the record--that have essentially indicated that
without the labor force in the construction and the agriculture
and the service industry that is represented by those that are
undocumented, our economy would be in great jeopardy. So I
think it makes sense for a guest-worker provision. I think it
makes sense that in a comprehensive manner, it would provide us
the opportunity to do both guest worker and employer sanctions
enforcement.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's extension of time has
expired. We have had our 10-minute--is that the 5-minute
warning? Ten-minute warning. Ten minutes.
I have not had a chance to ask questions. Mr. Gohmert has
not had a chance to ask questions. And I think we lose this
panel after this vote.
Mr. Gohmert, do you have an abbreviated question? And I
will waive and let you ask them instead of me.
Mr. Gohmert. That is all right. I will wait.
Ms. Lofgren. We are going to lose the panel.
Mr. Gohmert. I know we will. I don't want to hold them up.
Ms. Lofgren. All right. Then that is very gracious of you.
And we thank our colleagues for their testimony. We will return
right after the vote for our second panel and we thank you for
being with us.
As we now have both myself and the Ranking Member here.
Hopefully other Members will join us.
We will convene our second panel of distinguished
witnesses.
I am pleased to introduce Dr. William Spriggs, a professor
and chair of the Economics Department at Howard University. In
addition to his scholarship, Dr. Spriggs served for over 15
years as the executive director of the National Urban League's
Institute for Opportunity and Equality. He earned his
bachelor's degree with honors from Williams College and his
doctorate from the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
Next I would like to introduce Gregory Siskind, a partner
in the law firm of Siskind Susser & Bland. He has practiced
immigration law since 1990 and created visalaw.com, the world's
first immigration law firm Web site. He currently edits
Siskind's Immigration Bulletin, a newsletter that reaches over
40,000 subscribers each week. He received his bachelor's degree
from Vanderbilt University and his law degree from the
University of Chicago
It is my pleasure next to welcome Charles Kuck, the
president-elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association
and an adjunct law professor at the University of Georgia. Mr.
Kuck is a managing partner of the immigration law firm of Kuck
Casablanca. And he earned his bachelor's degree from Brigham
Young University and his law degree from Arizona State
University.
Next, I would like to introduce Christopher Nugent, the
senior counsel with the Community Services Team at the law firm
of Holland and Knight. Mr. Nugent directs the firm's
immigration pro bono work in public policy. He earned his
bachelor's degree from Sarah Lawrence College and his law
degree from the City University of New York School of Law.
Next, it is my honor to extend our warm welcome to Kim
Gandy, the president for the National Organization for Women,
NOW. First elected as president in 2001, Ms. Gandy has served
NOW at the local, State and national level since 1973. She
graduated from Louisiana Tech University and received her law
degree from the Loyola University School of Law.
Next I am pleased to welcome T.J. Bonner, president of the
National Border Patrol Council of the American Federation of
Government Employees, the AFL-CIO affiliate that represents
approximately 12,000 nonsupervisory Border Patrol employees.
Mr. Bonner has worked as a Border Patrol agent in the San Diego
area since 1978, and he has served as the union president since
1989.
And finally I would like to welcome Julie Kirchner, the
executive director at FAIR, the Federation for American
Immigration Reform. Prior to joining FAIR, Ms. Kirchner worked
as counsel at the Minnesota House of Representatives, where she
staffed the judiciary and several law committees. She earned
her bachelor's degree from Yale University and her law degree
with high distinction from the Iowa University School of Law.
Each of you will have your entire written statement made a
part of the hearing.
We would ask that your oral testimony consume about 5
minutes. And I think as our counsel has explained, when you use
4 minutes, the little yellow light goes on, and when your time
is up, the red light is on, but I don't have a heavy gavel. But
since there are many witnesses and we have about an hour until
our next vote, I would hope that we could keep within the 5-
minute time frame so we can have some time for questions.
So we will begin with you, Dr. Spriggs.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM E. SPRIGGS, Ph.D., CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMICS, HOWARD UNIVERSITY
Mr. Spriggs. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I want
to thank you for the opportunity to be here, and to the Ranking
Member who is from my father's home State of Iowa, and special
thanks to Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee for inviting me to
speak.
I want to direct my comments on this legislation's effect
and implications for the labor market. I think this is an
important piece of legislation because it has specific policy
recommendations for the labor market. And I think that while
economists don't have a consensus about the effects of
immigration on the native workforce, we are clear about some
things, as you look across the studies.
Basically, that if you look in the 1990's and the beginning
of the decade here, in 2000, that what we find is that
immigrants and native-born workers basically have very similar
occupations. When we say they have dissimilar occupations, it
is nowhere near like what we really mean, when you think about
the difference between the occupations of men and women, where,
just to use a measure of occupational segregation that is easy
to understand, the index of dissimilarity, 60 percent of men or
women would have to change their occupations in order to make
the distribution of occupations the same, whereas for
immigrants compared to native-born workers, you are looking at
a number closer to, like, 33 percent. So they do similar
occupations, similar jobs, and therefore are in similar labor
markets.
I think that what is the problem in our low-wage labor
market, and our labor market in general, is that it no longer
functions in a clear, transparent way. This has nothing to do
with immigration. It has to do with the failure of our low-wage
labor market in particular.
And I think this legislation addresses that directly, by
calling on employers to open up and be more transparent in the
way that they would go about their search. And the legislation
provides enough incentive and penalties to make this begin to
be a real open labor market. And that is a very important
contribution to make.
In the last 4 years, when we have had some of the worst job
growth that we have seen in the Nation's history, people, of
course, have been very concerned about immigration. But I would
remind everyone that, in the 1990's, when immigration was at a
much higher rate, that many communities did really well. The
African American community, in particular, did extremely well
in the 1990's when immigration was at a higher rate than it was
in the 1980's.
I think we have to remember that it is really overall
economic policy that matters the most to workers, and whether
we are creating jobs or not creating jobs is a macroeconomic
issue. And we can set the macroeconomic policy to accommodate
any sort of labor force, but we must fix the way that that
labor market itself works. And that is the good thing about
this legislation.
I would say that it is not only for those workers who are
in low-wage jobs, but we also have a problem among high-wage
jobs. The information industry which we billed to everyone as
the wave of the future went through a downturn in employment
after 2001. It reached a peak in 2001. It has not yet recovered
from that peak. And so the number of Americans who are working
in the information industries has declined. And that industry
is not above having discrimination or effects that look like
discrimination.
I would just point out a job which isn't high on the rank
of high-tech jobs but one where the job title stayed the same
from the 1990's through 2000. In 1995, most computer operators
in the United States were women. In 2002, after the shrinkage
of that industry, the industry became about balanced between
men and women. So it is not consistent from an economist's
perspective that you could have an industry lose jobs and the
workers who happen to be the dominant workforce lose their jobs
disproportionately.
And I think it is a clue that we should be very careful,
even for high-tech jobs, that we see employers verify that they
really did search. Because this, again, is a labor market which
has indications that things are not as transparent in how
people attain jobs and how they get to keep jobs.
So I appreciate this impact of the legislation. And I think
it is called for that we integrate the way we look at
immigration and the labor market, not because immigrants are a
problem, but the way that the labor market works is the
problem.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spriggs follows:]
Prepared Statement of William E. Spriggs
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Dr. Spriggs.
Mr. Siskind?
TESTIMONY OF GREGORY SISKIND, PARTNER, SISKIND SUSSER BLAND
Mr. Siskind. I would like to thank the Chairwoman and the
Ranking Member and Congresswoman Jackson Lee for the
opportunity to testify regarding the Save America Comprehensive
Immigration Act of 2007.
I am Greg Siskind, and I practiced immigration law for a
number of years and have written a lot on the topic of consular
processing. And I am here today to specifically address the
importance of title II of the SAVE Act, which would create a
Board of Visa Appeals for the review of denied family-based
green card cases.
When the State Department denies a visa application, the
applicant loses an opportunity to come to the U.S., but the
impact is felt also by the lawful, permanent resident or
citizen of the United States who is sponsoring the immigrant.
This legislation is about ensuring that if the foreign
American's family is torn apart for a lifetime by the State
Department's denial of a visa application, there is at least a
fair process in place to review the justness of the decision.
Citizens and permanent residents sponsoring family members
for green cards undergo a two-step process. First, they file a
family immigrant petition with USCIS, depending on the kind of
relative--a spouse, a child, a parent or a sibling--whether the
petitioner is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, and the
nationality of the sponsored relative. An applicant can wait
many years, potentially more than 20 years, for an immigrant
visa to come available.
Next, once the visa number finally comes available, there
are two alternative procedures to complete processing. The
applicant in the United States, he or she typically is able to
complete the application domestically by filing an adjustment-
of-status application with USCIS. Applicants outside the U.S.,
however, process green card applications based on the very same
kinds of petitions but they can't apply for adjustment of
status. They have to apply to a U.S. Consulate abroad.
U.S. immigration law is probably more complex than any
other country in the world, and correctly applying the law to
each applicant's facts can be extremely challenging.
Fortunately, applicants in the second step of processing or
adjusting in the U.S. can challenge a denial in administrative
tribunals, including an immigration court, the Board of
Immigration Appeals or Federal courts. But applicants
processing at consulates do not have this ability.
As a matter of discretion, the case can be referred to the
State Department in Washington for an advisory opinion on a
pure question of law. Applicants are not, however, permitted to
see the opinion and are only notified that a decision has been
issued. Federal courts have upheld the State Department Visa
Office's position that an advisory opinion only offers guidance
to consular officers.
Senator Edward Kennedy called for an appeals process as
early as 1970, and the need remains today. The SAVE Act would
create a Board of Visa Appeal, a BVA, within the State
Department to review family-based green card denials.
There are a number of reasons why this is needed. First,
there is a basic question of fairness. Why should two persons
with the same type of immigrant visa petitions and the same set
of facts be entitled to different rights and protections based
strictly on where they are physically located? Why should
Americans who have had their relatives waiting for years
outside the U.S. be treated worse than those who have not?
Second, the BVA would provide needed oversight of the
system. While the vast majority of consular officers try to be
objective and to make sure that they have a sufficient
understanding of the facts and the law to issue a fair
decision, the reality is that the consular officer acts as a
judge, jury and prosecutor, and they do it during the interview
that typically only lasts for a few minutes. The applicant is
usually not permitted to have a lawyer present or be
accompanied by the petitioning U.S. Relative, and he or she may
have limited English skills. In smaller posts, consular
officers may be inexperienced and may have very little
supervision.
