[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SHOULD WE EMBRACE THE SENATE'S GRANT OF AMNESTY TO MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL
ALIENS AND REPEAT THE MISTAKES OF THE IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL
ACT OF 1986?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,
BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 18, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-127
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
28-781 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
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
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah MAXINE WATERS, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
RIC KELLER, Florida ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DARRELL ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
MIKE PENCE, Indiana DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE KING, Iowa
TOM FEENEY, Florida
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
Philip G. Kiko, General Counsel-Chief of Staff
Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana, Chairman
STEVE KING, Iowa SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
ELTON GALLEGLY, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia MAXINE WATERS, California
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California
George Fishman, Chief Counsel
Art Arthur, Counsel
Allison Beach, Counsel
Cindy Blackston, Professional Staff
Nolan Rappaport, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
JULY 18, 2006
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....................... 3
The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Iowa, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border
Security, and Claims........................................... 5
The Honorable Howard Berman, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims....................... 6
The Honorable Jeff Flake, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security, and Claims.................................... 8
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security, and Claims.................................... 9
The Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Texas, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security, and Claims.................................... 10
The Honorable Linda Sanchez, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims....................... 11
The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border
Security, and Claims........................................... 12
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security, and Claims.................................... 14
The Honorable Maxine Waters, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims....................... 16
WITNESSES
The Honorable Silvestre Reyes, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Texas
Oral Testimony................................................. 19
Prepared Statement............................................. 21
Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum
Oral Testimony................................................. 22
Prepared Statement............................................. 24
Mr. Steven Camarota, Director of Research, Center for Immigration
Studies
Oral Testimony................................................. 31
Prepared Statement............................................. 33
Mr. James R. Edwards, Jr., Adjunct Fellow, Hudson Institute
Oral Testimony................................................. 38
Prepared Statement............................................. 39
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and
Claims......................................................... 68
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Edward M. Kennedy, Senior
United States Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts... 73
Article entitled ``Senate Bill Creates Terrorist Loophole'' by
Kris W. Kobach, submitted by Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle
Forum.......................................................... 80
Article entitled ``Study: Immigrants Pay Tax Share''by Karin
Brulliard, submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and
Claims......................................................... 84
Letter from the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition et al.,
submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims....... 88
SHOULD WE EMBRACE THE SENATE'S GRANT OF AMNESTY TO MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL
ALIENS AND REPEAT THE MISTAKES OF THE IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL
ACT OF 1986?
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security, and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John
Hostettler (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Hostettler. The Subcommittee will come to order. Good
morning.
Today, there are approximately 11 million illegal aliens in
the United States, making illegal immigration one of the most
serious issues facing our nation. In May, the Senate passed
legislation that would provide amnesty for most of the illegal
aliens currently in the U.S. in a way that is eerily similar to
the amnesty Congress granted in 1986.
At this hearing, we have the opportunity to examine how the
United States dealt with illegal immigration 20 years ago, why
that approach did not work, and the direction we should take in
light of our past failure. In 1986, there were approximately 3
million illegal aliens in the U.S. Congress responded by
passing the Immigration Reform and Control Act, or IRCA.
There are several key features to IRCA. First, it provided
amnesty to 2.7 million illegal aliens in several different
categories. Aliens who had been illegally present since 1982
were granted a general amnesty, while agricultural workers who
arrived more recently were granted amnesty under the special
agriculture worker program.
The amnesty was accompanied by a plan designed to stop
employment of illegal aliens in the U.S. IRCA created an
employer-sanctions scheme for employers who knowingly hired
illegal aliens and required employers to check the identity and
work eligibility documents of all employees to ensure lawful
immigration status. At the time, policymakers truly believed
that it would be a one-time amnesty and the problem of illegal
immigration would be solved.
Congress rejected recommendations made by the Select
Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy in 1981, which
stated in part, ``The Commission believes that a legalization
program is a necessary part of enforcement, but it does not
believe that the U.S. should begin the process of legalization
until new enforcement measures have been instituted to make it
clear that the U.S. is determined to curtail new flows of
undocumented illegal aliens. Without more effective enforcement
than the U.S. has had in the past, legalization could serve as
a stimulus to further illegal entry. The select commission is
opposed to any program that could precipitate such movement.''
Then-Senator Alan Simpson, coauthor of IRCA, affirmed his
commitment to amnesty in exchange by stating, ``I firmly
believe that a one-time-only legalization program is not only
good public policy, it is good sense, and it is fully in the
best interest of this country.''
Time showed us that IRCA has utterly and completely failed,
mainly due to the fact that Congress did not heed the warning
of the select commission regarding the need for real
enforcement prior to any discussion of such legislation.
Illegal immigration has not been controlled, but has increased
significantly in the past 2 decades. Employer sanctions have
been enforced in a farcical manner. Furthermore, the I-9 system
has proven to be a failure because an illegal alien can cheaply
and easily obtain counterfeit documents to show his or her
employer.
Employers in a catch-22 situation cannot require additional
proof that the documents presented are legitimate for fear of
running afoul of discrimination laws. In May, the Senate passed
the Reid-Kennedy amnesty, which is remarkably similar to the
1986 amnesty. The Reid-Kennedy bill also provides several
categories of amnesty, including a general amnesty for anyone
who can show that he has been in the country for more than 5
years, including an agriculture amnesty.
Again, proponents of the current proposals believe that
this amnesty will solve the problem once and for all, but
Congress and the Administration have no credibility with the
American people. Why should Americans have any reason to
believe that the supposed enhanced enforcement provisions in
Reid-Kennedy will be effectively enforced by the
Administration, any more than successive Administrations have
enforced IRCA?
The Administration will probably implement amnesty for
millions of illegal aliens quite quickly. Enforcement will
likely lag behind, if it occurs at all. We will find ourselves
in exactly the same place we found ourselves 20 years ago.
Amnesty sends out a message that the United States is not
serious about enforcing our laws. It is an affront to the
millions of immigrants legally who wait their turn and use the
legal immigration system.
When the United States grants amnesty and forgives
lawbreaking, it encourages more illegal immigration in the
future. The grant of amnesty in 1986 did nothing to resolve the
illegal immigration problem. It made the problem worse as
increased numbers of illegal aliens pour across the border
waiting for their turn.
Well, Reid-Kennedy is their turn and a new wave of illegal
aliens will come to wait for theirs. I believe that Benjamin
Franklin once said that, ``The definition of insanity is doing
the same thing over and over again expecting different
results.'' We cannot expect to solve the problem of illegal
aliens by encouraging lawbreaking through amnesty. It didn't
work in 1986 and it will certainly not work in 2006.
At this time, I would like to recognize the gentlelady from
Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for purposes of an opening statement.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
As always, we thank the witnesses for their presence here.
I thank my colleagues, Members of this Subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I always wonder about the timing in this
House, and there is a concept called regular order. That
concept ensures that thorough hearings are given to a topic
prior to legislative initiatives being put forward. I think
both the House and Senate attempted to do their job, and
interestingly enough there is an immigration initiative
legislation passed out of the House and there is one passed out
of the Senate. In fact, it has been known, the Senate bill, as
the Bush-McCain bill. Working of course collaboratively with
Senator Kennedy and Senator Reid, it is the concept that the
president has adopted.
It is interesting to note, as the Chairman speaks
eloquently about legislative history that includes the 1986
bill, I remind him again that President Ronald Reagan worked
obviously very hard as a Republican to fix what was perceived
as a broken system.
I might add that they put their best effort forward, but of
course subsequent to Ronald Reagan's tenure was President Bush.
And so Republicans had a chance to enforce both legal
immigration and procedures that would assist in making sure
that we had the proper enforcement.
I think what Americans are asking for now is not a recap,
not a recounting, but they are really asking for us to fix the
broken immigration system, the broken benefits system, the
broken legal immigration system where members of our community
are crying out to allow them to process themselves to a legal
system that works, fingerprints that are not lost, paperwork
that is not lost. And yes, Mr. Chairman, they are looking
forward to a system that includes comprehensive immigration
reform.
Might I, for a moment, Mr. Chairman, just say that I thank
you for discussions that I hope that we will have if we
continue to have these hearings that would ensure that there is
a balance between Democrats and Republicans with witnesses.
That is fairness. That means that we truly are achieving our
goals of getting the facts.
What I would most hope is that expeditiously we achieve the
opportunity of a conference committee to work on the existing
bills, unless, Mr. Chairman, you tell me that we are about to
reopen the legislative process. I know that many of the
witnesses here, Congressman Reyes, might like to open the
legislative process.
He had a number of issues and amendments that I joined him
on, particularly providing support for our very worthy border
patrol agents that we did not and were not able to include in
the bill. It would be great if we were told by the leadership
that that would occur, but as we speak that is not the case.
So let me just simply say that the question of this hearing
uses the word ``amnesty,'' which has been infused with negative
connotations by the opponents of the Senate's bill, the
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, S. 2611. The
Senate bill in fact would not grant amnesty.
Amnesty is defined by the American Heritage dictionary as a
``general pardon granted by a government especially for
political offenses.'' It was derived from the Latin word
``amnesti,'' which means ``amnesia.'' We have no amnesia in the
Senate bill.
The Senate bill does not have any provisions that would
forget or overlook immigration law violations. If I could, I
would clap in this room today because I would say, as some of
the kids say, ``yay'' or maybe even ``awesome,'' because we
understand the responsibility that we have pursuant to the
American peoples' dictates.
The Senate bill clearly asks those to get in line, to be
able to be documented, whether or not they can meet the
criteria of having a number of indicia to make sure that they
can meet the standards of status or citizenship, keep their
records clean, employed for 6 years, to establish eligibility
for permanent resident status and pay a substantial fine.
Those dollars, $24 billion, can be used to invest in
America. The essence of the question, however, is found in the
phrase ``repeat the mistakes.'' This refers primarily to a
grant of amnesty. The opponents of S. 2611 appear to believe
that anything but an enforcement-only approach is a mistake.
They have failed repeatedly, however, to implement
enforcement measures. I have already chronicled for you that
when this bill was passed we had two Republican presidents back
to back. It is well noted that during the Clinton
administration, our enforcement capability went up, but we have
to understand compassion and reason.
I hope that over the next couple of weeks, we will be able
to have on the floor of the House, Mr. Berman and Ms. Lofgren,
stories of immigrants who have helped build this nation. I
think we have failed to acknowledge the stories of the origins
of this nation.
Maybe, Mr. Chairman, you will accept my invitation to have
a hearing to be able to, if we are going to continue with these
mock hearings, to have a hearing that will tell the viable
stories of immigrants who have contributed to America. I know
that you can count that as a viable part of this question.
S. 2611 has a three-pronged strategy to fix our broken
immigration system that would avoid the mistakes of IRCA. It
would establish a fair legalization program, but it would have
a comprehensive border security program that includes the
northern and southern border. It is the Bush-McCain effort. It
is the Kennedy-Reid effort. It is a collaborative effort. It is
what America wants. It would provide additional visas for
future immigrants, which would address the primary cause of
illegal immigration.
Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by simply saying that we all
are intent on doing our duty. You have called these hearings
and I am present and accounted for as my colleagues are. But I
would offer to say that we have a lot of work. Though this is
not particularly the call of this particular hearing, I would
just simply say I beg the president of the United States to
rescue the 25,000 Americans that are in Lebanon that are now
stranded and are asking for relief, and days and days have
passed and we can't seem to get them out of Lebanon. That is
the work that we should be doing. But if we are doing this
work, let us do it fairly.
With that, I would like to submit into the record, I ask
unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, a statement of Senator Edward
M. Kennedy, who was here in 1986 and has been working without
stopping in a collaborative way to bring America comprehensive
immigration reform. I ask unanimous consent.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection, we welcome the addition
of Senator Kennedy to the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kennedy follows in the
Appendix]
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent for a
letter from a number of issue groups on immigration. I ask
unanimous consent to submit their letter into the record.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection.
[The letter follows in the Appendix]
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman. I look forward to a
productive time of bringing forth to America what they have
asked us for.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows in the
Appendix]
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentlelady.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa for
purposes of an opening statement.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate
this hearing, and I associate myself with your opening remarks.
But it doesn't matter to me, in response to the Ranking
Member's remarks, whether we call the bill Reid-Kennedy, Bush-
McCain or Martinez-Hagel, it is a bad bill. America knows it is
a bad bill. They are going to find out a lot more about what is
in this bill as these hearings unfold across America. It is
important that we help educate America on those pieces that
were in there.
I can't find a single senator that will stand up and say,
``I understood everything that I was voting for or against;''
the pages were too many; the components were too detailed and
too vague. It is unfolding yet today what is in that bill. We
need to shine the light on that for the American people.
My central point is this, that we passed amnesty in 1986
and no one argued whether there was amnesty or not in 1986
because President Reagan declared it to be amnesty in 1986 and
then this is the same policy. Whether you define it as
something else, it is pretty difficult to change the definition
that the American people understand to be amnesty.
Whether it is a general pardon granted by the government
generally for political purposes, this is for political
purposes, the proposed amnesty, and it is a general pardon, and
if you reduce or eliminate the penalties that are in existing
law and grant a whole class of people a general pardon, that is
an amnesty even by the gentlelady from Texas's written
definition that she presented here.
So I would point out also that we were told in 1986 that
the Administration would enforce the law. I accepted I-9
documents from prospective employees and those that I hired. I
put them on file. I checked their identification. I lived with
concern that the Federal Government would come into my office
and check my records and see if I was complying. They never
showed up, and they didn't show up in millions of businesses
across America because enforcement diminished from 1986 until
2006.
I will agree with the statement that the gentlelady from
Texas made that there was more enforcement under the previous
Administration than there is under this one. In fact, if you
are an employer and you are concerned about sanctions for
knowingly and willfully hiring illegals, you were 19 times more
likely to be sanctioned by the previous Administration in the
first 5 years than you were in the first 5 years of this
Administration. That is just simply a fact.
And so we have bought that bridge before. I propose we not
buy that bridge again.
I would yield to the Chairman for any time that he might
want to consume.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
In response to my colleague, the gentlelady from Texas, a
discussion about the timing of these hearings, I would just
like the record to reflect that in a discussion about the
timing of such legislation that should be considered by the
House of Representatives, I was asked for my opinion. It was my
suggestion to leadership for the House to consider legislation
after the Senate had passed a bill.
When asked why I would suggest such a thing, it was very
clear to me the path that the Senate was going to take, and
that I believed that Members of the House of Representatives
would be much more focused on their attention to what type of
legislation should not be passed out of the House of
Representatives after the Senate considered their bill.
It is now the feeling of many Members of the House of
Representatives that we should reconsider the issue of illegal
immigration and immigration reform. That is why we are holding
these hearings, especially as it relates to a significant
portion of the Senate bill which was not included in the House
bill, and that is the granting of amnesty to millions of
illegal aliens.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, would you yield, just for an
inquiry?
Mr. Hostettler. The gentleman's time is the gentleman from
Iowa. I yield back to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. King. And I would yield back to the Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
California for purposes of an opening statement.
Mr. Berman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't buy the notion that this is a serious effort to
come to grips with the fundamental issues in the Senate bill. I
am convinced by virtue of what has happened here, both in
treating the House-passed bill, what it went through, and in
the way people are titling and talking about the hearings in
the Senate on the Senate bill, that this is simply a well-
orchestrated effort to have this Congress recess before the
election without having dealt with one of the country's most
serious national crises.
Anyone who has taken a civics course knows that hearings
are held before bills are passed, and they are used to gather
information that might assist in drafting the bill. When the
two Houses of Congress have passed a bill, the bill goes to
conference, not to hearings, to see if we can work out the
differences and move forward. We are moving backwards in this
process.
Remember, Mr. Chairman, last December the House passed an
enforcement-only immigration bill. That is the one that made
felons of 11 million people in this country. That bill was
introduced on a Tuesday and without a single hearing in the
Judiciary Committee, no chance to put light on those
provisions, it was marked up, moved to the floor, and passed
the following Friday.
No hearings, no input from the minority party in drafting
the bill, no real deliberative process, with the Rules
Committee shutting out every amendment that dealt with any of
the obviously related immigration issues raised by the bill
that was then before us. And, of course, we passed a bill that
as generally acknowledged provides no solution to America's
need for meaningful immigration reform.
That is why we are here today. No one should confuse these
hearings with an attempt to correct the lack of deliberation of
the House the first time around. These hearings are a con-job
on the American people. The Republican majority in the House is
trying to convince the American public that they want very
badly to enact immigration reform and they just need to study
it a little bit more in these hearings before they can get the
job done. Even though Republicans hold the White House and a
majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate,
they can't sit down and put together a real immigration reform
package that will produce meaningful long-term results.
This process is becoming a total failure. These hearings
are about one thing: running out the clock. We are going to
talk about this for 5 or 6 weeks, not convene a conference
committee, not do anything in the context of working out
differences, and then the Congress will end up going home
without having passed immigration reform.
And then to top it all off, I get communications and
messages that come out from the House Republican leadership
about this legislation, and from some of the witnesses that
have been called today, making it sound like something
reminiscent of the communist party days when all propaganda,
when all messages were sent to convey propaganda.
A bill in the Senate, introduced by John McCain and Ted
Kennedy, goes to the Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by
Arlen Specter, and through a process of changes and compromises
Senator Specter passes out the bill. And then Senators Hagel
and Martinez, two distinguished Republicans, put together a
compromise, and then that piece of legislation passes the
Senate with 20 Republican votes in favor of that piece of
legislation.
The Chairman, the Republican leadership of the House, the
witnesses, decided to name it the Reid-Kennedy bill, see how
many times they can use the word ``amnesty'' in one sentence,
and then try to create an image of a bill that doesn't exist.
We know why the 1986 bill failed. It failed because the
business community went to the Congress and said, ``Whatever
you do, don't put the onus of determining validity of documents
on our back.''
And the executive branch went along with that and the
Congress went along with that. The fact is, the 1986 bill had a
very fundamental flaw. The employer sanctions were worthless.
One part of a comprehensive approach that will actually I think
go a long way to solve that problem is to have a meaningful
mandatory employer verification system in place so that both
new employees and existing employees can be determined whether
or not they have work status.
Without some process that deals with the legalization of
the millions and millions of people in this country now
working, and working under false identifiers, working in many
cases in outrageously inhumane conditions, unless some process
exists for them to come forward, that kind of a system will
never work. All parts of this have to be done. The prescription
is so clear. Instead, we get the propaganda releases from the
Republican leadership here, which convince me they don't want
to move legislation this year.
Mr. Hostettler. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Arizona for purposes of an opening statement.
Mr. Flake. I thank the Chair.
I rarely make opening statements in a hearing because I
would rather hear those who are here to testify. I feel it is
necessary for at least one Republican to say that the way the
1986 bill is being described is not very accurate, frankly, in
relationship to what we are trying to do today. The failure in
1986 was because it wasn't comprehensive. That is a failure
that we cannot afford to replicate.
In 1986, we gave an amnesty to those who were here
illegally. We said, if you have been here 5 years, you have a
shortcut to a green card. That is about all we did. We didn't
secure the borders. We didn't have an employment verification
system. Most importantly, we did not allow a legal framework
for additional workers to come. So it was a farce. In the end,
it was out of date before it was signed into law. We can't
afford to do that today.
I would submit that if we only do one portion, and all we
are talking about is the House bill, is more border security.
That is one element, and a very important element, but it is
only one. And we will do the same thing that we did in 1986 if
we fail to do it comprehensively.
Yes, we need more border security. Yes, we need interior
enforcement. But we also need to deal with those who are here
illegally and we need to ensure that we have a legal framework
for additional workers to come and return home. If we fail to
do that, we will repeat the mistakes of 1986.
So I resent the implication that in 1986 we tried
comprehensive reform and it failed. It failed because it wasn't
comprehensive reform. I think one Republican at least needs to
stand and say that.
With regard to what is going on now, I associate my
comments with those of Congressman Berman, who is saying that
the proper order here is to have hearings, then have a markup,
have a bill, and then have a conference committee. That is what
we ought to be doing. The Senate bill, I like parts of it; I
don't like parts of it. I voted for the House bill because it
included many elements that we need.
So we ought to meld the two and get to the work of actually
producing a compromise bill that contains all the elements that
we need. It won't be everything I want. It won't be everything
anybody wants, but at least we will move forward with a
comprehensive approach. That is what we ought to be doing.
Instead, we are holding what we are calling field hearings
across the country. They ought to be called faux hearings
because they simply are in the wrong order. We aren't really
looking to gather information so much as trying to beat up on
the Senate bill. I am sorry for saying it like that, but I
don't know how else to say it.
So I look forward to the testimony today, but just let me
make it clear that I don't believe that the reason we are
beating up on the 1986--I thought it was bad. We shouldn't have
done it that way, but we can't repeat it, and that is what we
are at risk of doing if we continue down this road.
So I thank the Chairman for convening this hearing, and I
hope it is productive.
I yield back.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentleman.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California for
purposes of an opening statement. Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate my colleague, Mr. Flake's, honest commentary
on this process. I attended a faux hearing in San Diego. It is
pretty apparent, I think, to any honest observer what is going
on here is a highly politicized process. It really has almost
nothing to do with the serious work of dealing with immigration
issues.
I think, and I certainly don't include Mr. Flake, because
he has spoken openly about this, but I think it is pretty clear
that the Republican leadership thinks that if they talk a lot
about this that they can somehow convince the country that they
are doing something. But I actually think that is a misplaced
strategy because I think the country knows that the Republican
Party is in charge of everything. They have the White House.
They have the Senate. They have the House. And they have not
produced.
In fact, H.R. 4437 isn't really a solution either. If you
take a look at what we haven't done, and I think the public
will be aware of this, we have not actually hired, we have not
produced the funding to hire the border agents that we said we
would do. The president's 2006 budget calls for only an
additional 210 border patrol agents.
The 9/11 Act which mandated an additional 800 immigration
enforcement agents over the next 5 years has not been met. We
have only funded 350 of that mandatory amount. The 9/11 Act
also mandated an additional 8,000 detention beds, but for
fiscal year 2006, we only funded 1,800.
So enforcement, and we have talked about enforcement, from
1999 to 2003, worksite enforcement operations were scaled by 95
percent. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully
employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 when Clinton was
president, to four in 2003. The fines collected declined from
$3.6 million to a little over $200,000. In 1999 when Clinton
was president, the United States initiated fines against 417
companies. Do you know what it was in 2004? Three companies.
