[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HOUSE MILITARY NATURALIZATION BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,
BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 1685, H.R. 1714, H.R. 1799, H.R. 1275,
H.R. 1814 and H.R. 1850
__________
MAY 6, 2003
__________
Serial No. 15
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-950 WASHINGTON : 2004
_____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee ZOE LOFGREN, California
CHRIS CANNON, Utah SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MAXINE WATERS, California
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
RIC KELLER, Florida ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
STEVE KING, Iowa
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
TOM FEENEY, Florida
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Philip G. Kiko, Chief of Staff-General Counsel
Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana, Chairman
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
ELTON GALLEGLY, California HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
CHRIS CANNON, Utah JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
STEVE KING, Iowa
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
George Fishman, Chief Counsel
Lora Ries, Counsel
Art Arthur, Full Committee Counsel
Cindy Blackston, Professional Staff
Nolan Rappaport, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
MAY 6, 2003
BILLS
H.R. 1714, ``Armed Forces Citizenship Act of 2003''
H.R. 1275, To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to change
the requirements for naturalization to citizenship through
service in the Armed Forces of the United States
H.R. 1799, ``Fallen Heros Immigrant Spouse Fairness Act of 2003''
H.R. 1850, To provide for automatic naturalization for noncitizen
members of the Armed Forces ordered to serve in a combat zone,
and to extend immigration benefits to surviving apouses,
children, and parents of persons granted posthumous citizenship
through death while on active-duty service in the Armed Forces
H.R. 1685, To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act relating
to posthumous citizenship through death while on active-duty
service during periods of military hostilities to eliminate the
prohibition on immigration benefits for surviving family
members and to provide such benfits for spouses and children
H.R. 1814, ``Naturalization and Family Protection for Military
Members Act of 2003''
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
The Honorable John N. Hostettler, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Indiana, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims....................... 1
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims....................... 4
The Honorable Linda T. Sanchez, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California........................................ 6
WITNESSES
The Honorable Doc Hastings, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Washington
Oral Testimony................................................. 8
Prepared Statement............................................. 10
The Honorable Martin Frost, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Texas
Oral Testimony................................................. 11
Prepared Statement............................................. 13
The Honorable Walter B. Jones, a Representative in Congress From
the State of North Carolina
Oral Testimony................................................. 17
Prepared Statement............................................. 18
The Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Illinois
Oral Testimony................................................. 19
Prepared Statement............................................. 21
The Honorable Darrell Issa, a Representative in Congress From the
State of California
Oral Testimony................................................. 22
Prepared Statement............................................. 23
The Honorable Hilda L. Solis, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California
Oral Testimony................................................. 24
Prepared Statement............................................. 26
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress From the State of Texas............. 41
Prepared Statement by the Honorable Bob Filner, a Representative
in Congress From the State of California....................... 42
HOUSE MILITARY NATURALIZATION BILLS
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2003
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security, and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John H.
Hostettler [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. Hostettler. This Subcommittee will come to order. At
the outset we will hear opening statements. And given that the
Chair's opening statement will probably exceed the 5-minute
limit, that will also hold true for the rest of the
Subcommittee.
Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom and, more
specifically, the news that some of the members of our Armed
Forces who died in combat were permanent residents, several
bills have been introduced to either ease their naturalization
requirements or provide immigration benefits to surviving
family members of those killed in combat, or both.
The purpose of this hearing today is to examine these bills
and to examine current law to determine what changes, if any,
should be made to military naturalization.
To join the United States military, an alien must be at
least a lawful permanent resident. To hold certain specialized
positions in the military such as a Navy SEAL, a person must be
a U.S. citizen. Currently, over 37,000 active duty members of
the Armed Forces are noncitizens out of a total of 1.4 million
men and women on active duty. In other words, about 2.6 percent
of the United States military is made up of non-U.S. citizens.
Likewise, about 11,800 members of the National Guard and
Reserve are noncitizens out of a total of 1,353,000. This
amounts to about 0.87 percent of our National Guard and Reserve
being noncitizens.
Under current immigration law, there are three mechanisms
by which a member of the Armed Forces may become a naturalized
U.S. citizen:
First, section 328 of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
or INA, permits a person who has served honorably at any time
in the U.S. Armed Forces, for a period or periods aggregating 3
years, and who if separated from such service was never
separated except under honorable conditions, to naturalize. As
a comparison, lawful permanent residents generally must have a
green card for 5 years before they may be naturalized. However,
lawful permanent residents married to U.S. citizens may apply
for naturalization after 3 years instead of 5 years. Applicants
pay fees totaling $310 to naturalize.
Second, section 329 of the INA permits an alien who has
served honorably in an active duty status in the U.S. military
during World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam
War, or in other periods of military hostilities designated by
the President by Executive order and who have separated from
such service, was honorably separated, to naturalize. An alien
in this category may apply for naturalization immediately.
We are currently in a period of military hostilities
designated by the President by an Executive order. On July 3,
2002, President Bush officially designated the period beginning
on September 11, 2001 as a period of hostilities which
triggered immediate naturalization eligibility for active duty
U.S. Military service members under section 329 of the INA.
The Department of Defense and the Bureaus of Citizenship
and Immigration Services, formerly the INS, in the Department
of Homeland Security work closely together to expedite military
naturalization applications in what both Departments describe
as a smooth process; 6,753 lawful permanent resident military
personnel have filed naturalization applications since July 3rd
of last year, the date of the President's Executive order.
The third way a noncitizen member of the Armed Forces may
become a U.S. Citizen is subsequent to death while on active
duty service under section 329(a) of the INA. An alien who
honorably served in the military during a named hostility
mentioned above, and died as a result of injury or disease
incurred in or aggravated by that service, may be granted
posthumous citizenship if applied for by the next of kin no
later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the
Posthumous Citizenship Restoration Act of 2002 or the date of
the person's death, whichever date is later. Posthumous
citizenship does not confer any immigration benefits onto any
family member of the deceased alien.
Currently, military personnel must be in the United States
to file a naturalization application, to be interviewed for the
application, and to take the oath of citizenship. This
requirement causes some military personnel to have to leave
their post abroad and return to the United States at their own
expense. Many complain that this is both expensive and
impractical. Accordingly, some of the bills introduced require
the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State,
and the Department of Defense to ensure that naturalization
applications, interviews, filings, oaths, and ceremonies are
available at U.S. embassies, consulates, and, military
installations abroad. Several Members' bills also waive the
fees for the naturalization petition and the naturalization
certificate to ease the financial burden for members of the
Armed Forces.
I support a change in the naturalization process to permit
members of the Armed Forces abroad to apply for naturalization
interview and take the oath of citizenship at U.S. embassies,
consulates, and abroad, as practicable. Forcing military
personnel stationed abroad to return to the U.S. to apply for
naturalization and to take the oath is impractical and causes
unnecessary interruption in their military activity.
Likewise, I do not oppose waiving the application fees for
our military personnel. They perform an outstanding service for
our country, and the current procedure is more than just an
inconvenience to that service.
A number of Members also wish to lower the number of years
a member of the Armed Forces must be in the military before
becoming eligible to apply for naturalization. H.R. 1275 and
H.R. 1814 lower the 3-year military service requirement to 2
years. One bill, H.R. 1714, lowers the 3-year requirement to
zero years. In conjunction with immediate eligibility, H.R.
1714 requires revocation of citizenship for other than
honorable separation from the military. H.R. 1814 also permits
Reservists during named hostilities to naturalize immediately.
I have misgivings about reducing the military service
requirement below 3 years, as well as permitting aliens who
join the Reserves during named hostilities to be able to
naturalize immediately. While noncitizens currently serve in
our Armed Forces, they must demonstrate their loyalty and their
character for 3 years before they become U.S. Citizens. Let me
reiterate. Current law already recognizes the unique nature of
military service by noncitizens by reducing the waiting period
from the standard 5 years to 3 years for those who serve. To
permit an alien to sign on the dotted line to join the military
and then immediately become eligible for U.S. Citizenship
diminishes what it means to be a citizen of the United States
of America.
In addition, to push aside concerns about a brand-new
recruit becoming a citizen because the law permits that
citizenship to be taken away if they are subsequently
discharged under other than honorable conditions neither holds
U.S. Citizenship sacrosanct nor acknowledges the difficulty and
rarity in denaturalizing someone.
Last year 573,708 aliens naturalized. Around 60 naturalized
citizens were denaturalized. Many judges are loath to take a
lawful permanent resident's green card away. Think how
reluctant judges would be to take away a person's citizenship.
And remember, it is a Federal judge who decides and has
discretion to denaturalize someone, not the military.
Furthermore, we already know that al Qaeda has sought to
recruit U.S. citizens because they can travel abroad, cannot be
deported, and blend easily into American society. If September
11th taught us anything, it taught us that terrorists who wish
to harm us are very creative and that we need to be more
creative to stop them. That means that we cannot create more
immigration loopholes which terrorists can easily exploit. It
doesn't take much creative thought to realize that if a
noncitizen soldier can naturalize immediately upon joining the
military and work in the most sensitive positions, the lure of
the military for terrorists will only increase. Terrorists have
already recruited members of our Armed Forces who are trained
in our military, learn our tactics, and gain access to our
weapons. Opening this loophole would be irresponsible.
The second area in which these bills legislate is in
granting immigration benefits to the survivors of members of
our Armed Forces killed in combat. These changes include
waiving the 2-year marriage requirement for the spouse of a
U.S. citizen soldier killed in action to remain an immediate
relative for immigration benefits, waiving the fee for the
posthumous citizenship application, and permitting family
members of posthumous-granted U.S. Citizens to receive
immigration benefits while waiving the affidavit of support
filing requirement and other grounds of inadmissibility.
I do not oppose letting a spouse of a U.S. citizen killed
in combat retain the same immigration status as an immediate
relative, as would have occurred had the U.S. citizen not died,
nor do I oppose waiving the fee for the next of kin to apply
for posthumous citizenship for members of the Armed Forces who
are killed during their service. I do, however, have concerns
with granting immigration benefits to family members of those
granted posthumous citizenship. While the numbers of aliens
this would affect may be minimal, this is a significant
departure from longstanding law. What makes such a change
necessary now that didn't exist before? In addition, what will
we say to the family members of Armed Forces personnel granted
posthumous citizenship prior to 9/11/2001? Those family members
will certainly ask that they, too, be able to pursue
immigration benefits based on their deceased family member.
Having said all that, I now yield to the Ranking Member,
Ms. Jackson Lee, for an opening statement.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
am very pleased that we were able to hold this hearing and
proceed with the very instructive legislative initiatives by
the very able Members that appear before us this morning. And I
want to thank the Members very much for the leadership that
they have shown on this I think very unique and singular issue.
Might I say, Mr. Chairman, that on behalf of the Members on
this side--and I appreciate the presence of Ms. Sanchez--that
many of our Members are en route to Washington and would have
liked to have been here. But because of their schedules--and
some of whom have come from or are in California, as far as
California--some were not able to be here with us this morning.
And I know that the Members of this Subcommittee would like to
equally compliment all of you for the leadership that you have
shown.
Mr. Chairman, the one thing that I know about the hearings
this morning is that we are doing the right thing. There is no
doubt that the present configuration of the immigration law is
wrong as relates to patriots who happen not to be citizens, as
relates to those who were willing to give the ultimate
sacrifice who happen not to be citizens, as relates to family
members of those who have given the ultimate sacrifice and who
happen not to be citizens. So clearly we are doing the right
thing. I think, Mr. Chairman, it has to be a question of how do
we do a better thing.
Might I share with you the story of Jose Gutierrez, who was
an orphan from Guatemala when he hitchhiked on railcars into
Mexico in 1997. He entered the United States illegally. Later,
however, as a minor with no parents, he qualified for permanent
residency and was taken in by a foster family. He graduated
from high school and studied at a junior college before joining
the Marine Corps. On March 21st, 2003, in a battle with Iraq's
Republican Guard troops, Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez was
killed in the service of the country he so loved.
According to Martha Espinosa, one of his former foster
mothers, he once said to me: I was born the day I arrived in
this country.
Jones was one of--Jose, rather, was one of four fallen
Marines who deserve special mention because they died in
service to a country or in a country that they could not yet
call their own. The other three were Private First Class
Francisco Martinez Flores, Corporal Jose Angel Gabray, and
Lance Corporal Jesus Sorres Del Solar, all born in Mexico.
Immigrants have long seen service in the United States as a
gateway to citizenship, education, economic opportunity; and
the deaths of these four marines echo those of other
noncitizens who died for their country before them. Their valor
is well documented. Their love is well documented. Their
commitment is well documented. Their patriotism is well
documented.