Third, the BVA will enhance America's image in the world. A
recent study commissioned by the Discover America Partnership
comprised of many of the country's leading travel and
hospitality organizations found that travelers rate America's
entry process as the world's worst by a greater than two-to-one
margin over the next worse country. The U.S. Ranks among the
lowest when it comes to traveler-friendly paperwork and
officials.
While a consular appeals board would only apply to green
card cases and not the many visitor visa denials that occur
every day, the impact of family-based green card denials on
American citizens and permanent resident sponsors can be great.
Sending out the message that our consular offices are arbitrary
and capricious does nothing to advance America's public
diplomacy efforts. The fact that at least some cases will be
reviewable will send a signal that the U.S. is trying to be
fair.
A Board of Visa Appeals is long overdue, and I would
encourage you to support the proposal.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Siskind follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gregory Siskind
Ms. Lofgren. And before asking Mr. Kuck to give his
testimony, I would like to note that Jeff Kuck, his 16-year-old
son who is studying American history, has been here today to
see some American history being made. And we would like to
welcome the young Jeff Kuck to our hearing and to watch his dad
testify.
Mr. Kuck?
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES H. KUCK, PRESIDENT-ELECT, AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF LAW,
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA
Mr. Kuck. First, I want to thank the Chairwoman and the
Ranking Member, Mr. King, for allowing me to testify today. I
want to especially thank Congressman Sheila Jackson Lee for
this opportunity. And my son thanks you because he now has an
excuse for not being in school today.
I am currently serving as the president-elect of the
American Immigration Lawyers Association. I have been asked to
talk today about a couple of the problems in our current law
and how this legislation, House Bill 750, fixes what are, I
believe, problems that have led to an increase in illegal
immigration in the United States.
Folks call me all the time and they say, Mr. Kuck, I want
to bring my spouse. I want to get them a green card. He has
been here since he was 13, 12, 10, 25--you pick the age. We
have been married for 2 years; we have two kids. We have been
married for 5 years; we have three kids. I want to make him
legal. What can I do?
And the answer, because of current law, is nothing. Current
law requires anybody who has been unlawfully present in the
United States to leave the country to obtain their permanent
residence.
There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong
with making people leave the country the fix their immigration
situation. But the law also says that if you have been
unlawfully present in the United States for longer than 6
months or a year, you are simply not coming back for between 3
and 10 years. There are very few families that could survive
that level of separation.
The current law provides for a waiver or a forgiveness of
that provision. That requires the U.S.-citizen spouse to show
extreme hardship to them only if their spouse couldn't come
back, keeping in mind that financial hardship, emotional
hardship, physical hardship are simply not enough to meet the
extreme hardship standards. And in some countries, the approval
rate for these waivers is less than 10 percent.
It is not unusual for us to note the following statistic:
Before this law took effect in 1996, migrants simply came and
left the United States and didn't have to deal with the
situation. But individual immigrants, upon realizing that this
law was in effect after they had been here for 6 or 12 months
illegally, simply decided to stay. And since that law took
effect, the number of illegal immigrants in the United States
has increased from anywhere between 2.5 million in 1996 to
somewhere between 12 million and 20 million today. Is this law
the sole reason this has happened? Absolutely not. But it is
estimated that there are 3 million American citizens married to
individuals who would be required to leave the country or to
legalize their immigration status.
By a simple change in the law, by simply reducing the
standard hardship that this law provides in section 808 to a
level that could be meetable by numbers of people who could
show hardship if their spouse is not in the United States, you
could solve the situation of over 3 million individuals that
are undocumented here, which then leaves you 3 million less
people to worry about as you begin the process of truly
enforcing immigration law.
I also want to briefly touch on another provision of our
laws that says that if you make a false claim to citizenship as
a United States citizen, that you cannot ever obtain legal
status, period.
Now, it should be illegal to claim to be a U.S. citizen.
There is nothing wrong with that law either. But the law itself
does not provide for a waiver. You can falsely claim to be a
permanent resident and get away with it. You can falsely submit
documents that don't claim U.S. citizenship and get a waiver.
But if you make that one mistake, even if by accident, then you
are simply never going to get immigration benefits regardless
of who your family is, regardless of how long you have been
here and regardless of what other options you may have. And we
could make a very simple change in the law to make that go
away, by simply saying there is now a waiver available under
section 212(h) if you can show extreme hardship to your U.S.-
citizen spouse or children.
Finally, the last provision I would like to talk about that
causes a great deal of hardship is that found in the change of
``suspension of deportation'' to ``cancellation of removal'' in
the 1996 legislation. This standard changed a hardship standard
by showing somebody had been here in the United States, had
significant ties here, had paid their taxes, had families, had
made contributions, an immigration judge could give, in his
discretion, permanent residence to that individual if they had
anywhere between 7 to 10 years in the United States. If you had
a criminal conviction, simply not eligible.
Under the new law that we have been living with for the
last 11 years, the standard has become exceptional and
extremely unusual, what I like to refer to as the two-headed
baby standard. Unless your child is significantly sick, ill or
has some sort of disability and cannot get treatment back home,
you simply cannot meet the standard that this law requires to
get relief in front of an immigration judge. And we would
encourage you to change that law.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kuck follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles H. Kuck
ADDENDUM
Ms. Lofgren. Those bells and whistles indicate that we have
one vote on the floor of the House. So we will go take that
vote, and I ask Members to come back, and we will hear the
testimony of the remaining witnesses.
Thank you. We are in recess until that time.
[Recess.]
Ms. Lofgren. The House will have still another vote in the
near future and because of that we have all had access to your
written testimony, We have two Members, which is under the
rules and I understand Mr. King is on his way, and I am sure he
will not mind if we proceed so that we can get this testimony
officially taken by the Committee.
And so I think we had just finished your testimony, Mr.
Kuck. And we will now turn to Mr. Nugent's.
TESTIMONY OF CHRISTOPHER NUGENT, SENIOR COUNSEL, COMMUNITY
SERVICES TEAM, HOLLAND AND KNIGHT, LLP
Mr. Nugent. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a privilege and
honor to be invited to testify at this very important hearing
on a very important piece of legislation.
I want to commend Sheila Jackson Lee for her trail-blazing,
visionary leadership in crafting a bill that will fix a
fundamentally broken immigration system by both providing
increased access to status but while particularly using smart
immigration enforcement tools.
And my remarks are going to focus on sections 621, 622,
1201 and 1202, concerning detention and secure alternatives and
fairness in asylum and refugee proceedings.
Section 621. We have a crisis with immigration detainees.
Taxpayers are spending $945 million a year to detain over
200,000 people at 325 facilities. This detention is civil, but
they are actually detained, the vast majority, in jails,
commingled with America's finest convicts. Recently there was a
hearing held on medical care in immigration custody, and since
2004, 66 detainees have died from inadequate medical care being
provided.
So section 621 reforms this system, because it will have
the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties responsible for
monitoring compliance of the detention standards as they
currently exist. And that is very necessary, because the
current monitoring done by DHS has been haphazard and
inadequate and has been criticized by even the Federal court in
the Orantes litigation.
622(b) is very important to deal with increased detention.
It creates a secure alternatives program to detention whereby
vulnerable populations--families with children, the mentally
retarded--could be placed outside of detention and not at
taxpayer expense. There is a precedent for this: the Intensive
Supervised Release Program that is currently being funded at
$43.6 million a year.
Secure alternatives only cost the Government $14 a day.
Immigration detention costs taxpayers $95 per day. We can do
the math and see there is an incredible cost savings. But for
purposes of law enforcement, the beauty of this provision is
that it allows DHS to detain as many people and then put them
through secure alternative programs so that it will end catch-
and-release and lead to catch-and-return. And the compliance
rate for Intensive Supervised Appearance Program is a record 94
percent, so people are complying and showing up when they are
required to do so.
So this creates a great efficiency for the system and
creates more increased enforcement but more safe and humane
confinement. So I think it is optimal and definitely should be
supported and very innovative.
And it actually, after the introduction of this bill, it
has appeared in many other bills, including Senator Lieberman's
Safe and Secure Alternatives to Detention bill. And I think it
is a needed improvement to the STRIVE Act, because the STRIVE
Act lacks rigorous criteria for participation in the program.
And I would say that this provision actually fleshes out the
criteria and should be incorporated into STRIVE.
Finally, I wanted to mention the situation of mentally
retarded children abroad whose parents are granted asylum or
granted asylum here in the United States but are over 21, or
refugees granted asylum abroad. They are unprotected. The
parents are granted asylum, but the mentally retarded children
have no way of coming to the United States if they are over age
21 and they are in need of these caregivers. So you are having
refugees coming to the United States, we are leaving their
mentally retarded children over age 21 abroad. Or you are
having the asylees being granted with mentally retarded
children, and they can't bring them in because the Child Status
Protection Act didn't provide for age-out protection for these
people.
And Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee is to be commended for
actually recognizing this discrete class that is in desperate
need of protection. And we are not talking about hundreds of
thousands of mentally retarded children of asylees or refugees.
I would estimate it would be in the hundreds at most. But it
puts people in a very painful predicament of leaving their
children abroad and not having status.
So I think we definitely want to support and advocate for
these very important changes. And I thank the Committee for
your time and welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nugent follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christopher Nugent
Madame Chair and honorable Members of the Subcommittee, my name is
Christopher Nugent. It is a privilege and honor for me to testify
before you today at this important hearing on H.R. 750, the ``Save
America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2007''. I am a full-time pro
bono Senior Counsel who works exclusively on domestic and international
immigration law and policy issues and individual client cases with the
international law firm of Holland & Knight LLP. I have two decades of
experience in immigration law dating back to summer, 1987 when as a
college student and volunteer paralegal at a non-governmental
organization in Indiantown, Florida, I had the privilege to help hard-
working rural farm-workers legalize their immigration status under the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. I have worked extensively
in the area of immigration detention since 1990 including as a Director
of the American Bar Association Commission on Immigration Policy,
Practice and Pro Bono from 1998 to 2000 where I had the exceptional
opportunity to help Legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service
finalize and implement Detention Standards which govern access to
counsel and fair and humane treatment of detained aliens. In my current
capacity, I am privileged to act as counsel to many non-governmental
immigration and refugee organizations (NGOs) working for positive
changes in governmental policy and practices in the area of immigration
proceedings and detention involving vulnerable populations including
but not limited to the Women's Commission for Refugee Women and
Children, the Rights Working Group and the National Immigration Law
Center. The statements, opinions, and views expressed today however are
my own.