So on the watch of the Republicans, there has been failure.
I don't think the solution in the bill to make 11 million
people felons is a serious one either. When you think about
what it costs, it costs about $50,000 a year to incarcerate a
person in Federal prison. When you add the costs of
prosecution, defense, courtroom costs and the like, we are
talking about one-third of a trillion dollars to actually take
that felony provision seriously in the bill.
So I don't believe that a Congress that refused to hire
border patrol agents is actually going to appropriate one-third
of a trillion dollars to implement the felony provisions of
that act, and if they don't mean to implement it, what are they
doing other than just talking once again?
I would also like to point out, and it's not that
comfortable to criticize one's colleagues personally, but we
have had efforts over and over again, the Democrats have, to
increase funding for the border. The Republicans, including all
the Republicans here, have voted against those amendments over
and over again.
So I believe that we are talking a lot once again. We are
going to talk all over the country once again, but I think it
is all talk and no action. Talk is cheap, but I think that the
American public is going to see through this sham and I think
it is a real disservice to the country, frankly, that we are
engaging in this kind of behavior.
I yield back.
Mr. Hostettler. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Gohmert, for purposes of an opening statement.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, for one, am glad you are having the hearings and I
appreciate the opportunity. I would apologize to the witnesses
here that have gone to a great deal of trouble to come here and
to testify, as a colleague has referred to these as ``mock''
hearings. I doubt that your testimony is going to be mock. You
will take an oath and we would expect you to testify not mock,
but from your own personal experience and knowledge, truthfully
to the best of your abilities, so help you God.
Now, and also I had heard that we would like to have a
hearing in which we can hear real stories about real
immigrants. I will give you one. My great-grandfather came over
around the 1870's. He got here with less than $20 and didn't
speak a word of English. But he did two things: He worked his
tail off and he learned English. As a result, by 1895, he built
the house that has a national and State of Texas historical
marker on it because he did so well. That is America.
You can come. You can do it legally. You can work your tail
off. You learn English, and you can do amazing things, and one
day maybe even your great-grandson that is a bald-headed goose-
looking guy, could end up in Congress. You just never know what
could happen.
We need immigration. We need border security. This is a
tough time. It does not do us any good to turn a blind eye to
the borders and to our avenues of entry. So again, I appreciate
having the hearings because we have an impasse right now
between the Senate and the House. I am constantly asked back
home why is there such a wide discrepancy between the House
version and the Senate version? I tell them it's easy: We have
2-year terms and they have 6-year terms. We have to listen to
the people and find out what the problems are. They have a lot
of time not to have to do that, and get serious when it gets
toward their elections.
So that is why the House is more responsive. That was the
design of the Constitution. So I think these hearings, once you
reach an impasse between the House and the Senate, the hearings
become important to back up and gather enough evidence to help
persuade either the House or the Senate that one is off track.
I don't mind a bit saying it is the McCain-Kennedy bill. It is
the McCain-Kennedy bill. I am not embarrassed to say that
because I don't like it and I don't care what the name is.
As far as the cry that we need to be not having this
hearing, but rescuing those in Lebanon, I would say we need to
be rescuing people in the Middle East. We need to be sending
those who would attempt to disrupt the Middle East, like
Hezbollah, we need to send them back to the Stone Age.
But unfortunately, this country has so many problems, is so
diverse, we cannot just focus on one little area like the
Middle East when we have problems on our own borders. So I
think it is incumbent for those of us who can multi-task to
help those who can't. If some people can only do one thing and
look at one area, God bless them, and help us in that area, for
those of us that can multi-task, let's look at the Middle East,
let's look at the borders, and let's try to make sure we are
secure all around.
As far as the comment of a colleague that this is a well-
orchestrated effort to do nothing, I would say it is an
orchestrated effort to try to get enough information. You give
me facts that change my mind, then I will go to the leadership
and I will push to have our conferees change their positions. I
am looking forward to hearing the testimony today with regard
to that.
As far as additional funding, this House, guided by and
pushed by this Committee, has forced additional funding far
beyond what the president has asked for. We have asked for it.
We pushed for it. We have gotten it. We got $275 million last
year that the president didn't even ask for for more border
security. So I am glad to hear my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle, they are on-board now. They want to push for more
funding.
I do regret that we weren't able to get more funding to
help with our ports. All our avenues of entry need to be
protected. We need reform of the immigration service, whether
you call it INS, ICE, whatever you want to call it. It has
still got problems, and I will look forward to working on
those, and I appreciate the Committee Chairman's opportunity to
have this hearing.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms.
Sanchez, for purposes of an opening statement.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wholeheartedly agree, like most Americans do, that our
immigration system is broken and it badly needs a comprehensive
overhaul. Americans also agree, like I do, that we need
concrete and effective immigration policies to secure our
nation's borders.
Meanwhile, I can't help but say that I am totally
disheartened about the election-year posturing that is going on
here. The title of this hearing is pretty comical, if it
wouldn't be pretty sad. It has already attracted a lot of
attention in the press: ``Should we embrace the Senate's grant
of amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and repeat the
mistakes of the Immigration and Reform Control Act of 1986?''
Well, that is a conclusion in search of a justification, if
I have ever heard one. We all know that these hearings are more
about posturing, than a real honest reckoning with problems and
solutions. I do think, however, that the hearing title does
make one important point, and that is that we need to learn
from past mistakes.
These hearing titles are one thing, and then on top of
that, the majority insists on calling the bill that passed the
Senate, the Reid-Kennedy bill, as if it were somehow a
Democrats-only bill that our colleagues somehow ran through
while Mr. Frist and Mr. Specter weren't paying attention, which
is completely ridiculous.
The world knows that this was a bipartisan bill that passed
with the blessing of Majority Leader Frist, Judiciary Chairman
Specter, and Senate Republicans from both the moderate and
conservative ends of the spectrum. While personally I am not
100 percent enamored with the Senate bill, I admire that body
at least for working on a bipartisan basis and for passing a
comprehensive bill, instead of the piecemeal approach that we
seem to be taking in the House.
The Republican immigration hearings like the one we are
holding today are pretty meaningless. In the history of
Congress, the House has never held hearings on a Senate-passed
bill before going to conference. If this body is truly serious
about enacting much-needed border enforcement plus immigration
reform legislation, they should convene a conference that is
fair and bipartisan.
These sham hearings are not fooling the American public.
Republicans can't run away from their record on failure on
border security and immigration enforcement. I want to cite two
quick examples. I know my colleague, Zoe Lofgren, also gave
some examples, but this is a pretty deplorable record. In the
9/11 Act of 2004, the Republican Congress promised to provide
2,000 additional border patrol agents, 8,000 detention beds,
and 800 immigration agents per year from 2006 to 2010. And yet
over the last 2 years, that promise has been broken.
Between 1999 and 2004, worksite immigration enforcement
operations against companies were scaled by 99 percent by the
Immigration and Naturalization Service. In 1999, the U.S.
initiated fines against 47 companies, and in 2004 it issued
fine notices to exactly three companies. On the other hand,
Democrats seven times over the last 4\1/2\ years have offered
amendments on the House floor to enhance border security
resources. If these amendments had been adopted, there would be
6,600 more border patrol agents, 14,000 more detention beds,
and 2,700 more immigration agents along our border than now
currently exist.
But each time these efforts have been rejected by the
Republican majority. It is clear that the Republican rhetoric
doesn't match the Republican record of neglect and
underfunding. America deserves an honest debate with all the
facts on the table, not rhetoric, not cute hearing titles, and
not demagoguery.
I thank the Chairman and yield back.
Mr. Hostettler. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Smith, for purposes of an opening statement.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, let me just observe at the outset that I
think it is pretty clear from some of the words used by those
who have made opening statements who is trying to politicize an
issue that should not be politicized.
But, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for having this
hearing. In my judgment, this is probably the most complex,
sensitive, and emotional issue that America faces today. So I
think the more hearings on the subject, the better, and the
more we can learn about such a controversial subject, the
better as well.
I do think there is a temptation on the part of some
individuals to blur the distinction between legal immigrants
and illegal immigrants. I think that we ought to be clear that
there is a distinction and it is a meaningful one. Let me also
say at the outset that legal immigration has in fact made our
country great. We are the great nation we are today, the most
prosperous, the freest country in the world, because of the
contributions that legal immigrants have been making for
generations.
America also admits more legal immigrants than any other
country in the world. In fact, the last time I checked America
admitted as many legal immigrants as every other country in the
world combined. That generosity, I believe, should and will
continue. I have no doubt that America's generosity will be
perpetuated.
But there is a proper and essential distinction to be made
between legal immigrants who have played the rules, waited
their time in line, and come into the country the right way,
and those illegal immigrants who have cut in front of the line,
who have broken our laws, and who have remained in the country
contrary to our laws.
In that regard, let me say that while I am not going to be
able to stay long enough to ask questions today, I would like
to make a point about the subject of the hearing. That is that
as I understand the Senate bill, people in the country
illegally are going to be able to become legalized after only 6
years. That means that that bill treats illegal immigrants far
better than we treat those who aspire to be legal immigrants.
I say that because if you are playing by the rules and
being patient and waiting your time in line, and are from any
number of countries, you have a wait that amounts to, in the
case of Mexico and depending on the family relationship, you
might have to wait in line 15 years. If you are from the
Philippines, 23 years. If you are from India, 12 years.
Now, what kind of a message does it say to those
individuals who have been waiting and playing by the rules,
when someone who is in the country illegally gets to be
legalized after 6 years? Basically, it says that they have not
been smart to obey the law, and that they ought to try to come
into the country illegally and they will become legalized much
more quickly.
So in other words, unfortunately the message is you are
going to be rewarded for your illegal conduct. You are going to
be rewarded far more than those who have played by the rules
and waited their time in line. In addition to that, you get to
stay in the country while you are waiting for your legalization
to occur. That seems to me just not the right way to approach
the subject of immigration.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that there is a
panelist today who is a close friend and a colleague from
Texas, Silvestre Reyes, who I greatly admire and respect. He
knows as much about immigration as I think anybody in Congress.
He has been a border patrol chief. He has been on the
frontlines. He speaks about the subject with sincerity and with
knowledge.
I hope I am here long enough--Silvestre, I have to leave at
11 a.m.--to hear your testimony today, but I appreciate your
being here as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Hostettler. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, for purposes of an opening statement.
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Thank you
for holding this hearing.
I want to associate myself with and add to the remarks of
the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith. He is quite right. The
great flaw is the Senate bill, and there are many flaws, but
the great flaw is the granting of amnesty to people who have
entered this country illegally, or, and we have not talked much
about this, entered the country legally on visitor visas,
student visas, business visas, and then overstayed their visa
to remain here illegally.
We need to address that problem, and we need to address it
in a way that is fair to everybody involved, including people
who have gone through a very lengthy process. Prior to my
election to Congress, I was an immigration attorney. I helped
people and businesses and families who wanted to reunify
families and to bring in workers that were clearly needed in
the country, to do that. They go through a very arduous,
lengthy, complicated, sometimes costly process to comply with
the law. Some of the people who have been through that process
are sitting in those lines going through that process today,
and are the most adamant that we should not be granting amnesty
to those who short-circuit the process.
There is another important legal principle here as well.
That is, with a few exceptions like the spouses of United
States citizens, we have always imposed the standard of saying
that if you violate the immigration laws and are illegally in
the country; if you want to adjust your status, you must go
outside of the country to adjust your status and come back in.
It is a very important principle to those people who are
waiting in those long lines who are trying to do this process
legally. It is a very important principle to U.S. citizens who
understand that while we are a nation of immigrants, there
isn't a person in this room who can't go back a few generations
or several generations and find somebody in their ancestry who
came to this country as the land of opportunity that America
still is today.
We are also a nation of laws. If you send the message that
you can break those laws and then be granted amnesty, in fact
massive amnesty to millions of people, you are sending the
wrong message. And that is the great flaw of the 1986 bill. It
wasn't the problem with employer verification. Employer
verification is in that bill. There is an employer verification
system there now. It can be improved. Congressman Smith
attempted to improve that system in the 1990's. It was rejected
by folks on the other side of the aisle.
It is a workable system, if it is enforced. I agree with
those who say that both the Clinton administration and the Bush
administration have not done enough to enforce our immigration
laws. But the great flaw in that bill was to say to people,
``you can come into this country illegally, and then at some
point in time it is okay to adjust your status here without
ever having to go outside the country again.''
That is wrong and that sent the message to millions,
millions more people, millions more people, that if they did it
once, they will do it again. And now here we are examining a
Senate bill that is getting ready to do exactly that once
again. That is the mistake and we shouldn't repeat it.
Now, the House bill is a good comprehensive bill when it
comes to immigration enforcement. I strongly support it. It is
badly needed. It has to be supported by the Administration to
carry out the enforcement of the current laws and these
additions. But those who say there is more to be done, I don't
disagree with them.
A workable guest worker program that is truly temporary and
that truly requires people that are illegally in the country to
go out of the country to adjust their status and come back in
is something that can be discussed and negotiated in this
process. And probably at the end of the day, it will be needed
to meet the needs of some employers in this country.
But that is not what the Senate bill does, and that is not
what we should consider here today. We should examine this flaw
and examine it from the historic perspective of not making the
same mistake we made 20 years ago.
Now, the point has been made that there is a felony
provision in the House bill that makes it a felony to be
illegally in the United States. Quite frankly, I think it being
a misdemeanor is sufficient offense. But an amendment was
offered on the floor of the House to convert it from a felony
to a misdemeanor and it was opposed by almost every Member on
the other side of the aisle, including I think every Member who
is sitting here today.
So when the point is made that this House bill is atrocious
because it has this felony provision, and people sit here today
and complain about it, I wonder who is playing politics with
this legislation. I think the point needs to be made that
enforcing the law has got to be the first priority.
Mr. Berman. Will the gentleman yield on that?
Mr. Goodlatte. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. Berman. I think our point was the House bill is
atrocious and it creates felonies, not because it creates
felonies.
Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentleman's comment, but the
gentleman was not in any way interested about correcting that
provision in the House bill.
Mr. Berman. Will he yield further?
Mr. Goodlatte. I would.
Mr. Berman. Because the gentleman, and I am referring to
myself, believed that no part of finding a solution to this
issue was helped by making criminal, whether it be felony or
misdemeanor, any aspect of presence in the United States. The
reason the House bill was atrocious is because it didn't even
allow amendments on the guest worker issues that you have
raised.
Mr. Goodlatte. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. Hostettler. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Goodlatte. If I might have 30 additional seconds to
reply to the gentleman?
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection.
Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the Chairman.
The fact of the matter is that to sit here today and
complain about the bill, about an aspect of the bill, and you
may dislike the whole bill. That is fine. I understand that,
and certainly that would be your vote on final passage.
But to have the opportunity to correct an aspect, not
correct it, and then come back in and complain later on, I
think the gentleman is without good standing to make that
particular complaint about the felony provision.
Ms. Waters. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Hostettler. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters, is recognized
for purposes of an opening statement.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members.
I don't know whether to thank you for this hearing or not.
I know that this Judiciary Committee led by our esteemed
Chairman, Mr. Sensenbrenner, passed out a bill from our
Committee that would have been House bill number 4437, which
was a very punitive bill that literally created felons out of
immigrants, many of whom are trying to receive the right to be
here. I think that was misdirected. I think it was unfortunate,
and it has set off a firestorm in this nation.
That bill was absolutely a radical bill. Of course,
Democrats did not have a lot of choice. We are outnumbered on
the Judiciary Committee. We could not stop that bill. So that
bill left out of here, sending a message to this country that
somehow we wanted to penalize immigrants in the harshest way
for simply being in this country.
The Senate tried to correct what was done over on this side
by coming up with a comprehensive bill. The H.R. 4437 only
dealt with border security. The Senate bill is a comprehensive
bill that not only talks about how we secure our border, what
we do with employers that hire illegal immigrants, and guest
worker programs, but it was a bill that talked about a path to
legalization.
Unfortunately, the Republican talking heads, all of the
right-wing radio talk shows hosted by the familiar voices,
labeled the bill an amnesty bill. Well, we all know it is not
an amnesty bill, but somehow that designation stuck, and the
people out there in this country began to believe that somehow
the Senate was irresponsible and it simply passed out a bill
that would give amnesty to all of these immigrants.
That is so unfortunate. Normally, and the reason I said
that I am not so sure I want to thank you for this hearing, we
should be in conference. This hearing, these hearings should
have taken place before the Sensenbrenner bill got out of this
Committee, and I mean serious hearings, and even all over the
country. I have no reason to want to oppose the fact that we
should have had hearings. But this is a day late and a dollar
short, and simply an attempt to politicize this whole issue,
and to fan the flames of fear about immigration.
So here we are talking about the Senate bill. All we need
to do is let the bill go to conference and, you know, people of
good will go into conference and try to work out the problems.
Now, what we have is a country that is up in arms about the
fact that there is an amnesty bill out there and no real
decent, considered, thoughtful conversation and discussion
about what we do to deal with the problem of immigration in
this country.
Of course, we have some problems, and I don't think there
is anybody opposed to securing the border. You ask the most
liberal Democrat, the most conservative Republican, and those
who are somewhere in the center, wherever that is, and everyone
will agree that we need to have border security, that we should
be a country that is concerned about how our immigration
program works. So we are all on that.
Now, we have to undo all of this talk about amnesty. The
Republicans are caught in this situation where they ran out
with the bill, and now the Chamber of Commerce and all their
well-heeled friends are saying no, no, no, no, no; we need
immigrants to do this cheap labor; we need immigrants not only
in the fields, but we need them in the factories and everyplace
else. We are beginning to find that some of our upstanding well
known, well-heeled corporations have been exploiting these
immigrants.
Now you have to figure out a way by which you can keep the
discussion going, calling this amnesty, satisfy your
conservative corporations that need the cheap labor, and
somehow come out on top without telling immigrants, and
particularly Latinos, that somehow you are their friend and
that you don't really mean to harm anyone. Well, this is all a
little bit disgusting, but we have to go through this charade.
We have to go through this charade today to talk about we are
having a hearing on immigration.
The fact of the matter is, ladies and gentlemen, I would
hope that we would take the best parts of the Senate bill and
honor the work of the Senate, secure the border, make sure that
those employers who are exploiting these immigrants, are
penalized and we have something in law that will do that. Think
thoroughly about this guest worker program, and not simply have
a guest worker program to satisfy the exploiters. I am not so
sure we even need the guest worker program.
Mr. Hostettler. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Waters. Unanimous consent for 30 seconds, and I will
wrap it up.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection.
Ms. Waters. The most important thing is to have a
legitimate path to legalization. What the Senate point out was
there is a way that you can do this. We can ask these
immigrants to pay fines, to learn English, to whatever, but
give them an opportunity, particularly those who have been in
this country for years. Many of them have children who are
legal. They may not be legal, but we should not separate
families the way that bill that passed out of here would do.
I would just ask us to try and give some real direction to
an immigration bill that would make good sense.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentlelady.
We will now introduce members of our distinguished panel.
First of all, the Honorable Silvestre Reyes represents the
16th District of Texas. Now in his fifth term, Congressman
Reyes became the first Hispanic to represent his district in
the United States House of Representatives. The 16th District
of Texas includes the city of El Paso and surrounding
communities, and lies within the El Paso County boundary. El
Paso and Ciudad Juarez comprise the largest border community in
the United States.
Representative Reyes has extensive experience in border
security issues, as has already been mentioned, having spent
over 26 years with the United States Border Patrol, where he
eventually served as sector chief in both McAllen and El Paso,
Texas.
Phyllis Schlafly founded Eagle Forum in 1972, a national
organization of citizens who participate in the public
policymaking process as volunteers. She has testified before
more than 50 congressional and State legislative committees on
constitutional, national defense, technological and family
issues. Mrs. Schlafly served as a member of the Commission on
the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution from 1985 to 1991,
appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Chief Justice
Warren Burger.
Phyllis Schlafly received her J.D. from Washington
University Law School and is admitted to the practice of law in
Missouri, Illinois, the District of Columbia and the U.S.
Supreme Court. She is Phi Beta Kappa and Pi Sigma Alpha, and a
graduate of Washington University, and received her master's in
government from Harvard University.
Steven Camarota is director of research at the Center for
Immigration Studies. In recent years, he has testified before
Congress more than any other non-Government expert on
immigration. His articles on the impact of immigration have
appeared in both academic journals and the popular press,
including Social Science Quarterly, The Washington Post, the
Chicago Tribune, and National Review. He holds a Ph.D. from the
University of Virginia in public policy analysis and a master's
degree in political science from the University of
Pennsylvania.
James R. Edwards, Jr., is an adjunct fellow with the Hudson
Institute. Dr. Edwards' publications includes the Congressional
Politics of Immigration Reform, which was nominated for the
Hardeman Prize. He has written policy papers on such topics as
State and local police enforcement of immigration laws,
ideological exclusion, the connection between legal and illegal
immigration, and public charge doctrine. His writing has
appeared in The New York Times, Christian Science Monitor,
Investor's Business Daily, The Washington Times and elsewhere.
Members of the panel, as is the custom of our Committee, I
would ask that you please stand and raise your right hand to
take the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Thank you. You may be seated.
Let the record reflect that the witnesses responded in the
affirmative.
At this time, all members of the panel are instructed that,
without objection, your written statement will be made a part
of the record. We have a series of lights in front of you. All
of you I am sure are very familiar with the 5-minute time
limit. We ask that you summarize your comments within that 5-
minute time period.
Congressman Reyes, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
THE HONORABLE SILVESTRE REYES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Reyes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Jackson Lee. Thank you for inviting me to be here and allowing
me to testify before the Subcommittee this morning.
As we have sat here for the past hour, I just want you to
know that the head of the CIA is in my Intelligence Committee,
where we are working on some very important issues dealing with
national security, and also at 10:30 I had a hearing in the
Veterans Committee on cyber-security because of the 26 million
or so veterans whose Social Security numbers could have been
jeopardized.
But I am here, and I only mention that because I want you
to know how important this issue is to me and to the district
that I represent, and I think to our country. As I was
listening to my good friend and colleague from Texas talk about
our long-time friendship, I have been testifying before
Congress for the last 15 or 20 years on border security,
terrorism, drug trafficking and all those kinds of issues.