Service in the United States military, particularly in
times of conflict, is the ultimate act of patriotism. Our
immigration laws traditionally have allowed for expedited
citizenship consideration for noncitizen members of the United
States military even in peacetime. For example, section 328 of
the Immigration Nationality Act allows noncitizen members of
the military in peacetime to become citizens after 3 years of
service instead of the usual 5-year wait requirement of
nonmilitary applicants. In addition, section 329 of INA allows
noncitizens to receive immediate naturalization eligibility
through their active duty service in the Armed Forces during
periods of military hostilities. Yet there is much work for us
to do. This opportunity becomes available when the President
designates by Executive order that the Armed Services are or
were engaged in armed conflict with a hostile foreign force.
Under section 329 of the INA, 143,000 noncitizen military
participants in World Wars I and II and 31,000 members of the
U.S. Military who fought during the Korean War became
naturalized American citizens. Executive orders following
Vietnam and the Persian Gulf collectively led to more than
100,000 members of the U.S. Military becoming American
citizens.
Those are fine processes, but we need to have new law on
this issue. It is well overdue. Notwithstanding this history of
generosity toward people who have served in our Armed Forces,
the provisions of military service-based naturalization can be
improved.
The bills that are the subject of this hearing offer
improvements in a number of areas. For instance, some of the
bills would reduce the 3-year wait for peacetime. Some of my
colleagues would like the time reduced to 2 years; others would
eliminate the wait entirely and permit a peacetime soldier to
begin the naturalization process immediately when he or she
begins activity duty in the Armed Forces.
Let it be very clear that at the time of an individual's
willingness to sign the papers, they have made the commitment
to be able to stand for this Nation and to offer the ultimate
sacrifice. If there is any litmus test, it should be simply
that. They have been willing to sign up, they are willing to
stand on behalf of all of our freedoms.
The area that concerns me most is the posthumous
naturalization which is granted when a soldier dies while on
active duty during a period of military hostility. As presently
written, the posthumous naturalization provisions explicitly
state that the soldier's spouse and children will not benefit
from the grant of posthumous citizenship. Several of the bills
would remove this exclusion and specify that the spouse and
children will be eligible for immigration benefits on the basis
of the posthumous grant of naturalization.
We must move quickly on this aspect, but I believe that we
must go further. We need to show the extent of our gratitude
toward the soldiers who died for this country by making
citizenship readily available for their surviving spouses who
are already lawful permanent residents of the United States.
Ordinarily, a lawful permanent resident must be married to a
United States citizen for a period of 3 years before he or she
can apply for the naturalization as a spouse of a United States
citizen. Section 319(d) of the act waives that requirement in
the case where the lawful permanent resident spouse is married
to a citizen spouse who dies during a period of honorable
service. That provision should be revised to apply in a case
where the soldier's citizenship is received posthumously.
The only difference between the two situations is that the
one addressed by the current law applies to a soldier who
receives his citizenship while he is alive; while, as in the
second situation, the citizenship is received posthumously. In
both cases, the soldier is a citizen who is killed during a
period of honorable service. If anything, the posthumous
situation is more compelling than any other situation.
Posthumous situation citizenship is given when a soldier dies
during a period of military hostility.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe we can work
together. We might be able to work together even in spite of
your comments this morning as we listen to our colleagues about
the 2-year waiver regarding the marriage requirement. The fees
that are presently utilized, I believe we have common
agreement: the eligibility time frame for the naturalization
period, the 3-year eligibility period for naturalization, to a
certain number of years; the fees, both in the Federal level
and the State level; the requirement for the Department of
Homeland Security, Department of State, Department of Defense
that we might look at; and, as well, the requirements regarding
the Department of Defense in facilitating the final
naturalization processes. There are many aspects of these
particular legislative initiatives that I would hope the
Judiciary Committee would find common ground, and that we would
be able to work together to ensure that when we finally pass
legislation it will answer the question do we in fact pay
tribute to these great and valiant soldiers, those living and
those who have been willing and have given their lives.
I yield back.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentlelady.
Are there any other Members who wish to make opening
statements? Ms. Sanchez from California.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, and thank you to all of the witnesses who
have come here today to talk about the legislation on the issue
of military naturalization. I applaud my fellow Members of
Congress for recognizing the need for legislation in this area.
In this country, noncitizens have worn our military
uniforms and fought in our battles throughout history. In fact,
one of my uncles served while a noncitizen. More recently, the
percentage of noncitizens serving in our military has been on
the rise. The Department of Defense now estimates that
approximately 3 percent of our military are legal permanent
residents. It seems only fair to recognize and reward these
individuals for the sacrifices they have made and are willing
to make. Without being citizens and without having the
protections that status would give them, these immigrant men
and women are willing to risk their own lives to defend this
Nation. The very least we can do is to give them something in
return. And the kinds of things recommended by these bills are
the kinds of things that we all can support. No one is asking
that everyone who signs up for the military should become
citizens with no requirements whatsoever. We are talking about
checking all the proper criteria, dotting the i's and crossing
the t's and then, if everything checks out, giving them
citizenship.
Let us take the case of spouses and children of noncitizen
soldiers who die while serving this country. If those spouses
and children are waiting for immigration applications to be
processed, it seems like the height of insult to take that away
from them. Again, no one is suggesting that they should
automatically be granted citizenship or other legal status.
What is being suggested is that they be given the opportunity
to continue pursuing their application.
I am sure it is an honor for individuals whose spouse or
parent died to know that that person was granted posthumous
citizenship, but we need to seriously ask ourselves if that is
enough. If somebody gives the most that they can give this
country, their very life, then doesn't it seem like this
country should give them something back? Since the soldier is
no longer alive to receive those benefits, it seems only
fitting to pass those benefits on to the soldier's spouse and
children.
As a co-sponsor of the Frost and the Solis bills, I wholly
support these efforts to thank our legal permanent residents
for their efforts and sacrifices. I urge my fellow Subcommittee
Members to do the same.
I yield back.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Ms. Sanchez.
At this time we will hear from our witnesses and
colleagues.
First of all, Representative Doc Hastings won election to
the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994 to serve Central
Washington's Fourth Congressional District. He was reelected to
a fifth term in 2002. Congressman Hastings sits on the House
Rules Committee as well as the Budget Committee. He is also the
Republican assistant majority whip for the House. He has
introduced H.R. 1714, the ``Armed Forces Citizenship Act of
2002,'' about which he will testify today.
Mr. Hostettler. Representative Martin Frost is serving his
13th term, representing the 24th Congressional District of
Texas. He serves as the Ranking Democrat Member of the House
Rules Committee, and was the Chairman of the House Democratic
Caucus from 1999 through 2002. Congressman Frost's wife is a
Major General on active duty in the United States Army. And I
didn't realize that until today, Congressman. And I understand
you probably have a very unique perspective of this issue, and
we appreciate her service as well.
He has introduced H.R. 1275 to amend the Immigration and
Nationality Act to change the requirements for naturalization
to citizenship through service in the Armed Forces of the
United States, about which he will testify today.
Representative Walter Jones is serving his fifth term
representing the Third Congressional District of North
Carolina. He sits on the Committees on Armed Services,
Financial Services, and Resources. He has introduced H.R. 1799,
the ``Fallen Heroes Immigrant Spouse Fairness Act of 2003,''
the subject of his testimony here today.
Mr. Hostettler. Representative Luis Gutierrez is serving
his sixth term as the Representative from the Fourth District
of Illinois. He sits on the Financial Services and Veterans'
Affairs Committees. Mr. Gutierrez has introduced H.R. 1850, the
``Fairness for America's Heroes Act,'' about which he will
testify today.
Mr. Hostettler. Representative Darrell Issa is serving his
second term as the Representative for the 49th Congressional
District of California. He sits on the Energy and Commerce
Committee, and formerly was a Member of the Judiciary Committee
during the 107th Congress, including this Subcommittee.
Congressman Issa enlisted in the Army during his senior year of
high school and attained the rank of captain after attending
college on an ROTC scholarship. Mr. Issa has introduced H.R.
1685, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act relating to
posthumous citizenship through death while on active duty
service during periods of military hostilities, to eliminate
the prohibition on immigration benefits for surviving family
members, and to provide such benefits for spouse and children,
the subject of his testimony here today.
Mr. Hostettler. Representative Hilda Solis was first
elected to Congress in 2000, and is currently serving her
second term representing the 32nd Congressional District of
California. Congresswoman Solis serves on the Energy and
Commerce Committee, and is the Ranking Member of the
Environmental and Hazardous Material Subcommittee. She is also
the assistant whip chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic
Caucus's Task Force on Health, and Democratic Vice Chair on the
Congressional Caucus of Women's Issues. Ms. Solis has
introduced H.R. 1814, the ``Naturalization and Family
Protection for Military Members Act of 2003,'' about which she
will testify today.
Mr. Hostettler. Lady and gentlemen, thank you very much for
being here and for your service. The Chair now recognizes
Representative Doc Hastings for your opening statement. And
without objection, all opening statements will be made
available to the record. So you are free to testify.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify this morning, and I would like to commend you for
holding this hearing that is of great importance both to the
Nation and to many of our men and women in uniform.
Last week when President Bush welcomed home the officers
and crew serving aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, he took
special care to note the sacrifices made during the war in Iraq
by soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who will not be
returning home to their loved ones. Tragically, under current
law, some of those who died wearing the uniform of the United
States gave their lives before they were truly entitled to call
themselves Americans. To me, that is just plain wrong and is an
injustice that I hope Congress will move quickly to correct.
Simply put, Mr. Chairman, this is our chance to do the
right thing for those who are doing the right thing for
America. Now, I am not referring to illegal aliens or
undocumented workers or those here in the U.S. on various kinds
of temporary permits or visas. Rather, I am talking about legal
permanent residents of this country, those born overseas and
who by law are entitled to live and work in this country for
the rest of their lives if they choose to. What they are not
entitled to do, not yet anyway, is to become U.S. citizens with
all the rights that are guaranteed to U.S. citizens under our
Constitution.
Mr. Chairman, you alluded to the fact that there were
37,000 noncitizen immigrants serving in the Armed Services.
Frankly, that number surprised me, but those 37,000 patriotic
men and women have sworn an oath to protect and defend a Nation
whose ideals they love and respect and believe in. Is there any
better way to demonstrate your fitness for citizenship than to
make that kind of commitment to what our Nation stands for?
Aren't these precisely the kind of individuals that we want to
be U.S. citizens?
Under existing laws, if you never enter the military, legal
permanent residents--and those are the types of people we are
talking about--can simply wait 5 years and become naturalized
citizens; or, by joining the military they can apply for
citizenship sooner, after serving 3 years on active duty or in
the Reserves.
Mr. Chairman, I believe 3 years simply is too long a
waiting period for men and women who have made the kind of
commitment to our Nation that you make by enlisting in the
Armed Forces. And I should also note that most of the
individuals we are talking about were already here and had been
legal permanent residents for some time period before beginning
their military service.
Shortly before the April recess, I introduced H.R. 1714,
the ``Armed Services Citizenship Act,'' which would have made
active duty personnel immediately eligible for citizenship. My
bill would also waive the customary administrative fees
required for naturalization, and make it possible for service
men and women to take their citizenship oaths overseas.
Finally, a critically important section of my bill provides
for citizenship gained in this fashion to be revoked if the
serviceman is discharged under other than honorable
circumstances. In other words, they must follow through on
their commitment. They have to do their part to become a
citizen.
I am pleased that in just the few days that we have been in
session since the break, over 25 of my colleagues have joined
on a bipartisan basis to cosponsor my bill. However, after
extensive conversations with immigration officials, the
military services, and a number of my colleagues, I have made
several changes that are to be incorporated in my new bill
which has not yet been assigned a number by the clerk.
First, in response to Members who are reluctant to grant
immediate eligibility for citizenship, I would now propose to
establish eligibility after 1 year of military service.
According to the Defense Department, the vast majority of those
failing to complete their initial enlistments are gone before
the first year that they have been in uniform. For the most
part, by the end of the year of service, we know what kind of
people these individuals are.
Second, because the current law accelerating naturalization
for military personnel makes no distinction between active duty
service and Reserves, I have removed that distinction from my
original bill.
Finally, I would strongly urge the Committee to make it
possible for military personnel to begin the paperwork process
for naturalization upon entering military service in the hope
that once they have served the required time in uniform, there
would be no unnecessary further delay in administering their
oaths of office. Ideally, by the time any individual was
ordered into harm's way, he or she would be made eligible to
become citizens of the country that they serve to defend.