H.R. 750 represents a precedent-setting piece of legislation
carefully crafted by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson lee to effectively
fix a fundamentally broken United States immigration system through
providing both increased access to immigration status while fortifying
enforcement through the use of ``smart'' immigration enforcement
measures. My remarks today will be limited to focus on the innovative
provisions of Sec. 621 concerning oversight and Sec. 622 concerning
secure alternatives to detention and Secs. 1201 and 1202 concerning
fairness in asylum and refugee proceedings.
In FY 2007, United States taxpayers funded the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) at a record 945 million dollars to detain a
daily average population of 27,500 aliens at more than 325 facilities
nationwide. The annual DHS detainee population exceeds 261,000. While
this detention is intended to be civil and not punitive since the
detainees are being held for civil immigration removal proceedings, the
vast majority of detainees, including non-criminal asylum-seekers, are
detained in actual prisons and thus unfortunately commingled with
America's finest criminal convicts. In this regard, DHS only owns and
operates 9 civilian detention facilities. Thus, the vast majority of
private prisons contracted by DHS operate for profit, as well as state
and county jails, given that DHS' per diem cost is higher than their
actual cost of detention. Average DHS daily detention cost per detainee
is $95 per day or $34,765 annualized (which would apply to asylum-
seekers and others in DHS custody).
Sec. 622(a)(3) of the Save America Act provides a positive means to
redress the dysfunctional, hazardous and quasi-punitive status quo for
immigration detainees. Conditions of confinement for immigration
detainees have been the subject of mounting criticism from a variety of
quarters including the U.S. Commission on International Religious
Freedom, an independent, bipartisan federal agency in their report
``Asylum Seekers in Expedited Removal'' (2005); Federal Judge Margaret
Morrow of the Court for Central District of California in Orantes-
Hernandez v. Gonzales, 504 F.Supp.2d 825 (C.D. Cal. 2007), finding
systemic facility non-compliance with DHS' own Detention Standards; the
United States Governmental Accountability Office in its report Alien
Detention Standards (GAO 07-875, July 2007); and DHS' own Inspector
General in ``Treatment Of Immigration Detainees Housed at Immigration
and Customs Enforcement Facilities'' (OIG-O7-01, December 2006). Sec.
621 of the Save America Act would mandate that the Office of Civil
Rights and Liberties (OCRCL) monitor all facilities that are being used
to hold detainees for more than 72 hours including evaluating whether
the facilities are in compliance with the Detention Standards. This
innovation is welcome and salutary considering that the OCRCL has only
been sporadically engaged detention oversight issues on either an as
needed or ad hoc basis given their currently limited staffing and
competing demands. Engaging OCRCL is essential to reinforcing reform of
conditions of confinement for detainees whether OCRCL reports are
ultimately made available to the public or not--the preference being
within DHS that OCRCL resolves problems internally albeit without any
public or Congressional oversight.
As regards Sec. 622(b) of the Save America Act concerning secure
alternatives to detention, this provision provides necessary reform to
a detention system which to date has failed to provide any national
binding criteria and guidance prosecutorial discretion as to who needs
to be detained. See, e.g., ``Immigration Enforcement: ICE Could Improve
Controls to Help Guide Alien Removal Decision Making'' (GAO-08-67,
October 2007). Sec. 622(b) of the Save America Act creates a secure
alternative detention program to be designed with reputable NGOs and
academic institutions intended for the most vulnerable populations in
DHS custody who present neither a risk of flight or danger to the
community and can be integrated into the community and comply with
removal orders. Sec. 662(b) of the Save America Act prioritizes the
most vulnerable in detention for eligibility including alien parents
detained with their children; aliens with serious medical or mental
health needs; aliens who are mentally retarded or autistics; pregnant
alien women; elderly aliens who are over the age of 65; and aliens
placed in expedited removal proceedings after being rescued from
trafficking or criminal operations by Government authorities. The
provision exempt aliens such as unaccompanied alien children subject to
release to sponsors under Flores v. Ashcroft, Case No. CV85-5455 RJK
(C.D. Cal. 1996); as well as aliens seeking asylum who have passed
credible fear interviews, positing the clear law that they are eligible
for bond redetermination hearings before the Executive Office for
Immigration Review (EOIR) when they are placed in removal proceedings
under Sec. 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., Matter of X-K-, Respondent, 23 I&N Dec. 731 (BIA
2005) finding bond eligibility for ``certain other aliens'' (not
arriving aliens), who are ``physically present in the U.S., without
having been admitted or paroled following inspection by an immigration
officer at a designated port-of-entry, who are encountered by an
immigration officer within 100 air miles of any U.S. international land
border, and who have not established to the satisfaction of an
immigration officer that they have been physically present in the U.S.
continuously for the 14-day period immediately prior to the date of
encounter.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 622(b) of the Save America Act will promote optimal efficiency
and effectiveness of the federal government in its detention capacity
to enforce the United States border. The Department currently lacks
adequate or sufficient facilities to hold all aliens subject to
expedited removal until removal is effectuated. Sec. 622(b) of the Save
America Act provides a safety valve to allow people who have every
safeguard in place to comply with removal orders be released pending
their actual removal so that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can
continue to arrest and detain the maximum numbers of immigration
violators at the border. Otherwise, CBP has scant incentive to arrest
all aliens if Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lacks bed-space
to house them. Sec. 622(b) provides the teeth for DHS' catch and remove
approach. Additionally, most notably, Sec. 622(b) does not create any
independent right or legal review of the implementation of the program
exception through a report to Congress which is Congress' preeminent
and essential prerogative in exercising its oversight function of
executive branch agencies.
Sec. 622(b) will be particularly instrumental if and when expedited
removal is to be invoked system-wide including the interior under
Section 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and not
only within 100 miles of land borders of the United States as under
current policy.
The sheer innovation of Sec. 622(b) is that it allows a wide
variety of alternatives to detention conferred to DHS discretion
including individual placements to sponsors, group homes to facilities
under armed guard at the perimeter--as had appeared in its initial
incarnation as an amendment offered by Representative Sheila Jackson
Lee to the Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration
Control Act (H.R. 4437). Through this program, the Department will
thereby have a range of humane and more cost-effective alternatives
besides prisons and jails to ensure an alien's appearance before
immigration officials for their removal. This program is based on the
best practices utilized by the Appearance Assistance Program of the
Vera Institute and DHS' Intensive Supervision Appearance Program which
have achieved remarkably high compliance rates for aliens including a
94 percent appearance rate at final removal hearings. Additionally, the
program will be implemented by NGOs in order to achieve a cost-savings
for DHS. With this provision, catch and detain can truly become catch
and remove with the most vulnerable in safe and secure situations
pending removal.
By focusing on DHS' arrest and detention capacity constraints and
prioritizing key vulnerable populations, Sec. 622(b) differs materially
from Sec. 177 of the STRIVE Act of 2007 (H.R. 1645). Sec. 177 of the
Strive Act establishes a secure alternatives program for aliens without
specifying rigorous criteria for participation such as vulnerable
populations who pose no flight risk or danger to the community and
triggered by detention capacity constraints. Sec. 177 further does not
designate as extensive options of alternatives under Sec. 622(b)
including, for example, facilities under armed guard at the perimeter.
Given the chronic state of deplorable conditions of confinement for
immigration detainees under DHS mismanagement, immigration detainees
obviously would prefer any non-penal facility run by a reputable non-
governmental organization as a preferable and viable alternative to
detention--even if there were a guard posted at the perimeter for
security purposes. The STRIVE Act would benefit from incorporating
these pragmatic considerations from The Save America Act into its
provision concerning secure alternatives to detention.
Turning to Secs. 1201 and 1202 of the Save America Act, under
current law, children of refugees or asylees are eligible for
derivative status when their parents are granted asylum or refugee
status. If, however, the child is over age 21 at the time of the
parent's approval, the child is no longer consider a ``child'' for
immigration purposes under the INA and is not eligible for the
derivative status. The Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), Pub.L. 107-
208 (Aug. 6, 2002), provided age-out protection for children included
on parents' applications filed before the child has attained age 21.
CSPA however failed to address the unique and compelling predicament of
children over age 21 who have aged out of protection but are mentally
disabled and dependent on their parents as caregivers despite their
chronological age. Secs. 1201 and 1202 would correct this injustice by
facilitating the admission of refugee and asylee children who are
severely impaired by mental retardation, autism, or some other
disability of that type who have aged out of classification as a
``child.'' While this may appear to be a small class, it is among the
most vulnerable of asylees and refugees and warrants redress through
this legislation.
I personally recall meeting an unaccompanied refugee child in a
camp in Guinea suffering from severe mental retardation. The camp had
no specialized services to offer him and he remains in Guinea now as an
adult with no prospect for any future besides becoming a beggar. Secs.
1201 and 1202 protection will allow such vulnerable children to reunify
with the parents or legal guardians as refugees or asylees in the
United States to receive the care they need and deserve to become
productive, contributing members of the United States. I thank you for
your consideration and look forward to your questions.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
And now you, Ms. Gandy, with an important perspective.
TESTIMONY OF KIM GANDY, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN
Ms. Gandy. Thank you.
Madam Chair, Committee Members, thank you for inviting the
National Organization for Women Foundation to testify before
this Subcommittee as you consider H.R. 750, the ``Save America
Comprehensive Immigration Act.''
The NOW Foundation and our sister organization, NOW, have
worked for decades to promote and advance women's equality. And
we thank the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee for including in H.R.
750 some very important provisions affecting immigrant women in
the United States.
We are here today because there is a drumbeat of anger
across this Nation aimed at immigrant workers and their
families, with little regard for the truth about the lives and
livelihoods of millions of people who live and work among us.
As our Nation and this Congress works to clarify our residency
and citizenship laws, improve our security and safeguard our
communities, we must not forget the needs and rights of
immigrant women and children whose concerns are too often
overlooked and underplayed.
Last year we took a leadership role in convening the
National Coalition for Immigrant Women's Rights and gathered
together grassroots and advocacy organizations nationwide, with
the goal of defending and promoting equality for immigrant
women and their families living in the United States.