So this morning, Mr. Chairman, I would like to preface my
remarks about the substance of today's hearing on the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, with a word or two
about the process, or perhaps having listened to all of you and
your opening statements, the politics that actually got us
here.
It has been nearly 5 years since the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001. There have been countless investigations,
hearings and reports about how to secure our borders and curb
illegal immigration, but far too little in the way of
meaningful measures to keep America safe, in my opinion. The
time for talk about these issues has long since passed, and the
moment of action is now.
Instead of numerous hearings that may make perhaps good
politics, but do little to advance sound policy, Congress, all
of us, need to reach a compromise agreement on comprehensive
border security and immigration reform legislation.
I need to tell you that what we are doing now, what we are
engaged in, is being perceived as convoluted and confusing
around the country. Since the House Republican leadership is
moving forward with these kinds of hearings anyway, I have come
here to share with this Subcommittee my experience in border
security and immigration reform to help ensure that we do not
confuse rhetoric with reality on these very important issues of
national security to our country.
As many of you have mentioned before, before coming to
Congress I served for 26\1/2\ years in the United States Border
Patrol, including 13 years as a sector chief in McAllen and in
El Paso. During the course of my career, I patrolled the tough
terrain of the United States-Mexico border region, and I
supervised thousands of hardworking and dedicated border patrol
agents and did everything within my power and theirs to
strengthen our borders and to reduce illegal immigration.
I am probably the only person in this hearing room and in
Congress who actually witnessed first-hand the effects of IRCA
and other immigration legislation passed by Congress. I often
tell people, including a group of about 300 or 400 last Friday
night where one of my former colleagues retired, that there is
good news and bad news in being the only Member of Congress
that has this background.
The good news is a lot of people talk to me about it and
want to get my opinion. The bad news is oftentimes my comments
and my opinion are disregarded, and we keep on doing the same
things over and over to the detriment of the security of our
country. As I said, I represent a border district. In fact, I
have spent my whole life on the border. I live there today and
I am honored to represent the people of El Paso and the El Paso
area in the House of Representatives.
Like most Americans, and especially given my background and
experience, I am frustrated by our Administration and the
leadership in both the House and the Senate and the failure to
secure our borders and curb illegal immigration. This is 5
years after 9/11. This is why in coming to Congress, I have
lobbied my colleagues for greater resources for border
security, including additional border patrol agents, equipment
and technology, more immigration inspectors, judges and
thousands of new detention beds, so we could once and for all
end the catch-and-release policy of releasing OTMs.
I have also long supported providing the resources required
to enforce immigration laws in our nation's interior, including
tough sanctions against employers who hire undocumented
workers. If it were harder for an undocumented worker to get a
job, fewer of them would try to enter this country illegally,
which would allow the border patrol to focus on those who might
be trying to come here to do us harm, which by the way was a
message that my former colleague stressed over and over last
Friday night.
Yet in every instance, the leadership and the
Administration have failed to deliver these very necessary
resources, even though experts agree that another terrorist
attack on our country is not a matter of if it happens, but
when it happens.
I think my colleagues have gone over the shortages that we
have seen in terms of the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, so
if I can take an additional 30 seconds or so just to give you
some of my observations, because I know a lot of you have
expressed opinions on the Immigration Reform and Control Act of
1986.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection.
Mr. Reyes. If there was a failure, there was a failure in
that Congress did not fund the resources necessary to enforce
employer sanctions. I can assure you, based on my own
experience along the border, employer sanctions worked, and
they worked very effectively because we had the resources to
check businesses along the border corridors where I was chief.
We took that law seriously. Apparently, Congress did not.
And when people look and say that the Administration has failed
to enforce the law, it is Congress that has failed to fund the
resources necessary to prioritize that as part of the process.
I can also tell you that immediately after the passage of
the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, we had a downturn
in attempted illegal entries, that is people trying to enter
this country. Some sectors were down as much as 80 percent on
the U.S.-Mexico border.
The overwhelming reason, and there were surveys taken, the
overwhelming reason was because people understood that there
were now employer sanctions that were going to kick in; that
those were going to be enforced. And so they didn't think it
was worthwhile to go through all the process of entering this
country illegally when they weren't going to be able to get a
job once they got here.
We failed as a Congress. I can't tell you how frustrating
it is for me to see us again talking and talking and bantering
back and forth politically and with great partisanship, when we
are in danger because we haven't done the things that we have
promised to do in securing our border.
I hope that at some point in wrapping up I get a chance to
talk about H.R. 98, which is a bill that I have cosponsored
with Congressman Dreier that addresses the Social Security
card, addresses a system where employers would verify that card
and the person that presents it, and also gives resources to
both the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who are
responsible for employer sanctions, and Social Security, to be
able to make that happen. I think H.R. 98 unto itself would be
one of the most important things that we could do as a
Congress.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to be here. As I
said, although I have those two other hearings going on, I am
going to sit here and answer any questions that Members may
have. I hope that we are working our way toward some meaningful
immigration reform that takes into account all of the
priorities that were mentioned by Members on both sides, that
we do come with the Senate and come up with a compromise so
that we can work for this country in securing its borders and
its national security.
With that, thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. It
is a pleasure to be here before you and your Subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reyes follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Silvestre Reyes, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Texas
Chairman Hostettler and Ranking Member Jackson Lee, thank you for
allowing me to testify before your Subcommittee this morning.
I would like to preface my remarks about the substance of today's
hearing on the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) with a
word or two about the process, or perhaps I should say the politics,
that got us here.
In the nearly five years since the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001, there have been countless investigations, hearings, and
reports about how to secure our borders and curb illegal immigration,
but far too little in the way of meaningful measures to keep America
safe. The time for talk about these issues has long since passed and
the moment for action is now. Instead of numerous hearings that may
make good politics but do little to advance sound policy, Congress
needs to reach a compromise agreement on comprehensive border security
and immigration reform legislation.
Since the House Republican leadership is moving forward with these
hearings anyway, I have come here to share with this Subcommittee my
experience in border security and immigration and to help ensure that
we do not confuse rhetoric with reality on these important issues.
Before being elected to Congress, I served for 26 + years in the
United States Border Patrol, including 13 years as Sector Chief, first
in McAllen, Texas and later in El Paso, Texas. During the course of my
career, I patrolled the tough terrain of the United States-Mexico
border region, supervised thousands of hard-working, dedicated Border
Patrol agents, and did everything within my power to strengthen our
borders and reduce illegal immigration. I am probably the only person
in this hearing room who actually witnessed firsthand the effects of
IRCA and other immigration legislation passed by Congress, on the
ground in the U.S.-Mexico border region.
In fact, I have spent my whole life on the border, having been born
and raised in Canutillo, Texas, which is located near El Paso, Texas.
Today, I am honored to represent the people of the El Paso area in the
U.S. House of Representatives.
Like most Americans, and especially given my background and
experience, I am frustrated by the Administration and the Republican
congressional leadership's failure to secure our borders and curb
illegal immigration, five years after 9/11. That is why since coming to
Congress, I have lobbied my colleagues for greater resources for border
security, including additional Border Patrol agents, equipment, and
technology; more immigration inspectors and judges; and thousands of
new detention beds so we can end the absurd practice of catch-and-
release of other-than-Mexicans, or OTMs, once and for all.
I have also long supported providing the resources required to
enforce immigration laws in our nation's interior, including tough
sanctions against employers who hire undocumented workers. If it were
harder for an undocumented worker to get a job, fewer of them would try
to enter this country illegally, which would allow the Border Patrol to
focus on those who may be trying to come here to do us harm.
Yet in every instance, the President and the current leadership in
Congress have failed to deliver these necessary resources, even though
experts agree that another terrorist attack on our country is not a
matter of if, but when.
For instance, the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, often referred
to as the 9/11 Act, called for 2,000 additional Border Patrol agents
annually from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2010, but Congress
has fallen well short of providing that number. Time after time the
Republican leadership has voted against efforts to fund the authorized
number of agents, leaving the Border Patrol to do the best they can
with not nearly as many agents as they need.
Similarly, the 9/11 Act called for 8,000 additional detention beds
annually for five years, but far fewer have actually been funded. As a
result, OTMs are still being released with nothing more than a notice
to appear, not because the Border Patrol wants to release them, but
because we have nowhere to detain them.
In total, Congress is 800 Border Patrol agents and 5,000 detention
beds short of what was promised in the 9/11 Act. If the September 11,
2001 terrorist attacks did not convince the Administration and
congressional leaders that border security and immigration must be a
priority, what will?
Talk is cheap. What border residents want, and what Americans want
when it comes to border security and immigration reform, is action.
With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for allowing me to
participate today. I look forward to hearing from the other members of
the panel and our witnesses.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Congressman Reyes.
The chair now recognizes Mrs. Schlafly.
TESTIMONY OF PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY, PRESIDENT, EAGLE FORUM
Mrs. Schlafly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee.
As the president of Eagle Forum, a national, conservative,
pro-family organization of grassroots volunteers, I am in close
touch with the people you would call grassroots Americans. In
the last 6 months, I have given speeches in 16 States: Florida,
Virginia, Utah, California, Georgia, Michigan, Illinois,
Alabama, New York, Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, Wisconsin,
Texas, Kansas and New Jersey.
I can report that the invasion by illegal aliens is the
hottest issue across America, even in States far from the
border, such as Kansas and Georgia. The first question I am
always asked is: ``Why doesn't the Government get it about
illegal immigration?''
Americans are basically a fair-minded people and the
continued entry of thousands of illegal aliens offends our
ideals of fairness. Failure to stop the entry of illegal aliens
is unfair to those who don't have health insurance, but see
illegal aliens given costly treatment at hospitals for which
U.S. taxpayers have to pay the bill.
It is unfair to the legal immigrants who stand in line and
wait their turn to comply with our laws. It is unfair to our
friends in Arizona who are afraid to go out of their homes
without a gun and a cell phone.
It is unfair to small businessmen who are trying to run an
honest business, pay their taxes and benefits to employees, but
cannot compete with their competitors whose costs are so much
less because they hire illegal aliens in the underground
economy. It is unfair to American children in public schools
who see their classrooms flooded with kids who cannot speak
English and cause a gross decline in the quality of education.
It is unfair to our own 16 million high school dropouts who
need those low-wage jobs to start building a life.
Americans are basically a law-abiding people, and we
believe our Government has betrayed us by its failure to
enforce immigration law. Failure to stop the entry of illegal
aliens is an offense against our fundamental belief that we are
a nation that respects the rule of law.
In addition to believing that failure to enforce the law is
unfair and a betrayal, the American people have lost faith in
the honesty of our leaders. Americans think we are being lied
to. Everybody knows that the various plans called
``legalization'' or ``earned citizenship'' are euphemisms for
amnesty. The president and other public officials lose
credibility every time we hear them deny that Senate bill 2611
is not amnesty. The American people don't like to be talked
down to by politicians who play games with words.
Americans also feel lied to by the Senate bill's use of the
term ``temporary guest workers.'' We know the president and the
senators are not telling the truth when they imply that guest
workers will go home after a couple of years. The American
people are thinking, we don't believe you, and worse, we don't
believe that you believe what you are saying, because the
evidence is so overwhelming that guest workers do not go home.
The Senate bill invites guest workers to a path for
citizenship after a few years, and anyway, it is obvious that
those few years give plenty of time to produce an American-born
anchor baby. The American people also believe we are lied to by
those who say we cannot get border security unless we also have
a guest worker program and amnesty-lite. That is what they mean
when they demand a comprehensive bill.
Mr. Chairman, you all need to realize that
``comprehensive'' has become a word as offensive as
``amnesty,'' because we have figured out that it is just a
cover for a plan to repeat the mistakes of the 1986 Immigration
Reform and Control Act known as Simpson-Mazzoli. That was a
comprehensive bill which combined amnesty with promises of
border security and sanctions on employers who hired illegal
aliens. We got amnesty, but we did not get border security or
employer sanctions. There was massive fraud and the illegal
population quadrupled.
The American people are not willing to be cheated again by
the word ``comprehensive.'' Their attitude is, fool me once,
shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. When we hear the word
``comprehensive,'' we believe that legalization and guest
workers will be fully implemented, but we will get nothing but
pie-in-the-sky promises about border security and employment
verification.
If you have water in your basement, plan A must be to stop
more water from coming in before you deal with the water
already in the basement. Plan A is border security only, House
bill 4437. We thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and the 88 percent
of Republican House Members who voted for it. The House bill
cannot be compromised or conferenced with the Senate bill
because, in the words of the old adage, you cannot make a silk
purse out of a sow's ear.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Schlafly follows:]
Prepared Statement of Phyllis Schlafly
My name is Phyllis Schlafly. As the president of Eagle Forum, a
national conservative, pro-family organization of volunteers, I am in
close touch with the people you would call grassroots Americans. In the
last six months, I have given speeches in 16 states: Florida, Virginia,
Utah, California, Georgia, Michigan, Illinois, Alabama, New York,
Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, Wisconsin, Texas, Kansas, and New Jersey.
I can report that the nationwide invasion by illegal aliens is the
hottest issue across America C even in states far from the border such
as Kansas and Georgia. The first question I am always asked is: Why
doesn't the government get it about illegal immigration?
Americans are basically a fair-minded people, and the continued
entry of thousands of illegal aliens offends our ideals of fairness.
Failure to stop the entry of illegal aliens is unfair to those who
don't have health insurance but see illegal aliens given costly
treatment at U.S. hospitals for which U.S. taxpayers have to pay the
bill. It is unfair to the legal immigrants who stand in line and wait
their turn to comply with our laws. It is unfair to our friends in
Arizona who are afraid to go out of their homes without a gun and a
cell phone. It's unfair to small businessmen who are trying to run an
honest business, pay their taxes and benefits to employees, but can't
compete with their competitors whose costs are so much less because
they hire illegal aliens in the underground economy. It is unfair to
American children in public schools who see their classrooms flooded
with kids who can't speak English and cause a gross decline in the
quality of education. It's unfair to our own high school dropouts who
need those low-wage jobs to start building a life.
Americans are basically a law-abiding people and they believe our
government has betrayed us by its failure to enforce immigration law.
Failure to stop the entry of illegal aliens is an offense against our
fundamental belief that our nation respects the Rule of Law.
In addition to believing that failure to enforce the law is unfair
and a betrayal, the American people have lost faith in the honesty of
our leaders. Americans think we are being lied to.
Everybody knows that the various plans called legalization or
earned citizenship are euphemisms for amnesty. The President and other
public officials lose credibility every time we hear them deny that
giving illegal aliens a path to citizenship is not amnesty. The
American people don't like to be talked down to by politicians who play
games with words.
Americans also feel lied to by the Senate bill's use of the term
``temporary guest workers.'' We know the President and the Senators are
not telling the truth when they imply that guest workers will go home
after a few years. The American people are thinking, we don't believe
you C and worse, we don't believe that you believe what you are saying
because the evidence is so overwhelming that guest workers do not go
home. The Senate bill gives guest workers a path to citizenship after a
few years and, anyway, it's obvious that those few years give plenty of
time to produce an American-born anchor baby.
The American people also believe we are lied to by those who say we
can't get border security unless we also have a guest-worker program
and ``amnesty lite.'' That's what they mean when they demand a
``comprehensive'' bill. But ``comprehensive'' has become a word as
offensive as amnesty because we have figured out that it is just a
cover for a plan to repeat the mistakes of the 1986 Immigration Reform
and Control Act, known as Simpson-Mazzoli. That was truly a
comprehensive law which combined amnesty with promises of border
security and sanctions on employers who hired illegal aliens. The
illegal aliens got their amnesty B but we did not get border security
or employer sanctions. There was massive fraud, and the illegal
population quadrupled.
The American people are not willing to be cheated again. Their
attitude is: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me.
When we hear the word ``comprehensive,'' we believe that legalization
and guest workers will be fully implemented, but that we will get
nothing but pie-in-the-sky promises about border security and
employment verification.
If you have water in your basement, Plan A must be to stop more
water from coming in C before you deal with the water already in the
basement. Plan A is border security only, House bill 4437. We thank
Chairman Sensenbrenner and the 88% of Republican House Members who
voted for it. The House bill cannot be compromised with the Senate bill
because, in the words of the old adage, you can't make a silk purse out
of a sow's ear.
I. THE SENATE BILL REPEATS THE 1986 MISTAKES
When President Bush went to Cancun, Mexico, in March, he said that
he is committed to signing a ``comprehensive immigration bill. And by
`comprehensive,' I mean not only a bill that has border security in it,
but a bill that has a worker permit program in it. That's an important
part of having a border that works.'' In his nationally televised
speech on May 15, President Bush reiterated that we can't have border
security unless we also have a ``comprehensive'' bill including
legalization and guest workers.
There are two problems with that argument. First, it is downright
ridiculous to say that our government can't stop illegals from entering
our country unless we legalize large numbers who want to come in. The
United States has troops guarding borders all over the world, and it is
not credible that we can't guard our own border. Second, we don't
believe that the people who make that argument will ever give us border
security. There is no hard evidence that they want to stop illegal
aliens from coming into our country. George Bush has had six years to
enforce border security. When grassroots Americans don't believe the
President is leveling with us, it damages the moral fabric of our
nation.
The Senate bill would give legal status and a path to citizenship
(i.e., amnesty) to the 11 to 20 million aliens (workers, spouses and
children) who entered our country illegally and have been using
millions of fraudulent documents. They would then become recipients of
our generous entitlements. The cost to the taxpayers of this monumental
expansion of the welfare state would be at least $50 billion a year.
U.S. taxpayers would be saddled with paying for the entitlements of
these low-income families, including Medicaid, Social Security (with
credit for FICA taxes paid under false numbers), Supplemental Security
Income, Earned Income Tax Credit (cash handouts of up to $4,400 a year
to low-wage households), the WIC program, food stamps, public and
subsidized housing, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, public
schooling and school lunches, and federally funded legal
representation.
The Simpson-Mazzoli Act is a good model of how any type of
legalization or ``amnesty light'' will be fraught with fraud. That 1986
Act was expected to amnesty one million people; it turned into three
million. Five illegals who received amnesty in 1986 subsequently
participated in the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. One of
them, the terrorist Mahmud ``The Red'' Abouhalima, a New York City taxi
driver who got amnesty as an agricultural worker, used his legal status
to travel to Afghanistan for terrorist training and then return to
attack us.
Even worse than the Senate bill's plan to deal with the illegal
aliens now in the United States is its mammoth legalization of
foreigners under the deceitful words ``temporary'' and ``guest-
worker.'' The newly imported workers will not be temporary and will not
be guests. We are indebted to the Heritage Foundation for its stunning
report proving that the Senate bill is a stealth open borders bill that
will import about 66 million people into our country permanently and
put them on the path to citizenship. This is ``the most monumental bill
ever considered'' and its mindboggling costs would be the largest-ever
expansion of taxpayer-paid entitlements.
The fine print in the Senate bill describes how the so-called
temporary guest workers, who will be given new H-2C visas, will convert
to legal permanent residents with the right to become U.S. citizens
after five years. The plan would start by importing 200,000 foreign
workers with new H-2C visas in the first year. The H-2Cers can
immediately bring in their family members on H-4 visas, without being
required to have a physical, and they also will get permanent legal
residence and citizenship.
The demographics of the new guest workers would be similar to those
of the illegal aliens already in our country. Over half are high school
dropouts, they work low-paid jobs that require little or no income tax
to be paid, they are 50% more likely to receive tax-paid benefits than
natural-born households, and they have a 42% rate of out-of-wedlock
births (all of whom, of course, will be granted automatic U.S.
citizenship). Working low-income jobs, they will qualify for the cash
handouts called the Earned Income Tax Credit paid by taxes imposed on
American citizens.
The Senate bill would, within 20 years, make 25% of our population
foreign born (most of them high school dropouts), even though Pew
Research reports that only 17% of Americans support increased
immigration. It is impossible in so short a time to assimilate 66
million people whose native culture does not respect the Rule of Law,
self-government, private property, or the sanctity of contracts, and
who are accustomed to an economy based on bribery and controlled by
corrupt police and a small, rich ruling class that keeps most of the
people in dire poverty.
The Senate bill would give the so-called temporary guest workers
preferential rights that American citizens do not have. The temporary
workers can't be fired from their jobs except for cause, they must be
paid the prevailing wage, and they can't be arrested for other civil
offenses if they are stopped for traffic violations.
The bill assures the illegals they can have the preference of in-
state college tuition (a large taxpayer-subsidized benefit of up to
$20,000 a year), which is denied to U.S. citizens in 49 other states,
plus certain types of college financial assistance.
After the so-called temporary guest workers and their spouses
become citizens, they can bring in their parents as permanent residents
on the path to citizenship. Although the parents have never paid into
Social Security, they will be eligible for Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) benefits. Siblings and adult children and their families will be
given preference in future admissions.
A system of temporary guest workers would give America a future
like France, which is staggering under multicultural guest workers and
bloated tax-paid welfare entitlements. It would turn the United States
into a boarding house for the world's poor by enabling employers to
import millions of ``willing workers'' at low wage-levels.
There is still more that is disastrous about the Senate bill. It
would invite into our country with guest-worker status 115,000 skilled
workers on H-1B visas, and raise the number each year. H-1Bs encourage
corporations to hire engineers and computer specialists from India,
Pakistan and China at half the salary Americans would be paid. The
Senate bill would exempt from the H-1B visa cap and put on the track
for permanent residence all foreigners who get advanced degrees from a
U.S. university (an additional discrimination against U.S. graduates in
technical subjects).
The Senate bill would also create a new F-4 visa category for
foreign students pursuing an advanced degree in math, science,
engineering or technology and put them on the track for permanent
residence (thereby discouraging U.S. students from majoring in math and
science).
When I lecture on college campuses, students tell me they are
switching out of computer science because they are told that there are
almost no jobs available for computer majors. Of course there are
plenty of computer jobs, but not for Americans because big business
would rather hire foreigners. This system is not the free market; it's
politicians and corporations conniving to do an end run around our
immigration laws in order to keep wages artificially low.
The rationale for inviting H-1B foreigners to take American jobs is
an alleged labor shortage, but we never had any shortage in engineers
or computer technicians. The labor-shortage claim is ridiculous today
since there are more than 100,000 unemployed or underemployed Americans
with those skills. After the dot-com bust a few years ago, tens of
thousands of computer workers and engineers left Silicon Valley and
took any job they could get, of course at a fraction the pay they had
been receiving.