So in closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I am pleased
that several of my colleagues have introduced legislation
conferring citizenship on those servicemen who have lost their
lives before becoming citizens. And while I support their
efforts, I am hopeful that this Committee will work to ensure
that it is never again necessary to grant citizenship to an
American soldier who has died in service of this country before
that individual experiences the tremendous pride felt by those
who can say five very simple words, and I quote, ``I am an
American citizen,'' end quote.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Congressman Hastings.
[The statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Doc Hastings, a Representative in
Congress From the State of West Virginia
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify this morning and I'd like to commend you for
holding this hearing on an issue of great importance both to the nation
and to many of our men and women in uniform.
Last week, when President Bush welcomed home the officers and crew
serving aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, he took special care to note
the sacrifices made during the war in Iraq by soldiers, sailors, airmen
and marines who won't be returning home to their loved ones.
Tragically, under current law, some of those who died wearing the
uniform of the United States gave their lives before they were truly
entitled to call themselves ``Americans.''
That's just plain wrong, and it's an injustice I hope Congress will
move quickly to correct.
Simply put, Mr. Chairman, this is our chance to do the right
thing--for those who are doing the right thing for America.
I'm not referring to illegal aliens, or undocumented workers, or
those here in the U.S. on various kinds of temporary permits and visas.
Rather, I'm talking about Legal Permanent Residents of this country--
those born overseas, but who by law are entitled to live and work in
this country for the rest of their lives if they so choose.
What they are not entitled to do--not yet, anyway--is become U.S.
citizens, with all the rights that are guaranteed to U.S. citizens
under our Constitution.
It might surprise members of this committee--because I know it
surprised me--to learn that there are currently more than 37,000 non-
citizen legal immigrants serving on active duty in our armed forces.
37,000 patriotic men and women who have sworn an oath to protect
and defend a nation whose ideals they love and respect and believe in.
Is there any better way to demonstrate your fitness for citizenship
than to make that kind of commitment to what our nation stands for?
Aren't these precisely the kind of individuals we should want as U.S.
citizens?
Under existing law, if they never enter the military, Legal
Permanent Residents can simply wait five years and become naturalized
citizens. Or, by joining the military they can apply for citizenship
sooner--after serving for three years on active duty or in the
reserves.
Mr. Chairman, I believe three years is simply too long a waiting
period for men and women who have made the kind of commitment to our
nation that you make by enlisting in the armed forces. And I should
also note that most of the individuals we're talking about here have
already had Legal Permanent Resident status for some period of time
before beginning their military service.
Shortly before the April recess, I introduced legislation (HR
1714--``The Armed Forces Citizenship Act'') which would have made
active duty military personnel immediately eligible for citizenship. My
bill would also waive the customary administrative fees required for
naturalization, and make it possible for service men and women to take
their citizenship oaths overseas. Finally, a critically important
section of my bill provides for citizenship gained in this fashion to
be revoked if the serviceman is discharged under ``other than
honorable'' circumstances. They must follow through on their
commitment--they have to do their part.
I'm pleased that in just the few days we've been in session since
the break, 25 of my colleagues have joined as co-sponsors of my bill.
However, after extensive conversations with immigration officials,
the military services, and a number of my colleagues, I have made
several changes that are incorporated in my new bill, which has not yet
been assigned a number by the Clerk.
First, in response to Members who are reluctant to grant
``immediate eligibility'' for citizenship, I would now propose to
establish eligibility after one year of military service. According to
the Defense Department, the vast majority of those failing to complete
their initial enlistments are gone before the end of their first year
in uniform. For the most part, by the end of a year in the service, we
know what kind of people these individuals are.
Second, because the current law accelerating naturalization for
military personnel makes no distinction between active duty and service
in the reserves, I have removed that distinction from my bill as well.
And finally, I would strongly urge the Committee to make it
possible for military personnel to begin the paperwork process for
naturalization upon entering military service, in the hope that once
they have served the required time in uniform, there would be no
unnecessary further delay in administering their oaths of office.
Ideally, by the time any individual was ordered into harms way, he or
she would be made eligible to become citizens of the country they serve
to defend.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I am pleased that several
of my colleagues have introduced legislation conferring citizenship on
those servicemen who lost their lives before becoming citizens. And
while I support their efforts, I am hopeful that this committee will
work to ensure that it is never again necessary to grant citizenship to
an American soldier who has died in the service of his country--before
experiencing the tremendous pride felt by all those who can say five
very simple words, ``I am an American citizen.''
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. Congressman Frost.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE MARTIN FROST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Frost. Mr. Chairman, I am going to summarize my written
testimony, if I may, and submit my entire statement for the
record.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection.
Mr. Frost. Mr. Chairman, my legislation predated the
President's Executive order of last year and predated the
involvement in Iraq. My legislation was first suggested to me
by the then Adjutant General of the United States Army, Major
General Kathy Frost, my spouse. And the reason it was suggested
to me was that as Adjutant General of the Army, she observed
the great difficulty that legal residents had in applying for
citizenship under current law; that is, not being able to apply
at their duty station wherever they were around the world,
having to fly back to the United States at their own expense,
perhaps as much as $1,000 required for air fare, the difficulty
in scheduling their appointments, their interviews here in the
United States, and that really current law did not work.
The question also involved the amount of time; under
current law, as has previously been stated, there was a 3-year
requirement. My legislation would reduce this to 2 years.
I listened with interest to the testimony of my colleague,
Doc Hastings. The 1-year provision in his new bill is an
interesting idea. I think that there must be a specific period
of time. I suggested 2 years because that was the minimum tour
of duty in the United States Army. Perhaps this Committee would
want to consider 1 year. I believe 2 years is an appropriate
period of time. And the reason that I provided 2 years, as was
previously testified by Doc Hastings, is that 25 percent of the
men and women who sign up for our military leave before they
have completed their 2 years of service.
And, more specifically, there is a period of basic training
that I went through as an enlisted man in the Army. There is a
period of advanced individual training. All this occurs before
you are ever assigned to a unit. And that is when our services
make the basic decision as to whether this is an appropriate
person to serve, and that is also when many of the people who
have volunteered are unable to fulfill the requirements of
service in our Army or our other branches.
So I think a time period is very important, whether it be
the 2-year period as suggested by my legislation, or perhaps
the 1-year period as suggested by my colleague Mr. Hastings.
This, doing something, is very very important, however. We all
know about the President's Executive order, an Executive order
that has been issued by other Presidents in times of wartime.
There is the remedy in time when our country is engaged in war
to provide for a shorter period of time, as the President has
appropriately done.
We need permanent legislation that will apply no matter
whether we are in war or whether we are simply building up our
Armed Services. That is why I introduced the legislation that
would reduce the 3-year period, and that is why I introduced
legislation that would eliminate the fees and make it possible
for people to be processed in their duty station wherever they
are around the world.
I would hope that the Chair would reconsider his position
as to the 3-year requirement. I believe that is too long. And
also I think that it is imperative that we pass some
legislation to recognize the soldiers who have fallen in this
most recent battle. You have heard their names, some of them
previously stated: PFC Francisco Martinez Flores, Corporal Jose
Anhel Gadabay, Lance Corporal Jesus Suarez De Solar, Lance
Corporal Jose Gutierrez, and others who have given their lives
or risked their lives for this country.
I represent a very large Hispanic constituency. My district
is 38 percent Hispanics. Hispanics evidence a high degree of
support for this country. They are very proud of being in the
United States and of serving our Nation. And I believe this
legislation is long overdue. I hope the Committee will listen
carefully to the testimony of all my colleagues who all offer
constructive suggestions, and that you fashion some legislation
that will recognize the service of these brave men and women to
our country.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Congressman Frost.
[The statement of Mr. Frost follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Martin Frost, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Texas
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate and thank you for this opportunity to
testify today on an issue of such great importance to our Armed Forces
and our nation.
In the war against Saddam Hussein, non-citizen soldiers were among
the first brave men and women to fall. Some were born in Mexico before
joining the U.S. military--like Pfc. Francisco Martinez Flores, Cpl.
Jose Angel Garibay and Lance Cpl. Jesus Suarez del Solar. Others were
born in Guatemala--like Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez. But all died
fighting for a country where they couldn't even cast a vote.
These brave individuals earned the respect and gratitude of every
American citizen. All of those who've chosen to make ultimate
sacrifices for the defense of our country certainly have earned the
full rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship.
Thousands of our troops, including many who just faced combat in
the Iraq, are not U.S. citizens. According to the Department of
Defense, the number of legal permanent residents serving on active duty
has risen to 37,401 or about 3 percent of our military. Additionally,
thousands of immigrants serve in the reserves and were called up for
active duty.
The ranks of non-citizens serving in the Armed Forces are growing,
and today's immigrants are building upon a rich legacy of service in
the U.S. military--immigrants have fought in every American conflict,
from the Revolutionary War to the War with Iraq. The military service
of immigrants reflects the strong strain of patriotism among
generations who've chosen to come to America. And the patriotism of
today's large Hispanic immigrant communities is particularly strong.
However, thousands of those troops are still not citizens today
because of the significant obstacles that remain.
The sacrifices of legal permanent residents in our military are
unique--they choose to defend the freedom of American citizens while
not sharing in the full rights and privileges of citizenship
themselves. Unfortunately, the process for granting citizenship to
immigrants within the U.S. military still places heavy burdens upon
them, especially those serving in the toughest overseas assignments.
Under current law, immigrant troops who have served three years in
the military may apply for citizenship. All citizenship interviews
however, must be done in the U.S. Therefore, troops must pay their own
way back and are subject to burdensome immigration fees. In total, a
low-paid G.I. deployed overseas could easily have to spend more than
$1,000 on fees and travel expenses to complete the naturalization
process. These costs, and the difficulty of scheduling appointments
months in advance, make it all but impossible for the non-citizens
fighting for America in Iraq or Afghanistan to become U.S. citizens
while they serve on the front lines.
Congress has an opportunity to relieve immigrant troops of these
burdens--and to pay tribute to their sacrifices--by passing H.R. 1275,
the ``Citizenship for America's Troops Act,'' a bi-partisan bill that I
first introduced last May.
My bill would remove unfair and unnecessary obstacles to facing
thousands of legal permanent residents serving honorably in the U.S.
military trying to obtain their citizenship. My legislation does the
following:
Lowers the military service year requirement from
three years to two years in order to apply for citizenship
Allows citizenship interviews and oath ceremonies to
be conducted overseas at U.S. embassies, consulates, and
military installations.
Exempts these troops from paying all fees relating to
naturalization.
Last year, following the precedent of previous administrations in
time of military conflict, President Bush signed an Executive Order
making those who had been on active duty since September 11th
immediately eligible for citizenship. However, this executive order is
only good only in times of conflict and not peace.
It is often said that the best offense is a good defense. Our
military is undisputed as the most powerful in the world. This is due
in no small part because of the contributions of legal permanent
resident soldiers. Their efforts in times of peace should not go
unrecognized and unrewarded. As we have seen in the last months' of
war, legal permanent resident troops were all too willing to pay the
ultimate sacrifice when called to serve their country at war.
H.R. 1275 has the support of several prominent immigrantion and
military organizations--the League of United Latin American Citizens,
the National Council of La Raza, the National Association of Latino
Elected Officials, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and
the Air Force Association.
This is not a partisan issue--both Republican and Democratic
Members are co-sponsoring the Citizenship for America's Troops Act.
That's because the ``Citizenship For America's Troops Act'' contains
simple, common sense measures to make life easier for dedicated,
military personnel who dearly wish to become U.S. citizens.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.
Mr. Hostettler. Congressman Jones.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE WALTER B. JONES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I thank the Ranking
Member and the men and women on this Committee for this
opportunity to discuss H.R. 1799, the ``Fallen Heroes Immigrant
Spouse Fairness Act.'' Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, this
does two very simple things: It eliminates the 2-year marriage
threshold for immigrant spouses petitioning for permanent legal
residence, and it waives the $80 fee charged to the family
seeking posthumous citizenship for their loved ones who have
died in the line of duty.
Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, I can very briefly tell
you how this came to my attention. Several weeks ago, Sergeant
Michael Bitts was killed in Iraq. His wife Janina is from
Australia. They had three children. One was 3 years old, a
little boy; then Michael had twins born that he never saw, and
they were born after he was deployed. I went down to the
funeral of Sergeant Michael Bitts down at Camp Lejeune, and I
had the opportunity to speak to the family to convey my
sympathy on behalf of my colleagues in the House and the
Senate.