But this kind of equality can only be attained when
immigrant women can live free of discrimination, oppression and
violence. So it is imperative that policies promoting
comprehensive immigration reform also support fair and just
policies that protect the rights of these vulnerable immigrant
women and their children.
Economic issues affecting undocumented immigrant women are
basic. Their work is not valued or counted. That is why we
strongly support the inclusion, in any comprehensive
immigration reform, legislation that would offer a path to
permanent residency and citizenship for the undocumented who
are living in the United States, and particularly for children
who are addressed by H.R. 750, a special path for those who
came to the United States as children.
These women and children are more likely to be exploited.
And if they can come out of hiding, apply for residency, seek
employment in the general labor market, earning at least the
Federal minimum wage, and be eligible to contribute to and
receive Social Security and unemployment benefits as others do,
it will dramatically change their outlook and decrease their
dependency.
Contributing to the low average wages of immigrant women,
dramatically low compared to even other women--who are already
earning low wages in this country--it is attributable in great
part to the fact that they are employed in the service
industry. Forty 2 percent of private households services are
provided by immigrants under arrangements that are often
informal and prone to abuse and exploitation.
And yet domestic service, in particular for those in
private households, remains excluded from and unregulated by
our country's employment protections and labor laws. And this
applies to domestic workers who are and are not immigrants,
whether documented or not. These women do not have the right to
organize, the right to bargain for wages. They are not
protected by title VII against sexual harassment and
discrimination. And they are excluded from the Fair Labor
Standards Act and from the Occupational and Safety Health Act.
So it is important as part of any reform to recognize the
kind of employment that immigrants are working in and the
impact that our treatment of those categories has on all of our
workers, immigrants and not.
H.R. 750's alternatives to detention programs is extremely
important, as other witnesses have testified, bringing some
humanity to what is undeniably an unjust and reckless approach
to resolving the issue of illegal immigration, and also H.R.
750's provisions regarding the Sex Offender Registry, designed
to reduce the possibility or likelihood of abuse of women and
children that those on the registry might bring into the
country. And we also appreciate H.R. 750's addition of gender-
based persecution as grounds for asylum or refugee status.
In our written testimony, we offer a number of things that
we hope the Committee will consider, and the broader Congress,
in any kind of comprehensive immigration reform. And we would
appreciate you examining that, considering our recommendations.
And we thank you for listening to this testimony and hope that
you will carefully consider the rights and the needs of
immigrant women and children in crafting this reform, ensuring
their safety as well as a responsible path to legalization and
citizenship, as well as a humane law enforcement system that
does not rely on illegal and immoral raids or inhumane
detention and deportation without legal redress.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gandy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kim Gandy
Thank you for inviting the National Organization for Women
Foundation to testify before this subcommittee as you consider H.R.
750, The Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2007. NOW
Foundation and our sister organization NOW have been working for
decades to promote and advance women's equality.
Today we are here because there is a drumbeat of anger across this
nation aimed at immigrant workers and their families, with little
regard for the truths about the lives and livelihoods of millions of
people living and working here among us. As our nation, and this
Congress, works to clarify our residency and citizenship laws, improve
our security and safeguard our communities, we must not forget the
needs and rights of immigrant women and children, whose concerns are
too often overlooked and under-played.
Last year, we took a leadership role in convening the National
Coalition for Immigrant Women's Rights, and gathered together
grassroots and advocacy organizations nationwide with the goal of
defending and promoting equality for immigrant women and their families
living and working in the United States.
We integrate human rights principles into our work and believe that
immigrant women's rights are both civil rights and women's rights. We
believe that comprehensive immigration reform must include fair and
non-discriminatory implementation of our immigration and enforcement
policies, and that must include economic, legal and social justice for
immigrant women.
Equality for immigrant women can only be attained when immigrant
women can live free from
discrimination, oppression and violence in all their forms. It is
imperative that policies promoting comprehensive immigration reform
also support fair and just policies that protect the rights of
immigrant women. Millions of immigrant women's lives are at stake and
we hope that this hearing is the beginning of a national dialogue that
brings immigrant women's concerns out in the open and up for
discussion.
For the record, there are 14.2 million foreign born women in the
United States. Five and a half million are naturalized citizens,
another five and a half million are documented and 3.2 million are
undocumented. Women make up over 30% of the over 10 million
undocumented immigrants in the United States today. Another 1.6 million
are children under 18. And HALF of all undocumented immigrants
originally came here with legitimate paperwork or visas and they have
simply overstayed their time and are now undocumented, many lined up to
renew their paperwork while they work at our colleges, in our
businesses and pay taxes in our communities
Each year, half of all immigrants entering the United States are
female--women and girls. However, public policies regarding immigrants
do not reflect the impact that being female has on immigrants' lives in
the United States. This applies to both documented and undocumented
women.
The economic issues affecting undocumented immigrant women are
basic: their work is not valued or counted. That is why NOW strongly
supports the inclusion of provisions in any immigration reform
legislation that would offer a path to residency and citizenship for
the undocumented living in the United States. Undocumented women will
benefit significantly economically, and be less subject to
exploitation, if they can come out of hiding, apply for residency and
seek employment in the general labor market, earn at least the federal
minimum hourly wage and be eligible to contribute to and receive social
security and unemployment benefits as other workers do.
The economic reality of immigrant women and children today is
disheartening. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 31% of family
households headed by foreign-born women live in poverty today as
compared to 27% of native born women-led households. 16% of all those
who are foreign born live in poverty compared to 11.8% of the native
born. One of the reasons for the higher number of foreign-born women in
poverty is the fact that foreign-born women who are full time workers
make less than their native born counterparts. For example, the median
income for foreign-born women age 16 and over who are year-round, full
time workers is $22,106 while the median income for native born women
is $26,640.
Among the factors affecting low wages is the high percentage of
immigrant women, both documented and undocumented, working in the
service industry, primarily in domestic work. Forty-two percent of
private household services are provided by immigrants under
arrangements that are often informal, prone to abuse and exploitation.
Domestic workers are the lowest paid of all major occupational groups
tracked by the US Census. The true numbers are unknown for the most
part due to the fact that many of these workers are not reported by
employers, are not on anyone's official payroll, and are paid ``under
the table.''
Protections for domestic workers must be included in any
immigration reform legislation. Domestic workers, in particular
undocumented immigrant women, are faced with extremely low wages,
working 60-70 hours per week or more for as little as $200 per week.
This is exploitation, sometimes amounting to servitude or even slavery,
under the most hostile conditions.
And yet, domestic service, in particular for those living in
private households, remains excluded from and unregulated by our
country's employment protections and labor laws. These women do not
have the right to organize, strike or bargain for wages. The
protections against sexual harassment in the workplace (through Title
VII which applies to employers of 15 or more employees) are not
available to domestic workers. They are similarly excluded from the
Fair Labor Standards Act overtime provisions and from the Occupational
Safety and Health Act. These omissions must be corrected through
comprehensive immigration reform legislation. Domestic service is a
category of work that must be addressed, not ignored and excluded from
labor standards and protections afforded to other workers.
H.R.750's alternatives to detention programs, exempting certain
individuals based on age, health, children, victims of trafficking and
sexual abuse is a good step towards bringing some humanity to what is
undeniably an unjust and reckless approach to resolving the issue of
illegal immigration.
On the whole, as you discuss H.R. 750 and other proposed
immigration reform, we urge you to consider the following:
An end to discriminatory, militaristic and inhumane
immigration enforcement practices that destroy the families,
homes and communities of immigrant women
Freeing immigrant women from mental, physical and
emotional violence at the hands of traffickers, smugglers,
intimate partners, employers, family members and others who
exploit immigrant women's legal and economic vulnerability. Our
immigration and criminal justice systems must ensure that
immigrant women and their children are protected from gender-
based violence, and must not perpetrate the cycle of violence
by failing to provide adequate remedial measures that promote
their safety and physical integrity.
A responsible path to citizenship, which must allow
immigrant women to obtain work permits, to travel
internationally and access higher education and federal
financial aid. Immigrant women must have viable options that
will permit them to be full contributors to the U.S. economic
and societal landscape. We can no longer afford to lose these
valuable contributions.
Protections for all immigrant women workers from
exploitation and abuse in the workplace by providing fair wages
and safe working conditions.
Acknowledgement of the need for public awareness,
education, and understanding of the fundamental and pivotal
role immigrant women play in the familial, cultural and social
spheres of the United States.
The elimination of all forms of human trafficking
through a survivor-centered advocacy model that opposes all
forms of exploitation.
In closing, NOW and our coalition partners thank you for your
consideration and hope that you will carefully consider our request to
address the rights of immigrant women, help ensure their safety and a
responsible path to legalization and citizenship and create a humane
system of law enforcement that does not rely on illegal and immoral
raids, inhumane detention and deportation without legal redress.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bonner, we now turn to you.
TESTIMONY OF T.J. BONNER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL
COUNCIL OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
AFL-CIO
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member
King and Congresswoman Jackson Lee, for the opportunity to talk
about important provisions in H.R. 750.
My comments will focus on title VI, the border security
provisions. However, before I get into that, I would just like
to briefly touch upon a couple of other provisions, one of
which needs to be incorporated into this bill, which is H.R.
98, cosponsored by Congressman Reyes, who testified here
earlier, which would establish a secure form of employment
verification, which would solve many of the problems that we
deal with at the border.
We know why most people come across the border. The issue
has been studied to death. Father Hesburgh, the late Barbara
Jordan, both chaired commissions that came to the same
conclusion: The employment magnet is what draws most people to
this country.
Conversely, we are most concerned with those criminals who
are slipping in under the cover of those millions of people who
are sneaking across our borders illegally. Those are the ones
who are going to do us most harm--criminals, terrorists. And
yet, because of the massive influx of people coming across, the
Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies find
themselves overwhelmed.
And it is very difficult to distinguish between criminals
and other people coming across. We don't know until we actually
physically put hands on people what their intentions are. Then
we run the best checks that we have available. Sometimes they
work; sometimes they don't. Sometimes people slip through the
system, and we send them back home, only to find out later that
they were wanted for crimes in the United States and should
have been held on to. We are getting better at that, but not
nearly good enough.
Instead of having to deal with millions, literally
millions, of people coming across the border every year, we
could deal with thousands of people, all of whom would be
criminals because the employment magnet would be turned off.