The promise that employers will offer jobs to Americans first is a
sick joke. American engineers and computer techies who lost their jobs
to foreigners under the H-1B visa guest-worker racket know that a look-
for-Americans-first rule is never enforced and easily evaded.
At least 463,000 H-1B workers are employed in the United States,
and some estimate twice that number. H-1Bers who are hired by
universities and other exempt institutions are not in the count. During
the third quarter of last year, high tech companies in the U.S. laid
off workers in record numbers, but they didn't lay off H-1B workers.
Just before being laid off, hundreds of American engineers and computer
specialists were forced to train their foreign replacements.
The best research on the economics of H-1B workers has been done by
Professor Norman Matloff of the University of California/Davis.
It's bad news for America's future if the corporations learn to
rely on foreigners for all their computer work. Americans, not
foreigners, are the source of the technical innovations we need to stay
ahead in the fast-moving computer industry. Of the 56 awards given by
the Association for Computing Machinery for software and hardware
innovation, only one recipient was an immigrant.
II. ``COMPREHENSIVE'' COMPROMISES ARE MISTAKES, TOO
Faced with the American people demanding border security, we now
hear some voices saying, okay, we'll package border security with
legalization and guest worker, and we'll even promise to deal with
border security first. We don't believe them. We have to see proof that
the border is closed to illegal aliens and to illegal drugs before we
talk about anything else. These so-called compromise plans are heading
down the same failed road as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act.
For example, the bill proposed by Rep. Mike Pence tries to play the
game of asserting border security first followed by legalization of
current illegal aliens and a massive guest worker plan. This has all
the defects of the Senate bill and in some respects it is even worse
because, as Pence wrote in the Wall Street Journal, ``There will
initially be no cap on the number of visas that can be issued.'' These
visas would be distributed at offices anywhere in the world under the
cutesy name Ellis Island Centers. Anyone may apply for these guest-
worker visas from anywhere in the world. The Pew Hispanic Center
reports that 49 million Mexicans want to live in the United States if
they get the opportunity. There may be 5 billion people in the world
who would like to come to America.
These Ellis Island Centers would be financed by private industry,
which Pence claims would be more efficient than government bureaucracy.
Business would, indeed, be more efficient than government in importing
more foreign workers, but it would be like putting the fox in charge of
the chicken coop. Private industry has a built-in incentive to import
as much cheap labor as possible.
Private industry would no doubt be happy to set up Ellis Island
Centers in India, Pakistan and China to completely bypass any limit on
H-1B visas and bring in an unlimited number of lower-paid engineers and
computer techies to replace Americans. Private industry will be only
too happy to set up Ellis Island Centers in the Philippines (where
tuberculosis is rampant) and bring in an unlimited number of lower-paid
nurses to decimate the U.S. nursing profession.
In dealing with the problem of the illegal aliens now in our
country, Pence tries to avoid the amnesty label by requiring them to
make what he calls ``a quick trip across the border'' to Mexico or
Canada to pick up a new visa so long as a U.S. employer certifies that
a job awaits him. Pence told Time Magazine that his bill ``will require
the 12 million illegal aliens to leave.'' We'll believe that only if we
actually see it happen.
What about the millions of illegal aliens in the U.S. today who do
not have an employer willing to go on record as guaranteeing a job for
a foreigner? These would include the relatives of jobholders, the day
laborers, and the millions of illegal aliens working in the U.S.
underground cash economy (an estimated 40% of the total). Pence's
proposal is silent on this.
The Pence plan provides that the guest workers, after living here
legally for six years, can choose whether to apply for citizenship or
to return home. What if the aliens don't choose either option but just
remain? Will they be deported after they have raised a family and
established roots? Six years is ample time to have a U.S.-born anchor
baby and start family chain migration.
III. GUEST WORKER PLANS ARE IMMORAL AND UN-AMERICAN
Even if a guest worker plan actually works the way it is promised,
it would be immoral and un-American. Theodore Roosevelt warned: ``Never
under any condition should this nation look at an immigrant as
primarily a labor unit. We cannot afford to continue to use hundreds of
thousands of immigrants merely as industrial assets while they remain
social outcasts and menaces any more than 50 years ago we could afford
to keep the black man merely as an industrial asset and not as a human
being.''
Inviting foreigners to come to America as guest workers is
equivalent to sending the message: You people are only fit to do menial
jobs that Americans think they are too good to do. We will let you come
into our country for a few years to work low-paid jobs, but you have no
hope of rising up the economic and social ladder, and we do not expect
(or want) you to become Americans.
Inviting foreigners to come to America to do jobs that Americans
think they are too good to do would create a subordinate underclass of
unassimilated foreign workers, like the serf or peasant classes that
exist in corrupt foreign countries such as Mexico or Saudi Arabia.
That's not the kind of economy or social structure that made America a
great nation.
Some people say that leaving our borders open to people who want to
sneak into our country illegally is the compassionate and Christian
thing to do. On the contrary, it is uncaring and immoral to close our
eyes to the crime on our southern border.
Failing to close our border to illegals means giving up on the war
on drugs because most illegal drugs come over our southern border and
then are shipped all over the United States. Drug smugglers armed with
automatic weapons, global-positioning units and night-vision scopes
have become increasingly aggressive in protecting their illicit
cargoes. Attacks on our Border Patrol agents have risen fivefold in the
past year. Mexican drug cartels are even running illegal marijuana
farms in our national parks, protected by booby traps and guards
carrying AK-47s.
The smuggling of human beings over our border is an organized
criminal racket that ought to be stopped, and the number of illegal
crossings has significantly increased ever since the President began
talking about his guest-worker/amnesty plan. That's no surprise; the
amnesty we granted in 1986 vastly increased the number of illegal
aliens.
The smugglers charge thousands of dollars for the promise to bring
people across the border, and then often hold them for ransom until
additional payments are made. Female border crossers are often raped by
the same smugglers who were paid $2,000 for safe passage. Hundreds die
from thirst and dehydration when crossing the desert or in locked
trucks without air or water. How many people will have to die before
our government closes our border so that smugglers and their victims
won't believe the illegal racket is worth the risk?
Legal immigrants must be healthy to be admitted, but nobody is
giving a health exam to people sneaking across the border. Illegal
aliens are bringing in diseases such as Chagas that were formerly
unknown in the United States, plus bedbugs and diseases we had
eradicated decades ago such as tuberculosis, malaria and even leprosy.
Failure to close our border to illegals means that Arizonans live
in fear of the aliens who trespass across their land every night,
destroying their property, tearing down fences, and killing their
animals. Since President Bush lives in a house protected by a fence,
why can't Arizonans be protected by a fence? The most moral and
humanitarian thing we can do is to erect a fence and vastly increase
the number of our border agents in order to stop the drugs, the
smuggling racket, the diseases, and the crimes.
France and Germany have already demonstrated the folly of a guest-
worker economy. They admitted foreigners to do low-paid jobs, and now
both countries have millions of foreign residents who do not
assimilate, who burden the social welfare system, and who become more
disgruntled and dangerous every year.
Guest-worker/amnesty would help to perpetuate Mexico's corrupt
economic system, which keeps a few people very rich and most Mexicans
in abject poverty. Mexico is a very rich country with enormous
quantities of oil, but the oil is entirely owned by the government. The
wealthy Mexican elites are glad to export some of their dissidents and
unemployed so they can get jobs in the United States and send back $20
billion a year to Mexico.
IV. BORDER SECURITY IS ESSENTIAL AND MUST COME FIRST
When is our government going to protect us from the crime, the
drugs, the smuggling racket, destruction of property, and the
endangerment to U.S. residents along our border and to our undermanned
Border Patrol?
President Bush bragged in his speech that ``we have apprehended and
sent home about six million people entering America illegally,'' but he
didn't say how many of those six million were repeats. Maybe a truthful
figure would be one million people deported six times, while the number
of illegal aliens in the United States increased by five million after
Bush became President. The illegal alien who drove 100 miles an hour on
Interstate 485 on the wrong side of the highway, killing a University
of North Carolina coed in November 2005, had been returned to Mexico 17
times. Did Bush count him 17 times in his six million figure?
President Bush's choice of verbs shows that his talk of border
barriers, technology and more agents are empty promises. All the good
stuff that he proposed was prefaced by the words ``we will;'' he never
said ``we are'' doing these things. Bush said, ``To secure the border
effectively we must reduce the numbers of people trying to sneak
across. That's impossible. The Pew Hispanic Center reports that 46% of
the population of Mexico would like to live in the United States, and
20% would come illegally if they could.
At least 85% of the illegal drugs coming into the United States are
coming across our southern border. Our so-called war on drugs is a
farce unless our government closes our southern border. There is,
indeed, a drug war going on, but it is a war between rival Mexican drug
gangs C with the U.S. government a bystander lacking manpower or
weapons to take action. Are we going to continue to leave our border
agents sitting ducks for Mexican snipers?
Our government recently seized an enormous cache of weapons in
Laredo, Texas. This included two completed Improvised Explosive Devices
(IEDs), materials for making 33 more, military-style grenades, 26
grenade triggers, large quantities of AK-47 and AR-15 assault rifles,
1,280 rounds of ammunition, silencers, machine gun assembly kits, 300
primers, bullet-proof vests, police scanners, sniper scopes, narcotics,
and cash.
The Department of Homeland Security admits that there have been 231
documented incursions by Mexican military or police, or drug or people
smugglers dressed in military uniforms, during the last ten years,
including 63 in Arizona, and several Border Patrol agents have been
wounded in these encounters. Our Border Patrol agents say they are
often confronted by corrupt Mexican military units employed to protect
and escort violent drug smugglers.
Meanwhile, the news media have shown us pictures of the
sophisticated 2,400-foot tunnel running from Mexico under our border to
a warehouse in San Diego. U.S. authorities recovered more than two tons
of marijuana, and it is unclear how long the tunnel has been in
operation or how many tons of drugs already passed through. It is
believed that the drug cartel started building the tunnel two years
ago. Why did it take our government two years to discover it?
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued an Officer Safety
Alert on December 21, 2005, stating: ``Unidentified Mexican alien
smugglers are angry about the increased security along the U.S./Mexico
border and have agreed that the best way to deal with U.S. Border
Patrol agents is to hire a group of contract killers.'' The alert
states that the smugglers intend to bring members of the Mara
Salvatrucha street gang, known as MS-13, to perform the killings.
MS-13 is one of the most brutal and dangerous gangs in the world.
In addition to murder, MS-13 engages in mutilation, beheadings,
chopping off of fingers, and torture. MS-13 is now estimated to have
10,000 members in 33 U.S. states and another 50,000 in Mexico and
Central America. T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol
Council, said, ``MS-13 has shown that its members have very little
regard for human life. Some of the atrocities they have committed are
truly unspeakable, and it worries me to know that our agents on the
line are now the targets.''
In reporting on Mardi Gras on February 27, CBS-TV Evening News
aired a segment on how the tattooed MS-13 street gang has invaded New
Orleans. CBS explained that they are vicious beyond anything New
Orleans police have ever experienced, and will kill a policeman
immediately rather than run the risk of being deported. MS-13 members
are usually laborers by day and murderers by night. They came to
Louisiana to take jobs as carpenters, plumbers, and other construction
jobs (jobs that should be reserved for displaced Louisiana citizens).
The New York Times reported that 18,207 illegal OTMs (Other Than
Mexicans) were the beneficiaries of the Bush Administration's
scandalous ``catch and release'' procedure in the three months since
Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff promised to ``return ever single
illegal entrant--no exceptions.'' Catch and release means that the
illegal OTMs are not deported but, after they are caught, they are
released on their own recognizance with instructions to reappear a few
weeks hence, with everybody understanding that they will disappear into
the American population.
An estimated 400,000 people who have been ordered out of the United
States, including many convicted criminals or those from terrorist
states, are still living in the U.S. because federal officials have
failed to ensure their removal.
Immigration investigators busted a 16-member smuggling ring in El
Paso that brought thousands of illegal aliens into the U.S. The
smugglers charged the aliens $1,500 to $6,000 each, depending on their
point of origin. Rig drivers were paid $300 for each alien they
successfully delivered to Dallas. The illegals were squeezed into truck
trailers; one had 79, another had 51 riding in a locked trailer with no
food and one empty 20-ounce water bottle.
The Mexican government is facilitating illegal entry by
distributing maps of dangerous border areas along with safety
instructions and other tips. The maps provide details of the terrain,
cell-phone coverage, and water stations.
Let's put border security in perspective. We currently have 37,000
U.S. troops guarding the 151-mile border between North and South Korea,
but we have fewer than 12,000 agents to monitor 2,000 miles of our
southern border. President Bush seems to think that we will be
comforted by 6,000 National Guardsmen sent to the southern border for
one year C not to guard the border, but merely to ``assist'' our Border
Patrol. A month after his speech, only 100 Guardsmen had reached the
border.
V. ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS AFFECTING AMERICAN JOBS
The American people know, even if our government doesn't seem to
get it, that the vast influx
of foreigners is costing Americans both jobs and good wages. We see
this in unskilled entry-level jobs, needed by our own high school
dropouts and college students, all the way up to skilled jobs needed by
our engineers and computer specialists. This is not the operation of
the free market; it is the result of the failure of our government to
enforce border security, track foreigners who overstay their visas, and
enforce the law about employment verification.
President Bush said that ``businesses often cannot verify the legal
status of their employees.'' On the contrary, the technology is already
in place for employers to verify the legality of Social Security
numbers, but only a tiny percentage of employers voluntarily do this.
A study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research
reported that the surge of immigration in the 1980s and 1990s lowered
the wages of our own high school dropouts by 8.2%. The surge has
accelerated since that report was issued. Bush wants to give U.S. jobs
to foreigners so they can rise ``from a life of low-paying jobs to a
diploma, a career, and a home of their own.'' He shows no compassion
for the millions of American high school dropouts who need those entry-
level jobs.
At Cancun, Mexico in March, President Bush repeated the falsehood
that illegal aliens are ``doing work that Americans will not do.''
According to the Pew Hispanic Center, illegal aliens are less than 5%
of our labor force. If every one of the illegal aliens in our country
played hooky from his job, the overwhelming majority of those same
types of jobs will be worked by millions of American citizens. All over
the country, American citizens flip hamburgers in fast-food shops, wash
dishes in restaurants, change sheets in hotels, mow lawns, trim shrubs,
pick produce, drive taxis, replace roofs on houses, and do all kinds of
construction work. Americans are quite willing to work unpleasant,
menial, tiresome, and risky jobs, but not for Third World wages.
An employment service in Mobile, Alabama received an ``urgent
request'' this year to fill 270 job openings from contractors who were
hired to rebuild and clear areas of Alabama devastated by Hurricane
Katrina. The agency immediately sent 70 laborers and construction
workers to three job sites. After two weeks on the job, the men were
fired by employers who told them ``the Mexicans had arrived'' and were
willing to work for lower wages. The Americans had been promised $10 an
hour, but the employers preferred Mexicans who would work for less.
Employment agency manager Linda Swope told the Washington Times, ``When
they told the guys they would not be needed, they actually cried . . .
and we cried with them. This is a shame.''
Ms. Swope said that employment agencies throughout Alabama,
Louisiana and Mississippi all face similar problems because an
estimated 30,000 men from Mexico and Central and South America, many in
crowded buses and trucks, came into those three states after Hurricane
Katrina, willing to work for less than whatever was paid to American
citizens.
Meanwhile, President Bush signed the Katrina Emergency Assistance
Act extending for 13 weeks the unemployment benefits to Americans
displaced by Katrina. Employers get the benefit of cheap foreign labor
while you and I provide taxpayer handouts to the guys whom the
government allows to be displaced from jobs they were eager to take.
There is no penalty on employers who replace Americans with illegal
aliens at lower pay. Homeland Security even announced it has suspended
the sanctioning of employers who hire illegal aliens, and President
Bush suspended the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires local contractors to
pay ``prevailing'' wages.
VI. WHY DOESN'T OUR GOVERNMENT GET IT?
It is self-evident that the Senate bill or any so-called
``comprehensive'' immigration bill will be a rerun of the 1986 Simpson-
Mazzoli mistake. The American people are demanding border security now
and before any discussion of other legislation. We don't understand why
so many government officials just don't get it. We thank Chairman
Sensenbrenner and the 88% of House Republicans who understand what
America's priorities should be.
When President Bush visited Cancun, Mexico this spring, he met
privately with the Mexican president and wealthy CEOs from both
countries. He said the Cancun meeting celebrated the first anniversary
of his signing the Security and Prosperity Partnership at the 2005
summit in Waco, Texas. Is the real push behind the ``comprehensive''
amnesty/guest-worker proposals the Bush goal to keep our borders open
and lock us into the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North
America?
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Ms. Schlafly.
Dr. Camarota.
TESTIMONY OF STEVEN CAMAROTA, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, CENTER FOR
IMMIGRATION STUDIES
Mr. Camarota. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for offering me the opportunity to testify. My name
is Steve Camarota. I am director of research at the Center for
Immigration Studies, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research
organization here in Washington.
As you all know, in April of this year, the Senate passed
S. 2611. The bill legalizes an estimated 10 million illegal
aliens, allows some 4.5 million of their family members
currently abroad to immediately join them, and it dramatically
increases the number of people who are allowed into the country
on a legal basis in the future.
Now, most of the problems with S. 2611 actually closely
parallel the mistakes of the 1986 amnesty. In my oral
testimony, I will focus on four of the biggest problems with
the legislation. The first key problem with the Senate plan is
that its central feature is to legalize illegals and increase
legal immigration. Yet we know that this does not solve the
problem. In 1986, we legalized 2.7 million illegals, and legal
immigration to this country has doubled since the mid-1980's,
but we still have two-and-a-half times as many illegals as when
IRCA was passed.
Particularly with regard to more legal immigration, it will
only further spur more illegal immigration because the larger
the pool of immigrants, legal or illegal, in the country, the
greater the pool is for more illegal immigration. There is a
whole sociological literature on this. It is often legal
immigrants who provide the information about jobs and housing
to their relatives and friends back home. Illegal aliens often
live with legal immigrants. The bottom line is legal
immigration has been increasing for more than three decades,
and illegal immigration has been increasing right along with
it.
The second problem with 2611 is it repeats the mistake of
having the amnesty come before enforcement is actually
implemented. Like in 1986, the illegals themselves, along with
very powerful interest groups, will ensure that that amnesty
does go through. But there is no corresponding set of interest
groups pushing for enforcement.
While enforcement is in the broad national interest and the
public certainly wants it, these are diffuse political forces
and traditionally have not been enough to overcome pressure on
both parties from those who don't want the law enforced, namely
ethnic advocacy groups and elements of the business community.
By putting amnesty first, S. 2611 is almost guaranteed to be a
replay of IRCA.
Now, the third major mistake made by S. 2611 is it will not
solve the problem of labor market competition between less-
educated natives and illegal aliens. If illegal aliens are
legalized and allowed to stay, the poorest and least-educated
American workers will still face job competition from the
former illegal aliens.
The primary reason illegal immigrants reduce wages or job
opportunities for less-educated natives is not so much that
they work for less, though that certainly can happen and does,
the primary reason they harm less-educated natives is simply
their presence in the country.
It is basic economics. If you increase the supply of
something, in this case less-educated workers, you reduce its
price, and the price of less-educated labor is the wages and
benefits paid to such workers. Letting illegal aliens stay and
increasing legal immigration through guest worker programs and
so forth only makes sense if we think the poor in this country
are overpaid.
Illegal aliens themselves may benefit from legalization,
and that is true, but there is no evidence after the last
amnesty that native-born Americans with little education, who
face the job competition from illegals, saw an increase in
their wages and benefits. The general trend since the mid-
1980's is for such Americans with little education to do worse
in the labor market, a trend that will continue if illegals are
allowed to stay and we increase legal immigration further.
The fourth problem with the Senate plan is that, like IRCA,
it doesn't deal with the fiscal costs of illegal immigration.
Illegal aliens create a drain on public coffers mainly because
they are overwhelmingly unskilled, not because they are
illegal. At least 60 percent of illegals lack a high school
degree, and another 20 percent have only a high school degree.
Such persons pay relatively little in taxes regardless of legal
status because they earn so little in the modern American
economy.
The National Research Council has estimated that an
immigrant who comes to the United States without a high school
education will use $89,000 more in services than he pays in
taxes in his lifetime. One who has only a high school education
is a net fiscal drain in his lifetime of $31,000. My own
research shows that if we legalized illegal aliens and they
began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with
the same level of education, the costs of illegal immigration
would roughly triple.
History does not have to repeat itself. Congress can pass
sensible legislation that polices the border, goes after the
employers who hire the illegal aliens. The bill the House
passed in December goes a long way in this regard. The problem
with illegal immigration can be solved, but not by repeating
the mistakes of the past.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Camarota follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven A. Camarota
In April of this year the Senate passed the most dramatic changes
in US immigration law in the nation's history. Among other things, the
bill legalizes an estimated 10 million illegal aliens, allows some 4.5
million of their family members abroad to immediately join them, and it
dramatically increases the number of people allowed into the country
legally. In this testimony I will point out some of the key problems
with the Senate legislation. In many ways the fiscal, labor market,
administrative, and other problems S2611 would create closely parallel
the problems created by the last amnesty, which was passed in 1986.
amnesty mocks the law abiding and encourages more illegal immigration
S2611 is Very Much Like the IRCA Amnesty. The Senate plan is very
much like the last amnesty passed as part of the Immigration Reform and
Control Act (IRCA) passed by Congress in 1986. Any legislation that
does not require those who break the law to abide by it, but instead
suspends the normal penalty and in some way changes the law to
accommodate the violator is an amnesty. An amnesty in the immigration
system is any change that allows people who would otherwise be subject
to deportation to stay in the country. The idea that S2611 is not
amnesty because it does not give permanent residence to illegals
immediately is silly. Normally, illegal aliens would be subject to
deportation. If 2611 becomes law perhaps 10 million illegal immigrants
would be allowed to stay and work in the United States, which is de
facto permanent residence and then after a few years would get actual
permanent residence and then citizenship.