Also, at that time I had the opportunity to speak to Pat
Millish. She is the immigration liaison for the Judge Advocate
at Camp Lejeune, which is in my district. Also Fort Bragg and
Pope Air Force Base; those two bases are not in my district. We
discussed the need for this legislation, because what has
happened is that if by chance Mrs. Bitts had been in this
country 1 year and 11 months, then she would have to start the
whole naturalization process from the beginning, from day one.
As it worked out, she had been here 2 years and 1 month prior
after her husband's death. So basically what we are trying to
do is to say to that family member who has lost a loved one,
whether it be in a non-wartime situation or in a wartime
situation, that you may continue the process where you are when
that loved one dies.
And it is very simple legislation. It is to the point. And,
quite frankly, Ms. Millish says that she hopes that the House
and the Senate would pass this very simple legislation to help
the loved one who has lost an individual who has been in the
service.
I am pleased to tell you and the Committee that we do have
the written support of the Fleet Reserve Association, the
National Military Families Association. And again, this is a
bill that does two simple things. But I think it is so
important to that spouse so that when she or he loses a loved
one and they are in the naturalization process, they don't have
to go back to the very beginning of the process. They continue
where they are at that point in the process when that loved one
has lost their life.
So Mr. Chairman, with that, again I thank you and the
Committee for giving me this opportunity to testify, and I will
thank you and be glad to answer any questions when that time
comes forward. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Congressman Jones.
[The statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Walter B. Jones, a Representative
in Congress From the State of North Carolina
Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, thank you for
inviting me to speak on the topic of House Military Naturalization
Bills. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak about legislation
aimed at amending current immigration law to eliminate the 2-year
marriage threshold for immigrant spouses petitioning for permanent
legal residence and to waive the $80 fee charged to families seeking
posthumous citizenship for their loved one who has died in the line of
duty.
I have recently introduced legislation, the Fallen Heroes Immigrant
Spouse Fairness Act, H.R. 1799, to address the two issues I have
mentioned. As the current law is written, should a U.S. citizen spouse
die before a 2-year period of marriage is reached, the pending
application of the non-citizen spouse is vacated. Widows and widowers
of our men and women in uniform who are in the process of applying for
a green card should not have their application process terminated if
they are unfortunate enough to have lost their loved one prior to
reaching the 2-year threshold.
In the 3rd District of North Carolina, where there are numerous
military installations and facilities, one of my constituents was
killed during Operation Iraqi Freedom. This constituent's spouse is a
legal immigrant seeking to become a citizen and had been living in the
3rd District for 2 years and one month prior to her husband's death.
Consequently her paperwork for a green card will proceed. However, it
is incomprehensible to me that should this immigrant spouse have been
married for 1 year and 364 days her paper work would have been voided
due to the death of her husband. That is wrong. The time limit should
be eliminated for spouses whose loved ones have given their lives
serving our Nation.
The Fallen Heroes Immigrant Spouse Fairness Act would amend Section
201(b)2(A)(i) of Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the 2
year marriage requirement for foreign spouses of U.S. citizens who die
while serving. Additionally this legislation seeks to remedy a practice
of charging families of non-citizen soldiers who are killed in the line
of duty an $80 fee for processing an application for posthumous
citizenship. These brave men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice
protecting the freedom and interests of the United States. As such, the
imposition of a fee for the application process for posthumous
citizenship is an insult to the contribution these service men and
women made to our national defense.
It is my sincere wish that we can make these common sense changes
to our immigration process. We should not punish the families of our
soldiers simply because they are unfortunate enough to have incurred
the greatest loss of all with the death of their loved one in the
service of our country.
Mr. Hostettler. Congressman Gutierrez.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Gutierrez. Chairman Hostettler and Ranking Member
Jackson Lee, Members of the Committee, thank you so much for
allowing us to come before you this morning. I want to thank my
colleagues, Congressman Hastings and Congressman Frost and my
good friend Walter Jones and Issa and Hilda Solis. I think, and
I hope, Mr. Chairman--and I heard your opening remarks, and I
apologize, the plane was a little late this morning. I really
do apologize. I hope you don't take that as any consideration
as a lack of importance of this hearing.
But look at this wonderful group of Congressmen, if I may
so include myself.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection.
Mr. Gutierrez. I just can't think of another moment in my
11 years in the Congress of the United States where we have
brought together such a diverse grouping of Members of Congress
from different--obviously the two political parties, and even
within the political parties, different ideological bents
within those political parties. But we have all come together
because we see an injustice. And I hope you will take that into
consideration as you and the Ranking Members and other Members
of the Subcommittee make your deliberations on this issue.
I too will follow my colleague, Congressman Jones, and
simply try to explain a little bit about the Fairness for
America's Hero's Act, H.R. 1815. And what it does, Mr. Chairman
and Members of the Committee, it simply says that when the
Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States,
the President, calls you to combat duty, that at that moment
you become conferred with American citizenship.
I say this because you shouldn't have to die in order to be
posthumously given American citizenship. Someone shouldn't have
to go out and pay for and search out a death certificate for
someone who has died defending this Nation in order to be
granted American citizenship. I mean, think about it, Mr.
Chairman. You apply for permanent residency. That takes time.
By the time you sign up--and you know, we don't take everybody
these days. We make sure that we take the best qualified into
our Armed Forces these days.
Then, as Martin Frost, Congressman Martin Frost, you go
into training. They check you out, they take your fingerprints.
They find out who you are. They find out something about you
during that time. And then you get more training. I mean, by
the time this soldier takes that gun and is called to combat
duty, of the 37,000 noncitizens that currently are in the Armed
Forces of the United States, about 10 percent of them are
called to combat duty. So that is who we are talking about.
And so all my bill proposes to do is to say, look, if you
are willing to pay the highest tax in this body--which is the
taxing body--of this great Nation of ours, if you are willing
to pay the highest tax that any citizen or any member of a
nation can pay, which is the tax of their life and their limb
and their health, then at that moment that Nation should
respond and say you are a complete member of this great body of
the United States of America. We are not going to wait for you
to die.
I mean, think about it. They have applied. We all have
casework in our office where people have applied. And then, Mr.
Chairman, they send them to combat duty, they send them to
training, they can't get back, they miss the exam date.
Why are we waiting to give somebody on combat duty a civics
test so they can become an American citizen? I mean, they have
given us all a lesson in civics. An English test? They got that
when they were in basic training. They wouldn't have made it
through without having a command of the English language.
Security test, Mr. Chairman? What security clearance could they
possibly need? We have given them the most sophisticated
weapons known to mankind for them to use in defense of this
Nation. So, obviously we have already crossed those thresholds.
These are bureaucratic measures that we should somehow try to
overcome.
And secondly, Mr. Chairman, it says that those that gave
life to that valiant soldier--their mother, their father, and
those who will cary on life for that soldier, the spouse and
the children, that immediate family, something that we defend
and cherish so much in everything that we do here in the
Congress--that that soldier who makes sure that I am able to go
back to my grandson that was born a couple of days ago and my
children, and allows us to go back to our families and our
spouses and see my mom and my dad and continue to cherish in
that relationship, that that application doesn't die. Because
that literally is what happens. A permanent resident; it dies.
Let it live because the Congress of the United States saw fit
to do so.
Thank you very much, Members of the Committee, and thank
you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you very much, Mr. Gutierrez.
[The information follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Luis V. Guitierrez, a
Representative in Congress From the State of Illinois
Chairman Hostettler and Ranking Member Jackson Lee, thank you for
holding this important hearing. I am grateful for the opportunity to
testify before this Subcommittee on my bill, the ``Fairness for
America's Heroes Act'' (H.R. 1850), which grants automatic citizenship
to servicemembers called to combat duty and provides immigration
protections to immediate family members who lose a loved one in
military service to our nation.
The war in Iraq has, once again, highlighted the very important
contributions and sacrifices non-citizen soldiers make to our military.
Currently, there are more than 37,000 non-citizens on active duty in
our military and each year approximately 7,000 new non-citizens join
the armed forces. The presence of these brave men and women in our
military is nothing new. Immigrants have fought in every war since the
American Revolution. In fact, they account for 20 percent of
Congressional Medal of Honor recipients.
The war on terrorism and the war in Iraq have poignantly, and even
tragically, highlighted the need to reform how immigration policy
affects the brave, legal permanent residents currently serving in our
military. I believe we all agree there is a need for laws that reflect
the heroism and patriotism of our non-citizen soldiers.
Although permanent residents on active duty usually have to wait
three years before they can apply for citizenship, President Bush
issued an Executive Order in July 2002 that allows them to apply for
citizenship immediately. This was an appropriate, timely, and
commendable use of his executive powers. Servicemembers, however, must
still comply with the naturalization process and submit an application
and supporting documentation, pay related fees, take an exam,
participate in an interview and often have to wait long periods of time
due to backlogs in application processing. A soldier's ability to
pursue citizenship continues to be further complicated by their
deployment to bases all over the world, well out of the reach of
immigration service centers.
My colleagues testifying today have proposed some important and
creative solutions to remove these barriers that non-citizen soldiers
face in their pursuit of U.S. citizenship. I commend their efforts and
express my whole-hearted support for their legislative initiatives to
streamline the naturalization process for active duty servicemembers. I
also ask your support, Mr. Chairman, and the support of this
Subcommittee for the central provision of my bill that takes
immigration reform a step further for those who are called to risk
their lives in the most dangerous conflicts around the globe. I am
talking about the brave men and women who are called to serve in combat
zones.
Of the tens of thousands of immigrant servicemembers on active
duty, approximately 3,200 are currently serving in a combat zone. These
brave men and women are willing to die defending our nation and it is
imperative that we recognize their selflessness and their spirit--not
only when one of them is killed in battle, but from the moment they are
called up for combat duty.
My bill would grant immediate citizenship to non-citizen soldiers
who are serving honorably and called to combat duty service. The date
they become citizens would coincide with the date they officially
qualify for the combat zone exemption as defined by the Internal
Revenue Code.
Within 30 days of being notified of the soldier's naturalization,
the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security would issue an
appropriate citizenship document reflecting the date the soldier was
sent into combat.
An additional provision of H.R. 1850 would also create a
contingency for surviving family members of noncitizen soldiers granted
posthumous citizenship by protecting their eligibility to adjust status
even after a soldier's death. This and all other provisions of my bill
would take effect as if passed on September 11, 2001, thereby making
its reforms available to any servicemember who has served, or died,
since that date.
Unfortunately, because of needless barriers to citizenship,
soldiers have been killed on the battlefield without ever realizing
their dream of U.S. citizenship. I believe we need laws that accurately
reflect their service and their sacrifice. All of those who serve--
regardless of race, gender, or country of origin--are recognized as
America's heroes. My bill would allow them, rightfully and justly, to
also be recognized as Americans--a distinction they have earned and
deserve.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that the key provisions of my bill be included
in any legislative vehicle that is considered and approved by this
Subcommittee. No soldier serving our nation should ever have to come
home in a body bag to be recognized as an American. I appeal to this
Subcommittee for its support of my bill, and I thank you again for the
opportunity to testify today.
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
Mr. Hostettler. Congressman Issa.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE DARRELL ISSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to give
special thanks to the Ranking Member, Ms. Lee. We worked
together on authoring my, I believe, narrow but importantly
crafted piece of legislation. And without her help I don't
believe it would be the document it is here today.
I will submit my printed statement for the record, and take
the liberty of expressing perhaps an opinion borne both of my
service on this Committee and my service in the military, to
say that as the Chair and as the Chair of the full Committee
deliberate how to roll together all of this legislation into
what I believe will be a single bill, one that I look forward
to supporting, there is a balancing act.
And I think that all of us here below the dais are in
agreement that we need to reform immigration as to our service
members. We need to do it not in a rush to judgment because we
were very proud of our military and what they did in faraway
lands both in Afghanistan and in Iraq, but because it is the
right thing to do and it is long overdue.
I particularly would like to take note that the normal
prohibition on active duty members of the military lobbying
Members of Congress was fortunately waived with Mr. Frost, and
for a good reason. I believe that Mr. Frost has hit on some
very important points:
First of all, that somebody could serve 2 years in the
military, be honorably discharged, and find themselves less
than the existing 3 and having to go through this process.
I also share with Congressman Frost the concern that we not
lower to a level so low that someone could simply join the
military, serve for a very short period of time, get their
citizenship, depart the military under what might be
characterized as honorable discharge, but often isn't. And I
want to make a point, as someone who has been both an enlisted
man and an officer and has discharged men and women, we often
discharge under what are called general, under honorable
condition, honorable conditions, soldiers who their service
wasn't all that honorable. It wasn't dishonorable, but it
wasn't all that honorable. And I think that practice in the
military has to be taken into consideration when we look at
shortening the period.