There is a growing consensus that we need a lot more Border
Patrol agents in order to secure our borders. And we have
legislative proposals, and we have this Administration calling
for 18,319 agents in place by the end of December of next year.
That is a very ambitious goal. Currently, we have about 15,000
agents on board. And with the attrition rate of 12 percent now,
that means that 1,800 employees will walk out the door in 1
year. So in order to meet that goal, they will have to hire
somewhere between 6,000 and 7,000 people in the space of a
year.
Now, how do we hang on to those people? Some of the
provisions in title VI provide the answers to that.
Congresswoman Jackson Lee approached me and my organization
a couple of years ago after we had completed a study, a survey
of frontline Border Patrol agents and immigration inspectors,
asking them a number of questions. And one of the most
troubling answers was we said, ``Do you feel that you have been
given the tools, training and support necessary to stop
terrorism?'' fully two-thirds of them said, ``No, we don't
believe we have.''
So Congresswoman Jackson Lee asked us to put together a
list of what it would take to give these agents and officers
the tools, training and support necessary. And we came up with
a package, which has been incorporated initially in a stand-
alone bill, and now it has been folded into this as title VI.
And I note that many of these provisions were also adopted in
Congressman Shuler's bill that was just recently introduced,
although there are some glaring omissions.
It has been said that imitation is the sincerest form of
flattery. Portions of this bill are in his, and others are in
the Flake-Gutierrez bill, and others are in Senator Kerry's
bill.
So it is good to see a recognition that it can't just be
about hiring Border Patrol agents. We have to provide them with
the tools, the training and support that they need. We need to
figure out ways to hang on to Border Patrol agents. A 12
percent attrition rate is unacceptable. And things such as
increases in pay and fair treatment of the employees who are
out there on our front lines are essential if we expect not
only to attract people into Federal service, but if we expect
to hang on to them.
Because it is a very competitive world out there in law
enforcement now, not just at the Federal level, but we see a
lot of States coming up with very lucrative compensation and
benefit packages. And if we don't compete, we will lose the
opportunity to attract and hang on to the best and brightest.
We don't want to become a training ground for other law
enforcement agencies.
And I see that my time is up, and I would be more than
happy to answer any questions, because there is obviously a lot
more to the provisions of this bill that I have not had the
opportunity to touch upon.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bonner follows:]
Prepared Statement of T.J. Bonner
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Mr. Bonner, for your
service as well.
Our final witness is Ms. Kirchner.
TESTIMONY OF JULIE KIRCHNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FEDERATION FOR
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM
Ms. Kirchner. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member King
and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Thank you very much for
this opportunity to present the position of the Federation for
American Immigration Reform with respect to the Save America
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act and the immigration policy
concerns behind it.
My name is Julie Kirchner, and I am the executive director
of FAIR. FAIR is a public-interest nonprofit organization
advocating a just immigration policy guided by the national
interests and the interests of American citizens. Our
organization has over 300,000 members and activists in 49
States and works with over 50 organizations across the country.
Madam Chair, for 2 years, supporters of amnesty have tried
to pass so-called comprehensive immigration reform. They have
tried both under the Republican Congress and under the current
Democratic Congress. They have tried both comprehensive bills
and piecemeal approaches. Each time, however, they have failed.
They have failed because the American public rejects
immigration reform proposals that do not respect the rule of
law and only further strain our immigration system.
Madam Chair, the Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act
does the exact opposite of what the American public wants. With
several amnesty programs and a doubling of the number of
family-based immigrant visas, the bill is structured to
overwhelm an immigration system that is already at the breaking
point. Indeed, granting amnesty to illegal aliens will not
solve our immigration crisis. It simply motivates more illegal
aliens to come here seeking amnesty. Amnesty sends a message to
people worldwide that America no longer cares about the
enforcement of its laws. Moreover, it sends a terrible message
to legal aliens that their respect for our laws is irrelevant
to how they will be treated.
Consider, for example, the difference in how the Save
America Act would treat aliens who have committed Social
Security document fraud. If this legislation were passed, a
legal alien who had committed Social Security document fraud
would be charged, prosecuted, tried, convicted, would receive a
criminal record and would be deported. Meanwhile, an illegal
alien who had committed Social Security document fraud would
not be charged, not be prosecuted, not be tried, not be
convicted, would not receive a criminal record, would be
allowed to stay in the U.S. and would be issued a valid Social
Security number. Madam Chair, there is no justice in this
outcome.
In addition to the inherent unfairness of amnesty, the Save
America Act further strains our immigration system by doubling
the number of family-based immigrant visas and encouraging more
migration.
Madam Chair, FAIR has already supported the reunification
of nuclear family members, but chain migration is a problem
that must be addressed. And the Commission on Immigration
Reform, headed by Representative Barbara Jordan, agreed with
the FAIR. In fact, the Commission recommended that Congress
prioritize nuclear family members and eliminate preferences for
extended family members. The remaining family preference
categories, the Commission said, should have a cap of 400,000
per year. The Save America Act, however, ignores these
recommendations and increases the family-based visa cap to
960,000 a year, and again takes U.S. immigration policy in the
opposite direction of what Americans want.
And although the bill does contain promising border
security provisions--and we just heard about those from Mr.
Bonner here--it fails to adequately support the interior
enforcement of our immigration laws.
For example, section 1402(b) of the Save America Act
repeals one of our most effective and popular enforcement
tools, the 287(g) program. Madam Chair, the 287(g) program has
shown tremendous potential. As of September 2007, ICE had
entered into agreements with two U.S. cities and had trained
police officers who were responsible for over 25,000 arrests.
In addition, there are currently 74 jurisdictions that have
applications pending, 18 of which are in North Carolina alone.
It is ironic, Madam Chair, that the Save America Act would
place one of the few immigration programs the Federal
Government is running effectively on the chopping block, and
would do so in the name of reform.
In addition to the step backward, the Save America
Comprehensive Immigration Act does nothing to advance worksite
enforcement. There is no mandatory use of the E-Verify Program,
and there is no increase in employer sanctions for illegal
employment practices. This is a gaping hole in any immigration
bill that calls itself comprehensive.
I would like to note that even the Bush-Kennedy bill did
have mandatory use of E-Verify. Some of the other bills that
are going through Congress at this point also have it. It is
absolutely necessary that we mandate the use of E-Verify to
stop illegal employment practices.
Madam Chair, looking at the devastating impacts these
provisions would have, FAIR believes the passage of the Save
America Act would only catapult our immigration system into
further crises, and we urge the Committee to reject this
proposal.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would be pleased to answer any
questions that you have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kirchner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Julie Kirchner
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
And thanks to all of our witnesses.
Now is the time in our hearing when we have an opportunity
to pose questions to our witnesses.
And I would like to begin with you, Mr. Kuck. I am very
interested in your testimony relative to the very high standard
for waiver on the 3- and 10-year bar provision.
You know, I had concerns, and actually did not vote for the
1996 act because of some of these concerns, and also because we
would end up punishing would be American citizens under this
provision. I am not suggesting that we would want to
necessarily eliminate the provision, but to provide for, in
appropriate cases, on a case-by-case basis, some appropriate
remedies.
For example, recently a group of Americans came to visit
me, and there was a woman who looked just like me from Florida
who was just outraged. Her daughter had married a fellow who
was from a Latin American country. They have three children,
her grandchildren. And when her daughter went to petition for
her husband, they found out that he had been in an unlawful
status as a child, and her grandchildren now have to live in
another country. And she was pretty irked about it. That is
totally unreasonable.
Would you suggest that particular items be listed in the
code or just the standard be changed? What is your thinking on
that?
Mr. Kuck. Well, thank you for the question.
It is quite clear that the current standard--that is,
extreme hardship--is too high. Too many people, like the woman
that you talked about, simply have their spouses denied re-
entrance into the United States because the standard in the
actual law simply says ``extreme hardship.'' It is not defined
by any measure of financial status, emotional impact. Any other
type of formative relationship issues simply cannot be
considered. The act itself, as proposed by Congresswoman
Jackson Lee, has a very interesting standard, that of having a
humanitarian level of hardship.
And the one thing good about this law is that it requires
people who have been here to leave. That is not a problem. But
it is the issue of when they can come back. If you can show
hardship, if you can have the U.S.-citizen spouse, if you have
children, create a standard by which children are considered
under the hardship standard.
Ms. Lofgren. What about employees? I know of a case where
somebody was subject to the bar, and all of the Americans who
worked for his business got laid off because the business had
to close.
Mr. Kuck. It is a very common situation, and we hear this
every single day from individuals who simply cannot fix the
immigration status of some of their key employees. By changing
the standard, we will literally save millions of American
families and businesses.
Ms. Lofgren. Let me ask you another question on two things,
the false claim to citizenship and convictions for an offense.
There is no real waiver provision, and I am wondering--
certainly, you don't want people to make false claims as
citizens.
I was mentioning to Ms. Jackson Lee, as we walked back from
the last vote, about a woman I knew when I was growing up. She
was married to a friend of my father's, and they were married
for 25 years. And for their 25th wedding anniversary, they were
going to go on a cruise. So she went down to get her passport
and found out for the first time that she was not a citizen of
the United States. She had been raised by an older brother, and
they told her that she had been born in the U.S. and she
believed that she was. And she lived in our neighborhood, and
they had three children. She was stunned, as you can imagine.
Under the current law, there would be no remedy for her,
would there?
Mr. Kuck. Not only no remedy, but she would be deported and
never able to come back the rest of her life.
Ms. Lofgren. On criminal offenses--obviously, we don't want
criminals to get residence, but I will give you an example, and
you can tell me whether there is a remedy. This is an actual
person who I met.
This person, when they were 18 years old, they were charged
with a drug offense, and they didn't have any money, and they
were advised to plead guilty and they would get time served,
which they did. This person is now 58 years old. He owns a
business, and he has, like, hundreds of employees been very
successful, and made millions of dollars in revenue. He went
out on a business trip, and when he came back, he was put in
jail.
I don't really know if there is a remedy for a guy like
that? I mean, that was a long time ago.
Mr. Kuck. Unfortunately, under our current law, time is
simply not relevant. If that conviction was for anything other
than less than 30 grams of marijuana, he is permanently barred
from immigrating to the United States.
There is a waiver available for nonimmigrants to come and
temporarily work in the United States, but nothing to solve the
situation permanently.
That is a very common situation. It happens all the time,
particularly now that the folks at the border have the
databases available to them with the information about prior
criminal convictions,
Ms. Lofgren. So you wouldn't want to make a blanket rule--I
know my time has expired.
You might want a judge to say, you know, take a look at
something like that, maybe.
Mr. Kuck. I think giving the judges some discretion again,
which was just simply taken away from them in 1996, giving it
back to the judges, you won't increase the workload, but it is
still going to be in proceedings. But you give the judge the
ability to use his discretion, his analysis of the facts to
give somebody back their status.
Ms. Lofgren. My time has expired and I would like to
recognize the gentleman from Iowa, the Ranking Member, for 5
minutes.
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I do thank all the witnesses for your testimony.
Just going right to it. I wanted to point out a message
here that I am not sure that this panel was particularly
attentive to, this language from Ms. Kirchner's testimony. And
I would ask you if you could speak to the substance of that
distinction between a legal alien who has committed Social
Security fraud and an illegal alien under this bill, who has
committed Social Security fraud and the injustice in the
outcomes.
Ms. Kirchner. I thank you for the question.
The issue is that under the bill, under the amnesty
provisions, document fraud in various forms is waived for
admissibility purposes. And so what you have is--many illegal
aliens who are currently in the country do have false
documents, do use Social Security numbers of other people, real
Social Security numbers of real people who are victims of
identity theft.
And the difference is, a legal alien would be prosecuted
and an illegal alien would not. And I think it is an important
distinction to make. A lot of people who are looking at the
immigration issue think, what is the difference of fairness
between illegal aliens who come here to work--and they may be
very hardworking; no one has to say they are not hardworking.
But what is the difference between those hardworking illegal
aliens and hardworking legal aliens?
And I think the issue we need to look at when deciding what
a really important, effective immigration reform bill is, is
what kind of system do we want? Do we want it to be
transparent? Do we want it to apply equally to everyone, legal
and illegal?
That is the reason I made that point. I think it is a very
important one.
Mr. King. And the distinction is that if a legal alien
commits document fraud--say, Social Security fraud--then they
would presumably, under the law, be tried, prosecuted and
convicted and deported, but an illegal alien would get amnesty
under this bill----
Ms. Kirchner. Amnesty and a valid Social Security number.
Mr. King. Yes. And a path to citizenship, I might add. And
I thank you for that observation.
Then I would also ask you--and I know I asked you this
question earlier. I know it is one that is a judgment call, one
that would be awfully hard to analyze. But of those illegal
aliens that are felons in this country, would it be your
estimation that more or less than half of them would get
amnesty under this bill? Because this bill really does give
amnesty to some felons.
Ms. Kirchner. It does, Mr. Smith, it does.
I think the issue is how many categories are waived under
the inadmissibility grounds in the amnesty provisions. And
there are all sorts of provisions that are waived for document
fraud for those who are illegally in the country; and that may
include illegal aliens who have reentered, and that is a
felony. So that would certainly include a great number of
people.
There are also various provisions in the bill that deal
with waivers in terms of drug offenses. They would most likely
allow more people to come in under the amnesty program. So
there is certainly a good number of felons who would be allowed
in through these provisions.
Mr. King. Thank you.
And I turn to Ms. Gandy. You had cited a study done by the
Pew Center and I would just ask you, is that adjusted in the
income statistics that you gave us on dollars per year on a
native-born, American, female worker versus that of an
immigrant? Are those adjusted for age or education or job
skills? Or are they just simply all rolled in together?
Ms. Gandy. They are accumulated, but they are based on only
full-time year-round employment. It does not take into
consideration people who are working part-time or seasonal.
Mr. King. And beyond that, it doesn't take into
consideration age or job skills or education. Is that something
that you think you might be able to get an answer for this
Committee, to adjust that for those reasons? Because we have
had testimony here before this Committee about the differences
between age, job skills and education as far as a contribution
would be concerned.
And I ask you also----
Ms. Gandy. There have been studies like that, for example,
on the male/female wage gap.
Mr. King. And then you are familiar with what I am looking
for with the distinctions between the females in these
categories that you have testified. And I would ask you if you
have had a chance to review Robert Rechter's study of the
Heritage Foundation on households headed by high school drop-
outs, and if you have an opinion on that.
Ms. Gandy. I generally read everything from the Heritage
Foundation, but I am not familiar with that study.
Mr. King. I thank you.
And I quickly turn to Mr. Bonner. Mr. Bonner, you have
often testified before this Committee on the need to shut off
the jobs magnet, and I would ask you a couple of things. Does
H.R. 750 shut off the job magnet; and do you believe that this
bill gives amnesty to criminals?
Mr. Bonner. Based on my knowledge, it does not shut off the
job magnet. And I was heartened to hear Congresswoman Jackson
Lee portray this bill as a complement to other legislation that
is out there.
And as far as whether it gives amnesty to criminals, yes, I
believe it does; and it gives it to a number of other people. I
think that most Americans have a soft spot in their heart for
someone who has been here for a long time; you know, an example
that comes to mind is someone who came here illegally 20, 25
years ago, has several children who speak nothing but English.
But I think before we can engage in a meaningful debate
over whether we should give amnesty to which class of people,
we really need to address the problem, because as long as
people keep coming across the border illegally, the big
question in everyone's mind is, when will it stop?
If we grant amnesty to this next wave, because we did it
back in 1986, and if we do it again, people will say, well,
when does it end? And I think that we really have to come to
grips with that and finally solve it once and for all before we
can engage in a meaningful debate over how we deal with the
people who are here illegally.
Mr. King. I thank you, Mr. Bonner. And I agree with you.
And I thank all the witnesses for your testimony. I regret
I have no more time to ask any further questions, but I yield
back to the gentlelady.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
And before I recognize Ms. Jackson Lee, I just wanted to
say something I neglected to say in the example of the
gentleman, who took the advice of his public defender when he
was 18, is that he actually was a legal, permanent resident, a
green card holder. It was when he went out and came back in,
that is when he was arrested.
So he wasn't in an illegal status, but he got in trouble.
Ms. Jackson Lee is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
And to the witnesses, let me apologize. I will be talking
like the bionic woman in terms of speed. And the reason is, I
would like to get all of the witnesses who have been so able,
to answer a question; and I will submit others in writing. So
if your answers can be succinct.
But let me also thank the Chairwoman and the Ranking Member
for this hearing and note, in particular, her example that many
of these individuals who are in the criminal justice system
are, in fact, documented and therefore separated from their
families, businesses collapse; and so we are talking about a
fix that involves legal immigration as well.
And to my good friends who use the term ``amnesty'' as
well, you know that I raise an opposition to that because I
believe it is putting criteria in place to allow people to
enter through a process that works.
Let me, first of all, thank Dr. Spriggs, Gregory Siskind,
Charles Kuck, Christopher Nugent, Kim Gandy, T.J. Bonner, and
certainly, Ms. Kirchner. But I thank you, the witnesses, very
quickly.
And I do acknowledge Jeff Kuck, who hopefully will write
some good legislation for us.
I am going to ask quickly one question per person.
Quickly, Dr. Spriggs--and thank you for your research; I
would like to get some more on it--the Save America
Comprehensive Immigration bill calls on employers to make
extensive searches for American workers. It has retention and
training. But I want to know how that kind of process--it says
make extensive searches for workers in low-wage occupations.
Explain how requiring employers to do that can protect U.S.
workers.
And I need a quick answer as I am going down. And I will
ask other questions of you in writing. Thank you for your
economic perspective as well.
Mr. Spriggs. Well, I think as long as we put in regulations
how that would be done so that all workers would have access to
the process that they were using, we would open up the labor
market. All markets work better if there is an equal sharing of
information. And that is how it would help all workers, native
and legal immigrant workers, if we had a low-wage labor market
that had open information on, how do I get a job.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And in the bill--when we talk about
comprehensive immigration reform, Dr. Spriggs, you believe a
parallel effort to deal with American workers is important?
Mr. Spriggs. Yes, because the job training portion will
take the supply of low-skilled American workers and reduce it.
And that is an important step in addressing the problem of all
low-skilled workers.
And so the job training portion is an important
counterpoint to what the bill would do.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Mr. Siskind, can you quickly talk--I think the bill is
based on family-based visas. I think there is some question
about employer-based visas and the need thereof. And, you know,
you might just expand very quickly on a consulate interview and
how that undermines, maybe, the process of legal immigration.
Mr. Siskind. I think people are surprised at how little
there is in an interview. The process itself is usually only a
couple of minutes, maybe 5 minutes. It is oftentimes standing
up with an officer behind a window which is itself a somewhat
intimidating process.
The officer may be asking legal questions that the
individual doesn't understand. And even though the officers are
trained in the foreign language and are supposed to be fluent,
oftentimes there is still something lost in translation; and an
immigrant doesn't have a lawyer present with them.
A lot of this, as far as what we know happens, is basically
what our clients tell us because lawyers rarely get to attend
an interview and they can't have a translator and they can't
have the citizen-sponsor available to them. And these same
issues arise in the employment context as well, where you may
have somebody that is waiting years.
Ms. Jackson Lee. How will this legislation help or what do
you think needs to be added?
Mr. Siskind. The legislation, I think, on the family side
is great, and it provides a process that has been needed, as I
mentioned, probably for decades.
I would like to see employment-based green cards added, as
well, to that process. I mean, in an ideal world it would be
all nonimmigrant cases as well, but if you have to start
somewhere, I would start on the immigrant visa side. And the
same issues arise in the employment-based green card context
where you may have----
Ms. Jackson Lee. That would diminish the extent of illegal
immigration because there would be a process?
Mr. Siskind. Yeah. I think so.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you and forgive me.
Mr. Kuck, you made a valid point about how much we could
eliminate illegal immigration if we expanded some of the
provisions that you spoke to. Could you just point on that
quickly? Because that is what everyone is listening to, the
whole question of illegal immigration. We have made that case
because of where we stand today.
Can I ask for an additional 1 minute to try to get through
my----
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady is granted an additional minute
by unanimous consent.
Mr. Kuck. It is quite clear from the numbers that we see
that if we want to truly eliminate the issue of illegal
immigration in the United States, it is going to be impossible
to deport 12 million people. You can begin to reduce that pool
with people that have strong ties to the United States and, in
fact, are married to U.S. citizens and take literally,
instantaneously, 3 million people out of the illegal immigrant
pool. It is going to be much easier to handle those that are
left over.
This bill, in fact, would do that, and we strongly support
its passage for that reason.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. And I am going to quickly ask
the questions of the last three witnesses and they can answer.
Mr. Nugent, you captured the way to stop ``catch and never
come back'' as a full ``catch and release and never come back''
as opposed to ``catch and release and return.'' So I am going
to ask you to expand on that quickly.
Ms. Gandy, what do you think it is like to be a woman with
a child and to be brought in by a registered sex offender and
to be vulnerable, what this bill does on that issue?
Mr. Bonner, we have worked together on many issues and
thank you for your insight on employee verification. But there
are two Border Patrol agents that I think have suffered an
injustice, and this bill talks about professional development
and training. And, frankly, I believe that if management who
made the initial decision, the initial assessment of these two
line officers--I call them line officers--had a sense of
professionalism and their own confidence and some structure
which is dealt with here--training, compensation--that maybe
this could have been handled in the field as opposed to the
extent to which it went.
So if you can comment on this bill as it professionalizes
the Border Patrol agents, and if you can quickly answer, I
would appreciate it.
And I thank the gentlelady for her time.
Mr. Nugent, quickly.
Mr. Nugent. Yes. I think what is innovative about section
622(b) is that it provides a safety valve for releasing
vulnerable populations from detention into secure alternatives.
And by doing so, DHS can continue to arrest and detain as many
people as possible, but with a safety valve for vulnerable
populations.
It also reduces liability for DHS for inadequate medical
care and other violations that occur in the detention centers.
And I would note that the bill actually authorizes an
additional 100,000 detention beds. But you can have people
going through a continuum to get to secure alternatives, and
then with the 94 percent compliance rate, they will be deported
ultimately if they have no relief.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired. We are
going to give it an additional 30 seconds so the remaining
witnesses can very quickly answer, and then we will be able
to----
Ms. Gandy. Thank you.
It certainly is extremely important that women and children
who are brought into the country not be brought here for the
purpose of abuse and exploitation; and the likelihood of that
when they are brought into the country by a registered sex
offender, is dramatically increased.
But I also think that although that is a wonderful
provision, we need to even go beyond that to make sure that
women and children are not brought in to this country for the
specific purpose of exploitation.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Mr. Bonner.
Mr. Bonner. Very quickly. The professionalism of the Border
Patrol would increase under the provisions of this bill.
Whether that would have helped those two agents, I am not so
sure, because I think they are victims of a greater political
agenda of a renegade U.S. attorney.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you.
I thank the Chairwoman. And I simply want to acknowledge
Nolan Rappaport, who was very instrumental in gathering all the
thought processes that generated in this bill. And I thank your
staff very much for their assistance.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
And I would thank all the staff, and also note that Dr.
Spriggs' students have been here, and we extend a welcome to
them, as well, and thank all the witnesses.
We have 5 legislative days to submit any additional
questions that Members may have. And if we do have such
questions, we ask that you do your best to answer them
promptly.
Again, we thank you for taking the time to share your
expertise with us. A lot of people don't realize that the
witnesses before congressional Committees are essentially
volunteering their time to the country. And we do appreciate
that you are--your willingness to do that.
And I, for one, have learned a lot in this hearing. So
thank you very much and this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:48 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
In a hearing on September 6, our Subcommittee examined H.R. 1645,
the ``Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy
Act of 2007,'' otherwise known as the STRIVE Act. Today, we will review
H.R. 750, the ``Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2007.''
Both bills contain the necessary elements of comprehensive immigration
reform to fix our broken immigration system. In addition the Save
America Act contains several provisions that would complement the
STRIVE Act.
I would like to commend our Subcommittee colleague, Congresswoman
Sheila Jackson Lee, for not only drafting and introducing H.R. 750, but
also for her service on behalf of comprehensive immigration reform and
immigration in general in the 110th Congress and in many Congresses
before the 110th, especially as the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee
for many years. Since I can remember, Representative Jackson Lee has
always been a tireless champion for immigration reform.
I was personally enormously disappointed when the Senate was unable
to proceed on comprehensive reform this spring. We were prepared on the
House side to tackle this important issue. But, because of Senate
inaction, we didn't get the chance to proceed on hearings or a mark-up
on comprehensive immigration reform.
The details matter, and today we will get information and details
on the Save America Act. We can't know what the future will hold for
comprehensive reform, but we can be armed with knowledge about
legislation in the House to meet the immigration challenge.
Because this hearing is about Congresswoman Jackson Lee's bill, I
would like to yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Texas
so that she may properly introduce the subject of our hearing today.
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
I want to begin by thanking the Chair of this Subcommittee, Zoe
Lofgren, for holding a hearing on my Save America Comprehensive
Immigration Act of 2007, H.R. 750 (Save America Act).
Immigrants come to the United States today for the same reason so
many millions came before them, in this century and last, from this
continent and from every other. They come for the same reasons that
many of our ancestors left the cotton fields of Mississippi and Alabama
for the factories of Detroit and Cleveland, the packing houses and
office buildings of Chicago, and shipyards of Philadelphia and Los
Angeles and New York.
They come for the same reason families have always come to America:
to be free of fear and hunger, to better their economic opportunities,
to begin their world anew, and to give their children a chance for a
better life. Like previous waves of immigrants, they too will wage all
and risk all to reach the sidewalks of cities such as my home of
Houston. Or Los Angeles. Or Phoenix. Or Chicago. Or Atlanta. Or Denver.
Or Detroit.
As we did on the back roads of Georgia and Tennessee and Alabama,
they will risk death in the desert; they will brave the elements, they
will risk capture and crime, they will endure separation from loved
ones.
And if they make it to the Promised Land of America, no job will be
beneath them. They will cook our food, clean our houses, cut our grass,
and care for our kids. They will be cheated by some and exploited by
others. They work in sunlight but live in twilight, between the
shadows; not fully welcome as new Americans but wanted as low-wage
workers. Somewhere near the borders tonight, a family will cross over
into the New World, willed by the enduring power of the American Dream.
First, I believe that an integral component of any comprehensive
immigration reform is a component that ensures that at least some of
the immigration fees be used for education and job training of
Americans. That is why Title VII of my legislation requires a portion
of the filing fees for temporary visas for guestworker visas and for
the process of earned legalization should be set aside to establish a
job training and job development fund. The fund would be used to
establish employee training programs for American workers.
The training programs would afford a wealth of job opportunities
for African American males and other underemployed populations. The
fund also should provide job training for the middle-aged American
workers who have been or are in danger of being replaced by foreign
workers. The job development fund could also be utilized to encourage
job development in low employment areas.
I would also like to address the misperception that immigrants are
taking jobs away from American workers. This possibility is greatly
exaggerated by those who would wish to gain our support with their
anti-immigrant objectives. Among other things, the American economy
does not have a fixed number of jobs. Economists describe the notion
that the number of jobs is fixed as the ``lump of labor'' fallacy. Job
opportunities expand with a rising population. Since immigrants are
workers and consumers, their spending on food, clothing, housing, and
other items creates new job opportunities. I expect this to become more
evident when we finally get around to fixing our broken immigration
system and the over 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United
States no longer have to live in the shadows of society.
Everyone agrees that we need to reform our broken immigration
system. The only disagreement is over how to do it. The most
controversial question is whether we should provide access to
legalization for the 12 million undocumented immigrants who are living
in the shadows of our society.
In addition to the fact that many of them have earned access to
legalization, it is not in the best interests of the country to let
them remain in the shadows. Among other things, it is a security
problem to have such a large population of immigrants in our country
that we do not know anything about. I also know that immigrants cannot
be equated with terrorists. Reducing the population of undocumented
immigrants who are here to work would make it easier to find the people
who are here to do us harm.
Opponents of immigration reform advocate an enforcement-first
approach to dealing with our immigration problems. That approach would
not work. Immigrants who want to work in the United States to make a
better life for themselves and their families must have a legal way to
do it, just as employers who need foreign employees must have a way to
bring them to the United States. Otherwise, illegal immigration will
continue to be problem.
The only effective solution is comprehensive immigration reform. I
have introduced a bill that would provide such reform, the Save America
Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2007. Let me note briefly a few of its
provisions. It requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to impose a
10% surcharge on fees collected for employment-based visa petitions.
These funds would be used to establish much needed employment training
programs for our rural and urban areas.
It has three legalization programs. It would require the Secretary
of Labor to conduct a national study of American workplaces on the
exploitation of undocumented alien workers by their employers. It also
provides the Border Patrol with the personnel, resources, and equipment
that it needs to secure the border. Our borders will continue to be out
of control until we have immigration reform that provides more
opportunities for immigrants to come to this country legally.
In summary, the Save America Act covers a broad range of issues,
many of which are not addressed by other bills. This has been
recognized already by some leading Members of Congress. For instance,
Senator John Kerry added the ``Rapid Response Measures,'' in Subtitle A
of the Save America Act, to the Senate's Comprehensive Immigration
Reform Act of 2006, S. 2611.
The Rapid Response Measures would permit the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security to deploy up to 1,000 additional border
patrol agents to a crisis area along the border if the governor of the
border state has declared an international border security emergency,
and the governor has requested the additional agents.
The Rapid Response Measures also would provide border patrol agents
with 100 additional helicopters, 250 additional power boats, control of
border patrol assets, one police-type vehicle for every three border
patrol agents, portable computers for vehicles, effective radio
communication, hand-held global positioning system devices, night
vision equipment, body armor, and the weapons the border patrol need
when they encounter heavily armed men guarding drug caravans.
These provisions are also included as ``Rapid Response Measures''
in Subtitle F of the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a
Vibrant Economy Act of 2007, H.R. 1645 (the STRIVE Act).
Although I am pleased that my Rapid Response Measures are being
used in other immigration reform bills, I believe that it is inadequate
to incorporate them in only a piecemeal fashion which neglects other
important provisions of this important legislation. The origin of those
provisions was my Rapid Response Border Protection Act of 2005, H.R.
4044, and the rest of the provisions in H.R. 4044 are also necessary,
such as the personnel provisions for addressing recruitment and
retention issues at CBP. I included all of these important provisions
in the Save America Act.
T.J. Bonner, the President of the National Border Patrol Council,
provided invaluable information on the needs of Border Patrol agents
when the Rapid Response Border Protection Act was being written. His
testimony today will include an explanation of why the rest of the
provisions from that bill are necessary.
Furthermore, the Save America Act has provisions to establish a
Fraudulent Documents Task Force which could strengthen the fraud
provisions in the STRIVE Act. The task force would collect information
from United States and foreign law enforcement agencies on the
production, sale, and distribution of fraudulent documents. In addition
to distributing this information on an ongoing basis to where it is
needed, it would maintain a database that would be available to the law
enforcement community both here and abroad.
Although the STRIVE Act has good detention provisions to reduce the
number of aliens who are detained in penal institutions, such as the T.
Don Hutto Residential Center in Taylor, Texas, the Save America Act
addresses the plight of detained aliens in a much more comprehensive
fashion. The Save America Act would establish a Secure Alternatives to
Detention Program under which children and other vulnerable populations
would be released to the custody of suitable individuals or
organizational sponsors who would supervise them, prevent them from
absconding, and ensure required appearances. The program would be
developed in consultation with non-governmental experts in the
immigration and the criminal justice fields, with consideration given
to the program developed by the Vera Institute and the DHS Intensive
Supervision Appearance Program.
Chris Nugent, who will be testifying today, is an expert on
detention facilities for families and other vulnerable populations. He
provided valuable information when the Secure Alternatives Program was
being drafted. He will testify about the program and explain how it
would strengthen the detention provisions in the STRIVE Act.
Moreover, I do not think that an immigration reform bill can fix
our broken immigration system without addressing the problems created
by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996 (IIRIRA). Among other things, IIRIRA established a deportation
ground based on aggravated felony convictions, redefined ``aggravated
felony'' without regard to the seriousness of the criminal offenses
being classified as ``aggravated felonies,'' and made these changes
retroactive.
Lawful permanent residents have been deported as aggravated felons
for minor offenses that did not result in incarceration and were not
deportation grounds when they were committed.
Charles H. Kuck, the National President-Elect of the American
Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), will testify about the need for
IIRIRA fixes. He is an immigration law expert who has had extensive
experience representing aliens who are victims of IIRIRA's harsh
provisions.
Lastly, the Save America Act has provisions that would make it
difficult for Americans who are on the National Sex Offender Registry
to use our immigration laws to bring victims of sexual abuse into the
country. These provisions would authorize the denial of a family-based
visa petition for a spouse or child if (A) the petitioner is on the Sex
Offender Registry for a conviction that resulted in incarceration for
more than a year; (B) the petitioner has been given at least 90 days to
establish that he is not on the registry or that he was not
incarcerated for more than a year for the offense and has failed to do
so; and (C) a finding has been made that granting the petition would
put a spouse or child beneficiary in grave danger of being sexually
abused.
Why is this necessary? I asked the General Accountability Office
(GAO) to find out how many Americans on the national sex offender
registry filed family-based visa petitions in FY2005. They found
records of 398 American petitioners who filed family-based visa
petitions were on the National Sex Offender Registry.
GAO was only able to ascertain the nature of the offenses for 194
of the 398 petitioners. These offenses included 119 convictions for
sexual assault, 35 for child fondling, nine for strong arm rape, nine
for carnal abuse combined with a sexual assault, seven for statutory
rape, four for crimes against persons, three for indecent exposure, two
for kidnapping, two for obscene material possession, one for
exploitation of a minor with photographs, one for incest with a minor,
one for sodomizing a boy, and one for restricting movement.
The Immigration and Nationality Act did not permit a denial of any
of those visa petitions on the ground that approval could endanger the
woman or child being brought to the United States. Since then,
statutory provisions in criminal legislation have made it possible to
deny visa petitions if the American sponsor has been convicted of any
of a substantial list of criminal offenses. Aside from the absence of
due process in challenging such denials, the provisions are not
comprehensive enough with respect to sex offenders.
In addition, as the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus
Immigration Task Force, let me briefly describe what the Congressional
Black Caucus thinks should be done.
The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) recognizes the need for a
comprehensive approach to immigration reform that includes increased
security, protection against illegal immigration, immigration policies
that have articulated objectives and fair administration of our
immigration system. To that end, the CBC has adopted four principles to
guide its deliberation regarding immigration reform.
BORDER SECURITY:
The federal government has the responsibility to protect, through
border security and other means, against immigrants illegally entering
the country and/or overstaying their authorized periods of admission.
The CBC, therefore, supports funding for border security equipment,
border patrol agents, enforcement and other resources as reasonably
necessary to accomplish those objectives.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND FAIR WAGES FOR LEGAL WORKERS:
All citizens and legal workers in the United States should be
assured education and job training, non-discriminatory employment
opportunity and a livable wage. The CBC, therefore, supports increased
funding for education and job training utilizing fees generated from
new immigration provisions and other resources and supports increased
funding for enforcement of laws against employment discrimination, wage
and hour violations, unfair labor practices and illegal hiring. The CBC
also supports holding employers accountable for the legal status of
their employees.
DIVERSITY AND EQUAL TREATMENT:
The CBC supports immigration criteria that will increase the
diversity of immigration from countries that have historically been
underrepresented, such as countries in the Caribbean and Africa, or
treated unequally, such as Haiti.
It is important to keep in mind which groups bear the brunt of the
bad policy proposals in the immigration debate. They are primarily
people attempting to migrate from Africa, Haiti and the Caribbean,
Latin America, China, and other regions. While African Americans did
not cross the borders to the United States voluntarily, historically as
now, people of color (immigrants of color) are scapegoats for the
economic ills of the United States and subjected to exclusionary laws
that African Americans have fought since slavery.
Equally important, we must not forget who benefits from current
immigration crisis. It is neither immigrants nor native citizens, but
corporations and businesses that thrive on a tilted economic system
that exploits low wage workers, divides people who have common
interests with 'us versus them' wedge politics, and hinders racial
justice advocates from winning policies that promote living wages,
economic mobility and equal opportunity for all members of our society.
EARNED ACCESS TO CITIZENSHIP:
Finally, the CBC supports earned access to lawful permanent
resident status for persons currently in the United States that takes
the following factors into account:
Unification of immigrant families, which would
include uniting immigrants with spouses, children or other
close family members who are citizens or lawful permanent
residents of the United States;
Proven employment records through temporary and guest
worker programs or other temporary residence programs; and
Such reform of earned access to citizenship should
also include a path to permanency for the undocumented already
here.
We can and should distinguish between those who have come here out
of their love for the United States and what it represents and the
opportunities it affords for a better life from those who come because
they hate America and wish to kill or injure Americans.
Surely, it makes more sense to concentrate our resources on the
latter and persuade the former to come out from the shadows. We will
not persuade them to come into the light if all we offer is an armed
escort back to the place of economic or political hopelessness they
fled. To paraphrase Edmund Burke, the original English conservative, we
will not encourage undocumented workers to come out from the shadows if
everywhere they look ``they see nothing but the gallows.''
Why not, instead, say to those undocumented workers who are working
jobs most Americans will not take: come out from the shadows and earn
the chance to apply for citizenship in this country? You broke the law
to come here, and you must acknowledge that you did by going to the
back of the line, paying a substantial fine, staying employed, learning
our language, paying taxes, obeying our laws, waiting your turn, and
earning the right to become an American.
I know that many Americans of goodwill have a different view of the
problem and advocate different solutions to the immigration challenge
facing America. That does not make them bad people. It simply means we
must redouble our efforts to get our message out. It means we need to
work harder at rebutting the disinformation that is spread by pundits,
commentators, and politicians. As President John Kennedy famously
noted:
``The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--
deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent,
persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of
opinion without the discomfort of thought.''
I think we should welcome and embrace the opportunity to debate
comprehensive immigration reform. Truth and right is on our side. We
will win the debate if we stand up for what we believe and engage in
meaningful dialogue. After all, that it what it is going to take to
find the common ground necessary to solve the immigration problem and
move America forward.
I thank Chairwoman Lofgren for convening this important hearing on
my legislation and offering me an opportunity to summarize the unique
and comprehensive approach to our immigration crisis offered by H.R.
750, the Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2007.
Reforming the nation's immigration system so that it secures the
borders, does not lower American living standards, reflects American
values, and ensures that our country remains a beacon of hope and
opportunity forever is a daunting challenge. I know this is hard and
tiring work. But remember, as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King often
said:
``We shall overcome because the moral arc of the universe is long
but it bends toward justice. We shall overcome because Carlyle is
right--no lie can live forever. We shall overcome because William
Cullen Bryant is right--truth crushed to earth will rise again.''
I also ask that proponents of comprehensive immigration not to be
discouraged by the legislative challenges we face because the
Scriptures tell us that ``weeping lasteth for a night, but joy cometh
in the morning.'' Let us march on till victory is won. Thank you very
much, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Hilda L. Solis, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
I would like to applaud the Subcommittee, under the leadership of
Chairwoman Lofgren, for holding numerous hearings on the issue of
immigration reform this past year. I am hopeful that these hearings
will provide the framework to fix our broken immigration system.
I realize that immigration is a multifaceted issue. As the former
Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues and the
daughter of immigrants, one issue of great concern to me is the
protection of immigrant women and children. Female immigrants, both
documented and undocumented, often work in industries with low-wages,
have little or no access to healthcare, legal assistance, or economic
justice. In addition, approximately 8,000 children seek safety in the
United States each year and many arrive unaccompanied by adults.
I am a cosponsor of H.R. 750, which among other things, has a
strong focus on protecting immigrant women and children from registered
sex-offenders who take advantage of the current family-based visa
petitions to bring into the U.S. children and women from abroad.
According to a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) study, in
fiscal year 2005, at least 398 of the citizen and legal permanent
resident (LPR) petitioners who filed family-based visa petitions were
on the National Sex Offender Registry that is maintained by the Federal
Bureau of Investigations (FBI). We must take steps to protect women
migrants from sex offenders and H.R. 750 does just that.
We cannot turn a blind eye to the injustices that are plaguing the
immigrant community. I strongly support comprehensive immigration
reform which provides for family reunification, earned legalization,
educational opportunities, and honors our tradition as a nation of
immigrants. I respect the difficult task which lies ahead and urge my
colleagues to move forward with a solution that protects and enforces
our borders while respecting the hard work and contributions of
immigrants to our country.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee
posed to the Honorable Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Michigan