Some have suggested that the concept of amnesty is based on the
idea of forgiveness, and S2611 does not forgive illegals because they
will have to pay a fine and met other requirements. But, the last
amnesty for illegals in 1986, which was called an amnesty by everyone
at that time, had similar requirements of undergoing a background
check, paying a fine, and learning English. Moreover, consider the case
of tax amnesties run by the states. Violators pay the taxes they owe
plus interest, but the fines are waived. In that context, it's an
amnesty because the fines and possible jail time are forgiven. In the
Senate plan, illegals are not only being forgiven for being in the
country illegally, they are being allowed to stay permanently if they
choose. The existence of some penalty does not mean it is not an
amnesty. The normal penalty of deportation is being waived. If simply
paying a fine and meeting a few other requirements means it's not an
amnesty, then IRCA was not an amnesty. In fact, no amnesty--whether for
taxes, parking tickets or illegal immigration--exists because all
involve some penalty.
Like IRCA, S2611 Mocks the Law Abiding. One of the reasons there is
so much resistance to the Senate's amnesty, despite the backing of very
powerful interest groups, is that it seems unfair to those who play by
the rules. As in 1986, many observers have pointed out that when you
reward law breaking, you make legal immigrants who have played by the
rules, and in some cases have waited many years to come to our country,
look like fools for taking America's law seriously. This is a terrible
message to send, not only to legal immigrants, but anyone thinking
about coming illegally. It is also a terrible message to send to those
charged with enforcing our immigration law. It is very hard to make a
case that the best way to restore the rule of law is to reward those
who have broken it with one of the most prized things on earth--
permanent residence and eventual US citizenship. Another amnesty will
further erode the morale and effectiveness of the immigration
bureaucracy and create even more contempt for the rule of law among all
parties. Such a policy will very likely make illegal immigration worse
not better.
Amnesties and Increased Legal Immigration Don't Solve Problem. The
1986 amnesty legalized 2.7 million illegals. Partly as a result of the
amnesty and partly because Congress increased legal immigration in
1990, legal immigration has nearly doubled since the mid-1980s. But we
have two-and-half-times as many illegals as when IRCA was passed. In
effect, we've already tried the key provisions of S2611--amnesty plus
increases in legal immigration. They simply don't work. Amnesty spurs
more illegal immigration, as does increases in legal immigration. A
1997 report from the INS found that there was a surge of new illegal
immigration when the 1986 amnesty went into effect. The increase seems
to have been the result of family members joining their newly legalized
relatives. According to the 1997 INS report the number of new illegal
immigrants arriving increased by 44 percent between 1987 at the start
of the legalizations and 1989 the height of the legalizations.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Annual Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population
Residing in the United States and Components of Change: 1987 to 1997.
Robert Warren, Office of Policy and Planning U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the most controversial provisions in S2611 is the very large
increase in legal immigration it creates. The larger the pool of
immigrants (legal or illegal) in the United States, the greater is the
pull for more illegal immigration. Illegal aliens often live with legal
immigrants and it is legal immigrants who often provide information
about jobs and housing to their relatives and friends back home. Legal
immigration has been increasing for more than three decades, and
illegal immigration has been increasing right along with it. The top
sending countries for legal immigration are by and large the top
sending countries for illegal immigration. A survey funded by the
National Institute of Health found that one-third of new legal
immigrants were former illegal aliens. Legal and illegal immigration
are closely linked. The past shows that if you increase one you
increase the other. The Senate bill repeats the mistake of thinking
amnesty plus increases in legal immigration will solve the problem. It
did not in the past and there is no reason to think it will this time
around. Instead, S2611 will almost certainly stimulate more illegal
immigration.
Like IRCA, S2611 Puts Amnesty First, Enforcement Second. The Senate
bill also repeats a key mistake of having the amnesty come before
enforcement is actually implemented. In the Senate plan, the amnesty is
in no way connected to or contingent upon enforcement. If this approach
is allowed, it seems almost certain that like the 1986 amnesty,
illegals will get their legal status, but the relatively weak
enforcement provisions in the Senate bill will be implemented slowly if
at all. The illegals themselves along with very powerful interest
groups will ensure that the amnesty is implemented. But there is no
corresponding set of interest groups pushing for enforcement. While
enforcement is in the broad national interest, and the public certainly
wants it, these are deffuse political forces and have traditionally not
been enough to overcome pressure from interest groups who don't want
the law enforced, particularly the business community and ethnic
advocacy groups. If we do decide to have an amnesty, it should only
come after several years of across-the-board enforcement. Otherwise,
S2611 will be little more than replay of IRCA, except on a larger sale.
THE SCALE OF S2611 DWARFS IRCA
The Amnesty Will Be Huge. In a detailed paper published in June,
the Center for Immigration Studies estimated the number of people who
would benefit from the amnesty provisions of S2611.\2\ Based on the
1986 amnesty, we estimate that slightly over 70 percent (7.4 million)
of the 10.2 million illegals eligible for the three amnesties in Hagel-
Martinez will come forward and receive amnesty legitimately. That is,
they will gain legal status allowing them to live and work in the
United States and eventually apply for permanent residence and then
citizenship. In addition to the 7.4 million expected to receive amnesty
legitimately, we estimate that, as in 1986, there will be one
fraudulent amnesty awarded for every three legitimate ones. This means
that nearly 2.6 million additional illegals will legalize fraudulently,
for a total of 9.9 million. The bill will also allow an estimated 4.5
million spouses and minor children living abroad to immediately join
their newly legalized relatives, for a total of 14.4 million people who
will benefit from the bill's amnesty provisions. This is an
extraordinary level of immigration. Our assumption that the share of
illegals who come forward will be similar to the share in 1986 may be
too low because, unlike the last legalization, illegals now know that
amnesties are real and not a ruse by the government to deport them.
Moreover, because the border is now more difficult to cross illegally,
legalization is a more attractive option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The entire report entitled, Amnesty Under Hagel-Martinez: An
Estimate for How Many Will Legalize If S2611 Becomes Law, can be found
at www.cis.org/articles/2006/back606.pdfhttp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 14.4 million illegals and their family members who will
receive amnesty, we estimate that 13.5 million will eventually become
permanent residents, which means they can stay as along as they wish
and apply for citizenship. The rest can be expected to die or return
home before becoming permanent residents. The above estimates do not
include the bill's very large increases in future legal immigration,
which is expected to double or triple from one million a year under
current law.
The more than 14 million amnesty beneficiaries is equal to all of
the legal immigration that occurred between 1990 and 2005. It is
equivalent to the population of 14 states combined.
As in 1986, there has been almost no discussion in the Senate bill
about these numbers. This is deeply troubling because the impact of
immigration on American society is obviously at least partly dependent
on the number of people allowed in. But the question of whether the
nation can assimilate numbers this large is seldom if ever even asked.
The impact on the nation's schools or its physical infrastructure also
seems to have not been considered. Congress needs to consider these
questions before undertaking a program with such enormous and broad
ranging implications for American society.
S2611 IS ADMINISTRATIVELY UNWORKABLE
Fraud Is Common Now, with Amnesty It Will Mushroom. There is near
consensus among those who work for or study the immigration bureaucracy
that the system is already overwhelmed with its current workload. As a
2002 GAO report pointed out, ``the goal of providing immigration
benefits in a timely manner to those who are legally entitled to them
may conflict with the goal of preserving the integrity of the legal
immigration system.'' \3\ Simply put, the system cannot handle all the
applications for green cards, citizenship, asylum, and other forms of
immigration ``benefits'' it currently has to process and still make
sure that the law is followed and only those who are entitled the
benefits get them. Fraud is still a huge problem at USCIS. A March 2006
GAO report found that the problem of fraud is an ``ongoing and serious
problem.'' A detailed analysis of just one visa category, the one for
religious workers, found that one-third of applications were
potentially fraudulent.\4\ Given this reality, it is inconceivable that
the system could hope to process all the amnesty applications and the
large increases in legal immigration without there being fraud on an
unprecedented scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Immigration and Benefit Fraud: Focused Approach Is Needed to
Address Problems, General Accounting Office January 2002. GAO-02-66.
The entire report is available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/
d02600r.pdf
\4\ Immigration Benefits: Additional Controls and a Sanctions
Strategy Could Enhance DHS's Ability to Control Benefit Fraud,
Government Accountability Office March 2006. GAO-06-259. The entire
report is available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06259.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fraud Was a Huge Problem in IRCA Too. Because of the enormous
problems at USCIS, we estimate that if the agency is asked to implement
the S2611, that there will be the same ratio of legitimate to
fraudulent legalizations as in 1986. This means we can expect 2.6
million illegal aliens to legalize and be put on a path to permanent
residence and citizenship who do not qualify for it. As in 1986, fraud
will include those who do not qualify because they entered after the
cutoff dates or did not work in agricultural for the required period of
time but still used the agricultural amnesty, or those who simply
entered the country to get amnesty. It will also include others who may
meet the residence requirement for legalization, but otherwise do not
qualify because of prior bad acts. All these individuals can be
expected to use deception, false documents, false identity, or other
forms of fraud. And the overwhelmed bureaucracy can be expected to
rubber stamp these applications.
This Time Fraud May Be Even Bigger. Our estimate of 2.6 million
fraudulent legalizations may in fact be too low. With a much larger
illegal population today than in 1986, the false document industry is
much more developed now. Fraudulent applicants can be expected to tap
into this trade in order to obtain the fake utility bills, rent
receipts, pay stubs, affidavits and other false documents necessary to
prove residence or work in agriculture. The very complex and difficult
to verify requirements of Hagel-Martinez are also an invitation for
fraud. The new amnesty is not only more complex than the 1986 amnesty,
it is also much larger with four times as many potential applicants. As
the workload mushrooms with amnesty, fraud will become even more
difficult to detect and thus a more tempting option for those who are
not eligible for legalization.
As in the Past National Security Will Be Endangered. The 1986
amnesty clearly facilitated terrorism. Mahmud Abouhalima, a leader of
the 1993 Trade Center bombing, was legalized as a seasonal agricultural
worker as part IRCA, even though he drove a cab in New York City. His
application was approved because the system could little more than
rubber stamp most applications, given the enormous workload the 1986
amnesty created. It was only after he was legalized that he was able to
travel outside of the country, including several trips to the
Afghanistan/Pakistan border, where he received the terrorist training
he used in the bombing. Having an illegal alien terrorist in the
country is certainly a bad situation, but having one with legal status
is much worse because he can work at any job, easily open a bank
account, travel to and from the country, receive government issued
identification, and otherwise be able to operate in the United States
more easily.
It is also worth noting that Mohammed Salameh, another conspirator
in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, applied for the same amnesty as
Abouhalima and was denied. But, because then, as now, there is no
mechanism in place to force people who are denied permanent residency
to leave the country, he continued to live and work in the U.S.
illegally and ultimately took part in the 1993 attack. Like IRCA, S2611
almost certainly will not hinder terrorists' activity, in fact it will
probably make it easier for terrorist to operate. Given the
bureaucratic realities, it is simply not reasonable to expect USCIS to
weed out terrorists and criminals.
AMNESTY DOES NOT SOLVE LABOR MARKET OR FISCAL PROBLEMS
Amnesty Does Not Solve Problem of Job Competition. If illegals are
legalized and are allowed to remain in the country, the poorest and
least educated American workers would still face job competition from
millions of former illegal aliens. The primary reason illegal
immigrants reduce wages or job opportunities for less-educated native-
born Americans or legal immigrants already here is not that they work
for less, thought that certainly happens. The primary reason they
create a problem for such Americans is simply their presence in the
United States. It is basic economics: increase the supply of something,
in this case less-educated workers, and you reduce its price. The price
of less-skilled labor is the wages and benefit paid to such workers.
Letting illegals stay only makes sense if you think the poor are
overpaid. Yet wages have stagnated or declined for such workers, and
the share holding a job has deteriorated significantly in recent years.
There is some evidence that illegal did do better after being
legalized, but there is no evidence that after the last amnesty native-
born American with little education saw an increase in their wages and
benefit. In fact, the general trends has been for less-educated
Americans to do worse in the US labor market. By letting the illegals
stay the oversupply of less-educated workers remain, so naturally less-
educated natives continue to do poorly in the labor market.
The trend of less educated Americans doing poorly in the labor
market has accelerated in recent years. Between 2000 and 2005 the share
of natives (18 to 64) with only high school degree holding a job
declined from 53 to 48 percent, and the share with only a high school
degree and no additional schooling declined from 75 to 70 percent. How
does letting in even more less-educated workers through the new H2C
program in S2611 help this problem? There are 65 million native-born
Americans between the ages of 18 and 64 who have no education beyond
high school, 23 million of whom are either unemployed or not even in
the labor market, which means they are not even looking for a job.
These are precisely the kind of individuals who work in construction,
food service and building cleaning and grounds maintenance occupations,
which is where illegal are overwhelmingly concentrated. The vast
majority of workers who do this kind of work are natives. Thus to
suggest that Americans are not interested in such jobs is ridiculous.
Allowing illegals as guest workers, green card holders or illegal
aliens means lower wages and job opportunities for less-educated
Americans. And as in 1986, unemployment, non-work, and wages of workers
at the bottom of the job market show there is no shortage of less-
educated workers. If there were, wages and employment should be rising
fast, but that simply is not happening.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For a detailed discussion of labor market problems of less-
educated Americans see Dropping Out: Immigrant Entry and Native Exit
From the Labor Market, 2000-2005 at http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/
back206.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amnesty Does Not Solve Costs to Taxpayers. The Senate plan also
does not solve one the other big problems associated with illegal
immigrants--the cost to tax payers. Illegal aliens create significant
costs for taxpayers mainly because they are unskilled, not because they
are illegal. At least 60 percent lack a high school degree and another
20 percent have only a high education with no additional schooling.
Such persons pay relatively little in taxes regardless of legal status
because they earn so little in the modern American economy. Letting
them stay means the costs stay. A Center for Immigration Studies report
found that in just the first ten years after IRCA passed, the
difference between the taxes the legalized illegals paid and the costs
they created was a negative $79 billion borne by American taxpayers.
The National Research Council in 1997 report entitled, The New
Americans, estimated that the average immigrant without a high school
diploma will use $89,000 more in services than he pays in taxes during
his lifetime and an immigrant with only a high school degree will
create a net fiscal drain of $31,000. My research indicates that if we
legalized illegals and they began to pay taxes and use services like
legal immigrants with the same level of education, the fiscal costs at
just the federal level would triple from about $10 billion a year to
nearly $30 billion.\6\ Unskilled illegal aliens are costly, but
unskilled legal immigrants, which is what the illegals would become,
cost even more because they can more easily access social programs. If
we legalize illegal aliens, the fiscal costs are guaranteed to explode.
This is what happened with IRCA and it would surely happen again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the
Federal Budget at http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOST AMERICANS DON'T WANT S2611
S2611 Defies Public Opinion. In a democratic republic, public
policy should in general reflect the views of the people. But, S2611
clearly does not do that. Using neutral language a Zogby poll of likely
voters conducted for the Center for Immigration Studies found that in
general Americans want less not more immigration. Only 26 percent said
immigrants were assimilating fine and that immigration should continue
at current levels, compared to 67 percent who said immigration should
be reduced so we can assimilate those already here.\7\ But the Senate
bill does precisely the opposite of what most Americans want. The
Senate's plan would increase legal immigration from roughly 1 million a
year to perhaps 2 million or even more. Yet only 2 percent of Americans
in the same Zogby poll respond that they believe that current
immigration is too low. This is very similar to what happened in the
late 1980s with the IRCA amnesty and the large increases in legal
immigration passed by Congress in 1990. The public wanted the law
enforced and less legal immigration. At the behest of interest groups,
Congress responded by legalizing illegal aliens and increasing legal
immigration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ To see the result of the Zogby poll from April of this year,
including question wording, go to www.cis.org/articles/2006/
2006poll.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the public may not keep track of the details of immigration
policy, Americans generally know we have already tried amnesty and it
has not worked. This is one reason the public is so cynical about
immigration. Defenders of S2611 often argue that we have tried to
enforce the law but we simply can not do it because we are not letting
enough people legally. But when asked this very question by Zogby, 71
percent of Americans felt that enforcement had failed because our
efforts had been ``grossly inadequate,'' while only 19 percent felt we
had made a ``real effort'' to enforce our laws and the reason we failed
was because we are not letting in enough people legally. Most Americans
also don't buy the argument that we are desperately short of less-
skilled workers. When asked, 77 percent said there are plenty of
Americans to fill low-wage jobs if employers pay more and treat workers
better; just 15 percent said there are not enough Americans for such
jobs. Finally, 73 percent of the public said they had little or no
confidence in the ability of the government to screen these additional
applicants to weed out terrorists and criminals that would result if
S2611 became law.
Given deep public opposite to S2611, if it does become law, it can
only make the American people more cynical and dissatisfied with our
immigration system. Unfortunately, US immigration policy for many years
now has been out of step with the desire of most Americans for less
legal immigration and greater efforts to enforce immigration laws. The
Senate's plan, like most changes in immigration law in the last four
decades, would continue that trend with the same result--growing public
anger.
CONCLUSION
It is often said that history repeats itself. If S2611 become law,
that will certainly be true. We would again make the mistake of
thinking that amnesty for illegals and increased legal immigration will
solve the problem. It didn't in 1986 and 1990 and it almost certainly
will not do so now. Legal immigration has almost doubled since the mid-
1980s, but illegal immigration has increased right allow with it. In
fact, rewarding illegal behavior and increasing legal immigration, as
is the past, will only spur more illegal immigration. Like the 1986
amnesty, the immigration service will not be able to handle the crush
of work, with the result that there will again be massive fraud. Only
this time, because the amnesty is so much larger, fraud will be larger,
making it all the more likely that terrorists and criminals will
receive amnesty. Moreover, S2611 will not solve the problem of job
competition for less-educated or the fiscal burden on taxpayers because
illegals will be allowed to stay. Finally, because S2611 is so out of
step with public opinion, if it were ever implemented, it would only
add to the frustration and dissatisfaction of the American people. Of
course, history does not have to repeat itself. Congress can pass
sensible legislation that enforces the law and responds to concerns of
the American people.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Dr. Camarota.
Dr. Edwards.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES EDWARDS, JR., ADJUNCT FELLOW, HUDSON
INSTITUTE
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for inviting me to be here today.
The Senate bill would in fact repeat the errors of the past
and have the same harmful consequences, only worse. I will talk
today about two things: the 1986 amnesty and its similarities
in the Senate bill, and the connection between legal and
illegal immigration.
First, in 1986 IRCA passed, and now we see resurrected IRCA
in the Senate bill. The IRCA included border enforcement and
IRCA authorized more border patrol and grounds for deportation.
Number two, employer sanctions. IRCA made it unlawful to
knowingly hire illegal aliens and it established the I-9
system.
Three, mass legalization. There were three classes of
illegal aliens who were dealt with according to their length of
illegal residency here. Those here since 1972 or before 1972
got immediate amnesty. Those here from 1982 forward, or by
1982, had to pay a nominal fee for a temporary visa, then they
could get a green card after 1\1/2\ years, and they had to take
minimal English and civics classes.
There were special agriculture workers, or SAWs, who
claimed at least 90 days of farm work in 1986, or in the
previous 3 years. They could become LPRs if they paid the
nominal fee.
The Senate amnesty resembles IRCA in these ways. S. 2611
has fig-leaf border enforcement and employer sanctions. Like
IRCA, it is long on promises and full of policy booby-traps to
ensure its failure.
S. 2611 is even worse than IRCA, with its mega-increases in
legal immigration levels that will overwhelm America, break the
treasury, flood the immigration bureaucracy, and ensure chain
migration that doubles or triples immigration levels for the
next two decades. It's guest worker--program is mainly for
laundering the status of millions of illegals.
S. 2611 has at least five amnesties in it: one, illegal
aliens in the U.S. for at least 5 years get an instant green
card; two, illegal aliens here for 2 to 5 years get amnesty on
the installment plan, in three steps. Oh, and plus a 2-year tax
amnesty. I would like one. Three, an Agjobs amnesty. Four, a
DREAM Act amnesty. Five, one for certain asylum claimants. Oh,
and the big one, the mass amnesty of the illegitimate employers
who have been hiring these illegals.
With IRCA, the employer sanctions and border enforcement
legs, quote-unquote, failed because they were poorly or
inadequately designed, not at all or poorly implemented,
underfunded, and undermined from the start by political
pressure. Only the amnesty, quote-unquote, worked.
Three million people were legalized, and IRCA thus spurred
massive illegal immigration and chain migration. IRCA,
especially the SAW amnesty, was fraud-ridden. Rubber-stamping
became the rule. INS approved over 94 percent of amnesty
applications and over 93 percent of SAW applications.
Second, legal and illegal immigration are two sides of the
same coin. As legal immigration has risen, so has illegal
immigration. Since IRCA, an illegal population of 2 million in
1988 has become 10 million in 2005. Illegal aliens made 21
percent of the foreign-born in 1980. Today, it is 28 percent.
The top source countries of the legal immigrants tend to be
the top source countries of illegal aliens. Mexico is the
largest source country of both legal and illegal aliens, with
Mexicans as 30 percent of the foreign-born. Over half of
Mexicans in the U.S. are illegal aliens.
If legal immigration rose as S. 2611 proposes, illegal
immigration would spike as well. Chain migration, the ability
to sponsor distant family members, leads to a third of LPRs
first living here illegally from 5 to 8 years before their
green cards come through. Two-thirds of Mexican LPRs first
lived here unlawfully. The visa preference system over-promises
and sets unrealistic expectations. The reality for most is
backlogs and waiting lists.
In conclusion, the lessons from the IRCA disaster show that
the Senate amnesty would repeat this history. H.R. 4437
comparatively is much more sensible.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Edwards follows:]
Prepared Statement of James R. Edwards, Jr.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify today regarding the mass amnesty in the Senate
bill, S. 2611.
Comparing the experience of 1986's supposed ``one-time only''
legalization with the Senate-passed amnesty and its likely consequences
should lead dispassionate observers to conclude that S. 2611 would
repeat past errors--only now, we should have learned better. The Senate
amnesty would condemn the United States to the same harmful
consequences that IRCA caused. Only now, its effects would be far, far
worse.
Because spokesmen from the current administration and other
advocates of out-of-control immigration perform all kinds of linguistic
gymnastics and semantic magic tricks to deny that amnesty proposals
such as the Reid-Kennedy-McCain-Hagel amnesty are amnesties, allow me
to offer a common-sense, conventional definition of ``amnesty.''