I do believe that there is one thing that none of us as far
as I can tell addressed specifically, and that is that if we
are going to look at the period of service--and let us just say
that we go with the 2-year for a moment. That if someone
becomes injured--not killed, but injured, due to no fault of
their own, and discharged as a result, we need to ensure that
that does accelerate their consideration to service. As you may
all know, during that basic training and that advanced
individual training and then when soldiers go into the training
beyond that--I was airborne qualified. Jumping out of an
airplane can be done pretty safely, but sooner or later, if you
jump often enough, you may get injured and injured severely
enough not to be able to continue to serve--that that is an
area of unique consideration that you may want to add to all of
this legislation.
I will summarize and be available for questions by saying
that although my piece of legislation with Ms. Jackson Lee is
probably one of them that is narrow enough that it is not in
doubt, when we look at adding all of these others, let us
balance, please, Mr. Chairman, balance the possible shortening
with the possibility that we would shorten it so much that we
would create unfairly an ability for people to join the
military for other than the honorable and right reasons that
people should and do join the military. Citizenship is granted
for those who serve honorably in the military, not you join the
military to get citizenship and then get out as fast as you
can. And I hope we would keep with that tradition.
Last, but very much not least, those who have died in
performance of their duty for their country, we often talk
about are they legal or are they not legal. I would hope that
this Committee would never question somebody who has enlisted
in the military, served their country, a country that wasn't
theirs, died honorably, we should never question whether or not
they were in legal status when they enlisted. This should be
the one exception to any and all consideration, because I
believe that it is too late to second-guess whether someone
should have been admitted into the military or not. And I would
hope as we look to that in this type of legislation, that we
not second-guess that, just as, Mr. Chairman, you said very
well, it is almost impossible to second-guess citizenship once
granted; and, therefore, citizenship must be as it is today,
nearly irrevocable.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I stand ready for questions.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Congressman Issa.
[The statement of Mr. Issa follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Darrell Issa, a Representative in
Congress From the State of California
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding a hearing on House military
naturalization bills including H.R. 1685, a bill I introduced to
eliminate the prohibition on benefits for surviving spouses and
children of non-citizen military personnel killed while on active duty
during times of military hostilities.
Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base in my Congressional district is
home to over 50,000 Marines. Many of these Marines were deployed to the
Middle East to free the people in Iraq from Saddam Hussein's oppressive
regime. In the early stages of the war in Iraq, uniformed Marines,
nearly every day, presented me with next of kin (NOK) notices for those
Marines killed in action from my district. One of the Marines that died
for this country was an active duty non-U.S. citizen. I was told that
he would receive posthumous citizenship--under current law, a strictly
honorary award.
Existing immigration and naturalization law permits the President
to award posthumous citizenship to non-citizens killed in any military
hostility, but denies immigration benefits for their spouse and
children. Honorary posthumous citizenship is a hollow benefit for a
fallen hero if his spouse and children are subsequently asked to leave
the country that he died defending. We should honor the sacrifice of
fallen heroes by allowing their spouses and children to enjoy the
benefits and freedoms of the country they were fighting to defend, and
would have eventually gained had their loved one not perished.
My bill will amend the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to
allow spouses and children of those granted posthumous citizenship to
self petition because their primary sponsor has died in combat. This
bill does not automatically grant anyone citizenship. Spouses and
children will still need to apply for citizenship and meet certain
background requirements defined in the INA.
There are nearly 38,000 non-U.S. citizens serving in our nation's
armed forces. When these men and women are again called upon to protect
this nation, I want to them to know that if they make the ultimate
sacrifice for America their family will not face a cruel and
unnecessary legal sanction.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify before
for your committee. I stand ready to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Hostettler. Congresswoman Solis. I must say at the
outset I apologize for the mispronouncing your name. With my
last name, I should be more sensitive to this. I apologize for
that. And Congresswoman Solis, you are welcome to give your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE HILDA L. SOLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Solis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and also
Ranking Member Jackson Lee and Members of this Subcommittee
that are here today. I am especially happy to be here to be
able to present H.R. 1814, the ``Naturalization and Family
Protection for Military Members Act.''
As you know, during the past month and a half we have all
been saddened by the many deaths of our soldiers that have been
killed in Iraq. And like many other service men and women
before them who have lost their lives in defense of our
country, these soldiers are true heroes, and we honor them and
their families.
Over 100 U.S. military members have been killed in the war
on Iraq. Many in Congress and around the country have been
surprised to learn that among these fallen heroes were at least
10 soldiers that were not U.S. citizens. One of them happened
to be one of my constituents. It is a young man, Lance Corporal
Francisco Martinez Flores from the city of Duarte in the 32nd
Congressional District of California, Los Angeles County. He
was 20 years old. Martinez Flores was born in Guadalajara,
Mexico, and came to the U.S. with his family at the age of 3.
He attended our public schools there in Duarte, participated in
the Boy Scouts, and played football in high school. At the age
of 18, he enlisted in the Marines. He was killed in action on
March 25th when his tank plunged into the Euphrates River in
Iraq; 1,500 people packed a local church that I went to in
attendance for the ceremony to memorialize him. It is the first
time that I had seen so many people in our community unite
around one flag and one soldier and one family, a family that
gave their son, their oldest son.
Lance Corporal Francisco Martinez Flores was just two weeks
shy of earning his U.S. citizenship, but he died. He never got
to realize that. His family felt enormous pride when he was
granted citizenship by the President. But that didn't go far
enough. It doesn't go far enough for his siblings, for his
brothers and sisters, and for his parents.He was just one of
thousands of lawful permanent residents who currently serve our
military now. And now, as we welcome home our men and women in
uniform, we should honor the sacrifices of soldiers like Lance
Corporal Martinez Flores and their families for ensuring the
ability of immigrant soldiers, legal permanent soldiers, to
gain citizenship in a timely manner.
The legislation that I have introduced is the most
comprehensive, in my opinion, to help provide the military with
the tools to naturalize these individuals. It includes
provisions in Congressman Frost's Citizenship for American
Troops Act, of which I am a strong supporter. And these
provisions would waive naturalization fees, allow
naturalization interviews and citizenship oath to take place
abroad, and shorten the 3-year service requirement to 2 years.
It is--and I have to state that it is a hardship for many of
our young men to come back to this country after serving
abroad, having to pay for their air fare and then pay for those
legalization fees to come here to receive the oath of office.
Why can't we open up our doors in our local consulate offices
abroad to allow them to go through the ceremonies there and
waive those fees?
I want to commend Congressman Frost, who was working on
this issue long before the war on Iraq. H.R. 1814 builds upon
his provisions by ensuring that the ability of members of the
Selective Service Reserves would also be included in this act.
This provision is included because recruiting needs are
immediate during wartime. And I say that because I also had an
opportunity to meet with local Reservists in my own district,
some of whom are young women who were preparing to go to war.
Two days before I had met with them, they were already
scheduled to go to Seattle, Washington and then be departed out
to the Middle East.
And I say that because many of them were perhaps, for at
least the past 6 months, in preparation for war. Why can't they
also be a part of those individuals that would be granted, at
least in a timely manner, citizenship?
They too deserve, in my opinion, special recognition for
their bravery and sacrifice. The final aspect of my bill, one
that I feel very strongly about, would establish immigration
protections for the immediate family. And I say that because
the family of soldiers like Francisco, whose parents may not
have obtained their permanent legal status here, who not be
eligible because their son had died serving our country, I
think it is only fitting that we allow them an opportunity,
they play by the rules, they pay taxes, they have no criminal
background, they are here, they gave their son or daughter.
They should also be allowed those protections.
So my bill goes in that direction. And I am proud to say
that this is a comprehensive bipartisan piece of legislation,
and I am happy that Congressman Cannon, a Member of the
Subcommittee, is also a co-author. I thank the gentleman for
his support.
Other Ranking Members include Congressman Conyers, Chairman
David Dreier, who sits next to me in my neighboring district
there in Los Angeles County, Congressman Chris Smith, Lane
Evans and other Members. In addition, this bill has a companion
measure in the Senate, Senate bill 922, and that also enjoys
bipartisan support.
This bill is supported also by a broad range of
organizations. We have worked very hard with this Committee
staff and my staff to see that we could get a bipartisan piece
of legislation that could take care of the concerns that our
constituents are feeling, but also those various service groups
that we also place honor upon. And I would like to list them:
The Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Blue Star Mothers of America,
the National Guard Association of the United States, and the
Noncommissioned Officers Association of the United States. It
includes various other organizations that are also helping to
advocate for this measure.
I also have received the endorsement of the congressional
Hispanic caucus, most of--more than half of the Members that
have come on the bill. I would ask that this bill be given
consideration. I also would like to mention in this hearing the
possible opportunity to see the 2-year limit reduced to one.
That is something that we should talk about, definitely. But I
also know that there are individuals outside of this particular
hearing room that would like to see that we keep at least the
limit at 2 years because we are looking at military service.
And that is currently a requirement. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman and Members.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Congresswoman Solis.
[The statement of Ms. Solis follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Hilda L. Solis, a Representative in
Congress From the State of California
Thank you Chairman Hostettler and Ranking Member Jackson-Lee for
inviting me to speak before the Subcommittee today about H.R. 1814, the
Naturalization and Family Protection for Military Members Act.
During the past month and half, we have all been saddened by the
news of soldiers who have been killed while serving in Iraq. Like the
many other servicemen and women before them who have lost their lives
in defense of our country, these soldiers are true heroes, and we honor
them and their families.
Over 100 U.S. military members have been killed in the war with
Iraq. Many in Congress and around the country have been surprised to
learn that among these fallen heroes were at least ten soldiers that
were not U.S. citizens.
One of them, Lance Corporal Francisco Martinez Flores, was from
Duarte, California, in my district. Martinez Flores was born in
Guadalajara, Mexico, and came to the U.S. with his family at age 3. He
attended public schools, participated in Boy Scouts, and played
football for his high school. At the age of 18, Martinez Flores
enlisted in the Marines. He was killed in action on March 25th when his
tank plunged into the Euphrates River. Fifteen hundred people packed
his church and the surrounding streets for his funeral to show their
love and respect for this fallen hero.
Lance Corporal Martinez Flores was just two weeks shy of earning
his U.S. citizenship when he was killed. His family felt enormous pride
when he was granted citizenship posthumously.
Martinez Flores joins a long tradition of immigrant soldiers who
have died in service to the United States. He was just one of thousands
of lawful permanent residents who currently serve in the military.
Now, as we welcome home our men and women in uniform, we should
honor the sacrifices of soldiers like Lance Corporal Martinez Flores
and their families by ensuring the ability of immigrant soldiers to
gain citizenship in a timely fashion.
The legislation I introduced, H.R. 1814, is the most comprehensive
of the military naturalization bills. It includes the provisions in
Congressman Frost's Citizenship for America's Troops Act, of which I am
a strong supporter. These provisions would waive naturalization fees,
allow naturalization interviews and the citizenship oath to take place
abroad, and shorten the three-year service requirement to apply for
naturalization to two years. I want to commend Congressman Frost, who
was working on this issue long before the war in Iraq as part of his
continuing commitment to protect the rights of all military families.
H.R. 1814 builds upon the Frost provisions by ensuring the ability
of Members of the Selective Reserves to expedite their naturalization
application during times of hostility. This provision is included
because recruiting needs are immediate during wartime and readiness is
essential. During the war with Iraq, many reservists were activated,
and many more were expected to be called up at a moment's notice to
defend our country. They too deserve special recognition for their
bravery and sacrifice.
The final aspect of my legislation--one I feel very strongly
about--would establish immigration protections for immediate family
members of soldiers killed in action. These military families have paid
the ultimate sacrifice in losing their loved one in service to our
country. The least we can do for these grieving families is to express
our collective gratitude for their sacrifices by ensuring their ability
to apply for U.S. citizenship.
I am proud to say that this comprehensive legislation has been met
with strong bipartisan support. Congressman Cannon, a Member of this
Subcommittee, is a coauthor. Other cosponsors include: Ranking Member
Conyers, Chairman Dreier, and Congressmen Chris Smith and Lane Evans,
Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee.
H.R. 1814 is supported by a broad range of organizations, including
the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Blue Star Mothers of America, the
National Guard Association of the United States, the Non-Commissioned
Officers Association of the United States, the National Council of La
Raza, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, the
American Immigration Lawyers Association, and the Air Force Sergeants
Association. It has also been endorsed by the Congressional Hispanic
Caucus.
Several weeks ago, I had the opportunity to help relaunch a support
hotline that serves the many Latino immigrant families in the Los
Angeles area who have loved ones serving in the military. The hotline
is crucial to immigrant families who may find it difficult to obtain
information about their loved ones due to language barriers.
At the event, I had the opportunity to meet many of these proud
family members. The families displayed photographs of their loved ones,
and I've brought several of these pictures here today.
The soldiers in these pictures may not yet be U.S. citizens, but it
is clear that they and their families love this country. On their
behalf, I am proud to be working with my colleagues in Congress to
enact a comprehensive bill that recognizes the sacrifices of these
soldiers and their families.
I'm pleased that this Subcommittee has agreed to address this
important issue.
I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member again for allowing
me to testify today. I also want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and
Ranking Member Conyers for their commitment to this issue and for the
assistance of their staff throughout this process.
Thank you.
Mr. Hostettler. We will now enter the time of questions
based on the 5-minute rule. First of all, Congressman Hastings,
why did you decide to lower the current 3-year military service
requirement to 1 year now in your new legislation?
Mr. Hastings. It is probably just the reality of the
legislative process. I feel very strongly in my initial bill
that it should be zero very simply, because of what we all read
of those that gave their life. So I felt the proper time period
would have been zero. But we all know that when you introduce
legislation that is the start of the process and not the end of
the process. And so, in discussions that I had with a number of
Members, discussions with various organizations, I felt that a
compromise there has to be a time period, then it should be 1
year. But it was simply the reality of trying to get something
that can pass.
Again, if I had my druthers and I were a benevolent
dictator, like all of us would be, individually we would have
ideal legislation with the one that we would introduce. I
recognize this is the start of process and not the end, and I
feel a one year time period is appropriate. I might add also
from the time that I was in the service the training is much
more extensive now in a longer period of time. Congressman
Frost alluded it to that in his testimony and I certainly
agree. So by the time you get to a point where somebody would
be potentially in a combat situation or in a death situation
probably he would have satisfied that 1 year any way. So, it is
a combination of all of those factors that I think it is--I
just think bottom line the time period ought to be shortened.
That is the bottom line.
Mr. Hostettler. Very good. Thank you. Congressman Jones,
did you consider lowering the 3-year military service
requirement as part of your legislation?
Mr. Jones. No, sir. Primarily my concern was when I
communicated with the wife of the fallen hero as well as to the
lady who is in charge of working with the judge advocates
office at Camp Lejeune. My bill just primarily dealt with the
fact that the spouse, the surviving spouse of a fallen hero
should not have to as they are trying to become American
citizens start the process again. So what we basically are
saying is that we should eliminate the 2-year limit in that
situation where you have a spouse who has been killed or died
in training for this country.
Mr. Hostettler. I don't think I asked the question
correctly. Did you consider it? And if not, was there a reason
why you did not consider lowering the requirement?
Mr. Jones. No, basically I did not.
Mr. Hostettler. Okay. Congressman Gutierrez, I understand
that your bill currently to mean that a soldier ordered to
service would be automatically granted citizenship without
having to apply for naturalization; is that correct, that has
been called into combat?
Mr. Gutierrez. At the moment that soldier is called into
combat, and I want to reiterate there are 37,000, but only a
little over 3,000 that are called into active duty combat, that
the moment, so that we would never go into a situation where we
have to go search for a death certificate and apply for one and
go through this process, which is a process in which most cases
works out, but it is after the death of the soldier. The
Internal Revenue Code, for example, there is a provision in the
Internal Revenue Code when you go into active duty, combat
duty, you get a tax break. I would think that as a country if
we are thinking of a tax break for someone, we would think of
that citizenship. And that comes because when Cardinal Mahoney
in Los Angeles presided over the memorial service of Lance
Corporal Gutierrez, suggested that he felt such a burden as an
American citizen and as a leader of a religious community that
that Lance Corporal would now have to go about the process of
searching and seeking that American citizenship.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you. Congressman Solis, in your bill,
in your statement, you refer to permitting brothers and sisters
to receive immigration benefits. But your bill seems not to
include them. Is that a correct----
Ms. Solis. Actually, we would want to allow for their
brothers or sisters or siblings, if they hadn't, to self-
petition. If, for example, this young man that I indicated
passed away and his sister or brother did not have an
application pending, they could self-petition. If they were
already in the process, then this would continue, you know, in
that process there. So it would be uninterrupted. But I would
also just like to clarify what we are looking at here, in many
cases, are families that have lived here for several years.
And in this case of this young individual who passed away,
was here at the age of 3, went through our public school system
and what have you. And it is unfortunate that he was not
eligible at the time to receive citizenship in his family.
There are still members there that are not citizens, are now
precluded or not given any advantage. So to me it is an
advantage or benefit that is well deserved.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Congressman. I now yield to the
Ranking Member, Ms. Jackson Lee for questions.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much. As I said earlier,
all of the presentations and the ideas of the legislative
initiatives are excellent. Mr. Chairman, I think our challenge
will be to ensure that we fully represent the talents and the
intent of these legislative initiatives. I would like to first
pose a question to Mr. Frost and acknowledge, as my good friend
and colleague from California has done, is Mr. Frost has
brought this to our attention some time ago in over a period of
more than a year.
So Mr. Frost, you have insight through the very fine expert
that you have had contact with, the hardship of not being able
to process at duty post and maybe some occurrences that may
have negotiated the very fine service of individuals who have
not been able to process.
Mr. Frost. Well, I thank the gentlelady for her question. I
really appreciate your service on this particular Subcommittee
and on behalf of our delegation, it has been very important for
the time that have you devoted to it. There aren't individual
stories, there are a lot of stories in terms of the difficulty
it is. The key thing is that as I indicated in my testimony and
several others have alluded to, the cost of coming back here of
buying a round-trip ticket to the United States from wherever
they may be station can be very, very significant.
And many of these individuals come from basically a modest
means. And to have to spend $1,000 or $1,500 for a round-trip
ticket rather than being interviewed at the consulate where
they may be or at their duty station really is a barrier they
shouldn't have to face when they are risking their lives for
our country.
And also there are great scheduling delays when someone is
on active duty in a foreign country and they have to schedule
an interview with their particular, back here in the United
States, I have had my caseworkers, not just my wife, but
caseworkers who work for me in my office in Texas have told me
the great problem this causes and that sometimes people have to
rescheduled several times because they can't get away from
their unit, they can't come back to meet the initial
appointment.
I had a press conference in my district where I had three
soldiers, two of whom were women, one is a young man who came
and talked about the difficulty that they had had in just
scheduling when they would do their interviews when they were
back in the United States, when they were stationed abroad. And
this was a very real problem. And we shouldn't be posing those
kind of barriers, we shouldn't be electing those kind of
barriers for something that should be easy. We want to
recognize this service. We want to honor this service and ought
to make this as easy as possible.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I think all of us have found individuals
in our respective districts that have had this encounter. And I
would venture to say that if you would ask any American whether
or not that was a process or the procedure, they would be
shocked to see a document that they have to leave their duty
post in order to complete their paperwork. And I am going to--I
would like to raise this question for Congresswoman Solis and
Issa and Gutierrez, and you can follow up, I would like to hear
particularly because I think this is a very important point,
the hardship that your deceased constituents family now faces
with respect to the question of their status or their ability
to petition for citizenship.
Ms. Solis. Well, it becomes very, very difficult for them.
And I think is even one other example that is currently in play
in Los Angeles. There is a soldier who is serving right now,
and he is a legal permanent resident. His mother is from
Guatemala. She is now in the process of being deported. And
unfortunately, there is no recourse in the law right now for
this parent.
This bill that I am proposing would actually help to
provide protections for her. And of course, there is
sensitivity around this entire issue and I understand that. It
is very complicated. But there are a lot of good things that I
think can come out of this. And families currently that I have
come into contact with and I have recently seen many of them in
my district in the area of east Los Angeles that I represent,
the high number of young men that are currently serving us
whose parents are LPRs, are hoping to seek some status here as
well, knowing that their child, their son or their daughter may
not come back. Many of them are on very fixed low incomes. They
even rely on the support of that soldier that is abroad. Once
that is in jeopardy, you can see where this is going.
It is indeed a hardship. It isn't just Hispanic community,
it is also the Asian community, the Filipinos, people from
other countries who are serving us right now to protect our
freedoms.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Ask your kind indulgence of additional
minute for the Members to responds to the question.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Representative Issa, let me just build on
Congresswoman Solis's point, and Representative Gutierrez may
want to add to the earlier question that I posed, but in the
legislation that we have had the pleasure of working together
on, we allow the spouse and child to petition for immediate
relative status. Looking at the criteria and the hurdles that
they have to ascend, meaning all the listing of good
credentials and no criminal activity, can we consider the idea
of having a self-petition for the immediate relative in looking
at that to see where that would take us in terms of the
numbers? I think the deportation is a separate issue. I want to
narrow it to the issue of the first, I think, set of
circumstances of the deceased individual who Congresswoman
Solis mentioned and those brothers and sisters. But let me
yield to you.
Mr. Issa. First of all, I think you are exactly right that
no matter what the numbers are, the numbers who have given
their lives are relatively small, and we owe them something we
can't give them. It was one of the reasons that when you and I
talked about this whole question of giving posthumous
citizenship and nothing else, it is specifically taking away
what would otherwise be the rights of citizenship, it became
obvious what we were giving was pretty empty to the dead and we
were giving nothing to the living.
I think the interesting thing about the deportation of
somebody whose member is serving overseas, I find it
interesting that I even watched an episode of MASH from many
years ago in which that was the scenario of how to keep the
mother of a soldier from being deported. They finally, I guess,
she was Swedish, they finally got her a job with diplomatic
status at the Swedish consulate because that was MASH and they
could do that.
The reality is if a soldier is serving overseas we have a
statute that says that you, in fact, cannot divorce that
soldier while he or she is overseas. We have that for a reason.
The soldier or sailor or Marine is not there to fight for their
rights and to make their case. It would seem just as reasonable
that you not deport an immediate family member who lives under
the support or help or assistance of that soldier, sailor, or
Marine during their deployment overseas. It is a small request,
but it is very consistent with what we do with other domestic
questions.
And last but not least, I think the biggest question you
are going to decide that will be very big and very different,
will force the State Department to make material changes, is
this question of citizenship being granted while overseas. And
I would only say that just less than a year ago in the air
coming out of Kuwait, I reenlisted a soldier. And by the way,
because it was combat, there were no taxes on it. But if I can
reenlist somebody any place a soldier's foot stands, and it is
considered good enough to be the United States, isn't an
American embassy or consulate or, in my opinion, any place a
soldier's foot stands on foreign soil, American enough to
reenlist--or to grant them citizenship there? I would strongly
suggest that we allow the broadest definition of what the
United States is in our legislation so that we can, in fact,
allow for citizenship to be granted anywhere, any time an
appropriate officer is there to give the oath and the soldier
is qualified. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gutierrez.
Mr. Gutierrez. Anybody, one, we all know that the INS, when
they take the fingerprints of an applicant, only considers them
reliable for 6 months, so that we have issues of soldiers on
active duty on the combat front, which are sent notices to come
back to take fresh fingerprints. Again, what is the security
issue here for that soldier? I don't see any. We have given
them a gun, we have given them the highest technology, we want
them to take a fingerprint test again.
Secondly is that permanent residents are only allowed to
petition for their children and their spouses. Well, what about
their parents? Should mom or dad be deported because that
petition is not available to that soldier? And so I looked at
all of the different legislation, and one of the areas I just
looked at I said combat duty, they have got the gun, they are
on the front, should we wait for them to die before they become
an American citizen? Given the fact that we all know that there
are delays, and all of them have them in our offices of 2, 3, 4
years in the immigration process to become an American citizen.
We shouldn't have that delay.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Iowa, Mr. King for 5 minutes.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
all the panelists for your testimony here. It is unusual to see
this kind of a panel with such a bipartisan cross-section, and
one that has so much in common with their viewpoint that you
brought to this table. Each testimony has been interesting to
me. I just reflect that as I evaluate this, I really want to
take a piece of paper and draw a line down through it and list
all the categories that you have addressed here, and the
nuances of those categories, and then try to sort through and
say where do I disagree with you, because it is hard for me to
find those.
I would say, Mr. Gutierrez, your testimony has been the
most compelling. Maybe it is because you emote better, but also
you focused on the call to combat duty. That is the issue that
I think would have the least resistance by any part. So I
propose my first question to you, one that I am having trouble
answering myself, what is going to be the other side of this
argument? I mean, you all come to the table with essentially a
theme that is consistent here and it is legitimate here, but
what are we going to hear as criticism on the other side of the
argument.
Mr. Gutierrez. They will say people are going to sign up so
they can become citizens right away. Well, number one, let's
remember that the President of the United States has already
waived the 3 years. So I really don't understand what the
discussion and the debate is about. He did it. It was almost
unanimous, the applause and the acclaim for an action well
taken by the President of the United States in a time of war.
These are our best, that is what we call them when we recruit
them, our best and brightest in our Nation. They are legally in
the United States. No one, I think, in their right mind, is
going to think that somebody is going to join the Armed Forces
of the United States to go from a 5-year wait to a 3-year wait
in order to process a citizenship application. And so, I think
they might think that that is what they are going to do.
I would just say that, look, even being born in this
country and having served in the Armed Forces, as Timothy
McVeigh did, does not guarantee that you are not going to be
involved in some act of terrorism. I wish that was the test. It
would be such a more wonderful country. So I thank you for your
comments. I think that might be the thing. I don't think we
diminish it because they are giving their lives.
Mr. King. Mr. Issa.
Mr. Issa. I think one more item, Mr. King, would be this
whole question of honorable service. And I think the
Congressman said it very well. Your going to the service isn't
to get citizenship. On the other hand, your raising your right
hand and agreeing to go to basic training doesn't make you a
good soldier or your service characterizable as honorable. It
is one of the reasons that I am a little bit concerned about
going to zero under any conditions other than posthumously,
because whatever time is expired, that is all we have. But I
have no doubt that once the military can make a determination
that the service can be characterized as honorable, whether you
choose to reduce it to 1 year, or perhaps go with Mr. Frost's
2-year proposal, I think you achieve what you want to achieve,
and completely shun all criticism of whether or not people have
earned a unique acceleration of their citizenship.
Mr. Frost. If I could add, Mr. King, I have met with a
cross-section of veterans organizations in my district in
Texas. They have emphasized the same point that Mr. Issa did,
as long as the service is honorable and there is a sufficient
period of time to determine that the service is honorable, then
they fully embrace this also. But they do have that threshold
of honorable service.
Mr. King. I am a little unclear about what the definition
is for a call-to-combat duty. Does that include stateside duty
during a time of crisis?
Mr. Gutierrez. We use the Internal Revenue Code. So if they
qualify under the Internal Revenue Code for combat duty is--we
tried to find a test.
Mr. King. So that would be consistent with that?
Mr. Gutierrez. With combat duty, yes.
Mr. King. Thank you. I would add, also, as I listen to
these things, something that I think is essential--citizenship
needs to be precious. It needs to have value in order for it to
be--also have value to this country. Certainly service in the
military is a very powerful indicator of that commitment to
that value. The citizenship test portion of the naturlaization
requirements as applied to the military and asking that it be
provided within the military doesn't seem to me to be too much
to ask.
It is a civics lesson that prepares one for the citizenship
test. I think that is essential. I think that goes with the
person for a lifetime. I have met people that have been in this
country for 20 years and didn't know they weren't citizens. I
think it would be essential for them to go through that
process, but I don't think it is difficult to do that on a
foreign land either.
Mr. Frost.
Mr. Frost. I do want to go back, too, to the point that we
should avoid air situation where you are going to have a
revocation of citizenship. I think the period of time should be
long enough, whatever that period is agreed upon, so that you
won't have a large number of attempts by our Government to
revoke someone's citizenship. I think that is a direction that
we should avoid at all costs.
Mr. King. Mr. Issa.
Mr. Issa. I might mention in my travels around the world
although Mexico allows dual citizenship, as some other
countries do, for a great many countries taking the oath of
citizenship in the U.S., revokes permanently your citizenship.
So if you quickly enlist somebody and give them citizenship you
might very well find out that no, their country is not going to
accept them back just because you have revoked it. So then you
end up with something that we deal with a nightmare, which U.S.
take away their citizenship and nobody else wants them either.
So I do agree with Mr. Frost that this is the most
important item is to balance it so that we don't have to
increase the amount of revocations of citizenship.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. King. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all
our panelists who have taken the time to come and testify
today. Mr. Frost, you mentioned your bill would reduce the time
requirement down to 2 years, and there seems to be some debate
whether 2 years is too short or whether 1 year is long enough.
Do you have any concerns with Mr. Hastings' recommendation of
reducing it down to a year, that is to say, I know that you
mentioned the attrition rates in the first 2 years. Is there a
significant difference between the second versus first year?
Mr. Frost. I don't fully know the answer to that question.
That is a question the Committee may want to pose to people in
the military to people with the Department of Defense. The only
information I have is the attrition rate during the first 2
years, although I am being handed something which may be more
helpful.
Ms. Sanchez. I will allow you a moment.
Mr. Frost. My very efficient staff has--I will have to ask
them--let me ask a question. The information that I have been
provided by my staff, which I believe they obtain from the
Defense Department, was that DOD-wide, that is, all the
services, and this is by year and we would be happy to submit
this into the record, that the percent loss during the first 6
months seems to be in the range of 11 to 12 percent, as high as
15 percent in 1 year--in 2 of the years, 1993 and 1994, percent
lost at 12 months, it seems to me as high as 20 percent in 1
year, and percent lost at 14 months then is as high as 26
percent.
So there is--it does increase in terms of the amount of
time. It is not a flat amount, if that is what your asking, Ms.
Sanchez. It is something that has to be considered. Because the
services themselves have different amounts of time for their
basic training and for their advanced individual training. And
I think the key is having a long enough period of time so that
we don't have a great deal of--so that we have compensated for
whatever attrition will occur, if it is high, it does rise to
as high as 25 percent over a period of 2 years, although that
25 percent doesn't occur just during the first 6 months or
during the first 12 months, it is cumulative and occurs the
longer that you are in.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Frost. Mr. Jones, from your
testimony, I am not sure that I gathered whether or not--I know
your bill specifically deals with spouses who have applied for
citizenship and are somewhere in the process. Is your bill--
would your bill, and I believe that your bill addresses those
who are killed during active military service, would it also
cover soldiers killed while they are enlisted, although they
may not be involved in combat service?
Mr. Jones. Yes, ma'am, it does. This is the--this would
cover anyone that is in uniform and should they be killed in a
car accident or training and they have the spouse who is in the
process, they would be covered.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you. Mr. Issa, you expressed a little
bit of concern about shortening the length of service required
from the 3 years. Are you--would you be opposed to shortening
it to 2 years?
Mr. Issa. Not at all. As a matter of fact, I think 2 years
is the optimum date. If we reinstate a draft, as Mr. Rangel is
asking to us do, it would be a 2-year draft. The 2-year
enlistment still exists in some services. So to say that you
need 3 years when you can actually only be in 2 years in some
cases, as I said, also the possibility that for medical, let's
just say the chute doesn't open properly and you end up broken
into pieces, which really does happen during training, in
original training and later training, there is a possibility
you would need to have to deal with that.
I am very concerned about the 1 year or zero, because I
know altogether too well that you can go through 8, 9 months of
training, some people do fine in training, and then they
immediately, immediately prove that they are not terribly
interested in being soldiers once they get through the
training. I think optimally 2 years is the compromise. I think
Mr. Frost's figures looking at the attrition rate, we don't
want to grant citizenship to that 25 percent who got in the
military and didn't serve honorably.
Ms. Sanchez. I would ask unanimous consent for one more
minute to ask one last question.
Mr. Hastings. Could I respond to that?
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection.
Mr. Hastings. Just to put the figures correctly here, if
those enlisted in 1998 and 1999, the fallout in DOD-wide in
both cases in the first year was nearly 20 percent; 1 year it
was 20 percent, the next year it was 19 percent. So the biggest
fallout is going be the first year. You have a very small
fallout the second year. The implication of that is very
obvious. The period of getting the best people to stay longer
is more pronounced the longer they are in. You are going to get
the people that are less desirable, presumably, out the first
year. That is one of the reasons in response to the Chairman's
question that one of the factors that I offer the 1 year
compromise rather than the zero.
Ms. Sanchez. Point very well made.
Ms. Solis, currently it seems that we have some bills that
will address the specific situation where a spouse who is
married to a citizen--or married to a legal permanent resident
who is serving in the military, has submitted her application,
his or her, I should say, application for citizenship, and then
the spouse dies and is awarded the posthumous citizenship, and
there are some bills specific to addressing if she hasn't been
married--he or she has not been married for 2 years.
What is the current status of the law if the noncitizen
spouse has--is not in the process or hasn't yet applied for
citizenship when their spouse is deployed? Do they have any
protections whatsoever?
Ms. Solis. No. That is the purpose of our legislation is to
provide an opportunity for an individual in that situation to
hopefully self-petition, be allowed that opportunity, and in
the case of some of the soldiers that have passed away in Iraq,
I know that in the case of, say, a parent, the parent has--is
an LPR also, but having had their son killed, they still at
this time would have to wait a longer duration period. If this
bill is enacted, it would actually help to discontinue to
secure that they are not disadvantaged and that they are not
lost in that process. To me, this is one of the better attempts
to try to secure that all those family members that haven't
petitioned have an opportunity to do that. And those that are
in play continue to have their applications processed and be
taken care of appropriately with have guarantees written into
the law.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentlelady from California. In
conclusion, I want to thank the Members of this panel----
Ms. Jackson Lee. If you would yield for just one question,
I would appreciate it.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Again, I want to emphasize, I appreciate
the Chairman and I appreciate the Chairman of the full
Committee and the Ranking Member of the full Committee for the
urgency behind this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I think this is
a signal to the Members here, and I look at the number, evenly
divided between Republicans and Democrats that maybe this
Subcommittee on Immigration will be open to many more
immigration-legislative initiatives. You see, I have my
Chairman smiling. That will help us gain----
Mr. Issa. Here, here.
Ms. Jackson Lee.--earned access to legalization as we look
to the future. But I think this is a very fine signal that we
can work together around common issues that are clearly
important. I want to just pose a question to Congresswoman
Solis, and if the other Members would answer it because I think
in her legislation that there is a singular point besides the
other very excellent proposals and the excellent analysis given
by Members of this question of relatives. I define it, I don't
want to misspeak, siblings. I know you can get relatives far
and wide, and those of us who come from minority communities
and maybe immigrant communities, Mr. Chairman, and I think the
whole Nation is an immigrant community, you know how extended
families are.
So I am trying to be sensible about this. I would think, in
light of your constituent, you had a mother and father and then
siblings. So I would ask you about this family member scenario,
whether you would be willing, or whether your legislation would
focus on the siblings. You say relatives, but keeping it in
that definition. And then also your flexibility on, you know,
some of the waivers.
As you well know, there are many, many waivers here, but I
think this is an excellent idea and I would like to find common
ground. I would like the Members to comment on what they think
about the sibling concept as it relates to including them in
this process.
Ms. Solis. You are absolutely right. This issue is a very
important issue. I am very open to crafting something a little
bit more definitive. In the case of Francisco Flores Martinez,
his sister is currently not in status. And this certainly would
be an opportunity for someone like that to be able to petition.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I appreciate it.
Mr. Issa. I think what I said earlier when we are talking
about fallen heroes we are talking about a very small group
that we can give nothing to that person any longer. We can
grant them citizenship, but what is that--I don't see written
it on the tombstone normally, it probably won't say Lance
Corporal U.S. Citizen Posthumously. So it may be the best
example where we can reach out and try to expand anything and
everything that we can give, if you will, to say thank you to
that soldier. And perhaps siblings could be that appropriate
stretch that would be uniquely granted to those who gave this
last measure.
Mr. Gutierrez. Yes, just to reiterate the point you
shouldn't have to die to finally become an American citizen.
There are so many other ways that people are becoming American
citizens, number one. I think what Congresswoman Solis does and
what many of the other proposals do is very excellent because
if I am a national of Mexico, as many of those who have died
recently in Iraq or of Guatemala, and I apply for my spouse,
takes, 5, 6, probably close to 7 years before that visa becomes
available. So in other words, I join the Armed Forces, I serve
for my 3 years, whatever I am still waiting another 3 years, 4
years before her visa becomes available. And that of my minor
children. My mom and dad, I can't even do it.
So I think it would be good for this Committee to fashion
something so that a soldier doesn't die, pay the ultimate tax,
has his wife waiting for that visa, and because he died his
petition for his wife died with it, that that doesn't happen in
this country anymore. I think it is a great suggestion. And
maybe one of the things is to have some charts, count how long
it takes for minor children, spouses, and who is eligible. And
I think the Committee can do a wonderful job in helping to
remedy that.
Mr. Frost. Can I make one other observation, Chairman?
Ms. Jackson Lee. We were going down the row.
Mr. Jones. Ms. Jackson Lee, I would be very open to
reviewing such a proposal as it would move forward. I am one
that with Camp Lejeune, Cherry Point, Seymour Johnson Air Force
base, I think all of our men and women in uniform are very
special and their needs are very special. There are family
needs as well. And we need to review it as a Congress.
Mr. Frost. The only other observation I would make is that
I would urge the Committee to keep in mind that what we are
doing is changing permanent law and do that in a comprehensive
and forward looking way as you can. The President, under
existing law, has the right to issue executive orders as he did
in this particular case, which, in fact, shortened the time
frame. But what we are looking--by this legislation, what all
of us are looking to do is to a change in permanent law, which
would bring some order out of all of this.
And it would extend through peacetime, not just through a
particular national emergency, that we just faced. Because we
need some certainty and some fairness in dealing with
immigrants to this country who are being asked to join our
Armed Services, not just in an immediate wartime situation, but
in the interim. And there will be a lot of interims, I believe,
in the future as we are the only superpower in the world and
may be called upon to address a variety of situations. I would
hope the Committee would keep that in mind of bringing some
refinement and order to current, to permanent laws as it exists
right now. Thank you.
Mr. Hastings. The focus of this Committee, the focus of all
of our legislation because of what happened in Iraq to people
that were not soldiers, that were not citizens of this country.
Whenever you draft legislation like this, there are always
consequences that go beyond what you are focusing on initially.
I would just--I would certainly be open to looking at whatever
those consequences would be. But I think what I would advise
the Subcommittee to look on is how that, how some of these
suggestions would either complement or not, complement current
law as it relates to those. So that would be my only condition.
But I would certainly be open to looking at all of them. But
let's not lose sight of what we are trying to do is for the
individual who gave his or her life in defense of our country,
and that is where we ought to be focusing on.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I think that is an excellent situation.
Whenever we write legislation, we have to be sure that we have
our T's crossed and I's dotted, and certainly, you know, every
Member I know knows the complexity of immigration law, hear
about it from your district offices. I think your point, along
with Mr. Frost's point and the other Members, consistency and
order would help a great deal. If we can get that out of this,
I think that would be very important.
I thank the Chairman very much for yielding to me. Again, I
think you have moved us quickly forward, but I do think that
this is appropriate time to move quickly on this issue. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank the gentleman. And this Subcommittee
is used to second rounds of questioning so we have another
Member, Mr. King, that would like to ask the panel another
question. Recognize the gentleman for 5 minutes.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of time,
I would just ask for a quick answer to a couple of questions.
One would be the percentage of those who were killed in action
that were non citizens. Does someone on the panel have that
number?
Mr. Gutierrez. I don't know the exact number. I think it
was seven.
Ms. Solis. Excuse me, there were 10.
Mr. Issa. It is roughly the same percentage as who served.
Mr. King. The question was going to be----
Mr. Frost. 3 to 5 percent is what you are saying.
Mr. King. Does that extrapolate across the full services
for those also that were killed in training?
Mr. Issa. No. Killed in training?
Mr. King. Yes.
Mr. Issa. I don't think anyone had training figures. But it
probably is fairly similar. In this case, Marines took the
heaviest percentage of combat deaths just because of their
role.
Mr. King. I raise this question because of Mr. Jones'
testimony. Killed while in the service, killed while--my
concern is this: That if we go down that path we also are
careful that we don't also confer automatic and honorary
citizenship on someone who is happens to be in the service who
is killed while committing an act that does not contribute to
an honorable discharge.
Mr. Issa. The posthumous award has its own criteria. It is
not just you die you get a posthumous citizenship. So we never
envisioned changing the rules for posthumous citizenship in my
legislation. It has its own rules. But I will say that you
know, the second--first lieutenant who replaced me as XO of a
company a week after I left, he went on Return of Forces to
Germany which used to be call REFORGER, and a helicopter hit a
power line and flipped over and he was killed. That could have
just easily been me. We were in time of peace, but we were
preparing for the Soviets coming over the Czech border. I do
believe when we look at training accidents most often, those
accidents they are not the guy who is off duty in a Jeep, but
those training accidents have everything to do with being
prepared for the kind of success we just had in Iraq.
Mr. King. Absolutely. We overlook those training accidents
and those deaths. I think we should bring that to more light
than we do, because it is a sacrifice. And maybe as many as 5
to 6,000 accidents in the period of time between Desert Storm 1
and our operation in Iraq, just to be ready. So I want to take
a careful look at that language.
I didn't hear any testimony that addressed that particular
criteria, but I think it needs to be service that contributes
to an honorary discharge rather than if we have somebody off
base who commits an act.
Mr. Hastings. I do say that your citizenship would be
revoked on other than honorable discharge. You may want to look
at that and tighten it up and make some adjustments, but my
legislation does specifically address that issue.
Mr. King. We come at it with the same philosophy. So that
concludes my curiosity. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank the panel for an excellent presentation today.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank the panel for your presence and your
contribution to the record as well as this very important
issue. And Members of the Subcommittee are advised that the
record will stay open for five legislative days to revise and
extend. That the point the business of the Subcommittee being
completed, the Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee
Jose A. Gutierrez was an orphan from Guatemala when he hitchhiked
on railcars into Mexico in 1997. He entered the United States
illegally. Later, however, as a minor with no parents, he qualified for
permanent residency and was taken in by a foster family. He graduated
from high school and studied at a junior college before joining the
Marine Corps.
On March 21, 2003, in a battle with Iraq's Republican Guard troops,
Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez was killed in the service of the country he
loved. According to Martha Espinosa, one of his former foster mothers,
``He once told me, 'I was born the day I arrived in this country.'"
Jose was one of four fallen Marines who deserve special mention
because they died in service to a country they could not yet call their
own. The other three were Pfc. Francisco Martinez Flores, Cpl. Jose
Angel Garibay, and Lance Cpl. Jesus Suarez del Solar, all born in
Mexico.
Immigrants have long seen service in the U.S. military as a gateway
to citizenship, education and economic opportunity, and the deaths of
these four Marines echo those of other non-citizens who died for this
country before them. Their valor is well documented.
Service in the United States military, particularly in times of
conflict, is the ultimate act of patriotism. Our immigration laws
traditionally have allowed for expedited citizenship consideration for
non-citizen members of the United States military, even in peacetime.
For example, Section 328 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
allows non-citizen members of the military in peacetime to become
citizens after three years of service, instead of the usual five-year
wait required of non-military applicants.
In addition, Section 329 of INA allows non-citizens to receive
immediate naturalization eligibility through their active duty service
in the Armed Forces during periods of military hostilities. This
opportunity becomes available when the President designates by
Executive Order that the armed services are or were engaged in armed
conflict with a hostile foreign force.
Under Section 329 of the INA, 143,000 non-citizen military
participants in World Wars I and II, and 31,000 members of the U.S.
military who fought during the Korean War, became naturalized American
citizens. Executive Orders following Vietnam and the Persian Gulf War
collectively led to more than 100,000 members of the U.S. military
becoming American citizens. Notwithstanding this history of generosity
towards people who have served in our armed forces, the provisions on
military service based naturalization can be improved.
The bills that are the subject of this hearing offer improvements
in a number of areas. For instance, some of the bills would reduce the
three-year wait for peacetime service. Some of my colleagues would like
the time reduced to two years. Others would eliminate the wait entirely
and permit a peacetime soldier to begin the naturalization process
immediately when he or she begins active duty in the armed forces.
The area that concerns me the most is posthumous naturalization,
which is granted when a soldier dies while on active duty during a
period of military hostility. As presently written, the posthumous
naturalization provisions explicitly state that the soldier's spouse
and children will not benefit from the grant of posthumous citizenship.
Several of the bills would remove this exclusion and specify that the
spouse and children will be eligible for immigration benefits on the
basis of the posthumous grant of naturalization.
I believe that we must go further. We need to show the extent of
our gratitude towards the soldiers who die for this country by making
citizenship readily available to their surviving spouses who are
already lawful permanent residents of the United States.
Ordinarily, a lawful permanent resident must be married to a United
States citizen for a period of three years before he or she can apply
for naturalization as the spouse of a United States citizen. Section
319(d) of the Act waives that requirement in the case where the lawful
permanent resident spouse is married to a citizen spouse who dies
during a period of honorable service in the Armed Forces. That
provision should be revised to apply in the case where the soldier's
citizenship is received posthumously.
The only difference between the two situations is that the one
addressed by current law applies to a soldier who receives his
citizenship while he is alive, whereas in the second situation, the
citizenship is received posthumously. In both cases the soldier is a
citizen who is killed during a period of honorable military service. If
anything, the posthumous situation is more compelling than the other
situation. Posthumous citizenship is given when a soldier dies during a
period of military hostility.
This additional step should be taken. Thank you.
----------
Prepared Statement of Congressman Bob Filner
Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jackson-Lee and Members of the
Subcommittee:
I have come here today as California's Border Congressman to try to
make clear what it means to live on the border between the United
States and Mexico. To those of us who live there, the border is not
merely a line separating the United States from Mexico, but it is an
inter-related community where people conduct business and cultures meld
together. The people living on the other side of that line are not
merely Mexicans--they are family and friends--and shoppers!
For generations in the border region, children and their parents
have been participating in events in both countries that range from
shopping, to joining in a holiday parade, to receiving medical care.
Unfortunately, the tragic events of September 11, 2001 have put those
activities and that community at risk.
Recently, Secretary of Homeland Security Ridge and Undersecretary
for Border and Transportation Security Hutchinson visited my district.
I appreciated the chance to discuss these new policies with them. I
will share with you now the main issues we discussed:
1. Border and Transportation Security and the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services are concentrating too many
resources and personnel on ALL who want to cross the border,
rather than focusing their attention on high-risk crossers--and
using modern technology to handle the frequent crossers.
Studies have shown that more than 95% of the 150,000 daily
crossers at San Ysidro, the world's busiest border crossing,
are ``frequent crossers"--crossing at least once a week,
sometimes crossing many times a day--for school, work, housing
family and shopping. Our economy--not to mention our families--
requires efficient crossing, not unpredictable waiting times of
sometimes 2 or 3 hours. ALL crossing gates should be open 24
hours and high-technology ``smart cards"--issued after
extensive background checks and containing fingerprints or
other biometric data. Any desired level of security could be
built into the cards--and the border can become both secure and
efficient!
2. In the past, in order to accommodate the unique
relationship in the border area, the local Port of Entry
Directors had the authority to grant tourist visa waivers to
some low-risk, non-immigrant border crossers, including
children with regular medical appointments or children who are
competing in sporting events or cultural activities. Since the
terrorist attacks however, the Department of Homeland Security
has changed their policy and now the visa requirements, costing
$100 per person, are strictly enforced. This has had
devastating effect on the border community. Over the last four
decades, the Valley Orthopedic Center in Calexico, CA, has
treated 125,00 children with severe deformities resulting from
birth defects or serious injury without charge, using volunteer
doctors and nurses. These children are very poor and cannot
afford the specialized care they require. The $100 fee for a
tourist visa is simply out of reach for these families. Let me
point out that a minimum wage worker in Mexico makes only
$94.50 a MONTH. This clinic is often their only hope, but
without the visa, they are turned away when they try to enter
the U.S. Denying these children visa waivers for regular
medical care makes the U.S. an uncaring neighbor. The same
could be said about school trips to the world-famous San Diego
Zoo and school bands participating in Christmas parades. Visa
crackdowns on low-risk crossers from Mexico are hurting our
relationship with our neighbors rather than building a strong
relationship in order for us to work TOGETHER with them in the
fight against terrorism.
3. I also discussed with them the poorly handled National
Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), hundreds of
men who came to register were arrested, and their families were
not told what happened to them. These were people who were
following our rules and coming to register, and our government
arrested them and did not grant them due process. We should be
working with the immigrant community and encouraging them to
cooperate with the government--not using un-American scare
tactics. This only encourages immigrants to avoid contact with
our government. When that happens, we lose a great opportunity
to instill confidence in the government and, more importantly,
we have the potential to miss out on key security information
that could be provided by the immigrant community.
I was encouraged by the Secretary's and Undersecretary's responses
to my concerns and look forward to the opportunity to work with them to
ensure that our borders are safe, but also efficient and that the
United States continues to be a good neighbor and a bastion of freedom
and justice for all.
-