Amnesty is the government forgiving all people or certain classes of
people for certain unlawful acts they are guilty of. Black's Law
Dictionary explicitly cites the 1986 IRCA as an example of amnesty. And
by a normal person's reasonable judgment, the legalization provisions
in S. 2611 and similar arrangements in other legislation can only be
described as amnesty. That is so even with various conditions placed on
the illegal aliens who would benefit, because most amnesties apply
certain conditions for amnesty.
As a rule, amnesties should be employed sparingly and carefully.
They indeed do affront the rule of law because amnesty is an act
whereby the civil government overlooks lawbreaking. Amnesty in effect
rewards lawbreakers for their lawbreaking. Amnesty lets off certain
lawbreakers.
While individuals should forgive others their debts on the personal
level, the principle doesn't carry over well to the government level.
The job of the government is to uphold the law. That is how order is
maintained in civil society. If amnesty is liberally or frequently or
imprudently applied, then it undermines the principles of ordered
liberty the Founders sought to embed in our system of government. In
the immigration context, granting illegal aliens amnesty diminishes the
honorable conduct of the many legal immigrants who abided by the law
and persisted through the daunting process; amnesty of illegal aliens
rewards their dishonorable, disorderly, lawless conduct in a highly
public manner that effectively insults legal immigrants.
Today, I will focus my remarks on two areas: the 1986 IRCA amnesty
and its similarities in S. 2611, and the connections between legal and
illegal immigration.
IRCA, ITS MANY FLAWS, AND THE THREAT OF A REPEAT
In 1986, Congress struck a ``grand bargain'' on immigration--the
Immigration Reform and Control Act, or IRCA. The keys to locking the
``back door'' to illegal immigration were supposed to be securing the
border and demagnetizing the ``jobs magnet:'' employer sanctions.
The elements of IRCA are resurrected in the Senate bill. IRCA
included:
Border enforcement: IRCA authorized more Border
Patrol and deportations (but ended warrantless INS farm
sweeps).
Employer sanctions: IRCA made it unlawful to
``knowingly'' hire illegal aliens; it established the visual-
check, ID-based I-9 system (and also set up a regime to
dissuade conscientious employers).
Mass legalization: Three classes of illegal aliens
were dealt with according to length of unlawful U.S. residency.
Those here by 1972 got immediate amnesty of Lawful Permanent
Residence. Those here since 1982 had to pay a nominal fee for a
temporary visa, then could get a Green Card after a year and a
half if they had minimal knowledge of English and U.S. civics.
Special agricultural workers, or SAWs, claimed at least 90
days' farm work in 1986 or the previous three years to get
amnesty; they became LPRs if they paid the nominal fee, the
timing depending on their claimed farm work.
We observed in The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform
about IRCA's eventual consequences: ``At the time, few . . . accurately
forecast the enormous demand that would be stimulated by the
legalization program. . . . Amnesty ultimately drove annual legal
immigration levels to their peak in the 1980s, dramatically distorted
historical immigration patterns, and contributed to the groundswell of
opposition to legal and illegal immigration in the 1990s.''
The contours of the Senate amnesty bill resemble IRCA's. S. 2611,
which would supposedly boost border enforcement and employer sanctions,
mixes this sugar with the amnesty poison (though Reid-Kennedy includes
many poison pills in the ``enforcement'' and ``sanctions'' sections
that will guarantee the failure of those provisions, such as tying
local law enforcement's hands and requiring federal, state, and local
governments effectively to get Mexico's permission before taking any
enforcement measures).
S. 2611, like IRCA, is long on promises, chock full of policy booby
traps to ensure failure, and will be short on results other than a
flood of foreign-born. S. 2611 is even worse than IRCA in that it
includes mega-increases in legal immigration levels that will overwhelm
America, break the treasury, flood the immigration bureaucracy, and
ensure ``chain migration'' that doubles or triples immigration levels
for the next two decades. Its ``guestworker'' program is nothing more
than a means to launder the status of millions of foreign lawbreakers.
There is nothing temporary about their ``guest'' status; they are
assuredly here to stay, because ``guestworkers'' may bring their
families with them for the duration of their H-2C visas and status
adjustment (many having been present already).
NumbersUSA's Rosemary Jenks has calculated that S. 2611 contains at
least five amnesties. One, illegal aliens in the U.S. for at least five
years get an instant Green Card. Two, illegal aliens present for two to
five years get amnesty on the installment plan--three steps (plus a
two-year tax amnesty). Three, there is an AGJOBS-type, two-step amnesty
for those who purport to be part-time farm workers (alleging 21.6 weeks
of work over two years). Four, a DREAM Act-type amnesty legalizes those
claiming to have been here five years and to have entered illegally
while under age 16. Five, those claiming to be a persecuted religious
minority with an asylum claim pending on May 1, 2003, get immediate
amnesty. And then there is mass amnesty for the illegitimate employers
who hired these illegal aliens, privatized the benefits, and socialized
their costs.
The employer sanctions and border enforcement legs of IRCA
``failed''--which is to say, they were poorly or inadequately designed,
not at all or poorly implemented, and were undermined by political
pressure from the beginning. Only the amnesty ``worked.'' That is, a
lot of foreign lawbreakers got full amnesty. And IRCA spurred massive
illegal immigration and ``chain migration.''
In 1980, there were an estimated 3 million illegal aliens in the
United States. By IRCA, after six years of dangling the amnesty carrot
as Congress debated, we had 5 million illegal aliens. IRCA legalized 3
million: 65,000 had been here since 1972; 1.6 million had been here
since 1982; 1.1 million were SAWs. Some 2 million were Mexicans. IRCA
imposed the equivalent of processing five years' worth of immigrants in
just a couple of years (legal immigration in the 1980s ran about
700,000 a year).
IRCA, especially the SAW amnesty, was fraud-ridden. The INS
estimated that there were 400,000 SAWs nationwide; 1.1 million were
legalized. California was said to have fewer than 100,000 illegal SAWs,
but 700,000 applied from that state alone. Most SAW applications were
approved, despite suspicion of widespread fraud.
Rubber-stamping became the rule. Scrutiny and due diligence were
out the door, as ``INS essentially threw up its hands and decided not
to spend the time and energy needed to sort out the fraudulent SAW
applications,'' former Labor Department official David North said. INS
approved 94.4 percent of regular amnesty applications and 93.5 percent
of SAW applications.
IRCA fraud and amnesty benefited the Islamofascist cause. Mahmud
Abouhalima, an Egyptian illegal alien, obtained amnesty as a SAW. This
New York cab driver, who never worked on a farm, used his legalization
to travel to Afghanistan for terrorist training. He was part of the
first World Trade Center bombing plot. Given the internal corruption,
mismanagement, and abuse within the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services that has recently come to light by patriotic
whistleblowers, the prospects of criminals and terrorists getting
legalized is even more likely today.
Amnesty, premised on and promised as a once-only thing, encouraged
and facilitated more illegal immigration. The 2 million residual
illegal alien population of 1988 grew to 3.5 million in 1990--4 million
in 1992--5 million in 1996 (i.e., replenished in a decade)--7 million
in 2000--about 10 million in 2005.
Amnesty begat amnesty. IRCA was the first immigration amnesty in
this nation, and now we have had seven since 1986. These include the
``rolling amnesty'' of Section 245(i) in 1994, 1997, and 2000
(responsible for legalizing at least 1.5 million illegal aliens), the
1997 Central American-specific amnesty (NACARA, legalizing about one
million), the 1998 Haitian-specific amnesty (of 125,000 illegal
aliens), and the 2000 amnesty of illegal aliens claiming they deserved
legalization under IRCA (benefiting about 400,000 illegal aliens).
THE UGLY TRUTH OF THE LEGAL-ILLEGAL CONNECTION
An underlying premise of the Hesburgh Commission's recommendations,
of IRCA, and of many Senators today is if you increase legal
immigration, you'll reduce illegal immigration. But, in fact, legal and
illegal immigration are two sides of the same coin. If legal
immigration rose as S. 2611 proposes, illegal immigration would spike,
too.
As legal immigration has risen markedly since 1965, illegal
immigration has risen with it. Illegal aliens comprised 21 percent of
the foreign-born population in 1980. Today, they're 28 percent. The top
source countries of legal immigrants tend to be the top source
countries of illegal aliens--Mexico, El Salvador, China, Dominican
Republic, the Philippines. This is no coincidence.
Mexico is the largest source of both legal and illegal aliens. In
2000, Mexicans were 30 percent of the foreign-born. Over half of
Mexicans in the U.S. were illegal aliens. Mexicans make up three times
the proportion of the next three source countries combined: China, the
Philippines, India.
Because of ``chain migration''--the ability of an initial immigrant
to sponsor distant family members for immigrant visas (e.g., adult
siblings, adult married children), ``new'' immigrants aren't always
new. The New Immigrant Survey unveiled that a third of LPRs had lived
here illegally--for 5 to 8 years--before their Green Card came through.
Two-thirds of Mexicans had first lived here unlawfully. This survey
also found that the tourist visa is the most abused temporary visa by
one-time-illegal, now-legal immigrants.
The existence of ``chain migration'' visa categories far beyond the
reunification of spouses and of parents with their minor children, as
well as full eligibility, to date, of amnestied aliens to naturalize
and to sponsor additional immigrants, has swelled the numbers of
immigrants (legal and illegal). Amnesties have exacerbated this
exorbitant wave. These same phenomena have given would-be immigrants
unrealistic expectations and an ``entitlement mentality'' toward
immigration. Yet the reality, depending on country of origin and visa
sought, is backlogs and waiting lists. These necessary delays, plus
opportunities to plant roots via ``anchor babies,'' INA and process
loopholes, and visa abuse, increase the ties of this integral
connection where high legal immigration fosters high illegal
immigration.
In conclusion, what are the lessons we should draw from IRCA and
from a realistic view of immigration?
We need to pursue enforcement first. Our strategy should be
attrition through systematic, faithful, routinized enforcement. We need
a border fence, vastly expanded expedited removal, meaningful, rigorous
employer sanctions starting with the worst offenders, mandatory
electronic employment verification of all workers, and empowering state
and local law enforcement with the federal cooperation they need. We
must cut legal immigration to more manageable levels. We should
eliminate the ``chain migration'' categories of extended family and the
visa lottery. Family or employer sponsors should bear greater
responsibility for the immigrants they bring in--health insurance, life
and disability insurance, for instance.
Given the IRCA disaster, the Reid-Kennedy amnesty is out of touch
with reality and lacks common sense. By contrast, H.R. 4437 takes a far
more sensible approach.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Dr. Edwards.
The Subcommittee will now turn to a round of questions.
Dr. Edwards, let me ask you, which bill, the House bill or
the Senate bill, which of those is more in keeping with the
sentiments, the recommendations of the 1981 Commission on
Immigration Reform that I mentioned earlier, with regard to
enforcement and legalization?
Mr. Edwards. Probably the House bill because the Hesburgh
commission recommended legalization, yes, but it did so as a
means of sort of mopping up. It said, first, you have to secure
the borders and you have to have employer sanctions. That has
to be worked out and in force, and then after that is done,
then see what is left of the then 3 million or so illegal
aliens, and have a way to legalize their status. So it was
viewed as there is the enforcement side first, and then only
after that is fully ensconced would you go the other route.
Mr. Hostettler. So as you understand the House approach,
the House approach does not disclose at a future time
reexamination of the immigration issue.
Mr. Edwards. Correct. I think you would have to say in the
back of your mind there is going to be some residual illegal
population, and that at some later time, 10 years or so down
the road, then you would say, okay, if we have gotten employer
sanctions, and the point that Mr. Berman made precisely, the
employer verification, employment verification system fully
enacted, then you can say, and all the enforcement aspects of
4437, then you would say, okay, now we have a smaller problem.
But all of this has to be premised, as the House bill is,
on attrition. You have to drive down the incentive, reverse the
incentive for in-flow. You have to drive down the incentive to
stay here unlawfully and make it more attractive to leave.
Mr. Hostettler. Very good.
Mrs. Schlafly, if the ``comprehensive'' approach of the
Senate is taken, do you believe that we will enforce vigorously
the law and then allow for the mop up that was suggested in the
Hesburgh commission?
Mrs. Schlafly. Mr. Chairman, no, I don't believe it. I
think ``comprehensive'' has become a word that is as negative
as ``amnesty'' because it is really a code word for packaging
it all together. And like Simpson-Mazzoli, we believe that we
will get the amnesty and the guest worker, but we do not
believe that border security will be enforced. I am not sure
that we see that there is any will to enforce it.
This is why I think the public officials who urge
comprehensive just don't have any credibility. The American
people think we are being lied to. We have been down that trail
before.
Mr. Hostettler. Dr. Camarota, the notion of employer
sanctions being vigorously enforced after comprehensive reform
is put in place, employer sanctions are already in place, are
they not?
Mr. Camarota. Yes, obviously you have a regime in place,
but it is not funded. It is not enforced. As one of the Members
correctly pointed out, only three employers were fined in 2004
for hiring illegals.
Mr. Hostettler. So going back to the issue of integrity,
does it seem to you that with the comprehensive reform and the
experience that we had in 1986, that there is going to be, if
it is on the books today, if it is illegal today, what makes it
more illegal after the comprehensive reform in the Senate is
put in place?
Mr. Camarota. I think that is an excellent question. The
bottom line is it is incumbent among people who want to grant
amnesty or legalize, whatever term you like, to people here
illegally, to first demonstrate, Republicans and Democrats who
want that, to first demonstrate they are serious about
enforcement. Until they do that, we should not take them
seriously because the past has shown both parties have just not
been willing to enforce the law.
Mr. Hostettler. And then finally, Dr. Camarota, in terms of
the workforce, and you mentioned this briefly, what American
citizen workers are most vulnerable if we drastically increase
the number of immigrants to the U.S., especially under the
Senate provision?
Mr. Camarota. Phyllis mentioned one group. There are about
16 million native-born Americans 18 to 64 who don't have a high
school degree. They face a lot of job competition. There are
several more legal immigrants in the United States, about 3 or
4 million, who don't have a high school education, who face the
competition. And then there is also a lot of young natives.
One of the most troubling trends in the U.S. labor market
that has been going on for the last 7 or 8 years is the decline
in the number of young, men in particular but also women, who
only have a high school degree, but they are in their 20's.
Those people are leaving the labor force in droves. They don't
seem to be attending school.
So that is the other group, high school dropouts and young
natives with only a high school degree. It has been happening
for all racial groups. Native-born Americans who don't have a
lot of education who are young, are really taking it on the
chin.
That is very strong prima facie evidence that there is no
shortage. Their wages are down. If their wages weren't down, if
their employment wasn't down, then you might have a case that
there is a shortage, we desperately need lots of unskilled
workers. But all the available evidence suggests that they are
taking it on the chin in the labor market. So to flood the
unskilled labor market simply represents a kind of callous
disregard for Americans at the bottom end of the labor market.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Texas for 5
minutes for questions.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman very much.
Dr. Camarota, I may agree with you that the Republicans
have not had the will, and to some extent as you have
mentioned, it has been bipartisan in enforcement. I would argue
that we could compare rather credibly the dollars spent on
enforcement under the Clinton administration and the lack of
dollars spent on enforcement under this present Administration.
What I would say to you, however, is what my colleagues
have said over and over again, that is why we need to be in
conference, taking the expertise that you have offered and some
of our other witnesses, and you know you have been before this
Committee, and really seriously address some of these concerns.
I want to say to my colleagues, and certainly to the
witnesses, the Senate bill has an employer verification
program. It is a pilot program. Maybe in conference it could be
strengthened, but they were wise enough to include that.
Might I just quickly read into the record so that we can
disabuse ourselves of the terminology ``amnesty'' and realize
that there are 10 provisions that the Senate bill has in terms
of those who would seek some sort of status. I might remind my
colleagues as well in order to secure America, you must know
who is there. They must qualify and pay over $3,000 in fines.
They must pay their taxes. They must learn English, history and
Government of the U.S. They must undergo criminal and security
screens.
They must get a medical examination. They must register
with the military Selective Service. They must establish or
continue presence in the United States. They must provide
evidence of past employment in the U.S. They must earn legal
status by continuing to work for at least 6 years. They must go
back to the line. That, in my definition, is paying a price.
Let me also cite some of the organizations that want
comprehensive immigration reform. I think many of these are
friends of our leadership, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops, certainly the National Council
of La Raza, Asian American Justice Center, and Service
Employers International Union who represent a cross-section of
America. I might say, the numbers say that Americans want
comprehensive immigration reform.
Before I ask a question, I do think these points are
important to note because my good friend has returned who
offered to indict some of the statements made by those of us on
this side of the aisle. I welcome the evidence of members of
their history of immigrant past, but I would take issue to
suggest that immigrants today don't work hard, that we are
going to compare them with immigrants of the past and suggest
that immigrants from Poland, immigrants from Haiti, immigrants
from Costa Rica, immigrants from El Salvador, immigrants from
England who come today do not work hard, and that immigrants
who may be undocumented don't work hard. I hope that my
colleague would clarify such an indicting, inappropriate and
unfortunate statement.
I would also suggest that there are many of us who are more
than multi-tasked. We are sympathetic. And when 25,000
Americans can't get out of Lebanon from the most powerful
nation in the world, I think that is a priority issue, and Mr.
Reyes, I would prefer you being at the intelligence hearing so
that you could address the crisis that is going on right now,
because frankly the families of my constituents who are over in
Lebanon are wondering why America, why France has a ship and
why someone else has a ship and we don't. So I hope that we can
multi-task, but I hope we can save lives.
And lastly before I ask a question, isn't it interesting
that we talk about the dumbing-down of wages. I think that is
an important point. Since 1997, we haven't been able to get
this Republican Congress after George Bush took over and
President Clinton, of course, if out of office, to raise the
minimum wage. We have been trying to get an amendment on the
floor of the House every single week, and we have been denied
the right to raise the minimum wage, which is in fact the
lowest in 50 years.
So, Mr. Reyes, could you give me a sense in your 25 years,
but now being in this Congress, how often you have put before
this Congress the need for increasing the resources for border
security officers, training, civil service changes, and giving
them the power bolts, the goggles? How many times we have gone
to the border with you and others?
We were just back at the border just recently on a hearing,
that we have not given them the resources to deal with this
situation that would require and give to the American people
the comfort.
And does the Senate bill lead us in that direction by
giving us comprehensive immigration reform that is both
benefit, but more importantly, border security?
Mr. Reyes. I thank my colleague for the question.
First of all, it is extremely frustrating when the title of
the hearing is ``Repeating the Mistakes of the Past.'' We
continue to repeat the mistakes. There are countless times
where I have offered amendments.
I have offered a motion to substitute on making a stronger
effort at border enforcement. Again, post-9/11, the things that
we haven't done are unconscionable. It is no wonder that the
American people don't believe Congress. It is no wonder that
the president's rating, as low as they have been, our ratings
are much lower.
We do a lot of talking, but we do very little in terms of
action. We don't fund not only the border patrol, but we don't
fund the marshal service. We don't fund assistant U.S.
attorneys. We have agencies whose vehicles are in excess of
140,000 miles. What we ought to be doing is being, as a number
of you have stated, we ought to be in conference. We ought to
be working on those issues. It ought to be comprehensive.
``Comprehensive'' doesn't have to be a dirty word.
``Comprehensive'' means having a strategy, having the long-term
vision and the commitment that we are going to right all these
things that affect our national security. That means border
security. That means the legal system. That means identifying
those people that are here already. Only then will we be able
to sort through and find out who is here and for what purposes
and who can be harmful to this country.
We have a lot of work to do, and we are wasting time with
hearings like this, in my opinion. We are wasting time with
hearings like this. I hope, if nothing else comes out of these
hearings, maybe it is an unintended consequence, but the
American people are going to pay attention, sit up and say,
yes, that is right; we haven't been doing a good job. And by
the way, who has been in charge and who has had the agenda and
why are we less secure today than we were pre-9/11?
I think we all have a role to play.
Mr. Hostettler. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Jackson Lee. An additional 15 seconds, Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent.
Mr. Hostettler. Fifteen seconds. The chair will recognize
the gentlelady for 15 seconds.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. As the chair will add to the record, we
appreciate the gentleman from Texas's testimony today. The
gentleman from Texas was a witness that was called by the
minority, and we would not have imposed upon the gentleman's
time had we known the importance of the hearings and the lack
of the gentleman's belief in the importance of this hearing.
So I would simply add to the record that the gentlelady
from Texas called the gentleman from Texas, as we are welcome
and we applaud and appreciate the gentleman's testimony, but we
would just like to add for the record that, well, many of us
believe that these hearings are not a waste of time; that with
those with the opinion that they are a waste of time, schedules
probably should have been better coordinated, given those
opinions.
So the gentlelady is recognized for 15 seconds.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the sacrifice
Representative Reyes has now made, recognizing that the
minority cannot control schedules.
I just want to say that it is reported that, and generally
agreed that 50 to 60 percent of illegal immigrants nationwide
work for employers who withhold income taxes, Social Security
and Medicare payments. So I hope that we realize that we need
to go to conference so we can address these concerns, rather
than throwing stones into the darkness.
I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Hostettler. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, my colleague from Texas said I had indicting
statements, so I sure need to clarify. No, I don't need to
clarify, but I sure need to address it. I do not apologize for
the fact that my great-grandfather came, worked his tail off,
learned English and lived the American dream. I will not
apologize for that.
I never have said immigrants today don't work as hard,
because that plays right into the other issue that was raised
by my colleague about the minimum wage. I talk to my friends
back in east Texas and they tell me that the immigrants they
have working for them, they are far too good and far too hard a
workers to pay them the minimum wage. Some of them are making
about $20 an hour. They are the hardest working, most wonderful
workers, I have been told by some friends in Henderson and
Tyler and Longview and around there. Those are good folks.
So to say that I am out here saying immigrants don't work
hard today sure misses the boat. We need immigration. We need
it legal. We do need to reform the immigration services, all of
them. But again, I come back, you know, for this to have been a
mock hearing, there sure is a lot being said at this hearing.
If it were a mock hearing, I would think that we would say a
lot less than we are saying. So apparently it is not as mock as
originally thought.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Gohmert. Well, you took your shots at me without
yielding to me, so I will let you take your shots.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I didn't hear you ask to be yielded to.
Mr. Gohmert. I do not yield. I do not yield. When you
indict me, then I will respond and not yield so I can be
indicted some more.
Now, listen, Representative Reyes, you have been a
champion. I have only been here 1\1/2\ years. You have been
fighting this battle, and it is something that I mentioned to
the president before, that some people think this is a partisan
issue, and yet we have heard from every sheriff come up here
and testify, more than once, from the border counties of Texas.
They are Republican, but there are at least as many Democrats,
I would think, and they are begging for help.
Some say that it is a racial issue, and yet we have had as
many Hispanics from the border counties come forward and say,
we need help. So I am embarrassed that we have not done more. I
am for using all the resources we have, and I appreciate your
efforts that you have been battling for longer than I have been
here, back when I was a judge, trying to deal with efforts from
a judicial standpoint.
I know you have given your statement. You have made it in
writing. But in trying to keep this from being too partisan and
taking shots in areas where I disagree with my president
anyway, but what do you see that we can do immediately,
quickly, and best to help the sheriffs on the border, just in a
nutshell?
Mr. Reyes. Well, first of all, thank you for raising that
issue, because I think it is vitally important.
When there is a void in terms of enforcement or anything
else, somebody is willing to jump in and fill that void.
However, when we are talking, and remember I represent a border
district. I enforced Federal immigration law for 26\1/2\ years.
I can tell you unequivocally that money is better spent on
the professionals that have that responsibility, which is the
United States Border Patrol. The Sheriff's Coalition has been
up here, and believe me, I sympathize in the fact that they
need money. Around the country, everybody needs money. If you
will survey the U.S. marshals, they need positions and they
need money for vehicles and for infrastructure support. The
U.S. attorneys, everybody needs money and everybody should be
supported. The reality is we have to prioritize.
That is why I think it is important that we do so, but in
prioritizing that we remember that it is never an easy fix to
try to give enforcement of immigration that authority to the
sheriffs or the police departments. We recently in my district
had a number of issues where the sheriffs department was
setting up roadblocks, and one of the questions they were
asking dealt with immigration. They do not have that authority.
We also heard a number of complaints, both in my office and
through some of the news media, that people were refusing to
call the sheriffs department when they were victims of crime
because they were afraid that they were going to be hassled
about their immigration status.
As we work our way through this process, it is vitally
important that we understand what the priorities are, and that
we don't make decisions that maybe sound good on the face at
the time we are making it, but have long-term consequences and
implications to the people that we represent, all the people
that we represent.
Mr. Hostettler. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Lofgren, for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congressman Reyes, I really appreciate, I know we all have
multiple things to do, but your Committee assignments are very
serious ones, obviously, and that you would take time away from
those serious assignments to be here with us is very
meaningful, and I appreciate it.
I think, really, as has been mentioned on both sides of the
aisle, we are fortunate to have someone with your background
and your expertise as one of our colleagues, as someone we can
turn to for the straight scoop on what is going on.
So some of the questions I have really have to do with
resources. In May of last year, we had a vote, the proposal the
Democrats made was to have an additional $41 billion to secure
the nation from terrorist threats, $6.9 billion more than the
president had authorized. It included $28.4 billion for border
and transportation security and immigration processing. All of
the Republican Members of this Subcommittee voted against those
resources.
On May 5 of last year, we had another proposal to add 550
additional border patrol agents and 200 additional immigration
inspectors in unmanned border aerial patrol vehicles. Again, it
was shot down on a partisan vote. We also had efforts to
provide additional detention beds.
Based not on your experience as a congressman, but your
vast experience in the border patrol, would these resources
have assisted us in getting a better control of our border
situation?
Mr. Reyes. Well, absolutely. I don't have the citations
that you just read, so I am going based on memory. I do
everything I can to get additional resources at different
points in legislation by talking to my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle. In fact, when we tried to increase resources for
border security, I try to get bipartisan support from both
sides of the aisle because it is so critical.
Anytime that we are able to increase resources to go and
assist the border patrol, to assist the U.S. Attorney's office,
additional judges, the U.S. Marshals, it is all vital. I will
tell you, it is critical at this point in our history, having
had the experience almost 5 years ago of 9/11.
Ms. Lofgren. I am the Ranking Member of the Intelligence
Subcommittee on Homeland Security, and Sunday and yesterday the
Chairman and I, along with two Members, one from each side of
the aisle, went to Canada and visited with the Canadian
security individuals, as well as their border folks and
immigration folks. It was an interesting meeting.
We were just in Toronto and so I didn't have the
opportunity to tour, obviously, the 5,000-mile border. But we
are aware that since these are post positions, about 200
American border patrol agents are on the 5,000-mile Canadian
border at any given time. There was a lot of focus on the
southern border, but in your judgment, is 200 agents on a
5,000-mile border sufficient?
Mr. Reyes. The Canadian border is grossly understaffed.
There are not quite 1,000 border patrol agents assigned there,
which means that since the border patrol covers 24 hours a day,
7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, it averages between 200 to 300
per shift, depending on the number of agents that are
available, grossly understaffed. We need additional border
patrol agents. We need technology, infrastructure support.
The list is long, and that is why anytime we get an
opportunity to increase resources for border security, we ought
to take that seriously.
Ms. Lofgren. I just want to make one final comment, because
it has to do with resources. I mentioned in my opening
statement that the House-passed bill would make 11 million new
individuals felons, and in fact that there was a motion made by
the Chairman, who was the author of the felony provision who
defended in the Rules Committee to change the felony to a
misdemeanor. That failed because a majority of the House either
thought it should remain felony or that it should remain a
civil offense, instead of a criminal offense.
I raise that issue not to argue whether the civil offense
is appropriate, although I believe it is, it is a resource
issue. It could cost, and we have gone through this, whether it
is a felony or misdemeanor, up to one-third of a trillion
dollars to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate 11 million people.
I don't believe that a Republican Congress that won't hire
more than 200 border patrol agents for the northern border is
going to actually appropriate one-third of a trillion dollars
to arrest, prosecute, try and incarcerate 11 million people.
I see my time is up, and I yield back.
Mr. Hostettler. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady
from California, Ms. Waters, for purposes of discussion.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much.
I would like to address my question to Mrs. Phyllis
Schlafly. I am a mother, raised two children. I have two
grandchildren. I come from a huge family, 12 brothers and
sisters. I have probably about 50 or so nieces and nephews. We
have strong family values. We are very much family people. I am
concerned about the separation of families in Mr.
Sensenbrenner's immigration reform law.
What would you do, Mrs. Schlafly, with a family where the
mother and father have been here, I don't know, 20 years or
more. They have three children who were born here in the United
States. One of them served in Desert Storm. The other one is
now in Iraq. You have a mother that is working. She is doing
domestic work and she is working for people, famous people,
Rush Limbaugh, others, who have undocumented immigrants. You
have a father who works for America's biggest retailer, Wal-
Mart, one of the more conservative political retailers in the
country.
But the mother and father are not documented. They have
these grandchildren. They have children who have served this
country. One of the sons is a police officer, on and on and on.
What would you do with that mother and father under the
Sensenbrenner bill? Would you return them?
Mrs. Schlafly. I don't believe the Sensenbrenner bill calls
for deporting anybody. I think it simply calls for enforcing
the law.
It does call for employment verification, and if they lose
their job they might maybe get the idea that they should return
to their native land. If their children are grown and have good
jobs, as you mentioned, they can make their own decision.
Perhaps they can provide some resources.
If there are small children who are born in this country to
illegal aliens, they are also Mexican citizens and the parents
can certainly take them with them. But nobody is calling for
deporting large numbers of people.
Ms. Waters. What would you do with the mother and father?
Mrs. Schlafly. I think if they cannot meet the requirements
for employment, then they should lose their jobs.
Ms. Waters. Well, what would happen to them under the
Sensenbrenner bill? Would they be felons?
Mrs. Schlafly. Well, I think the effort was made to reduce
that to a misdemeanor, and that works perfectly all right with
me. The idea that people are going to go around and throw 11
million people in jail is I think a straw man argument. Nobody
is going to do that.
Ms. Waters. What would happen to this mother and father
under the Sensenbrenner bill?
Mrs. Schlafly. I think they would lose their job.
Ms. Waters. What else would happen to them?
Mrs. Schlafly. Well, you have described the good jobs that
their children have. They could take care of them.
Ms. Waters. Would they remain in the United States under
the Sensenbrenner bill?
Mrs. Schlafly. I don't believe we have any plans for a
large-scale deportation. I think that is a false argument.
Ms. Waters. So you are saying that this mother and father
could become felons and could remain in the United States and
not incarcerated?
Mrs. Schlafly. I don't believe they would be incarcerated,
no. I think the Congress will probably fix up the felon
provision.
Ms. Waters. That is the problem with the Sensenbrenner
bill. It is like you said, you don't quite know, you don't
believe, but all we have is the language of the bill.
I just described to you a situation that Mr. Sensenbrenner
and others refuse to deal with. As I said before, we all
believe in border security. We all support border security, but
we have problems that need to be addressed, real problems that
need to be addressed.
Of course, the son who was a soldier who served in Desert
Storm or who is in Iraq probably could help take care of their
mother, even though the one in Iraq doesn't get very much money
as a soldier. So you are suggesting that this patriot who is in
jail or the brother who served in Desert Storm could take care
of the mother and father while they are in prison. They could
send them some money to buy little things.
Mrs. Schlafly. Who is in prison? I didn't say put anybody
in prison.
Ms. Waters. You didn't say it, but the bill does.
Mrs. Schlafly. I don't think so, but you have pointed out
one problem with the House bill.
Ms. Waters. A big problem.
Mrs. Schlafly. There are so many problems with the Senate
bill, and the thing is that when you all talk about
``comprehensive'' and going to conference, for all the reasons
that the minority has expressed here, and Mr. Reyes has
expressed about the failure to enforce border security, we do
not believe that we will get border security if you pass the
Senate bill or any part of it, or anything that is called
``compromise.'' We simply don't believe it. We have to have
border security first.
Ms. Waters. What about the sanctions on employers?
Mr. Hostettler. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Waters. Thank you.
Mr. Hostettler. We will go now to a second round of
questions.
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Hostettler. Oh, I am sorry. The chair recognizes the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, for questions.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Schlafly, let me help you out here just a little bit.
The fact of the matter is the hypothetical posed by the
gentlewoman from California doesn't have to take place under
the House-passed bill. That same hypothetical can be applied to
the current law. Those people are here illegally in the United
States right now, and current law requires them to not be in
the United States right now.
So this problem was not created overnight. It has been
building up for 20 years since the 1986 act, and we can phase
in the enforcement of the law in a fashion so that people do
not see a mass exodus of people to the borders of the country.
This is a serious problem right now, whether we have the
Sensenbrenner bill or not. It is a serious problem right now
that is not being addressed.
That is what the American people are impatient about. It is
not the Sensenbrenner bill or whether it has a felony provision
in it that the gentlewoman from California voted to keep in it
when an amendment was offered on the floor to change that to a
mere misdemeanor, when people would certainly not be
incarcerated in prison under a misdemeanor.
So the issue is: Do we respect the laws of the United
States? The question posed to us comes about not from something
that occurred yesterday, but something that has been building
up over 20 years of lack of enforcement of the law by various
Administrations in this country, including the current one. So
the issue here is let's get about enforcing the law.
I would like to ask the panelists two questions, starting
with Representative Reyes. First of all, when it comes to
enforcing the law, you can't simply put up walls on the border
or put more border patrols there. No matter what you do there,
some people are going to get through.
Some people are coming through. In addition, up to 40
percent got through legally because they presented the
necessary documentation at the border, at the airport, that
showed they had a student visa or a visitor's visa or a
business visa, and then they stayed over the time when they
were supposed to leave the country.
So enforcement in the interior of the country is to me
something that we are not talking enough about. And two things
that we haven't talked enough about at all here today are, one,
the use of local law enforcement; and two, an employer
verification system that works with identification. Some people
call it a national identification card.
Some people call it a tamper-proof Social Security card,
but it seems to me that if you have been given a Social
Security card in this country, it ought not to be subject to
forgery. The best way to do that is to use the database that is
controlled by the Social Security Administration that says this
person meets these particular physical characteristics and
location and background and so on, and those things have to
match up with the person who presents that number when they go
to an employer.
So I would like to know from each of you if you support a
tamper-proof Social Security card and if you would use local
law enforcement, not just to enforce our criminal laws. Right
now if they want to arrest an alien who has committed a crime,
they can do that, but they get no cooperation and I don't think
it is even legal for them to simply enforce the immigration
law.
When they find somebody in the community that hasn't
committed a crime, but is illegally in the community, should
they, that local law enforcement, be able to detain the
individual until the immigration service then removes them from
the country?
Ms. Waters. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Goodlatte. I am running short of time and I want all
four of these witnesses to answer this question, but then I
would be happy to yield.
Mr. Reyes. Well, actually, I would tell my good friend, I
don't think you were in the room, I addressed both of those.
Mr. Goodlatte. Oh, good.
Mr. Reyes. H.R. 98 actually does that tamper-proof Social
Security. It is the Dreier-Reyes bill. Also, and then I would
just let you know----
Mr. Goodlatte. So you support that.
Mr. Reyes. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Goodlatte. You initiated legislation. I am glad to hear
that.
Mr. Reyes. And the other thing is that the current database
for the Social Security is inadequate to be able to do that
employer or employee verification process. As to the local law
enforcement, I don't support that, and I don't support that
because I believe that we have to prioritize enforcing Federal
laws, especially as it affects immigration, to Federal
agencies.
Mr. Goodlatte. We don't necessarily bifurcate like that in
other areas. If you have somebody, for example, who is
trafficking in drugs in a community, you don't say, well, we
are going to wait for DEA to come. Local law enforcement comes
in.
Mr. Reyes. Here is the difference, here is the difference,
that if you are in this country and you have been a victim of
crime, and you believe that by reporting it to your local law
enforcement you may be referred to immigration authorities, you
are not going to report that activity. I think if you serve,
and not just law enforcement chiefs and sheriffs around the
country, but city mayors and other administrators, it is not a
good practical policy.
I favor making sure that we fund the border patrol and the
immigration and customs enforcement.
Mr. Goodlatte. Reclaiming my time, since it expired. Mr.
Chairman, if I might ask leave to allow the other three
witnesses to briefly answer those two questions, I would
appreciate it.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Representative Reyes. I apologize
for interrupting, but the time is short.
Mr. Hostettler. For a brief response please.
Mrs. Schlafly. Thank you.
I would like to respond by asking the Chairman to insert in
the record a very important article that just came out
yesterday written by former Justice Department attorney Kris
Kobach, which shows that three of the pilots on 9/11 were
stopped for speeding just a short time before 9/11, and they
were all in visa violations, but they weren't able to go ahead
and detain them.
If they had been detained, we could have avoided 9/11. But
the Senate bill has in it the loophole to prevent local law
enforcement from detaining them for that type of offense, and
it is very important.
Mr. Hostettler. You would support local law enforcement?
Ms. Schlafly. Absolutely.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection.
[The article follows in the Appendix]
Mr. Camarota. Briefly, obviously you want the immigration
service to most of the enforcement, but if in the normal course
of police work you come across someone who is an illegal alien,
obviously you should be able to turn him over, just as if you
find in the normal course of an investigation, you find, and
you are looking at people's records and you find a tax cheat.
You don't say, well gosh, we don't do anything with tax
law, they are embezzling money and so forth. No, you call the
local Federal authorities, he is cheating on his taxes. It is
just common sense. You don't have to go out and do it
proactively, but if you come across someone in the normal
course of law enforcement, I think that could be really
helpful.
Mr. Reyes. And that is done now, by the way. There doesn't
have to be any changes.
Mr. Camarota. But often the immigration service kind of
responds with, hey, you know, let them go; we don't have the
space for them.
Mr. Reyes. Lack of resources, blame Congress.
Mr. Edwards. I have no problem with enhancing the security
of the Social Security card like H.R. 98. It is a good step. I
think you don't need it necessarily if you have a fully
expanded employment verification system that is mandatory on
all employers because you are pinging on the databases in lieu
of checking documents.
As far as State and local law enforcement, a lot of State
and local law enforcement officers and organizations and others
support the routinization of their having a role in immigration
enforcement. It is a common sense step that if somebody like my
brother, who is a police officer, who routinely goes to, say, a
domestic spat or stops somebody for speeding or something. If
he were to find out that this person is an illegal alien or has
reasonable suspicion thereto, then he could check quickly in
some manner.
Perhaps NCIC would be the best route, the quickest to find
out if that person is illegal, and then to routinize those
kinds of encounters by State and local law enforcement, the
700,000 officers who are already on the streets policing our
streets, keeping our communities safe. That has got to be a
logical key component of all of this.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
The Committee will now turn to a second round of questions.
Dr. Edwards, if you will indulge me, I would like to ask
you a question regarding a hearing we had earlier this year,
that the Subcommittee had in joint session with the
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
I asked a question of the witnesses regarding the issue of
expansion of employment opportunities. This is a question I
asked: One of the significant issues that will be addressed in
this Congress is the issue of the expansion of employment
opportunities for individuals who are currently in the country
illegally, known as a guest worker program, temporary work
program or the like.
While many who support such a program do not wish for it to
be characterized as amnesty, my first question is--and I asked
this question of the panel of sheriffs from the border
countries--have things gotten better since 1986 or worse as a
result, I guess I should say, after the passage of the amnesty?
Sheriff Leo Samaniego, currently sheriff of El Paso County
in Texas, responded quite quickly in this way: ``Anytime you
give a group of illegal undocumented aliens that are already
here amnesty, or even anything that sounds close to amnesty,
you are sending the message to the next 12 million that are
going to come in after them. You cannot let them come in. They
know that if they stay here long enough, they get a job and
they are good people, that they are going to be given amnesty
and they will be able to stay here. But it sends the message to
the rest of the world, `You can do the same thing, because the
same thing is going to happen to you.' ''
Sheriff Leo Samaniego of El Paso County talked about
anything that sounds close to amnesty. Do you think the Senate
bill meets that description of something that sounds close to
amnesty?
Mr. Edwards. I think it is outright amnesty. A lot of the
elements, as they are characterized by various proponents,
sound like amnesty. But it meets the minimal, if not over the
top, it meets the standard of encouraging the next batch of
people to come illegally.
It is an enticement to promise something that they would
get, and there are reports from the border that people captured
and say, I am coming because I hear there is going to be a
legalization program and I want a piece of that. So that
happens now.
Mr. Hostettler. Right.
Mrs. Schlafly, do you hear from the folks outside of the
Beltway similar sentiments as Sheriff Samaniego from El Paso?
Mrs. Schlafly. Absolutely. I think everybody understands
that the Senate bill is amnesty or amnesty-lite, and words like
``legalization'' and ``path to citizenship'' really don't mean
that it is not amnesty. That is what people understand. It is
just like they understand ``comprehensive'' means wrapping it
all together and we will never get border security for all the
reasons that have been so eloquently described by Mr. Reyes and
the minority.
Mr. Hostettler. Dr. Camarota, in viewing this issue, we
also have to look at it from the perspective of the individual
who has violated the law by coming into the country illegally.
They might not know what the term ``amnesty'' means or
``comprehensive'' or anything like that, but do they see this
as an invitation?
Sheriff Samaniego, do you think he is accurate and does
your experience and your research show that he may be accurate
in the sense that it is going to send a message to the next 12
million that are going to come in after them?
Mr. Camarota. Not only does common sense suggest that that
is the case, but in a 1997 report that actually the then-
Chairman of this Committee Smith, Congressman Smith, actually
subpoenaed from the INS, which they hadn't released, showed
that their estimates suggest that after the passage of the
amnesty, at the height of the legalization in 1989, illegal
immigration, the growth in that population, the number of new
people coming in, had increased by 1989 by 44 percent from
1987. They concluded it seems very likely that the last amnesty
spurred a real surge of illegal immigration, and of course, how
could it otherwise.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
Mr. Reyes. Mr. Chairman, could I?
Mr. Hostettler. Yes.
Mr. Reyes. I was the chief in South Texas during this
period. When somebody says compare 1987 to 1989, 44 percent is
probably correct, but it is a distorted picture, because after
the passage of the law in 1986, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, in some of our sectors the attempted illegal entries
went down by as much as 80 percent. By 1989, people had figured
out, ``Hey, INS didn't get the resources to enforce employer
sanctions,'' so they started coming back into this country in
record numbers.
But that statistic, I think, in my opinion, is a distorted
one.
Mr. Camarota. Well, let me respond to that. People have
tried to look at the earlier trend, it appears that, exactly as
the congressman said, that there was a real drop-off when the
amnesty was passed. People thought we were going to enforce the
law. But it does appear that as soon as they realized that that
wasn't going to happen, and they had the precedent of the
previous amnesty, we got a surge.
And these figures are not the number of people being
apprehended. They also include overstays of visas, which of
course you wouldn't have seen, and we think that that comprises
about 40 percent of the illegal population.
So it is true that there was a drop-off associated with the
amnesty, when everyone realized it wasn't going to be enforced,
but it appears that there was definitely a surge associated
with the legalization, again, once everyone realized it wasn't
going to be enforced.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
The Chair's time is concluded. The chair recognizes the
gentlelady from Texas for 5 minutes for questions.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much. I am delighted that
Mr. Camarota--and I gave you a Ph.D, but that is all right,
because originally I called you ``Dr. Camarota.'' So thank you
for your insight. Obviously, my assumption is that you are so
specialized in the area that you might be a Ph.D. Is that
incorrect?
Mr. Camarota. No, I do have a Ph.D, from the University of
Virginia.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Then they need to correct, your side. I
was correct.
Mr. Camarota. Yes, ma'am, you were. [Laughter.]
Ms. Jackson Lee. I was wondering why you were looking like
that. I am correct. All right. Dr. Camarota, thank you.
The reason why I was going to just mention--I am very glad
that you said that a lot of the illegal immigration is for
overstays, which means that they enter this country legally. I
think that is a misnomer as well. What are overstays? It is
individuals who might have possibly tried to seek legal status,
but because our legal immigration system is so broken because
we have not funded that the way it should have been, we have a
crisis as well.
Let me share these words with you. First, it takes hard-
nosed enforcement on the border, at our airports and seaports,
and in the workplace. One might wonder where these comments are
from. It is from a statement of Senator Edward M. Kennedy,
which really begs the question of whether or not we are
suggesting that there are those of us who are Democrats who are
not serious about border enforcement.
The Senate bill provides for these additions to securing
the border: double border patrol, adds 12,000 new agents, 2,400
each year. While we are stalling and having these hearings, we
are not in conference to assure that we get that amount of
support. Doubled enforcement, interior enforcement, 11,000
investigators over the next 5 years. New security perimeter,
adds new technology at the border to create virtual fence;
tighten controls, expands exit-entry security system at all
land borders and airports; construction of barriers; mandates
new roads and vehicles barriers at borders where necessary.
Might I also say that seven times over the last 4\1/2\
years, Democrats have offered amendments to enhance border
security resources. If these Democratic amendments have been
adopted, one in particular by Mr. Obey just recently, there
would be 6,600 more border patrol agents, 14,000 more detention
beds, and 2,700 more immigration agents along our borders than
now exist. Each time, these efforts have been rejected by the
Republican majority.
Might I also say that this whole debate about felony versus
misdemeanor, some of us had the interest and concern that we
didn't want a priest, we didn't want aunts and uncles and
grandparents to be indictable felons because the language also
said that the assistance of individuals who might be
undocumented therefore would create a felon. I think we erred
on the side of common sense.
And yes, there is deportation. It is what you call
detention and expedited removal. That means that you would, if
you will, entrap the nation's courts in years and years of
litigation on the deportation process, which does require due
process and the right to counsel.
Might I also say on this question of the minimum wage, I
would hope that when we talk about raising the minimum wage, we
have concern about Americans. Americans have not had an
increase in the minimum wage. I might think that the $20-an-
hour that was given somewhere in Texas is based upon the
availability of non-availability of workers. It has nothing to
do with the minimum wage.
So the minimum wage still remains a sore point which my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to address the
question of helping Americans, giving them a minimum wage. So
if we are multi-task, let's do that as well.
I would also suggest that we need to make it very clear
that on the frontlines of Iraq and Afghanistan are individuals
who have undocumented relatives, who are willing to sacrifice
their lives in the name of freedom of this country. That is why
we think we should move forward with a conference so we can
address and make sure that the comments that have been made by
the witnesses, that are very legitimate, we have not done our
job to date. Let us get into a conference, show the American
people that we are serious.
Might I ask this question to all of the witnesses: What is
your thought about the ability to deport all of the 12 million
undocumented, if you will, individuals who are here?
Why don't I start with Mr. Edwards. What procedures are you
aware of, the detention procedures in the Sensenbrenner bill,
expedited removal, and the possibility of the resources that it
would take to deport all those individuals, obviously breaking
up families, and if you will, totally being disengaged or
disingenuous. Would you answer the question please, Mr.
Edwards?
Mr. Edwards. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the question.
I don't think that the Sensenbrenner bill sets up a
scenario where you would have mass deportation. I don't know of
anybody who is seriously suggesting mass deportation. However,
the Sensenbrenner bill would give additional tools and close
some of the existing loopholes in the processes and on the
resource side that would help to enhance the ability to reverse
the current set of incentives.
It would reverse the incentives for additional in-flow
because it would no longer be dangling the prospect of another
amnesty, and therefore it would say, in addition we are going
to actually enforce the laws on the books. So there would be a
reduction in the in-flow.
It would also apply additional pressure. With the
employment verification that employers would have to
participate in and check the eligibility to work of their new
hires----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me move on to Dr. Camarota. I
appreciate it. I would like all of the witnesses to answer very
quickly. Thank you.
Mr. Camarota. It seems to me that the Sensenbrenner bill is
based on the idea of attrition through enforcement. Police the
border. Go after the employers. Get the cooperation of local
law enforcement. Make sure illegal aliens can't get driver's
licenses, open bank accounts, get a library card, et cetera.
When you do that, you dramatically increase the number of
people who go home on their own or self-deport. Right now, we
think about 150,000 to 200,000 people already go home on their
own. The goal is to double, triple and quadruple that by
cutting them off from American society.
At the same time, if you dramatically reduce the number
coming in, the problem could take care of itself over time.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. That no way meets 12 million,
but I thank you very much.
Mrs. Schlafly?
Mrs. Schlafly. I don't think anybody has recommended mass
deportation since President Eisenhower. He did deport quite a
lot of them. The figures show that for every one he deported,
10 went home on their own. So I think that what Dr. Camarota
says is right.
But may I also add that I am just so excited that the
minority is so strong for border security and wants more
resources.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Mrs. Schlafly. But you see, there are some of us who don't
believe that President Bush wants to do it. So it would be just
great if you would pass the Sensenbrenner bill and get the
Administration to have to put up or shut up about border
security before we talk about anything comprehensive.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me say that I enthusiastically join
you in hoping that the Administration would do their job, and
commend to you that if we get the conference going, we will put
ourselves in a position to put the burden on the Administration
to follow the lead of the American people, comprehensive
immigration reform, and I thank you.
Representative Reyes?
Mr. Reyes. Thank you.
First, let me just make a comment. I am surprised that Mrs.
Schlafly here would think we would want anything less than
secure borders after 9/11. I guess I am a little bit offended
that anyone would think that because we are Democrats we want
something less.
Having said that, let me just make a couple of comments on
your question. First of all, the issue of estimating the number
of undocumented people in this country is not finite. I mean,
if you will stop and think, about 3 or 4 years ago, that figure
was 9 million. As we got closer to whipping up the frenzy of
anti-immigrant, it now is at 12 million. Back in 1986 when IRCA
was passed, they were talking about legalizing 9 million. That
turned out to be 3 million. I think that is important.
When you talk about the 1.3 million arrests every year of
undocumented coming across the border, in some areas of our
border 30 to 50 percent are the same person getting caught
multiple times. So it is not 1.3 million coming into this
country. That is ridiculous. As the doctor said, 40 percent
actually that are here illegally now, or out-of-status
technically, actually entered with a legal visa.
Of the whole pool of undocumented in this country, the
estimate is that 60 percent are from Mexico, yet when people
talk to me about illegal immigration, the invariably in the
same breath mention the problem with Mexico. So there are
underlying issues here that are not just anti-immigrant, but
anti-Mexico based on the people that talk to me about this very
issue.
I think that when we pass legislation or a proposal like
the Sensenbrenner bill, that makes people think that there are
going to be massive roundups, and by the way, when President
Eisenhower ordered that mass deportation, people often forget
that a whole bunch of those people were U.S. citizens that got
caught up in the same frenzy of being deported back to Mexico.
Some of those U.S. citizens that were deported to Mexico
weren't even from Mexico, but from other countries.
So we need to be very careful and understand that when we
are dealing with human beings, when we are dealing with what
has in my opinion made this country great, which is the legacy
of immigrants, we better be careful and understand the
consequences that we create for ourselves.
We don't need nor do we want a massive roundup, nor do we
want whatever that figure is, the 9 million to 12 million
people fearing that local law enforcement or others are going
to be coming to their homes to round them up and put them back
across the border. It may be the wrong border that they put
them back across.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you. The gentlelady's time is
expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas for
questions.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My sister sent me an e-mail that had a 1962 cartoon where a
Native American Indian was saying to a Government official,
basically, you need to be strict on enforcing immigration; we
were a bit too lax on enforcing ours. That was 44 years ago,
and still we haven't gotten it quite right.
With regard, and let me address the minimum wage again. The
minimum wage is what willing employers will pay to willing
employees, and the reason that so many immigrants in East Texas
are making vastly above the minimum wage is because they work
hard, they become invaluable to their employers, and that is
what drives the minimum wage. I have talked to a lot of
employers, including Dairy Queens, and they can't hire people
for minimum wage, so the market takes care of raising itself.
But I want to go back to a problem that has been mentioned
a little bit about the local law enforcement's authority to
detain people. As I understand, congressman, you had indicated
that, or believe they had the authority now. But let me tell
you my experience as a judge.
We had a constant problem with trying to get somebody from
the INS to come, deport somebody, and we had problems with the
sheriff when they did fine somebody, if they were illegally
here and had committed a crime. They would notify INS and they
wouldn't come and get them. They wouldn't pay them for all the
days, $50 a day to keep somebody housed. It was breaking the
county. I have heard other sheriffs say the same thing.
I had a problem with some people who had committed minor
crimes, I mean, they had committed what were considered to be
minor felonies, normally first offense, get your probation. It
troubled me deeply, reading over the rules of probation and
conditions in order to stay free and out on probation, you had
to, number one, the number one condition on every State of
Texas form was obey all laws. And then next it would say report
to the Smith County or the county probation department either
once a week or once a month.
That amazed me because if they are illegally here and they
must obey all laws, then how can they report to the local
probation officer every week or every month. I am ordering them
to obey the laws and in the next sentence I am ordering them to
break the law by being here illegally.
So I began ordering that if they were not legally here,
they had to apply, and I met with some Hispanic groups and
other groups about my concerns, and we reached agreement, and I
started requiring within so many days, you had to apply for
legal status, and if you did not get an affirmative result
within so many days after that, you had to report by mail with
proof each month that you were in a country you were legally
authorized to be in.
When that hit the news, I got pounded on by the regional
director of INS in Dallas that there was some renegade judge
over in East Texas that was trying to enforce Federal law. When
he is a State district judge, he can't do that. And one
reporter said he actually called you an idiot and a fool, but
we didn't put that in our report.
After he had a chance to meet with his PR people, they said
it may not be a good idea to be calling a judge that is helping
you do your job a fool or all these names, because he is
actually trying to help you do what you should already have
been doing. But they made such a distinction about a State law
enforcement person should never be able to enforce the law.
I am just curious, do you think we ought to make provisions
that allow local law enforcement to be compensated if they are
doing the job of detaining people who are illegally here who
violated the law?
Mr. Edwards. Yes, sir. There are measures in both the House
bill and the Senate bill which take those remedial steps. That
should be done, certainly.
Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Camarota?
Mr. Camarota. Yes, common sense suggests that it is a great
idea.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, if it is such common sense, you would
think that it would have been done a long time ago.
Mr. Camarota. Unfortunately in many ways our immigration
policy and common sense seem often at odds.
Mr. Gohmert. Mrs. Schlafly?
Mrs. Schlafly. Well, according to this article, and again I
ask if you will insert it in the record, by a distinguished
attorney, there is language in the Senate bill to prevent
enforcement by local law enforcement people. It is very
artfully written, but it is a loophole that I think he
described. He pointed out what a danger this is to the
terrorists and how 9/11 could have been avoided if local law
enforcement had been willing to detain the people. So may I ask
that this be put in the record?
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection.
Mr. Reyes. I just wanted to make mention of a couple of
things because, again, the authority to detain and refer to
Federal officials is there, because there is an articulable
fact based on the situation to call the border patrol or the
immigration and customs enforcement, they can do it.
The response becomes the issue, and the further you get
away from the border, the less likely that DHS is going to have
the resources to send to check. I agree with you. If somebody
has landed before a judge, that means they have violated some
law and there ought to be a process there, and we ought to
provide as a Congress the resources to be able to do that.
If somebody winds up in jail, there ought to be a regular
system where INS or border patrol or ICE has jail check. We
used to do that in both of my sectors in South Texas and in
West Texas and New Mexico where there was a jail check because
we don't want criminals to stay in this country, but the issue
becomes one of resources. If you have an area the size of New
Mexico and West Texas, and somebody lands in jail in the
northern-most point in New Mexico where you don't have a
station there, you need to have somebody get up there.
That is why it is vital and important that we fund and we
resource interior enforcement to be able to do that. Again, I
will tell you, I don't think it is good public policy to have
local law enforcement become immigration agents.
Let me just preface my comment by saying that immigration
law, people don't realize it, but immigration law is the second
most complex law in the world, next to maritime law. The first
time somebody deports somebody or arrests somebody that is in
fact a citizen, they are opening themselves up for a lawsuit.
I don't think too many municipalities or counties or cities
are going to be very enthused about having their officers do
that if they are going to be sued because somebody was arrested
because they didn't speak English or they didn't look like they
were U.S. citizens or other reasons that I have heard in my
26\1/2\ years in the border patrol.
Mr. Gohmert. I might have additional time. Who would like
to respond? If I could just have additional time for Mr.
Edwards to respond, and then I won't comment further, just hear
his response.
Mr. Edwards. Just one quick clarification. There are
provisions that I refer to that are desirable in the Senate
bill. There are certainly many in the House bill regarding
detention, reimbursement, transportation, exchange of custody,
things of that nature.
There is a provision which was referenced which is highly
undesirable in the Senate bill which would prohibit, would
restrict even the current inherent authority that State and
local law enforcement have with respect to prohibiting them to
only be engaged in involvement on the criminal provisions in
the INA, rather than those that are lesser offenses. You have
to watch that provision, which I think Kris Kobach's article
addresses.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms.
Lofgren, for questions.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think it is important to reflect back again on what we
are doing here today. I just got an e-mail from my staff of an
article where President Vicente Fox has held a press conference
announcing that President Bush has told him there is not going
to be any legislation this year on immigration. We have had a
series of hearings around the country. We are having hearings
here today. It is really just a bunch of talk. I think that is
actually very destructive.
I was interested in Mrs. Schlafly's written testimony where
she states George Bush has had 6 years to enforce border
security; when grassroots Americans don't believe the president
is leveling with us, it damages the moral fabric of our nation.
I think really that statement speaks to a broader phenomenon,
which is that people don't believe what we are doing here. It
is all talk.
That is a problem that we are encouraging here today. We
talked about the Sensenbrenner bill. There are really only two
provisions in the bill that really relate to border security. I
will tell you. If you take a look at the provision in Title I,
it says not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this act, the secretary of homeland security shall
take all actions the secretary determines necessary and
appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over
the entire international land and maritime borders of the
United States.
Well, we don't need a law to do that. That is the
secretary's obligation today, and he has failed to do that
obligation. And why would we want to give him 18 more months of
failure to do his job? When I think about Congress, we haven't
provided the resources to do any of this stuff.
You talk about the detention provisions in the act. I think
it is worth noting that we don't even fund the current
provisions of the law. The president zeroed out SCAP funding in
his budget proposal, and we have never provided more than 33
percent of SCAP funding.
So I think the GOP has become the gab-only party. It is
just talk. It is just a bunch of gas and hot air and it is not
any kind of action. My colleague from Virginia earlier said
that he used to be an immigration lawyer, and so did I. I once
taught immigration law, and one of the things that I find
concerning are some of the assertions made by people in the
debate that are just I think so incorrect. It is a real
pleasure to be able to have somebody with the years and years
of experience at the border, like our colleague Congressman
Reyes.
The whole issue, and I think it was mentioned by one of the
witnesses, perhaps it was Dr. Edwards, about so-called ``anchor
babies.'' You know, in your experience, Congressman Reyes, have
you ever run into it? Number one, you have to be a U.S. citizen
to apply for a parent, and you have to be an adult. Have you
ever encountered in your career as a border patrol person
somebody who crossed the border so that 18 years later an adult
child could petition for them?
Mr. Reyes. The answer is no. And you are correct: In order
for a baby to bestow benefits on the parent, you have to be 21.
That is the law.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, and for brothers and sisters, you can
petition for U.S. citizenship in the petition for brothers and
sisters?
Mr. Reyes. Yes, exactly, to bestow any immigration benefit.
Ms. Lofgren. But now, if you take a look at Mexico, for
example, it is a 13-year waiting list, so you would be talking
about 31 years when you add in to gain adulthood and then the
waiting period for the petition, it could get longer. Have you
run into anybody who came across and gave birth so that 31
years later another child could get their residence?
Mr. Reyes. No. In fact, the most common reason that people
give is because they see the United States as the best
opportunity for their children, and they just want to give them
the option to be a U.S. citizen.
And by the way, children are born every day in the United
States that their births are fully paid by people from Mexico,
and I am going to assume from Canada as well, because they do
want to have that right as an American citizen. I think it is a
testament to how great other people from around the world see
our country as being.
Ms. Lofgren. I would just like to note that in the
Sensenbrenner bill there are a variety of provisions. There has
been argument whether it should be a felony or a misdemeanor or
a civil offense. But the whole idea that we would pass, let's
say that Mr. Sensenbrenner gets his way and it is a
misdemeanor.
The concept that misdemeanors don't go to jail is simply
false. The jail time is a year. It takes the same prosecutor,
the same defense, the same courthouse. And that we would sit
here as legislators and say, well, we included that in the
bill, but we are not going to enforce the law.
Why would we sucker the American people in that way once
again? And tell people, really lie to people in America, that
we are tough on the border, but we are not going to spend any
money for border patrol agents. We are tough. We ought to
enforce it, but we are only going to bring enforcement actions
against three companies in the United States, and we are going
to put these provisions in the bill, but we are not going to
actually utilize them. And by the way, we are not going to
deport anybody either.
This is just a bunch of gas, and I think it is an insult to
the American people.
Mr. Hostettler. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms.
Waters, for questions.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members.
I am still worried about the family. I agree that there
should be tough border control. If that stops illegal
immigrants from coming across the border, that is fine by me. I
think we should have a good immigration law, but I want to know
what happens.
I think the Senate bill basically talks about if you have
been here less than 2 years, you are in violation and you would
be subject to, I suppose, deportation, whatever.
Let me ask Mr. Camarota, do you agree with that?
Mr. Camarota. Did you want to ask Mr. Edwards?
Ms. Waters. Mr. Edwards, do you agree with that part of it,
that if you are here less than 2 years, you are subject to
deportation? You have no benefits?
Mr. Edwards. I agree.
Ms. Waters. So you could be out of here.
Mr. Edwards. I agree that the Senate bill has a provision
that leaves that category of illegal aliens subject to
deportation.
Ms. Waters. Okay, then if you are here between 2 and 5
years, then you could be a part of I guess what would be
considered a guest worker program where you would have to do
certain things to be eligible to be a guest worker. Do you
agree with that part of it?
Mr. Edwards. I don't agree with any of the Senate, any of
those amnesty provisions of the Senate bill, but I agree that
that is the way that it deals with it. It sets up a second
category of 2-to 5-year illegal residency and they get a
temporary visa.
Ms. Waters. But you disagree with that part of it?
Mr. Edwards. Yes, ma'am. It repeats the same mistakes as
IRCA because of----
Ms. Waters. Okay. Mr. Sensenbrenner's bill would make
felons out of, I guess, he does not have the divisions of, you
know, 2 years or less, 2-to 5-years, and then a pact to
immigrate. What would you do with all of the so-called 11
million to 13 million immigrants who are here illegally and
there would be no consideration for how they could get legal?
How would you handle them as felons? Exactly what would you do
with them?
Mr. Edwards. What the House bill would do is it would, as I
have said, reverse the incentives so that you diminish the
incentives to come illegally.
Ms. Waters. Oh, we have shut down the border. We have shut
that down. Now, they have everything that you want. They have
gates, wires, walls, everything. No more coming in. You have 11
million to 13 million here.
Mr. Edwards. I will believe it when I see it, kind of like
Eliza Doolittle, don't tell me, but show me.
Ms. Waters. What would you do with them?
Mr. Edwards. I would say the strategy of attrition that the
House bill has, and that is to make it more difficult to reside
here unlawfully. You cannot find a job, or if you do, then you
and the employer are held accountable under the law, hence they
leave on their own.
Ms. Waters. What you are saying is, excuse me, reclaiming
my time, what you are saying is we would have a provision in
law where you are now a felon. But this felon can't get a job;
this felon is not deported. He is not deported; they just kind
of sit here and do what? What is it you want them to do?
Mr. Edwards. You are not a felon until a jury convicts you.
The same would be with anything that is currently in the law.
The INA provides a number of provisions such as second or third
or fourth unlawful entry at the border, or technically they
could be prosecuted for felonies. Are they many times? No. So
it is just a tool that would reside under prosecutorial
discretion.
Ms. Waters. Okay, reclaiming my time. So we have 11 million
to 13 million folks who could be felons. And if they violate
traffic laws, whatever, and they are detected, they are taken
to jail and they are tried. And then what happens?
Mr. Edwards. Well, you could try them in the criminal court
or you could simply put them into immigration proceedings,
which is a civil arena. And therefore you could remove them;
although they are liable for the felony, they aren't put into
those criminal proceedings. You remove them from the country.
Ms. Waters. I guess I am missing something about going into
immigration proceedings in the Sensenbrenner bill. What is it
you know about the bill that I don't know?
Mr. Edwards. I am sure you know it better than I.
Ms. Waters. I think so, but I want you to tell me why you
think that these immigrants who are now felons, who have been
picked up, who could be deported or put in prison, why you
think there is something else that is in that bill in the way
of immigration proceedings that would not cause them to have to
follow the law as it is determined in the bill itself.
Mr. Hostettler. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Chairman Sensenbrenner's bill, for the record, does not
change current law. Those individuals in the example that you
are using are already subject to deportation, and the law and
the Sensenbrenner bill does not change current law in that
aspect.
I want to thank very much the panel of witnesses for your
testimony here today. You have made a tremendous contribution
to the record.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Before you close, let me ask unanimous
consent to submit into the record the study, Immigrants Pay Tax
Share, done by the Urban Institute, with recommendations as to
what to do with the undocumented, Monday, June 5, 2006.
[The article follows in the Appendix]
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me restate into the record this
statement of Mr. Reyes: In total, Congress has 800 border
patrol agents and 5,000 detention beds short of what was
promised in the 9/11 Act. If the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks did not convince the Administration and congressional
leaders that border security and immigration must be a
priority, what will?
Republicans were in office before 2001 and are now in
leadership after 2001. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can finally
get action on the conference bill.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection. All Members will have 5
legislative days----
Mr. Gohmert. I am sorry. Without objection, if I might
clarify a point.
With regard to the problems I was having with the
immigration service, their failure to do their job, and their
efforts to prevent people who were trying to do the right thing
to do their job. We had a Democratic president, a Democratic
House and a Democratic Senate. So I don't know if the other
Members' comments about the ``party of gas'' applied at that
time, but I did want to clarify there was gas back in an all-
Democratic era as well.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentleman.
All Members will have 5 legislative days to make additions
to the record.
The business before the Subcommittee being complete,
without objection, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:51 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims
----------
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Edward M. Kennedy, Senior United
States Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
----------
Article entitled ``Senate Bill Creates Terrorist Loophole'' by Kris W.
Kobach, submitted by Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum
----------
Article entitled ``Study: Immigrants Pay Tax Share''by Karin Brulliard,
submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims
----------
Letter from the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition et al.,
submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims