[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WHETHER THE ATTEMPTED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REID-KENNEDY IMMIGRATION
BILL WILL RESULT IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE AND NATIONAL SECURITY NIGHTMARE
=======================================================================
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 27, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-130
__________
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
28-909 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 27, 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....................... 77
WITNESSES
Mr. Peter Gadiel, President, 9/11 Families for a Secure America
Oral Testimony................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
Mr. Michael Maxwell, former Director, Office of Security and
Investigations, United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services
Oral Testimony................................................. 8
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
Mr. Michael Cutler, former Examiner, Inspector, and Special
Agent, Immigration and Naturalization Service
Oral Testimony................................................. 62
Prepared Statement............................................. 64
His Excellency Nicholas DiMarzio, Bishop of Brooklyn
Oral Testimony................................................. 67
Prepared Statement............................................. 68
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......................................................... 95
Letter from the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin and
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary; the Honorable Henry J.
Hyde, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois,
Chairman, International Relations Commitee; and the Honorable
Peter T. King, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York and Chairman, Homeland Security Committee to the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops................................. 97
Report from the United States Government Accountability Office
entitled ``Immigration Benefits: Additional Controls and a
Sanctions Strategy Could Enhance DHS' Ability to Control
Benefit Fraud,'' submitted by Michael Cutler, Former Executive
Examiner, Inspecter, and Special Agent; Immigration and
Naturalization Service......................................... 99
Article entitled: ``Irish in America Are `Under Seige','' by
Caitriona Palmer, 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..................................................... 155
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....... 157
WHETHER THE ATTEMPTED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REID-KENNEDY IMMIGRATION
BILL WILL RESULT IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE AND NATIONAL SECURITY NIGHTMARE
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 27, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security, and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:49 p.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.
This is the second in a series of hearings reviewing the
Reid-Kennedy immigration bill, S. 2611.
The United States admits more permanent resident aliens
than any other country, more than 1.12 million in fiscal year
2005, a year in which we also gave refuge and asylum to some
79,000 other aliens.
In December, the House passed a bill that would ensure that
our generous immigration laws, written by both Republican and
Democratic Congresses over 5 decades, would be enforced and not
abused.
In the Reid-Kennedy bill, the Senate proposes to replace
our current rational immigration process with a scheme to allow
an unknown number of additional aliens who came here illegally
to stay forever.
Many would have us adopt that bill without public review. I
believe, however, that before we consider a new amnesty, we
must examine that bill in the light of the lessons that we
learned from the last amnesty in 1986.
As part of this assessment, the Subcommittee today will
review the ability of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
to process the additional applications required by S. 2611 on
the bill's extremely tight time schedule and the effects of
granting those benefits on the national security.
Immigration adjudications were a mess in 2001 when
President Bush set 6 months as the goal for processing
immigration applications. Congress supported this goal with
$500 million in funds and furthered that effort in 2002 when it
split immigration benefits from enforcement, in part, to ensure
aliens received the benefits they were due.
Those efforts have borne fruit. From a peak of 3.8 million,
USCIS's backlog stands at 276,000 cases today.
Despite these gains, the USCIS ombudsman has found that the
agency ``has ongoing difficulties in providing timely
service.'' An adjustment applicant must wait more than 1,000
days in Greer and naturalization takes more than 900 days in
Charleston.
The ombudsman has cited aliens who have waited years for
benefits. This is unacceptable.
S. 2611 would add an overwhelming burden to USCIS, as it
struggles to provide timely services. To comprehend this
burden, consider that in fiscal year 2005 USCIS completed just
less than 7.5 million applications. S. 2611 would add 10
million to 20 million more amnesty applications, many with
short processing times.
How could this added burden not detrimentally affect aliens
waiting to immigrate lawfully?
Past experience is not encouraging. When the Clinton INS
tried to process a large number of naturalization applications
in time for the 1996 election under Citizenship USA, it made
serious mistakes, naturalizing some 71,000 aliens with FBI rap
sheets, 10,800 of whom had felony arrests. USCIS would face
even greater challenges today.
Its ability to process the new amnesty applications under
S. 2611 would be impeded, if not hobbled, by fraud. That fraud
is best assessed in terms of the 1986 amnesty. Hundreds of
thousands of aliens are estimated to have fraudulently received
amnesty under the 1986 law.
What is worse, terrorists fraudulently abused the 1986
amnesty to remain in the United States. One, Mahmud Abu Halima,
a leader of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, received
amnesty as an agricultural worker in the 1986 law, even though
he really drove a cab.
Another, Mohammed Salameh, driver of the truck in that
attack, also applied fraudulently for amnesty. To support his
amnesty claim, Mir Kasi, who killed two in front of the CIA in
1993, presented leases, employment letters and a letter from a
friend in Pakistan. The 9/11 Commission staff found that these
documents were all typed from the same typewriter.
The drafters of S. 2611 did not make USCIS's job easier.
Confidentiality bars, which hampered INS in investigating fraud
in the 1986 amnesty, are not only replicated in this bill but
they are raised, further frustrating fraud investigations.
Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that fraud under S.
2611 would be more pervasive and sophisticated than in the 1986
amnesty. There are now more illegal aliens and thanks to
computers they have access to higher quality fraudulent
documents. Even the most diligent agency would be hard-pressed
to combat fraud under the scheme in the Senate bill.
USCIS's diligence in combating fraud under the crush of
millions of future amnesty applications is questionable,
however. Mike Maxwell, former chief of the Office of Security
and Investigations at USCIS, who is with us today, has
testified that the agency ``is operating an immigration system
designed not to aggressively deter or detect fraud but, first
and foremost, to approve applications.''
Given past terrorist abuse of amnesty, the rubber stamping
of millions of amnesty applications would pose an unacceptable
risk to our people and our nation. This risk is heightened by
the fact that S. 2611 would give valid IDs to aliens who were
never screened by a consular officer in their home countries
and who were never inspected at a port of entry. A new name and
a new ID would allow a terrorist, known by his real name to our
Government, to pass through our society undetected.
We will review these issues with our witnesses today.
At this time, I would turn to identification of the witness
panel. Without objection, all Members' opening statements will
be made a part of the record.
Now I will introduce this panel of witnesses.
Peter Gadiel is a founder of 9/11 Families for a Secure
America, an organization comprised of families of victims
killed in the September 11 terrorist attacks and survivors of
the attacks. His 23-year-old son James, an assistant trader for
Cantor Fitzgerald, worked on the 103rd floor of the north tower
of the World Trade Center.
Mr. Gadiel has volunteered full-time since early 2002 in
the cause of securing U.S. borders against entry by terrorists.
A graduate of Case Western Reserve School of Law, he is a
member of the New Hampshire bar.
Mike Maxwell is an independent national security consultant
with more than 15 years of experience in the law enforcement
and security arenas. He is the former director of the Office of
Security and Investigations within U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services. As director, Mr. Maxwell was responsible
for implementing and managing a comprehensive security program
for USCIS.
Mr. Maxwell has conducted lectures and training sessions in
security planning and management, law enforcement management
and other fields for Federal agencies, like the FBI, the DEA,
ICE and the Department of Defense. He holds a Masters degree
from Cambridge College.
Michael Cutler is a retired senior special agent with the
Immigration and Naturalization Service's New York district
office. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Brooklyn
College of the City University of New York in 1971 and that
year joined the INS as an immigration inspector at JFK Airport.
From 1973 until 1974, he was assigned as an examiner to the
unit responsible for adjudicating petitions filed by United
States citizens and lawful permanent resident aliens for their
alien spouses.
In 1975, he became an INS criminal investigator. In this
capacity, he rotated through all of the divisions in the New
York district's investigations branch. In 1991, he was made a
senior special agent and assigned to the Organized Crime Drug
Enforcement Task Force.
Mr. Cutler has appeared as a witness at congressional
hearings at the invitation of both Republican and Democratic
Members. He is currently a fellow at the Center for Immigration
Studies.
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio was installed to lead the Roman
Catholic Church's Brooklyn diocese in October 2003. He began
his ministry to migrant communities in 1976 as the refugee
resettlement director for the archdiocese of Newark. Then-
Father DiMarzio moved to Washington in 1985 when he was
appointed the executive director of Migration and Refugee
Services for the U.S. Catholic Conference.
He was elevated to the rank of Bishop by Pope John Paul II
in 1996 and thereafter chaired the Migration Committee of the
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Legal
Immigration Network, Incorporated. In 2000, Bishop DiMarzio was
appointed a member of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral
Care of Migrants and Itinerant People.
Gentlemen, if you will please stand and raise your right to
take the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you very much. You may be seated.
And let the record show that the witnesses have responded
in the affirmative.
Gentlemen, you will notice the set of lights before you.
Without objection, your entire written testimony will be made a
part of the record. We ask that if possible you summarize as
close within the 5 minutes for your oral testimony.
Mr. Gadiel, you are recognized. And could you turn the
microphone on there?
TESTIMONY OF PETER GADIEL, PRESIDENT, 9/11 FAMILIES FOR A
SECURE AMERICA
Mr. Gadiel. Sorry.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
Mr. Gadiel. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of so many who
are the victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens, crimes
made possible because our Government failed to prevent
terrorists and felons from crossing our nation's borders.
As president of 9/11 Families for a Secure America, I and
my Members agree that S. 2611 would be an administrative and
national security nightmare. But words such as
``administrative'' are bloodless, bureaucratic terms that don't
adequately describe the devastation amnesty inflicts on
Americans.
Speaking as the bereaved father of a young man killed by
terrorists who were allowed into our country only because of
the power and influence of the open borders lobby that now
stands behind S. 2611, I will speak in plain English. Passing
of this amnesty will result in Americans being murdered and
subjected to other horrific crimes committed by the dangerous
illegal aliens who would be permitted to legally remain in the
United States.
We know this to be true because such crimes directly
resulted from the 1986 amnesty.
This proposed amnesty is much larger and will cause crime
on a much larger scale, yet that result is easily avoided if
the House sticks to its guns and defeats S. 2611.
As you pointed out a few moments ago, the 9/11 Commission
itself reported how many people involved in terrorist acts--the
1993 attack on the World Trade Center and the murders outside
the CIA headquarters--were here thanks to the 1986 amnesty. It
is interesting to note that the terrorist, Mir, the one who
shot the people outside the CIA headquarters, had filed a
fraudulent claim and his claim is being litigated on his behalf
by Catholic Social Services.
These are only a few of the long list of killers and would-
be killers that we know about who were permitted to remain in
the U.S. thanks to the 1986 amnesty. And we know of them only
because their crimes and conspiracies made the headlines. We
can never know how many other illegal aliens received amnesty
that later went on to commit horrible crimes, and we will never
know because their ordinary street crimes did not get front
page attention.
Although we know that Americans were murdered and
brutalized because of the 1986 amnesty, we don't know how large
that number is. But since nearly one-third of Federal inmates
are foreign born, we can be certain that the number of victims
is quite large.
In the 4.5 years I have given in support of efforts to
secure our borders, I have heard from hundreds who have been
the victims of crimes committed by illegals. Without exception,
they know that these crimes occurred because our Government
failed to live up to its most basic obligation to its citizens:
To protect us from foreign attack.
The 9/11 Commission staff put it in simple terms:
``Terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United
States if they are unable to enter the country.'' Yet with S.
2611, the Senate pretends that 9/11 and thousands of other
crimes never happened.
In 2002, the first time I was invited to speak at a press
conference for Members of Congress, I noted that independent
polls consistently showed that over 70 percent of Americans
want drastic immigration reform immediately. I said that this
majority would soon waken to the fact that the big obstacles to
secure borders were the Congress and President George W. Bush
and his predecessor, Bill Clinton. I predicted that soon that
majority would be fed up, turn on these politicians who have
blocked the changes needed to protect another 9/11.
Recent changes have shown that that prediction is accurate.
In the last month, nearly half the States and many cities and
towns have passed laws to fight illegal immigration and its
damaging effects on their economies and society.
Nevertheless, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, La Raza, ACLU,
the Catholic Church and the rest of the open borders lobby
continue to show that for them the suffering and death endured
by Americans is nothing but a cost of doing business, a cost of
enlarging the membership. To its eternal shame, the Senate
continues to do the bidding of that lobby and demands that our
borders remain wide open to illegal aliens and the unknown
criminals and terrorists among them.
Last year, the House forced passage of the Real ID Act over
the opposition of the open borders lobby in the Senate. Real ID
will keep future terrorists from obtaining driver's licenses
that were the critical tool for the mass murders of 9/11.
Today, again, for the good of our country, the House must
act in opposition to the Senate and defeat S. 2611.
My son, James, was not a statistic; he was a human being
trapped with hundreds of his co-workers on the top floors of
the World Trade Center while the building beneath them, forcing
them further and further up till they had no refuge. I love him
today as much as I ever did. I miss him every second of every
day. But I am just one of thousands who are forever deprived of
the love and comfort of someone dear to them because Congress
allowed illegal aliens to enter and remain in this country.
And there are many thousands more who, although they have
survived their attacks, their lives are ruined by violent
sexual acts, beatings, stabbings and other crimes, causing
permanent physical and psychological damage.
How many more parents like me, how many children, siblings,
husbands, wives of victims of illegal alien crime must you and
the Congress hear from before you reject once and for all the
demands of the open borders lobby?
And, last, a plea to President Bush. Mr. Bush, shortly
after 9/11, you stood on the ruins of the World Trade Center
and since my son's remains have never been recovered, that is
the only tomb he will ever know. Mr. Bush, you said, ``I hear
you.'' Well, Mr. Bush, I don't think you did hear us, and the
Senate hasn't heard us, and I think it is time you started to
listen to us and enforce the laws of the United States and
protect us from foreign invaders.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gadiel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter Gadiel
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak on behalf of so many who have been the victims of
crimes committed by illegal aliens; crimes that were made possible
because our government failed to prevent terrorists and felons from
crossing our Nation's borders. I am President of 9/11 Families for a
Secure America (9/11FSA), an organization whose membership is comprised
of family members of those killed in the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001. For obvious reasons our members strongly oppose S2611 because
it would facilitate entry of terrorists into our country.
We fully agree that S. 2611 would be an administrative and national
security nightmare, but words such as ``administrative'' and ``national
security'' are bloodless bureaucratic terms that fail to adequately
describe the devastation amnesty inflicts on individual Americans.
Speaking as the bereaved father of a young man killed by terrorists who
were allowed into our country only because of the power and influence
of the same Open Borders Lobby that is today promoting S. 2611, I will
speak in plain English. Passing this amnesty will result in Americans
being murdered, and subjected to other horrific crimes committed by the
dangerous illegal aliens who would be permitted to legally remain in
the United States. We know this to be true because this was the result
of the 1986 amnesty. The amnesty proposed in S.2611 will be far larger
than that of 1986, and thus will cause crime on a much larger scale.
This is a disaster that can easily be avoided if the House sticks to
its principles and defeats S.2611.
In 1986, Senator Edward Kennedy, then-Representative Charles
Schumer, and other sponsors of amnesty claimed that `only' one million
illegal aliens would be eligible for amnesty. In fact, due to fraud in
administration, and underestimation of the number of illegals in the
United States, over three million illegals were actually granted
amnesty.
The investment firm of Morgan Stanley recently estimated that there
are over 20 million illegals in the United States. Yet, at a recent
meeting with DHS officials, 9/11 FSA Vice-President Bruce DeCell and I
were told that Administration statisticians had ``worked the numbers''
and ``only seven million'' illegals would apply. That is approximately
one third the Morgan Stanley estimate, oddly enough, the same fraction
used by sponsors of the amnesty of 1986. The track record of the
promoters of the 1986 amnesty in predicting the number of illegals who
would be eligible tends to confirm what appears to be common knowledge
to nearly everyone in the country today: the 20 million figure is
closer to the mark.
In 1986, sponsors of amnesty also assured us there would be
safeguards to screen out those who were a danger to our country. Their
failure to honor that promise is as clear as their inability to predict
eligibility numbers.
The 9/11 Commission itself showed us that the 1986 amnesty resulted
in dead and injured Americans. It noted that two of the conspirators
(Mohammed Salameh and Mahmud Abouhalima, aka Mahmud the Red) in the
1993 attack on the World Trader Center were illegal aliens permitted to
remain in the US because of the 1986 amnesty. A third plotter (Mohammed
Abouhalima, aka Abo Halima) was permitted to stay in the US for six
years until just before the attack when his application under the '86
amnesty was finally denied. Despite the denial he remained in the US to
help carry out the plot he had helped plan during the period he was
``legal.''
Mir Aimal Kansi who shot five people outside CIA headquarters was
an illegal alien also permitted to remain in the US thanks to the 1986
amnesty law. At the time of his 1993 attack his fraudulent claim was
still being litigated by Catholic Social Services.
Former 9/11 Commission staff member, Janice Kephart, has documented
a large list of foreign terrorists and their methods of entering the
United States and embedding themselves here. (Her 2005 paper,
Immigration and Terrorism, Moving Beyond the 9/11 Staff report on
Terrorist Travel is available on the World Wide Web at http://
www.cis.org/articles/2005/kephart.html)
Obviously, Ms. Kephart's list of terrorists and would-be terrorists
includes only those who have been uncovered by law enforcement. Their
involvement in terrorist activities resulted in the research which
disclosed their grants of amnesty under the 1986 legislation. The FBI
has stated that there are sleeper agents in the United States and of
course since we do not know who they are we cannot know how many of
them have been granted full access to our society through amnesty.
In addition, we can never know many other illegal aliens received
amnesty and later went on to commit `ordinary' violent street crimes
which did not, because of the lack of a terrorist connection, result in
exposure of their link to the 1986 amnesty.
We know that Americans were murdered and brutalized because of the
1986 amnesty. Although we don't know how large that number is, since
nearly 1/3 of federal inmates are foreign born, we can be certain that
the number of victims is very considerable. Because the agencies that
will be assigned responsibility for screening applicants will not be
able to do meaningful background checks on the 20 million illegals who
would apply for amnesty under S. 2611, the opportunities for terrorists
and `ordinary' street criminals, are obvious.
In the four and a half years I've given in support of efforts to
secure our borders, I have heard from hundreds who have been the
victims of crimes committed by illegals. Without exception they know
these crimes occurred because our government failed to live up to its
most basic obligation to its citizens . . . to protect us from foreign
attack. The 9/11 Commission staff put it in simple terms: ``terrorists
cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are
unable to enter the country.'' Yet, with S.2611 the Senate pretends
that 9/11 and thousands of other crimes never happened.
In 2002, the first time I spoke at a Congressional press conference
I noted that independent polls consistently show 70% to 90% of
Americans want drastic immigration reform immediately and that this
majority would soon awaken to the fact that the biggest obstacles to
secure borders were the Congress and Presidents George W. Bush and Bill
Clinton. I predicted that soon this majority would be fed up and turn
on those politicians who have blocked the changes needed to prevent
another 9/11. Recent events have shown that prediction to be accurate,
for in the past few months, nearly half the States and many cities and
towns have passed laws to fight illegal immigration and its damaging
effects on their economies and society. They have left the Congress in
the dust while they act to preserve themselves.
Among the municipalities that have enacted legislation or policies
to discourage illegal immigrants from remaining in their jurisdictions
are: Suffolk County, N.Y., Avon Park, FL, Herndon, VA, Sandwich Mass.,
Maricopa County, AZ, Butler County, OH, Danbury CT, Lima, OH.,
Hazleton, PA,
States that have acted are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming,
These actions have taken place despite well funded and coordinated
opposition to any restrictions on illegal aliens by Catholic Charities,
ACLU, LaRaza (the Race), Maldef, LULAC, US Chamber of Commerce,
agribusiness, the travel industry, etc. It must be noted, for example
that Catholic Charities, which receives 60% of its budget from
governmental sources is among the most pervasive of open borders
lobbying groups. 9/11 FSA members have encountered Catholic Charities
lobbyists active in the following issues in state legislatures: for
legislation to grant drivers licenses to illegals, against legislation
to make engaging in human trafficking a crime; for instate college
tuition rates for illegal aliens.
In addition, the Mexican government, through its forty eight
consulates and in violation of treaty obligations, lobbies city, county
and state law making bodies throughout the nation in opposition to any
legislation that would impede illegal immigration.
For these, the constituent members of the Open Borders Lobby, the
suffering and death endured by Americans as a result of illegal
immigration is just a cost of doing business. To its eternal shame, the
Senate continues to do the bidding of that lobby, demanding that our
borders remain wide open to illegal aliens and the criminals and
terrorists among them. S.2611 exemplifies the Senate's mindless support
of that destructive policy
Last year, the House forced passage of the REAL ID Act despite
intense opposition from the Open Borders Lobby and the Senate. REAL ID
will keep future terrorists from obtaining the drivers licenses that
were critical to carrying out the mass murders of 9/11. Today again,
for the good of our country, the House must act in opposition to the
Senate and defeat S.2611
My son, James, was not a statistic. He was a human being. I loved
him and I love him now as much as ever. I miss him every second of
every day. There are many thousands more like me, who are forever
deprived of the love and comfort of someone dear to them because
Congress allowed illegal aliens to enter and remain in this country.
And there are many thousands more whose lives are ruined by violent
sexual acts, beatings, stabbings and other crimes causing permanent
physical and psychological devastation.
How many more parents like me, and children, siblings, husbands and
wives of victims of illegal alien crime must you in the Congress hear
from before you reject once and for all the demands of the Open Borders
Lobby.
Shortly after 9/11, Pres. Bush stood on the ruins of the World
Trade Center, and because none of his remains have ever been found that
was the only tomb my son will ever know. The President said: ``I hear
you.'' I believe he and the Senate did not hear us. I believe it is
time he, and they, started.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Gadiel.
Mr. Maxwell.
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL MAXWELL, FORMER DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIONS, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES
Mr. Maxwell. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I
am pleased to be here today to discuss the impact and
implementation of S. 2611 by USCIS would have on national
security.
As a former director of the Office of Security and
Investigations, the only law enforcement component within
USCIS, I must point out that the basic premise of this hearing
and implementation of 2611 could create an administrative and
national security nightmare that is faulty.
The fact is an administrative and national security
nightmare already exists at USCIS under our current immigration
policy.
Asking USCIS to implement a proposal as sweeping as 2611
without first addressing existing national security
vulnerabilities in our immigration system would be
irresponsible at best and could actually facilitate ongoing
criminal enterprises.
I therefore agree with Director Gonzalez who said just this
past Monday, at a naturalization ceremony in New Jersey, ``If
we had to institute a guest worker program today, then the
system couldn't handle it.''
I would go one step further, however, and suggest that
USCIS could never implement 2611 without compromising this
nation's security. The integrity of the underlying immigration
system is simply too flawed.
Three overarching issues must, in my professional view, be
addressed before any policy reform can be effective. The first
is rampant corruption. When I last briefed this Subcommittee,
the Office of Security and Investigations had a backlog of over
2,000 complaints against USCIS employees. Included among these
were national security cases. I had no case management system
and a grand total of four criminal investigators in the field.
Today, almost a year later, the backlog is well over 3,000
complaints. New complaints are still coming in at a rate of
around 50 per week. OSI still has a grand total of four
criminal investigators in the field and no case management
system.
Despite four arrests and two convictions of USCIS employees
in the past few months alone on charges including soliciting
sex for citizenship, selling $1 million worth of green cards in
a money laundering scheme, falsifying immigration documents and
embezzlement, USCIS management continues, in writing, to insist
that sufficient safeguards are built into the system to prevent
immigration officers from illegally granting the benefits of
their choosing, to the person of their choosing, at the time of
their choosing, for the reason of their choosing.
The second issue is a prevailing customer service mentality
that prioritizes reducing backlogs and moving benefits above
all else. For example, USCIS has created an auto-adjudication
system that can apparently process applications for work
permits from start to finish without any employee actually
examining the supporting documentation for signs of fraud. The
system bypasses all but the initial IDA, security name check
and therefore searches only the printed name of the applicant
and not any spelling variation or aliases--hardly effective.
With a work permit in hand, an alien can obtain a Social
Security number and, even under the Real ID Act, a driver's
license, then open a bank account, perhaps obtain a fire arms
license, board an aircraft, et cetera.
USCIS personnel, without the knowledge of the USCIS or DHS
chief information officers, developed a computer system,
embedded it into the DHS IT backbone, allowing for remote users
to manually insert immigration files into the USCIS database in
such a manner so that all security background checks were
circumvented and immigration benefits were granted to aliens of
their choosing.
Following an initial report from IT security staff, senior
USCIS leadership quashed any further investigation, including
criminal investigation, of the system and took actions to cover
up its existence. It should be noted that official USCIS
documents revealed this program was not a law enforcement
program.
As of March 10, 2006, the USCIS headquarters Asylum
Division had a backlog of 515 asylum cases involving applicants
residing in the United States who have provided material
support to a terrorist or terrorist organization. Their cases
are on hold to give DHS time to develop procedures for
considering whether the secretary of Homeland Security should
exercise discretion to grant them a waiver of inadmissibility
so they can stay permanently in the United States despite their
terrorist ties.
The third issue is the ongoing failure to share critical
law enforcement information within DHS or between DHS and other
agencies. As of August 2005, some 1,400 immigration
applications that had generated national security hits on IBIS
were sitting in limbo at USCIS headquarters because the
adjudicators trying to process them were unable to obtain the
national security information that caused them to be flagged
from other agencies.
As of late September 2005, USCIS had a total backlog of
more than 41,000 applications with IBIS hits, requiring further
investigation. Because USCIS is not a law enforcement, the FBI
does not permit USCIS personnel to conduct name checks on
immigration applicants and as of May 2006, the FBI name check
backlog had grown to almost 236,000.
As non law enforcement personnel, USCIS adjudicators are
prohibited from routinely running criminal history checks on
applicants.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, on June 20, Karl Rove told the
National Federation of Independent Business, ``Immigration is
turning into a big problem. The more you look at it, the more
clearer it is that every single part of the system is broken.''
In medical parlance, we must stop the hemorrhage before we
can treat the underlying condition. The proposed Senate bill
and its associated timeline would overwhelm an already
overburdened USCIS and put this nation at great peril.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. With
that, I will be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Maxwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael J. Maxwell
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell.
Mr. Cutler, you are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL CUTLER, FORMER EXAMINER, INSPECTOR, AND
SPECIAL AGENT, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Mr. Cutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, Members of
the Subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen, it is an honor to come
before this Subcommittee hearing to offer testimony on an issue
that is one of the most challenging and important issues our
nation faces today.
I commend Chairman Hostettler and Members of this
Subcommittee for demonstrating true leadership at a time that
our nation is in need of true leadership.
The principle by which most responsible and sensible people
live their lives could be summed up by the phrase, ``Safety
first.'' Yet this fundamental and common sense approach is
clearly lacking among all too many of the senators of our
nation. They voted for a bill that utterly ignores the findings
and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission at a time when our
nation is threatened by acts of terrorism.
Nearly every week we read news accounts of suspected
terrorists being arrested in countries around the world as well
as within the borders of our own country. We see compelling
coverage of bombings of trains in Spain, England and most
recently India. One of this country's closest allies, Israel,
has been forced to take military action to defend itself
against terrorism in the Middle East, and yet inexplicably
there are senators and others, including the president of the
United States who insist on pushing forward to implement the
GuestWorker Amnesty Program that would be utterly disastrous
for national security.
USCIS is unable to cope with all of its responsibilities as
we speak. The GAO issued a report in March of this year that
makes it clear that USCIS is unable to carry out its vital
missions today without the added burden that the GuestWorker
Amnesty Program would undeniably bring to bear against that
overworked, underfunded and, in general, inept agency.
I would recommend a copy of this report be reviewed by the
Members, not only of this Subcommittee but by all members of
our Government who favor a GuestWorker Amnesty Program.
Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Cutler, if I could just interrupt.
Without objection----
Mr. Cutler. Sure.
Mr. Hostettler. I will submit into the record the March
2006 report that you reference, ``Immigration Benefits:
Additional Controls and a Sanction Strategy Could Enhance DHS'
Ability to Control Benefit Fraud.'' Thank you.
[The report follows in the Appendix]
Mr. Cutler. That is the report, and I appreciate that you
do that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sure.
My fear is that because we are dealing with millions of
illegal aliens who, in the parlance of the open borders
advocates, are undocumented that means they have no verifiable
means of proving their true identities. This means that if the
program were to be enacted under S. 2611 that it will be a
simple matter for illegal aliens, including terrorists or
criminals, to walk into an immigration office, along with
millions of other illegal aliens, and produce a false name and
then get an official identity document from our Government
bureaucrats.
These documents would then enable them to circumvent the
various no-fly and terror watch lists. They would be able to
use these documents as breeder documents, get driver's
licenses, Social Security cards, open bank accounts, even
library cards, all the while staying under the radar and
obscuring and concealing their true identity, and all of this
at a time when the citizens of our country have witnessed an
erosion of many of the freedoms that we have come to take for
granted in the name of national security.
I have heard the President often state that if our nation
allowed aliens who simply wanted to work to do so, that law
enforcement could then focus on the terrorists. I have to
respectfully disagree with this optimistic but extremely naive
assessment.
Awhile back, Robert Mueller, the director of the FBI,
testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee about his
concerns about so-called sleeper agents. As you know, a sleeper
agent is a terrorist, spy or enemy combatant who one way or
another succeeds in gaining entry into the United States to
carry out an attack or other hostile act against our country.
But while awaiting his instructions, however, such
individuals do whatever they have to do to not call attention
to themselves. Many, as we have seen, get low-profile [jobs],
such as driving an ice cream truck, a taxicab, work in a used
car lot, or attend school. Often the job that they take
provides them with mobility to move freely among us as they
conduct clandestine meetings, surveillance or other preparatory
functions till the day that they are called into action.
A few days before a terrorist carries out an attack, he is
in fact likely to hide in plain sight by going to his job. If
our Government makes it that much easier for a terrorist to
legally get a job under an assumed identity, then Al Qaida
should give the people in our Government who make this possible
the MVP award.
The GuestWorker Amnesty Program will undoubtedly entice
ever-increasing numbers of illegal aliens to head for our
country, because this program will convince people throughout
the world that in the United States not only will you be
permitted to break the law and get away with it, but that we
are actually willing to reward you for breaking the law by even
providing you with Social Security benefits when you commit
identity theft and use somebody else's Social Security number,
even as law enforcement agencies across our country are
increasingly turning to asset forfeiture strategies to combat a
wide variety of crimes on the city, State and Federal level.
Moreover, there is no door that could be shut so there is
no way to keep the millions more illegal aliens from gaining
access to our country. The confidentiality provisions would
also hobble efforts by law enforcement officials to make
certain that criminal and terrorist aliens have their
applications properly scrutinized, inviting more fraud.
The avalanche of applications will further erode any effort
to restore integrity to the benefit system, meaning that fraud
will become even more attractive to criminal and terrorist
aliens, furthering encouraging more of them to seek to enter
the United States, making it easier for them to game the
system, and then we wind up with a vicious cycle where we have
more aliens filing more applications, and quality will continue
to erode as more applications are filed.
And, meanwhile, decent people who file applications for
benefits will be put on the back of this line because the
overflowing system won't be able to deal with their
applications. That was one of the lessons of the 1986 amnesty,
in fact.
Additionally, a meaningful effort needs to be made, not
only to deny applications where fraud is involved but to
prosecute people who become involved in fraud and to remove
aliens who are identified as being the beneficiaries of fraud
applications. Right now they file an application with little
fear of either criminal charges being brought or administrative
deportation actions being initiated.
So if you consider all of this and you realize that the
bill of 1986 is essentially a reworked version that we are
looking at now, it makes no sense to continue along this path.
S. 2611, at a time that we are in now, facing terrorism, facing
growing problems with narcotics and gang activities in the
United States, makes no sense, and any kind of amnesty program
must not be considered at this time.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cutler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael W. Cutler
Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, members of the
subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen, it is an honor to come before this
subcommittee hearing to offer testimony on an issue is that one of the
most challenging and important issues our nation faces today. I commend
Chairman Hostettler and members of this subcommittee for demonstrating
true leadership at a time when our nation is in need of true
leadership.
The principle by which most responsible and sensible people live
their lives can be summed up by the phrase, ``Safety first.'' We
instill this principle in our children as soon as they are old enough
to understand the words. Yet, this fundamental and commonsense approach
is clearly lacking among all too many of the senators of our nation.
They voted for a bill that utterly ignores the findings and
recommendations of the 911 Commission at a time when our nation is
threatened by acts of terrorism. Nearly every week we read news
accounts of suspected terrorists being arrested in countries around the
world as well as within the borders of our own country. We see
compelling coverage of bombings of trains in Spain, England and India,
most recently. One of this country's closest allies, Israel, has been
forced to take military action to defend itself against terrorism in
the Middle East. Yet inexplicably, there are senators and others who
insist on pushing forward to implement a guest worker amnesty program
that would be utterly disastrous for national security.
USCIS, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the
agency that would be responsible for administering the proposed guest
worker amnesty program, is unable to cope with all of its
responsibilities as we speak. The GAO issued a report in March of this
year, makes it clear that USCIS is unable to carry out its vital
missions today, without the added burden that the guest worker amnesty
program would undeniably bring to bear against that overworked, under
funded and in general, inept agency. The report is entitled,
``Immigration Benefits: Additional Controls and a Sanctions Strategy
Could Enhance DHS's Ability to Control Benefit Fraud'' and can be found
at the following link:
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/gaoimmbenefits31006.pdf
I would recommend that a copy of this report be reviewed by the
members of not only this subcommittee, but by all members of our
government who favor a guest worker amnesty program.
My fear is that because we are dealing with millions of illegal
aliens who, in the parlance of the open borders advocates, are
undocumented, have no verifiable means of proving their true
identities. This means that if this program were enacted, these
millions of illegal aliens would be able to go to an immigration
office, assume any identity they found convenient and receive official
identity documents from our government. It would be a simple matter for
a terrorist or criminal, to walk into such an office, provide a false
name to the over-worked bureaucrat at USCIS who will probably be given
only a minute or two at most to interview each applicant. The terrorist
would then receive a guest-worker identity document in that new
identity that would permit him to circumvent the various terrorist
watch lists or so called, ``No fly'' lists and thereby embed himself in
our country and gain access to what are supposed to be secure venues.
Undoubtedly, these identity documents will become the most valued
breeder document enabling the bearer to receive driver's licenses,
credit cards, Social Security numbers and even library cards in a false
name, completing the process of creating new false identities at grave
risk to national security, at a time that the citizens of our country
have witnessed an erosion of many of the freedoms we have come to take
for granted.
I have heard the President often state that if our nation allowed
aliens who simply wanted to work, to do so, that law enforcement could
then focus on the terrorists. I have to respectfully disagree with this
optimistic but extremely naive assessment. Awhile back, Robert S.
Mueller, the Director of the FBI testified before the Senate
Intelligence Committee about his concerns about so-called ``sleeper''
agents. As you know, a sleeper agent is a terrorist, spy or enemy
combatant, who one way or the other succeeds in gaining entry into our
country awaiting instructions to carry out a terrorist attack or other
hostile act against our country. While awaiting his instructions, such
individuals do whatever they have to do in order to not call attention
to themselves. Many, as we have seen, get a low-profile job such as
driving an ice cream truck or a taxi cab, work at a used car lot or
attend school. Often the job they take provides them with the mobility
to move freely among us as they conduct clandestine meetings,
surveillance or other preparatory functions for the day they are called
into action. A few days before a terrorist carries out an attack he is,
in fact, likely to hide in plain sight by going to his job.
If our government makes it that much easier for a terrorist to
legally get a job under an assumed identity, then Al Qaeda should give
the people in our government who make this possible, the ``MVP Award.''
When we see commercials on television or ads in the newspapers for
various goods or services, the ad usually concludes with a disclaimer
by the provider of that product or service that details the potential
negative impact that the product may have on the consumer. With all of
the high-pressure sales pitches we have been bombarded with by members
of the United States Senate in attempting to sell their bill, S. 2611,
they have neglected to provide a disclaimer, so I will do it for them.
If we provide illegal aliens with guest worker amnesty that
differentiates how we treat aliens based on how long they have been
here, it will be virtually impossible to make certain that this, along
with all of the other provisions, will have integrity, just as it will
be impossible to make certain that many more illegal aliens don't run
our borders, stow away on ships or gain entry through ports of entry,
claiming that they have been here for the 5 years that would virtually
provide them with the ``keys to the kingdom.'' There would be no way to
force these millions of illegal aliens to leave our country because we
cannot enforce their departure today. The guest worker amnesty program
will undoubtedly entice ever increasing numbers of illegal aliens to
head for our country because this program will convince people
throughout the world that in the United States, not only will you be
permitted to break the law and get away with it, we are willing to
reward you for breaking the law by even providing you with Social
Security benefits if you commit identity theft and work, or claim to
have worked, under someone else's Social Security number, even as law
enforcement agencies across our nation are increasingly turning to
asset forfeiture strategies to combat a wide variety of crimes on the
city, state and federal level. Moreover, there is no door that can be
shut, so there is no way to keep millions of more illegal aliens from
gaining access to our country. The confidentiality provisions would
also hobble efforts by law enforcement officials to make certain that
criminal and terrorist aliens have their applications properly
scrutinized. The avalanche of applications will further erode any
effort to restore integrity to the benefits system meaning that fraud
will become even more attractive to criminal and terrorist aliens,
further encouraging more of them to seek to enter the United States and
making it easier for them to game the system to enable them to embed
themselves within our country and hide in plain sight. As it is, each
year the director of USCIS and his subordinates promise to reduce the
backlog of pending applications for a wide variety of immigration
benefits including the granting of resident alien status and the
conferring of United States citizenship upon aliens. It is common
knowledge that there is an inverse proportion between quantity and
quality. The more work you try to do in a limited period of time, the
more that the quality of the work you are doing suffers. By having
USCIS make the reduction of the backlog of pending applications the
priority, more fraud escapes detection. Consequently more aliens get
away with committing fraud, emboldening still more aliens to file more
fraudulent applications for benefits, further eroding any efforts at
quality control and fraud detection. This creates an ever-increasing
backlog and an ever-increasing spiral of fraud. In order to break this
dangerous cycle, we need to establish a clear priority of combating
fraud where those who perpetrate fraud can expect that they may well be
discovered and prosecuted. Additionally, a meaningful effort needs to
be made to locate, arrest and deport alien beneficiaries of fraudulent
applications.
Because of the current pressure to move the applications, much of
the fraud escapes detection and only a relatively infinitesimal number
of aliens are ever prosecuted or deported because they were involved in
immigration benefit fraud. A guest worker amnesty program that has the
potential of dumping millions of more applications into the hopper at
USCIS would be absolutely disastrous for any effort at combating
immigration benefit fraud and restoring even a modicum of integrity to
the immigration system and would fly in the face of recommendations of
the 911 Commission.
As all of this is going on, our valiant soldiers are fighting in
far off lands to help protect our nation against terrorists while some
of our politicians at home are seemingly unwilling to secure our nation
against the scourge of terrorism in the name of free trade and a desire
to keep our nation's borders wide open. They use deceptive language to
obfuscate the issue and, quite frankly so has the President of the
United States. I have often heard the President say that he wanted to
legalize immigrants. I am, as you know, a former INS special agent.
This combination of words, ``legalizing immigrants,'' has confounded
me. Language is important and so I think it is important to make this
point. To offer to make immigrants legal is about as meaningful as
offering to make water wet. Water is wet and immigrants, by legal
definition, are already legal. In fact, an immigrant is defined as an
alien who has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence. An
immigrant has a so-called ``green card'' and is able to travel freely
around our country and across our nation's borders. An Immigrant has
the right to work at any job he is qualified to do. An immigrant has
the right to petition the government to have his spouse join him in the
United States as an immigrant and may also do this for his (her) minor
children. Indeed, an immigrant is on the path to United States
citizenship. How much more legal would the President want to make an
immigrant?
I believe that just as the members of the Senate who voted for S.
2611 and other pro illegal alien advocates are not likely to provide a
disclaimer for their remedy to the immigration crisis confronting our
nation today, this improper and misleading use of the term immigrant
falls under the heading of ``deceptive business practices.'' By
eliminating the distinction between illegal aliens and immigrants, it
becomes a simple matter to keep hammering away at the concept that
America is the land of immigrants and that immigrants have made
immeasurable contributions to our nation over the years. I am a strong
advocate for the recognition of the contributions of immigrants to our
nation, indeed, I am the son of an immigrant; however, there is a world
of difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien.
There is scant difference between the bill the Senate recently
passed and the disastrous Amnesty of 1986, notwithstanding the
protestations of the members of the Senate who would take issue with my
position. But, if they do not want to learn the lesson of relatively
recent history where the Amnesty of 1986 is concerned, then I would
recommend that they study much more distant history and study the
strategy behind the ``Trojan Horse.'' Only a fool would permit
strangers into his home without knowing their true identity or purpose
for seeking to enter. Yet, this is precisely what S. 2611 facilitates.
In these perilous times, this is not acceptable and must not be
allowed.
In support of my concerns about the failings of USCIS I
respectfully request that a copy of the GAO report I cited previously
be attached to this testimony along with a press release prepared by
USCIS dated June 29, 2006, entitled, ``A Day in the Life of USCIS''
that details the myriad tasks that are performed on a daily basis now,
before they might have to deal with the onslaught of millions of
amnesty applications that the Senate bill would cause. I have attached
a copy of that press release to my prepared testimony and believe it
provides ample evidence of just how USCIS is over-extended, even
without the guest worker amnesty program it would be mandated to
administer under the provisions of S. 2611. It may be found at the
following website:
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/gaoimmbenefits31006.pdf
Simply stated, a guest worker amnesty program would not only
attract even more illegal aliens into our country enabling terrorists
and criminals to more easily blend into our country, it would also
provide unknown aliens with official identity documents in assumed
identities that would enable the terrorists and criminals with an easy
means of creating new identities they could use to travel freely across
our borders, around our nation and gain access to secure venues and
embed themselves in our country. This would, I fear, create a grave
risk to our nation's security.
I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Cutler.
Bishop DiMarzio, you are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF NICHOLAS DiMARZIO, BISHOP OF BROOKLYN
Bishop DiMarzio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members, for
this opportunity to testify today.
I have to disagree with one of my former panelists, because
I don't think the Catholic Church is part of the open border
lobby. I do agree with another who said that we already have a
nightmare here, a security nightmare, because we have an untold
number of undocumented aliens in this country. That is a grave
security problem.
The Catholic Church has long experience in working with
immigrant populations. In our Catholic Legal Immigration
Network, we have 158 agencies that do offer legal services.
They are all BIA accredited. And so we, too, wish to make
people legal in this country, and we respect the immigration
laws, and we also respect the right of nations to protect their
borders.
There is no question that we have not done a good of
protecting our borders, but I would contend that the problem,
as well as being a border issue, is a labor market issue. The
problem is in the labor market as much as it is at the border.
We need to deal with it in a comprehensive way to deal with
all of the issues so that we can have security. It is obviously
our goal, and background checks, as we have heard already, are
critical. I think with the new information technology we have,
if we have a will to find a way to make background checks
better, I am sure we can do that.
We must be sure also to give adequate resources to
implement the program. In the last amnesty, of which I think I
am a survivor, I was here in 1986, worked with Congress, was
running the Catholic Church's implementation program, we needed
to have perhaps a better relationship with the Immigration
Service at the time.
I hope that USCIS in this time, if we are able to bring
some program of legalization around, will have a better
relationship with us called, the qualified designated agencies,
which helped the Immigration Service at that time to process
all these applications.
Obviously, fraud is a major concern. The Catholic Church
does not stand for fraud. We, in our application process, made
very effort to make sure that any application process by us was
certainly legal and had the proper documentation. That is where
the qualified entities can be of great assistance to the
Immigration Service in doing that work.
I think also, as we look to the--there are certain
qualifications that we need in a program as we are finding it.
In order to deal with the security issue, we have to be in a
comprehensive approach to dealing with all of the factors that
influence undocumented immigration.
I just finished a term as the commissioner for the Global
Commission International Migration, a U.N.-inspired body, that
will bring its report to the United Nations this September.
What is clear in the many hearings we had around the world that
undocumented migration is an international problem.
But only with international cooperation can we ever hope to
resolve this problem. We need to work with the nations from
which these people come to deal with the issue in an upfront
and enlightened manner so that we can stem the flow of
unregulated migration, which is good neither for the people nor
for the countries from which they come or to which they come.
We are clear that that is our policy.
I think also we need to look at the opportunities that this
presents. This program characterizes that amnesty is probably
more a legalization program. There are rather onerous burdens
that have to be passed in order for this to happen. I urge the
House to work with the Senate to improve the bill so that it is
something that is comprehensive, something that will aim at
security, which is a paramount question in our society today so
that we can have an immigration system that works.
We need immigrants in our country. It seems our labor
market needs them, but we have to find a way we can bring them
here legally without any of the external problems that have
plagued us in the past. If the law is broken, we must fix it.
And, certainly, when we fix it, we must do it in the right way,
and I am sure that with the expertise of Congress that this can
be done.
So thank you for this opportunity to speak today.
[The prepared statement of Bishop DiMarzio follows:]
Prepared Statement of Most Reverend Nicholas DiMarzio
I am Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, bishop of Brooklyn, chairman of the
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), and a consultant to
the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' (USCCB) Committee on
Migration. I would like to thank subcommittee Chairman John Hostetler
(R-IN) and Ranking Member Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) for having me today
to testify before the subcommittee.
Today, I would like to concentrate my testimony in the following
areas:
elements necessary to correct inefficiencies which
occurred in implementing the 1986 Immigration Reform and
Control Act (IRCA)--the last legalization program--and to
ensure efficient processing of applications for any
legalization enacted this year;
the value of a comprehensive approach to immigration
reform as an antidote to the immigration crisis we face in our
country today, including how such an approach is consistent
with, and beneficial to, national security goals; and
elements of H.R. 4437 which we find problematic
because they harm legal immigrants, refugees, and asylum-
seekers.
the role of the catholic church in immigration reform
The Catholic Church has a long history of involvement in the
immigration issue, both in the advocacy arena and in welcoming and
assimilating waves of immigrants and refugees who have helped build our
nation throughout her history. Many Catholic immigration programs were
involved in the implementation of IRCA in the 1980s and continue to
work with immigrants today. In fact, the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops (USCCB) was a national coordinating agency for the
implementation of IRCA. We have a strong working relationship with the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and with U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that would be largely
responsible for implementing any new legalization and temporary worker
programs. There are currently 158 Catholic immigration programs
throughout the country under the auspices of the U.S. bishops.
Our experience in working with immigrants throughout the years
compels us to speak out on the issue of immigration reform, which we
believe is a moral issue which impacts the human rights and human life
of the person. The Church's work in assisting migrants stems from the
belief that every person is created in God's image. In the Old
Testament, God calls upon his people to care for the alien because of
their own alien experience; ``So, you, too, must befriend the alien,
for you were once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt'' (Deut.
10:17-19). In the New Testament, the image of the migrants is grounded
in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. In his own life and work,
Jesus identified himself with newcomers and with other marginalized
persons in a special way; ``I was a stranger and you welcomed me'' (Mt.
25:35). Jesus himself was an itinerant preacher without a home of his
own as well as a refugee fleeing the terror of Herod. (Mt. 2:15).
In modern times, popes over the last hundred years have developed
the Church's teaching on migration. Pope Pius XII reaffirmed the
Church's commitment to caring for pilgrims, aliens, exiles, and
migrants of every kind, affirming that all people have the right to
conditions worthy of human life and, if these conditions are not
present, the right to migrate.\1\ Pope John Paul II stated that there
is a need to balance the rights of nations to control their borders
with basic human rights, including the right to work; ``Interdependence
must be transformed into solidarity based upon the principle that the
goods of creation are meant for all.'' \2\ In his pastoral statement,
Ecclesia in America, John Paul II reaffirmed the rights of migrants and
their families and the need for respecting human dignity, ``even in
cases of unauthorized migration.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pope Pius XII, Exsul Familia (On the Spiritual Care of
Migrants) September, 1952.
\2\ Pope John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rel Socialis (On Social Concern)
No. 39.
\3\ Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia in America (The Church in America)
January 22, 1999, No. 65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an address to the faithful on June 5, 2005, His Holiness Pope
Benedict XVI referenced migration and migrant families; ``. . . my
thoughts go to those who are far from their homeland and often also
from their families; I hope that they will always meet receptive
friends and hearts on their path who are capable of supporting them in
the difficulties of the day.''
In the pastoral letter Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey
of Hope, the United States and Mexican bishops point out why we speak
on the migration issue; ``As pastors, we witness the consequences of a
failed system every day in the eyes of migrants who come to our parish
doors in search of assistance. We are shepherds to communities, both
along the border and in the interior of the nation, which are impacted
by immigration. Most tragically, we witness the loss of life at points
along our southern border when migrants, desperate to find employment
to support themselves and their families, perish in the desert.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope. A
Pastoral Letter Concerning Migration from the Catholic Bishops of
Mexico and the United States. January 23, 2003, No. 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, the Catholic Church holds a strong interest in
the welfare of immigrants and how our nation welcomes newcomers from
all lands. The current immigration system, which can lead to family
separation, suffering, and even death, is morally unacceptable and must
be reformed.
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM
As the then Director of the U.S. Catholic Conference's Migration
and Refugee Services (MRS), I oversaw the Catholic Church's
participation in programs to assist the millions of aliens who applied
for immigration benefits under IRCA. Since that time, I was appointed a
bishop by the Holy Father, where I now head the diocese of Brooklyn,
one of the largest and most diverse dioceses in the country.
From my position as a bishop, not only do I minister to a diocese
that has within it many immigrants, I also serve as Chairman of Board
of Directors for the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC),
which advises and provides immigration services for dioceses all around
the country.
My time with MRS, my experience as a bishop, and the research that
the Church has conducted over the last several decades lead me to
conclude that it is possible to establish a program to permit deserving
undocumented aliens to apply for earned legalization without crippling
the process of adjudicating other applicants for immigration benefits
or jeopardizing our national security. In order to do this, however,
Congress will have to provide a number of things:
Adequate Resources
Proper Planning Before Implementation
Establishment of a Separate Entity within USCIS to
Implement the Bill
The Use of Qualified Designated Entities
Rigorous Background Checks
These five elements are a subset of a larger list of necessities
that I outline later in my testimony. However, because the subject of
today's hearing is the question of the adequacy of an already over-
burdened USCIS to process applications for legalization, I will set out
those factors at this point in my testimony.
ADEQUATE RESOURCES
It will be essential that Congress provide adequate resources for
DHS to implement and execute any earned adjustment program. As passed
by the Senate, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA) of 2006
anticipates this by establishing fees that will generate approximately
66 billion dollars of revenue dedicated to processing applications for
earned adjustment.
The fee-generated funds, alone, will not be adequate, however.
Congress will also need to directly appropriate funds to get the
program started. And it will need to be vigilant to ensure that fee-
generated funds are not diverted for other purposes, as has often been
done in the past
While some may quarrel with the use of appropriated funds for this
purpose, I would suggest that the alternative would likely require the
expenditure of far more funds and yield a less desirable result.
Imagine how much it would cost to apprehend, detain, and deport the
estimated 12 million aliens who are in the United States illegally? The
cost of properly implementing an earned adjustment program is tiny when
compared to the cost of the alternative approach.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that any comprehensive legislation can be
implemented through reasonable fees imposed on applicants and with some
supplemental funding appropriated by Congress. Fees should not be
imposed, however, which place the program out of the reach of qualified
applicants.
Proper Planning Before Implementation/Reasonable Enactment Period:
Sufficient time should be given between enactment and implementation so
that regulations, procedures, and infrastructure are in place.
Deportations of prospective applicants who qualify should be suspended
between the two dates. However, Congress should mandate an expedited
rulemaking process so that the program is not delayed significantly. If
key issues are not resolved at the program's outset, inefficiencies and
litigation will occur. The application period for the program should
last at least one year so that all qualified applicants can raise the
application fee and apply for the program.
Rigorous Background Checks and Security Clearance Procedures: Given
the terrorist threat, any program will lack credibility and support if
it does not a ``good moral character'' requirement and rigorous
identity and security clearance procedures. Steps must be taken,
however, that persons are not denied eligibility based on appearance or
demeanor, and that sufficient checks and balances are in place to
ensure that no one who qualifies is unjustly denied from the program.
Establishment of a Separate Entity within USCIS to implement the
bill: A separate entity, similar to the asylum corps, should be created
within USCIS to implement legislation; such an entity should be
adequately funded through appropriations. A program that attempted to
operate through existing systems would worsen the backlog and customer
service problems that have plagued DHS in the past.
The Use of Qualified Designated Entities: Qualified designated
entities (QDEs) which are Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)--
recognized should be created to assist in implementation of any new
program. QDEs play a crucial role in public education, outreach,
convincing applicants to come forward, preparing strong applications,
and liaising with the government.
Mr. Chairman, these elements are crucial to the successful
implementation of comprehensive immigration reform legislation. Other
important elements should also be included in any final measure:
Operational Terms: Operational terms in the bill, such as
``continuous residence,'' ``known to the government,'' and other
important eligibility criteria should be specifically defined to avoid
delays and to eliminate confusion. The lack of a precise definition of
these terms caused many cases to languish in 1986.
Generous Evidentiary Standards: Evidentiary standards should be
based upon ``preponderance of evidence'' and should include a wide
range of proof, since migrants do not often create a paper trail. This
would allow the maximum number of persons to participate in the
program.
Broad Humanitarian Waiver: A broad humanitarian waiver of bars to
admissibility, such as unlawful presence, fraud, or other minor
offenses is necessary. See refugee waiver (INA 209c) or NACARA waiver.
Confidentiality: Applicants for either the legalization program or
temporary worker program should be extended confidentiality and not be
subjected to deportation or arrest if they do not qualify. Such
confidentiality should be preserved unless criminal issues are raised
that are not associated with undocumented status. Without this
assurance, it is likely that many persons would not come forward and
the goals of the program would not be achieved.
Derivative Benefits: Immediate family members should receive the
same benefits under legalization/temporary worker program as the
worker. This would keep families together and minimize fraudulent
applications from family members desperate to remain with their loved
one.
THE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM
Mr. Chairman, we believe that the best way to secure our borders
and to ensure that our immigration laws are just and humane is to enact
comprehensive immigration reform legislation.
Since 1993, when the U.S. Border Patrol initiated a series of
enforcement initiatives along our southern border to stem the flow of
undocumented migrants, Congress has appropriated and the federal
government spent about $25 billion on border enforcement, tripling the
number of Border Patrol agents and introducing technology and fencing
along the border. During the same period, as Congress has enacted one
enforcement-only measure after another, the number of undocumented in
the country has more than doubled and, tragically, nearly 3,000
migrants have perished in the desert of the United States. It is clear
that another approach is necessary.
Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Catholic bishops believe that any
comprehensive immigration reform bill should contain the following
elements:
policies which address the root causes of migration,
such as the lack of sustainable development in sending nations;
a legalization program which gives migrant workers
and their families an opportunity to earn legal permanent
residency;
a temporary worker program which protects the labor
rights of both U.S. and foreign workers;
reform of our family-based immigration system to
reduce waiting times for family reunification; and
restoration of due process protections for
immigrants.
As you know, the U.S. Senate passed the Comprehensive Immigration
Reform Act (CIRA) of 2006, which contains many of the elements the
Catholic Bishops believe are necessary to comprehensively reform our
flawed immigration system. Although it does not contain all the
elements the U.S. bishops would like to see in legislation, it is the
right approach and direction our country should be taking in tackling
the problem of illegal immigration. In our view, an enforcement-only
approach to immigration reform will not address the need for legal
avenues for future flows of immigrants to come to the United States to
work or join family members, nor would it address the plight of 11-12
million undocumented in the nation. We encourage you to work with your
Senate colleagues to produce a bill which encompasses the elements
outlined above.
I would like to say upfront, Mr. Chairman, that we are wary of
recent suggestions that the Senate-passed bill's legalization,
temporary worker, or immigrant visa provisions be modified in a way
that would delay their implementation or subject them to subjective
``triggers.'' We believe that any bill which Congress enacts should not
only be comprehensive in nature, but must be implemented in a carefully
calibrated manner. Indeed, we note that the Senate-passed already
contains a number of mechanisms designed to ensure proper
implementation of the legislation. We firmly believe, however, that
Congress should not enact into law a scheme that would require further
congressional action before implementation of the legalization,
temporary worker, or immigrant visa provisions or subject those
provisions to ``triggers'' that are vulnerable to the vicissitudes of
political pressures, rather than objective measurements of what is
necessary in order to properly implement the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to concentrate at this point in my
testimony on how the enactment of comprehensive immigration reform
would enhance, not undermine, our ability to protect the nation from
terrorist threats. The overriding principle which supports this view is
that by enacting comprehensive immigration reform, we would better be
able to identify who is already in the country and to identify and
control who enters it. By enacting a program which provides an earned
path to citizenship, for example, a far greater portion of the 11-12
million undocumented persons in the nation likely would emerge ``from
the shadows'' and identify themselves to the government. The
establishment of additional employment and family-based visas for low-
skilled workers and their families would provide legal avenues for
those seeking to enter the United States, helping to better ensure that
the government knows who is entering the country and for what purpose.
The current reality is that our government is unaware of the identities
of the overwhelming majority of the 11-12 million undocumented who are
in the United States and unable to monitor efficiently those who cross
the border illegally.
Mr. Chairman, I am not alone in this assessment. I would like to
submit for the record, with your permission, a statement from nine
former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials who agree that
the best way to secure our borders is to enact comprehensive
immigration reform legislation. In their letter, they write, ``. . .
enforcement alone will not do the job of securing our borders.
Enforcement at the border will only be successful in the long-term if
it is coupled with a more sensible approach to the 10-12 million
illegal aliens in the country today and the many more who will attempt
to migrate to the United States for economic reasons.''
In addition, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)
recently completed a study on national security and immigration policy.
As part of that study, CLINIC staff interviewed a wide range of
counter-terrorism experts in order to examine what the United States
must do to reduce the threat of terrorism and how immigration policy
and U.S. immigration system fits into an overall security strategy. The
study provided several policy recommendations to enhance national
security through the U.S. immigration system, including the enactment
of comprehensive immigration reform.
First, in our view and the view of these experts,
national security should not simply be equated with protection
from physical attack. It also entails protecting our economic
and political interests; immigration policies should not deny
us access to the global economy. Policies which attempt to
prosecute, jail, and deport 7.2 million undocumented workers--
five percent of the U.S. workforce--do not protect our economic
security and weaken us. Policies which would separate 10
percent of U.S. families by deporting their undocumented family
members undermine our values.
Second, we should better assess the effectiveness of
immigration policies as a deterrent to terrorists. Does a
certain immigration policy relate to a legitimate national
security goal? For example, we do not believe that the summary
return of asylum-seekers, the indefinite detention of
immigrants, or the removal of due process protections
necessarily make us safer, but they certainly have the effect
of impinging on civil rights and undermining the fairness of
our laws.
Third, our immigration policies should help our
relationship with immigration communities, not alienate them.
The United States should be able to identify and run background
checks on non-citizens, but is unable to do so if these non-
citizens feel safer underground. Enabling state and local law
enforcement to enforce immigration laws also has the effect of
alienating major immigrant communities and reducing our ability
to identify and prosecute smugglers, traffickers, and would-be
terrorists.
Fourth, comprehensive immigration reform should make
our nation safer, not less safe. By bringing 11-12 million
undocumented persons ``out of the shadows,'' we can identify
who they are, where they live, and with whom they may be
affiliated. By creating legal avenues for migration, we are
better able to control who is coming into the country and for
what purpose.
Finally, we must implement a policy of assimilation
of immigrants to make us more secure. As we have seen in other
nations, such as France and England, the lack of integration
policies have led to violence and unrest. We also need to
assimilate in order to ensure our economic stability, so that
new workers may advance and develop in their skills.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear that national security is not just about
keeping those who harm us out of our country, but about keeping those
who help us in and allowing others who want to help us to enter.
Comprehensive immigration reform will help us achieve this goal
the immigration reform debate and h.r. 4437
As you know, in December 2005, the House of Representatives passed
H.R. 4437, the Border Security, Anti-Terrorism, and Illegal Immigration
Control Act of 2005. While the U.S. bishops appreciate the need to
secure the nation's borders and believe that passage of a House bill
was a necessary first step to begin the immigration debate, the USCCB
opposes H.R. 4437 because we believe it is overly punitive, too
narrowly focused and would cause harm to legal immigrants, asylum-
seekers, refugees, and the nation. We strongly believe that an
enforcement-only approach will not solve the problem of illegal
immigration, but could exacerbate it by driving migrants further
underground and into the hands of unscrupulous smugglers. Mr. Chairman,
with your permission I would like to submit a copy of correspondence
opposing the legislation, dated December 14, 2005, to all members of
the House of Representatives from Most Reverend Gerald R. Barnes,
bishop of San Bernardino and chairman of the USCCB Committee on
Migration.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that, despite the opposition of the USCCB
to H.R. 4437, we are not opposed to all aspects of the bill. Steps
taken in Title I, for example, to increase resources for border
security are necessary to ensure security for our country. We also
appreciate the leadership of the House of Representatives in launching
the immigration debate, which, although contentious, is necessary for
the betterment of our communities.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight some of the major
provisions of H.R. 4437 which we find problematic and which we believe
would undermine the fairness of our immigration laws without
necessarily making our nation safer.
Criminalization of Undocumented Presence. As you know, Mr.
Chairman, Section 203 of H.R. 4437 would make undocumented presence in
the country a criminal offense and a felony, subject to at least one
year of jail time. While the authors of H.R. 4437 have indicated their
willingness to reduce the nature of the offense to a misdemeanor rather
than a felony, we believe that this provision would unjustly and
unwisely make undocumented immigrants--especially those who are here
presently--criminals and would not serve the best interests of our
nation. It is well established that the large majority of immigrants
who come to this nation do so to work to support themselves and their
families. Indeed, over eighty percent of the undocumented population in
this nation is involved in either a part-time or full-time employment.
They benefit our nation in terms of the taxes they pay and the work
they perform. Instead of criminalizing these persons, we should permit
those who are deserving to earn a legal status so they can come forward
and contribute to our nation without fear.
Criminalization of those who ``assist'' undocumented persons.
Section 202 of H.R. 4437 would expose to felony prosecution anyone who
``assists'' an undocumented person or provides assistance that permits
an undocumented alien to ``remain in the United States,'' knowingly or
in reckless disregard to whether a person was in the country illegally.
In our view, Section 202 goes well beyond the scope of addressing alien
smuggling and has the great potential to implicate many good Samaritans
under the broadened definition of smuggling, including church
personnel. For example, under Section 202, a church group or priest
that provides food aid, shelter, emergency medical care or other forms
of assistance to an individual could be imprisoned and risk forfeiture
of their assets for ``assisting'' an undocumented person. Certainly
alien smuggling and trafficking for profit or commercial gain are
activities that need to be sanctioned. Existing law already provides
for harsh penalties for such behavior. However, H.R. 4437 goes far
beyond increasing penalties for these heinous activities. Instead, it
would jeopardize millions of Americans--neighbors, family members,
faith institutions, and others--who live and work with undocumented
immigrants.
Criminalization of Passport or Visa Fraud. Section 213 would make
a variety of forms of passport, visa, and immigration fraud criminal
offenses, making even one such instance punishable by more than a year
in prison, and, thus, making them aggravated felonies that would render
persons so convicted inadmissible and ineligible for any immigration
benefit. Although no one supports passport or visa fraud, distinctions
should be made for those who engage in it for nefarious purposes and
desperate refugees who are fleeing persecution. Often times, refugees
must fabricate documents to escape persecution because they cannot
obtain valid ones from the authorities persecuting them. Not only would
this section render legitimate refugees ineligible for relief because
of the means they had to use to escape their persecutors, it also would
jeopardize battered women and children acting under the direction,
force, or coercion of a parent, guardian, smuggler, or trafficker.
Mandatory Detention for Undocumented Aliens Apprehended at or
Between Ports of Entry. Section 401 would require the mandatory
detention of an alien apprehended at a U.S. port of entry or along an
international land or maritime border of the United States. We are
concerned that this provision is so overly broad that persons who are
in the country legally and vulnerable populations will be harmed, such
as U.S. citizens without proper documentation, legal permanent
residents, asylum-seekers who are not in expedited removal and have a
credible fear of persecution, unaccompanied children, and trafficking
victims. It also would add additional stress to our overly burdened
detention system, leading to increased use of local jails and the
commingling of non-violent offenders with violent ones as well as the
separation of families.
Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws by State and Local
Authorities. Sections 220-222 would grant broad authorization to state
and local law enforcement authorities to enforce federal immigration
laws. We reject the premise in these sections that all persons
suspected of being undocumented immigrants should be rounded up by
state and local police agents. State and local law enforcement
authorities have many serious concerns on their hands, such as
protecting our communities from violent criminals. If these provisions
are enacted into law, we fear that immigrant communities would no
longer trust local police to protect them or to share with them
important information about crime in their neighborhoods. We also are
fearful that massive-scale enforcement of civil immigration laws by
ill-trained state and local police officials will result in inadvertent
deprivations of even citizens' and lawful permanent residents' civil
and constitutional rights.
Expedited Removal. Section 407 would expand and mandate the use of
expedited removal with respect suspected illegal aliens who are not
nationals of Canada, Mexico, or Cuba and who are apprehended within 100
miles of a U.S. international land border, within 14 days of entry. We
are concerned that bona fide asylum seekers would be harmed by this
provision, since in many instances Border Patrol agents, untrained in
the finer details of asylum law, will be making life and death
decisions for individuals.
Indefinite Detention of Individuals who cannot be returned to their
country. Section 602 would permit the indefinite detention of certain
aliens who cannot be removed to their country of nationality. As you
know, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that a person can only be held
for a period reasonably necessary to effectuate removal, and found six
months to be reasonable. Holding a person longer than the period of
their penalty violates basic human rights.
Creation of 700 miles of Fencing. H.R. 4437 would mandate the
construction of 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. We
do not believe that the erection of such a wall would address the
underlying causes of migration and would not deter desperate migrants
from attempting to enter the nation. It could lead, however, to an
increase in smuggling networks and to more dangerous attempts to enter
the country, increasing the number of migrant deaths. As I explained
earlier in my testimony, Mr. Chairman, we believe that the adoption of
comprehensive immigration reform will help ease the pressure along our
southern border.
Elimination of Diversity Visa Program. Section 1102 would
eliminate the Diversity Visa program, created in 1990 to give foreign
nationals of nations without a high volume of immigrants an opportunity
to immigrate to the United States. This program has been successful in
bringing in a diverse number of individuals who have at least a high
school education and some job training. Given the new security checks
for those entering the country, we see no justification for the
elimination of this program.
Mr. Chairman, these are some of the provisions in H.R. 4437 which
cause us grave concern, although they do not represent the totality of
our concerns. We hope we can work with you and your staff in the days
and months ahead to ameliorate these provisions and work toward a just
comprehensive immigration reform package.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for inviting me to testify
before your subcommittee today. Our nation stands at an important time
in her history, when we need to remain vigilant against outside threats
without sacrificing values which we hold dear--justice, fairness, and
opportunity. We must honor and continue our history as an open and
democratic society which values hard work and the contributions of
immigrants. As soon as possible, I ask that you work with your Senate
colleagues to fashion a comprehensive immigration bill which is just,
humane, and provides for the security needs of our country.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Bishop.
At this time, we will turn to questions from Members of the
Subcommittee.
First of all, Mr. Gadiel, you concluded your statement that
we must enforce our immigration laws. Is it your understanding,
having studied, I am sure very closely, the work of the 9/11
Commission, is it your understanding that if immigration laws
that were in place prior to September 11, 2001 would have been
aggressively enforced, that the plan that led to the tragic
events of September 11 could have been derailed?
Mr. Gadiel. I think there is no doubt of that. The 9/11
Commission report, in great detail, described how the consular
officials in Saudi Arabia granted visas to people who were
clearly ineligible and should have had secondary inspection and
their applications were defective on their face or had missing
answers. And every one of them is a young, single male from
terror-sponsoring nations, and not one of them was eligible,
not one.
But the reason the State Department issued these visas was
because they are pressured by the open borders lobby to let
more people in. The travel industry wants to sell more airline
tickets, the college industry wants to sell more seats, and the
high-tech industry wants more cheap labor. And so there is this
enormous pressure, and that is why we don't enforce their laws.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
Supporters of the Senate's amnesty bill have argued that
the bill will actually enhance our national security by
bringing illegal aliens out of the shadow, as they say. Do you
agree with that?
Mr. Gadiel. Well, Mohamed Atta had a driver's license and
he was out of the shadows, and I don't know what good that did
us on 9/11. And what this does is it allows people who are
terrorists to, when they get their American citizenship, to
adopt a new name, which, in effect, wipes them off of the
terrorist watch list. They can adopt a new name. They go back
to their own country they are not even known by that name
anymore.
It gives the veneer of legitimacy to anybody no matter how
dangerous that person is. If we had given--we almost did give
citizenship, in a sense, because of the open access and process
in this country, but if we had given him citizenship, it would
have been even more of a privilege for him.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
Mr. Maxwell, in your testimony, you state that USCIS has
``a customer service mentality that invariably trumps national
security concerns.'' You also state that high-ranking
immigration officials have termed immigration ``a right rather
than a privilege.''
What effect would these attitudes that are there today have
on USCIS's ability to screen applications under S. 2611 for
national security risks?
Mr. Maxwell. This attitude is really a carryover from the
INS days. It simply transferred from INS into CIS as DHS was
created. And despite calls from Director Gonzalez that national
security is the forefront for his agency, once you leave
Washington, D.C., the pressure of backlog elimination that
currently exists within USCIS simply forces managers in the
field to push applications forward at the expense of national
security. They have to meet the mandate of backlog elimination.
S. 2611 will just continue to put pressure on the managers
in the field. And so what they will do is they will continue to
develop programs in the field despite calls from senior
leadership at headquarters so that they can meet the mandate of
Congress, and national security will suffer. They will simply
cheat the system so that they can push benefits through the
system.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
Mr. Cutler, you are a former INS examiner. How difficult
would it be to verify that an illegal alien has resided in the
United States for a given period of time, say, 5 years?
Mr. Cutler. It would be difficult with the resources that
are there, because we keep hearing about background checks. A
background check is not the same thing as a field
investigation. All a background check means is you run
fingerprints and a name that the person put on their
application. A proper investigation would require agents to go
out, knock on doors, show photographs, interview people. It is
an arduous task. It might take days per application.
If you are dealing with millions of applications and you
are dealing with a workforce of a couple of thousand agents,
the numbers don't add up. It would take many, many years to
even begin to get a handle on it, and meanwhile with the open
borders that we have and with the Visa Waiver Program that we
have, we are being inundated by aliens on a daily basis and we
would be getting inundated with applications.
In fact, I think in 1986 the original estimate was that
there would be about a million to a million and a half aliens
applying for amnesty. When the final numbers were in, I believe
the actual number of applications that had been approved was
more than 3.5 million. Partially, they may have been
undercounting, but I also believe that we had aliens who
entered the United States after the program actually began to
give amnesty and people successfully claimed to have been here
for the requisite number of years in order to qualify.
And I think that with the lack of resources and the much
greater number of potential applicants today, there is just
absolutely no way that this system would have even a shred of
integrity.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
Mr. Maxwell, how many contract workers does USCIS currently
have?
Mr. Maxwell. They have approximately 7,500 contractor
workers on the books now.
Mr. Hostettler. Will USCIS need to hire additional contract
workers to adjudicate the applications under S. 2611?
Mr. Maxwell. They would have to hire more contract workers.
Just prior to my resignation in February, discussions were they
would hire between 7,500 and 10,000 additional employees, most
of that outsourced to contract employees.
Mr. Hostettler. For just----
Mr. Maxwell. Just to handle what at that point was called
the Temporary Worker Program.
Mr. Hostettler. Very good.
What would be the ramifications for national security and
public safety by allowing contract workers to adjudicate
amnesty applications?
Mr. Maxwell. Really, the answer to that is a two-pronged
answer, and it really raises some grave concerns for national
security. At the time, I was involved in planning for the
Temporary Worker Program, as it was called then. There was
discussion that the contract employees would not undergo a full
background investigation and would still be given access to
sensitive law enforcement databases to vet the alien
applicants, which raised some grave concerns, because at the
same time we had just convicted a contract employee for
accessing those sensitive law enforcement databases and
releasing sensitive law enforcement information to a criminal
who was being investigated by the Drug Enforcement
Administration.
So without thoroughly vetting those contract employees and
giving them access to terrorist watch list, obviously connect
the dots, we are not sure who we are giving access to these
terrorist databases and can they be co-opted by foreign
intelligence, by terrorist groups, by criminal organizations?
Absolutely.
Mr. Hostettler. Can they be planted?
Mr. Maxwell. Can they be planted? Absolutely. That was one
concern that we raised, and our recommendation was that all
contract employees, all Federal employees undergo a full
background investigation which would be at great expense,
obviously, before they be given access to these sensitive law
enforcement databases.
The second part of the equation was hiring this second
workforce for USCIS to conduct background investigations on the
alien applicants, that the background investigation process
itself is flawed.
As the inspector general recently reported, 45,000 aliens
from high-risk nations, state sponsors of terrorism, have been
released into the general population since 2001 because the
background check process itself is flawed.
We simply cannot verify the backgrounds, the identities,
the countries of origins of everybody who comes through the
system. We just don't know who they are. We are essentially
giving these people new identities, releasing them into the
country even though they are coming to us from countries that
sponsor terrorism. So it really does present a grave national
security risk.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson
Lee, for questions.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman very much.
In a better day, I would like to be in a conference right
now really ironing out, I think, the concerns that have been
articulately expressed really over and over again by so many. I
do want to acknowledge that we appreciate the witnesses who are
here and the very diverse testimony that comes forward.
And I do want to acknowledge and express again the sympathy
to Mr. Gadiel and also raise a question with you.
If we are trying to fix what is a broken system, and might
I say that it is broken both in terms of the legal system and
an undocumented system, we have to fix both, along with border
security, one of the elements that has been crucial is to get
the men and women on the front lines well prepared.
I believe you had an opportunity to review H.R. 4044 that
talked about my legislation giving equipment to the Border
Patrol, border security. Is that a good place to start along
with some of the other issues that we are discussing and to
include the northern border where we provide the night goggles,
the power boats, the computers, the training, technology for
trained Border Patrol agents?
We know statistically that Border Patrol agents, by the few
numbers that they have now, have stopped about $1.7 million
from coming across the border. Just imagine if they had the
equipment and the staffing, training the kind of effective tool
they would be.
Is that an important step for Congress to make and fund to
its maximum what they need to provide those kinds of resources?
Mr. Gadiel. Absolutely, without question. I think it is
quite obvious and logical that the more people that are on the
borders, patrolling the borders and the better equipment they
have, the more people we will stop. And, certainly, the
northern border is not something that can be ignored at all. I
agree with you 100 percent on that.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, I appreciate your support of my
legislation, and I look forward to trying to pursue this very
point.
I do want to go to Bishop DiMarzio and thank you so very
much, because before us we have just recently announced the
Pence-Hutchison bill, and I take to heart Mr. Maxwell's
comments. I think it would be an outright outrage to talk
about, if you will, contracting out security data.
But one of the failures of the IRCA, and if you might share
why we failed at IRCA, because you were actively involved in
helping or hoping to make it work. We failed in IRCA, [one],
because we shortchanged the funding, we shortchanged the
partnership, we didn't do employer sanctions. But here you are
today.
We are all recognizing that we have 12 million
undocumented, hardworking, taxpaying individuals who simply
want an economic opportunity. And the Pence-Hutchison bill that
talks about report to deport is frivolous and foolish.
So tell us how we can make IRCA work and how nonprofits who
understand that we do have a system of laws and a system of
immigrants, and we don't want to violate laws, we want to deal
with the large humanity that we have and really stop ignoring
the challenges before us. And that is, of course, to gain
control of the border, to conduct workforce enforcement and
certainly not skimp on the dollars.
How can we make this an effective implementation, say, for
example, of a conference report that would take a large part
from the Senate bill?
Bishop DiMarzio. I think again from the experience of the
last time, there were failures, but there were a lot of
successes. An overwhelming amount of good citizens have been
added to this country, and I think that is what we have to look
at, the success that has happened there.
I think the paradigm has to be changed. I think in the past
we had an adversarial relationship between the INS and the
entities that were designated by Congress to assist them. They
knew that they could not do the job by themselves. They need to
set up, obviously, USCIS, a separate unit, and they could never
add it to the present unit. And I think we have got to look at
in the past IRCA was talked about as kind of a tripod, looking
at enforcement, the legalization issue and the workplace
enforcement, the border enforcement and workforce enforcement.
I think those same elements still need to be addressed.
The workforce enforcement, talking about employer
sanctions, isn't sufficient, because most employers are on it.
They check what they are given and it is not adequate. We need
to have a secure way in which employers can be sure that they
are hiring workers that are authorized for employment. And that
is something that needs to go contemporaneously with securing
the border, while at the same time giving legalization to the
people that are already here.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And how can nonprofits be helpful in this
process, short of the component of the Pence bill, which is to
contract out Government's work? But you can be effective in
helping to make sure this actually works properly.
Bishop DiMarzio. I think there is a network across the
country of nonprofits that are looking to assist people, assist
the Government, assist the country in making sure that the
legalization process is legal and that it is expeditiously
carried out. So I think the network is available.
I think we are a self-correcting system in our country; we
can improve things. If we see that something is wrong, that is
our greatest asset. We have been able to change and to improve,
and think what we have learned from the past, and there has
been several analyses. We can make sure that those problems
don't reoccur and that we design a system that is even more
effective.
Mr. Hostettler. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa for 5 minutes
for questions.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank the witnesses as well, and I
appreciate your continued involvement in this issue.
To sit here and listen, one of the things that occurs to
me, and I think I direct my first question to Mr. Maxwell, is
that the concept of processing millions of people through a
background check or background test and the first foundation of
that would be, what information, what identification documents
would they bring to the table for that background check?
And let's presume that since the majority are from Mexico,
let's just talk specifically of Mexicans as a standard, do you
know what percentage of Mexican citizens have a legitimate
document that identifies who they are? What percentage gets
birth certificates at birth and that tracks them through life,
for example?
Mr. Maxwell. I don't know specifically, sir, what
percentage have legitimate documents. I do know, however, that
the Castorena cartel in Mexico is the largest organized crime
family dealing specifically in counterfeit documents in Mexico,
operates in 50 cities in the United States. It is a $300
million a year counterfeit document trade here in the United
States. They can produce counterfeit documents with embedded
biometrics, documents that can fool law enforcement upon visual
inspection.
Mr. King. So if you were going to verify, you would have to
go back and verify at the place of birth.
Mr. Maxwell. Absolutely.
Mr. King. And that is the only way that one could actually
do that legitimately.
Mr. Maxwell. Absolutely.
Mr. King. And that concurs with a constituent I have when I
asked him that question, and he is from Mexico and a good legal
resident and a good business person in my district, his answer
was, ``I don't know what the percentage is but I can buy
whatever I want--driver's license, birth certificate--easily
purchasable on the market.
I see Mr. Cutler leaning ahead.
Do you care to comment, Mr. Cutler?
Mr. Cutler. Yes. Thank you, Congressman King. Good to see
you.
You know, even the way our process has worked has been very
disturbing to me. I recall that for years when the old INS
would replace lost alien cards, because of the crush of time,
the idea of moving it quickly, we were replacing our own alien
cards without reviewing the immigration file. And then you
would get a hold of the file and you would see where that
person had gotten 8 or 9 or 10 cards, and when you saw the
photographs, they were all obviously of different people.
Mr. King. Thank you.
And let me, again, direct a question back to Mr. Maxwell
first, and that is just slightly off topic, but if there were
Ellis Island centers established through legislation that is
proposed in this Congress and that would be in various
countries around the world, in fact any country around the
world but the closest proximity, again, would be Mexico, as a
former employee of USCIS, how could a private company possibly
conduct background checks faster than USCIS? How would they
pass and lap USCIS in their efforts to do so within a week
turnaround for 10 million or 12 million?
Mr. Maxwell. Well, Congressman King, based on my knowledge
of the Castorena family, I would have grave concerns about
operating or establishing an Ellis Island center privately
owned in Mexico and thinking that it would be operated by
anybody but that family in Mexico and thinking that you are
going to get legitimate documents coming into the United
States. I don't think it is going to happen.
Mr. King. Even aside from that, which is a profound and
legitimate point, aside from that, can you imagine a legitimate
company being able to do background checks faster than or in
cooperation with CIS as accelerating the process that currently
exists with USCIS?
Mr. Maxwell. In tandem with USCIS? I don't believe they
could.
Mr. King. And wouldn't they have to rely upon USCIS in
order to have a legitimate background check?
Mr. Maxwell. Absolutely.
Mr. King. And so they are already limited by Government in
a private sector there would just be injected into the middle
of this would just be another layer of bureaucracy still
limited by the bureaucracy that would be over the top of it.
Mr. Maxwell. If there is going to be some level of
integrity in the system, there is always going to have to be a
Government check somewhere along the line to ensure that the
information the Government is getting is accurate.
Mr. King. Not the hirings of law breakers.
Mr. Maxwell. Correct.
Mr. King. Thank you.
And then I would turn to Bishop DiMarzio, and I appreciate
your testimony, Bishop, sincerely, and the level and the tone
that you bring to this and the commitment that you have made.
I just have a series of questions, and I know I will run
out of time before we get this explored as far as I would like,
but does the Church draw a distinction between legal and
illegal with regard to the migrants that you referenced in your
testimony?
Bishop DiMarzio. Obviously, the distinction is there, that
we don't say persons are illegal but their status may be
illegal, and we do make the distinction. Obviously, when we
speak about it and what we have said right along, our testimony
has been longstanding, that there obviously are people who
break the law.
Mr. King. And I would yield my time back after thanking the
witnesses, but I would be one who would support a second round,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. The gentleman is instructed there will be a
second round of questions.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas out of
order, without objection, for 5 minutes for questions.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman very much.
And I think we have in this Committee attempted to find
common ground, but I would be remiss if I did not express the
frustration I have in holding these hearings when we have two
legislative initiatives, one vote on by the House, which you
may agree or disagree with, and one voted on by the Senate.
Regular order requires that we, right now, be in conference
trying to resolve this matter for the American people.
Mr. Maxwell, you have shared with us a litany of issues,
and we had great interest in the issues that you offered to us.
In fact, my commitment to you is that we are going to fix some
of these insurmountable mountains that you have indicated. We
don't need corruption. We don't need to have a system that is
broken. We need to fix it so that people who are impacted
negatively can, in essence, have the right route to go. And I
don't think that you are here speaking about us not fixing the
system. You want it to be fixed.
And so I, again, say that we are here, we haven't gained
control of the border, we haven't done a good job of workforce
enforcement, and the Republicans have missed any number of
opportunities to fund the dollars. I mean, look at the 9/11
Commission report, D's and F's in terms of the work that we are
supposed to do.
I am going to put into the record a statement, I am not
sure of the date, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent. It is
from the Irish Echo, ``Irish and America Under Siege.'' And I
will read this quote: ``If the Irish antecedents of Andrew
Jackson, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan are trying to enter
the United States today, they would have to do so illegally.''
And so I would ask unanimous consent to put this in the record.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The reason why I do so is because I want
the question of immigration to be the face of America. Every
single person has an immigrant background except for our Native
Americans. And so rather than throwing darts, we need to be
trying to fix this broken system.
Mr. Maxwell, just if you would just briefly say, would more
funding and more oversight help in some of the issues that you
would raised with USCIS?
Mr. Maxwell. I think it would help, ma'am, but also I think
there needs to be a paradigm shift. The workforce is horribly
demoralized. There needs to be a shift in management, a shift
in leadership. There needs to be accountability. We recognize
the immigration system itself is flawed. There is no integrity
in the immigration system. It needs to be changed. So let's
change it. Let's get to the business at hand and just get it
done.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let's get it done. Let's give you what
your rules are and what you are supposed to enforce, how you
are supposed to enforce it and the tools to do it.
Mr. Maxwell. Absolutely.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And let management know that those who are
working need to be rewarded, need to know what the ifs, ands
and don'ts are, they need to know the yeses and the noes; is
that correct?
Mr. Maxwell. Absolutely.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And that is what reform is all about.
Mr. Cutler, you worked--and let me thank you for your
leadership and your service.
Mr. Cutler. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. One of the issues is fraudulent documents.
We have got legislation making its way, trying to fix this
whole issue of getting rid of these fraudulent documents. As
you well, I have legislation to set up a task force. How much
of an element is that and us getting to work on dealing with
the massive fraudulent documents?
Mr. Cutler. Well, I thank you for your leadership as well,
and I think it is a very important issue. The only question
that sticks in my mind is what resources would the
Administration allocate, because that always seems to be the
problem. I have been here for hearings where we have discussed
where the Congress would authorize hiring many more people for
both the Border Patrol and ICE and the Administration was
willing to hire.
But it is also a matter of providing the training for the
field agents. Right now they are not getting training in the
identification of fraudulent documents at ICE. They are still
not getting the foreign language training so that they can do
meaningful field investigations and interviews. And these
issues have been going on for years now.
And we also need to go after the fraud schemes as well as
the fraud documents, and I believe your task force addressed
that also. Because no matter what we do on the border, if we
don't have integrity to the immigration benefits program, it is
kind of like securing your house with good strong locks and
then handing out the keys to anybody who walks by.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Mr. Cutler. So this is very important, and I do appreciate
what you are trying to accomplish with that.
Ms. Jackson Lee. More resources, more focus and more
training.
Bishop DiMarzio, if you would just--you were very good in
at least saying to us that we don't have to be failures in this
process, do we? And the immigrants that you meet, undocumented
maybe, I don't know your range of those who you come in contact
with, if we just separate the fact that we have got to secure
our borders and we are all in the war on terror, we are not
ignoring that, the immigrants that you meet, the immigrants
that may come through the Catholic diocese all over America,
the economic immigrants, what are they wanting and how can we
fix their particular situation?
Bishop DiMarzio. I think most immigrants, if you ask them,
they come because they want a better life for themselves and
their children, and that is clearly the motivation that lets
them leave their home countries.
If the situation in many of these countries were better,
they would opt to stay. No one particularly wants to be a
migrant. Necessity dictates that this happen. I think, again,
in a comprehensive approach, we would look to some of the
sending countries and try to work with them to see if we can do
something that will deter some of the migrants coming,
especially those who come obviously in an undocumented manner.
Irregular migration is a worldwide problem. It is not only
a north-south problem, it is a south-south problem, in many
places in Africa, we had a hearing there in South Africa, and
we see that even in Africa there is a large migration of
people.
The issue comes down to you have to have international
cooperation. You need to work in that way. I think the success
of most people that come here is clear. Migrants come with the
idea they want to succeed, they want to work, they want to make
a better life, and the vast majority do so. I think we have got
to look at that issue as part of the heritage of our country
and at the same time not ignore the security issue, which is
overwhelming today.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I close by simply saying, if
I have gotten anything from all four of the witnesses, all of
them, it is that we need to roll up our sleeves, we need to get
to work, we need to provide the kind of funding, targeting,
training and most of all we need not spend our time on
additional hearings that would thwart us getting into a
conference and doing the heavy lifting that American people
require.
I thank the gentlemen, I thank the Chairman. I yield back,
and I ask unanimous consent for my statement to be placed in
the record.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows in the
Appendix]
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Mr. Hostettler. Bishop DiMarzio, we are discussing S. 2611.
Can you tell me if the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
officially supports S. 2611 or any of the Committees, say, the
Committee on Migration?
Bishop DiMarzio. I think we have had some support of
various elements. I don't think we have given a blanket support
for the whole bill, but there are certain things that we would
agree with.
Mr. Hostettler. Could you elaborate on some of those
provisions?
Bishop DiMarzio. Right now, I think I would not be able to
do that off the top of my head.
Mr. Hostettler. Could you offer that for the record at a
later time?
Bishop DiMarzio. Sure, we will. We could do that.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gadiel, it has been argued that the legalization
provisions in S. 2611 did not constitute an amnesty. How do you
respond to that argument?
Mr. Gadiel. Well, in a way, I agree. It is not an amnesty;
it is something more. An amnesty is you commit a crime, amnesty
means that you are restored to your civil rights as they were
before you committed the crime. This one amounts to saying
that--it is comparable to saying, ``You rob a bank, you stay
clean for a couple of years, and we will give you $1 million at
the end.'' In this case, the $1 million is the citizenship.
What we are saying to people is, you have broken the law,
pay few bucks in taxes, don't get in trouble for a couple of
years and then you get the big prize, which is what they wanted
originally.
So this is not amnesty. This is something far, far, far
beyond amnesty. I can't find a word for it. ``Earned
legalization'' is a good way of concealing that it is something
other than amnesty.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
Mr. Cutler, as a former special agent, how difficult would
it be--you referred to undocumented aliens, and there is a lot
of discussion about undocumented aliens.
Mr. Cutler. Right.
Mr. Hostettler. How difficult would it be for an illegal
alien to obtain documents that showed he had worked or resided
in the United States for a given period of time?
Mr. Cutler. Well, it would be very, very simple. It is a
cottage industry. There are document vendors everywhere willing
to sell you identity documents claiming you are anybody or
anything you want to be.
But I also want to quickly take this opportunity to make a
point that I think is important. We are indeed a nation of
immigrants. My background is one of immigrants. My mother came
here fleeing the oppression of Eastern Europe. My grandma died
in the Holocaust; I am named for her. So when we talk about
illegal aliens we are not talking about immigrants.
We have to get back to the language. Section 101 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act talks about the terms. If we
don't have a clear understanding of what we are dealing with,
it becomes hard or impossible to have a meaningful
conversation.
An alien is a term that has fallen from disuse, but an
alien is not a pejorative. The term, ``alien,'' by law, is
defined as any person who is not a citizen or a national of the
United States. And I think we need to make a clear distinction
between someone who is here as an immigrant, meaning they have
been lawfully admitted, and someone who is here as an illegal
alien.
And when people hear, ``Well, we want to do things for
immigrants,'' well, that is right, because these are folks who
have been lawfully admitted. To want to legalize an immigrant
is like offering to make water wet. An immigrant already is
legal.
So we need to draw a clear distinction, and I think so much
of the discussion has to been to obfuscate the distinction
between what it is to be an alien who has been lawfully
admitted and an alien who either entered the United States
through a port of entry and then violated the terms of their
admission, committed a crime and so forth, or an alien who ran
the border and snuck in in the dead of night.
So documentation, going to your question, is very simple to
come by, but I think we really need to remain focused, if you
would forgive me for the suggestion, on having clear
nomenclature so that we all understand precisely what we are
trying to achieve and what we are really talking about.
Mr. Hostettler. Very good. Very good. I appreciate that.
And in fact, today, many of the individuals who are
referred to as undocumented aliens are not undocumented. Don't
they have documents?
Mr. Cutler. Yes. Many of them have in fact entered the
United States, in fact I recently testified at a different
Subcommittee hearing about the fact that 40 percent of the
illegal alien population is believed to have in fact entered
the United States through ports of entry, and it is important
to make the point that the 19 terrorists who attacked our
nation on September 11, 2001 all entered our country through
ports of entry. They were not undocumented. They were aliens
who either got visas through fraud or otherwise entered the
country by gaming the system, and they have become very adept
at gaming the system.
Mr. Hostettler. And even individuals who came into the
country illegally, in many cases, are documented. They are
fraudulent documents.
Mr. Cutler. Oh, absolutely. They are fraudulent, these
documents, and they do it for two reasons. And this is, again,
why we have got to be careful. You know, the road to Hell is
paved with good intentions. Yes, many of the people who come
here are economic refugees, and I think what the bishop said is
right, we do need to go after the sending countries and perhaps
tell countries like Mexico, ``If you want a trade agreement,
clean your own house. Provide a situation where your most
valuable export aren't your own people.'' And I think that is
very important. It is important for the well being of these
folks and for America's security.
But among these people, it is almost like a Trojan Horse,
and I refer to that in my testimony, is that we are letting
people that we don't know who they are. We are not letting them
in, the come in in the dead of night in some cases, and they
are here to do harm to us. And these are the sleepers that I
spoke about.
And when someone is working at a job and you don't know
what they are up to, whether they are driving taxis and so
forth, they are hiding in plain sight. And every time you will
see where a terrorist suspect is arrested, it is rare to see
where it says that they were unemployed. They always have a job
listed after their names. And they have identity documents. And
they are either getting real documents by concealing their true
identities and applying for ``lost'' driver's license, lost
passports, lost whatever, or they are getting counterfeit
documents. Those are the two basic types of documents.
That is why the lynchpin that holds immigration enforcement
together are these documents, which is why this is one of the
critical areas of vulnerability, and it is still not being
addressed.
And listening to Mr. Maxwell's testimony, coupled with my
own experience, it makes it very difficult to sleep at night.
Peter is a good friend. I wish I didn't know him, because I
know him because of the loss of his son on 9/11. And my
neighbors, many of them lost family.
What we are trying to do, Mr. Chairman, is to prevent
another 9/11. We live in a perilous world, as you well know,
and our concern is that, for whatever reason, when you look at
2611, it is almost as though there was no 9/11 Commission
report. The whole point, I thought, to the Commission and their
report was so that the legislators of our country and the
president of our country could take the advice and the findings
of that commission that was convened specifically to find where
the loopholes were and then do something about it.
And when I read 2611, it is almost as though there had been
no 9/11 Commission report. I recently testified before the
Senate Judiciary Committee, and the whole focus was on the
economics of immigration, but nothing was done to discuss the
9/11 Commission findings. I was the only witness who raised the
issue, and nobody wanted to discuss that component of that
problem.
So if we don't address the security issues, nothing else we
do matters. And that is why I am pleased to be here today, and
that is why I am very happy with your leadership, because I
think it is critical for Congress and for that American people
to understand that the Senate bill almost utterly ignores the
fact that there even was a 9/11 Commission. It is incredible to
me.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Cutler.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California for 5
minutes for questions.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I, too,
would like to register a concern that we are proceeding with
these hearings in a most unusual way.
We have two bills that have been passed, one on the House
side and one on the Senate side, that should be in conference
and we should be seriously working in conference to resolve the
differences and to make changes and come up with a realistic
immigration reform bill.
And there are those who would say that these hearings that
are being held here and the ones that will be held all during
the month of August are somewhat political and that it simply
is an attempt to get those people who are opposed to any
immigration reform in a sensible way all stirred up in order to
maybe pass one version of the bill rather than working out the
differences in the bill.
However, I decided to come back to the hearing and I have
decided, perhaps, to even participate in some that will be held
during the recess, particularly in the San Diego area. Because
I do think, as it has been alluded to today, that we owe it to
America to work hard at this and to do our very, very best to
do the right thing about immigration reform.
And so I have come today to ask a simple question that I
have been asking over and over again. We have 11 million to 13
million undocumented immigrants, illegal immigrants, no matter
how you try and define, as was attempted just a moment ago,
what is the correct language to use.
I do not use illegal alien. I have found it to be
unacceptable and disliked by many legal immigrants, just as the
word, ``refugee,'' that was applied to many people after
Katrina was used, and they objected to that definition of who
they were. And I just kind of respect how people generally feel
about what they are called. And so I shall refer to them as
undocumented workers or illegal immigrants.
Now, I would ask those who are here today, Mr. Gadiel and
perhaps Mr. Cutler, the House bill that you said is being
discussed here does not talk about what you do with 11 million
to 13 million illegal immigrants or undocumented workers. What
would you do? They are here.
The Senate bill talked about a path to legalization,
recognizing that if you have not been here for 2 years or more,
that perhaps you should be returned. You should be returned. If
you have been here 2 to 5 years, then you have to pay taxes,
you [have] to learn English, you have to do all these things,
you have to get in line. They talk about, they give us a way by
which to deal with the fact that they are here, 11 million to
13 million. What would you do with them?
Mr. Gadiel. My answer is attrition. Deprive people of the
rights that they do not deserve. Deprive people of the ability
to get jobs, deprive people of the ability to finance
mortgages, deprive them of Government-backed mortgages, make
sure they are not voting, make sure that they are not obtaining
any benefits like in-State tuition, driver's licenses. Mike has
a wonderful analogy. He said, nobody would break into an
amusement park if they couldn't get on the rides. Well, once
they are in the amusement park, if you shut down the rides,
people will leave because they have no benefits.
Ms. Waters. I am going to interrupt you, not because I want
to be disrespectful to you but I just want to pinpoint a few
things. Undocumented worker, illegal immigrant, in the country
for 20 years, own a house, two children, they are legal, the
undocumented grandmother not legal; she doesn't know any other
place. This is home, 20, 30 years. What do you do with her?
Mr. Gadiel. I repeat: attrition, attrition, attrition. It
is not a matter of a luxury that we can offer to people from
around the world to be here illegally. The 9/11 terrorists were
able to function in this country because they had an ocean in
which they could operate in plain sight.
Ms. Waters. No, no, no, no. I go along with that. I do.
And, look, I want this country to be secure, and I want us to
have good immigration reform.
What do you do with the 20-, 30-year illegal immigrant here
who has no other place to go? They don't know anything about
any place in Mexico or any place else. They have two children
and a grandchild. What do you do with them?
Mr. Gadiel. Let me point out that when a person comes here
from a foreign land, they know nothing about this country.
Ms. Waters. What do you do--excuse me, reclaiming my time.
Do you have any better----
Mr. Cutler. I do.
Ms. Waters. Yes.
Mr. Cutler. Thank you, Congresswoman Waters. Look, there
are two things here. Number one, when we talk about someone who
has been here for 2 years or less, there is no illegal alien
who is going to walk into an immigration office and admit to
being here less than 2 years.
Ms. Waters. Okay. Well, let's take that off the table.
Mr. Cutler. All right. But let me----
Ms. Waters. Reclaiming my time, let's take that one off the
table. Answer my question about this 20-to 30-year-old----
Mr. Cutler. There is a provision where an alien who can
show hardship, who can make the case that you are making can
apply for suspension of deportation or the equivalent,
revocation of removal. But the bottom line is, that is a small
percentage. The bulk of the people we are talking about aren't
what you are describing. The majority, in my experience, as an
agent, are people that have been here for 3 or 4 years and----
Ms. Waters. Yes, but you don't have any--you don't have
that documentation here with you. You cannot tell me----
Mr. Cutler. But my point is----
Ms. Waters. That you know how many people have been here
30, 20, 15, 10 years----
Mr. Hostettler. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Waters. Unanimous consent for him to try and answer the
question.
Mr. Cutler. I will do it in 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. Is the hypothetical situation that the
gentlelady suggests covered by current law, and is that
individual----
Mr. Cutler. There are legal remedies for someone that is
here for 30 years, but the problem is really identifying how
long they are here. We have heard so much today about how easy
it is to falsify data as to who you are as well as how long you
have been here.
Mr. Hostettler. And that individual is subject to
deportation today under the immigration laws today.
Mr. Cutler. Yes.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you very much.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Issa, for questions.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I was more than
happy to just be a spectator and listen to this. I come from
San Diego, have 2 secondary checkpoints in my district, and so
I think more than most districts I see every day the good and
the bad that comes from legal and illegal immigration.
I want to just make a couple of quick points. One, I guess,
is that I was in San Diego in 1986, and between 1986 and 1989,
basically, we had a huge amnesty. So if you were here for 30
years, my arithmetic says that is 1976, and so those who were
here for 30 years or 25 years were already eligible in the last
go-round.
But I do think there was a point made, and I think Mr.--I
am going to get your name right--Gadiel?
Mr. Gadiel. Gadiel.
Mr. Issa. I think you, sort of, made it, and I think it is
a very important point that we get on the record. People who
come to the United States from Mexico, because Mexico is not
really good at--or Guatemala--teaching English at a primary
level, they generally come with very little knowledge of the
United States. They generally come basically and start from
square one.
So the argument that people who have been here for a
substantial period of time are somehow alienated because they
are going to be strangers in a strange land, isn't that the
definition of what every immigrant deals with.
Mr. Gadiel. Yes, that is the definition, plus the fact that
since so many illegal aliens today are not assimilating, they
retain the culture and language of their home country so that
the ability to re-assimilate in their home countries is going
to be, in most cases, a simple matter.
Mr. Issa. And I have the greatest respect for the
gentlelady from California. She and I serve a State that sees
every day very similar problems. But I do kind of have one odd
difference with her--not odd by I think predictable--that the
difference between the House version and the Senate version is
not a difference between Republicans and Democrats, it is a
difference between the vision of two bodies that if I read it
correctly is irreconcilable unless one body makes major
concessions that are presently, publicly unwilling to make.
Then with all due respect to the gentlelady from
California, going out and holding a series of field hearings,
having Members of the House reach out to the public and be
reached out to by the public couldn't be [more] appropriate.
And, again, I don't think we defined partisan as the difference
between the House and the Senate. And these field hearings,
including from this Committee and Subcommittee, I guess I have
a hard time understanding, they may be bicameral if there is a
term for that.
John McCain has led the charge for a very different vision
than Darrell Issa, and I think that finding a way to come
together, which I support, is going to require making sure we
have the pulse of America.
Is there anyone that sees somehow that I am wrong, that you
just have to dot an I between the House vision and the Senate
vision, both of which are bipartisan?
Mr. Gadiel. I think you are right. They are irreconcilable.
They are two entirely different philosophies. One is to reward
illegal behavior, and the other is to--and put our country at
risk and the other is to punish illegal behavior and preserve
our security.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. And I will limit time because I know
time is short.
I appreciate the opportunity to, sort of, clear up a couple
of areas, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa for purposes
of a second round of questions.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Kind of, in a way, picking up where I left off in the
previous round, I direct my question to Bishop DiMarzio, and
that is we have existing laws today, and I would ask, do the
American bishops, and I believe you are here to testify on
behalf of American bishops, do they support enforcement of
existing law?
Bishop DiMarzio. Yes, we do.
Mr. King. And then that includes the deportation that is
part of the existing law for violation of immigration laws?
Bishop DiMarzio. Obviously, when the law can be enforced,
we would say, ``Enforce it.'' But I think what we are dealing
with here is an issue that we can enforce the deportation of 10
million to 12 million people. I don't think it is practical. I
think when we look at a law that is broken, that is not
effective, it is time to change it.
Mr. King. Bishop, that is a judgment call, and we have
heard testimony here on more of the attrition effect. I don't
think there is anybody on this panel, I don't know of anybody
in this Congress that has advocated that we round up 12 million
people and deport them, although we often hear that as the
rebuttal as to why we can't enforce our existing laws.
So we could go down this path of enforcing a law wherever
people come in contact with the law and be deported back to
their home country, and the Church is consistent with--supports
that then, I understand.
Bishop DiMarzio. That is true. We also have programs in the
countries in which they come and are supported by the bishops
in those countries to help these deportees to find a new life
in those countries so that we see that that is a reality and we
are working with that.
Mr. King. And that is something I very much support and
appreciate that.
Then with regard to the labor supply in this country and
the statement that we need immigrants and we can bring them
here legally, that is a judgment call, I think, that the
American people are in the process of debating right now.
But if there are 12 million illegals in America and the
testimony this Committee has received is that perhaps out of
that 12 million, 7 million that are working. And of those 7
million, they represent about 5 percent of the workforce, 5
percent of about 140 million workers in America, doing about
2.2 percent of the productivity because they are generally the
lower-educated.
So if that all stopped and if it couldn't stop and wouldn't
stop all at once under anybody's scenario, but it would be a
gradual transition, we have in this country 77.5 million non-
working Americans. And of those, there are at least 61.1
million that are in a prime working age, between 20 and 65,
another 9.3 million between the ages of 16 and 19 that aren't
in the workforce in any way whatsoever that are missing and
they are unskilled. And they are missing their opportunities to
get into this economy.
So I raise this because I think that there is a lot yet to
be learned about whether America needs a lot of unskilled labor
or not, given that we have got so many people that are not
working in America.
But I would like to take this discussion a little bit
further and that is the last published population of Mexico was
104 million and 46 percent want to come to the United States.
And the people that would come to the United States would be
first the young men but the people that were young, the younger
they are, I guess, from an age of maturity standpoint, from
there on they are more likely to come because they have more to
gain and less to lose.
And so if 46 percent want to come to the United States and
the more than come here the more that are likely to follow,
then it is an easy scenario to see where Mexico could perhaps
not be 104 million but maybe 52 million or 50 million or less
in a matter of a generation. And then that great vacuum that is
created there, who is there to rebuild Mexico and what kind of
disservice would the United States be doing to this nation of
Mexico if we opened our borders in that fashion?
I would point out something our founding fathers put right
in the Declaration of Independence: ``Prudence, indeed, will
dictate that governments long established should not be changed
for light and transient causes. And, accordingly, all
experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer
while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by
abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.''
Those forms to which the Mexican people have become
accustomed will never change as long as the United States of
America is a relief valve for the human suffering south of us.
And I would submit that we are doing a grave disservice to the
Government and the people south of our border if we are going
to believe that we are the relief valve for all human suffering
that might want to come to the United States.
And the point that I would make at the conclusion of this
is that the question that never gets asked, I will say seldom
gets asked and never answered is, is there such a thing as too
much immigration, legal and illegal, and if so, how much?
And I would submit that to Bishop DiMarzio, please.
Bishop DiMarzio. You don't ask easy questions, do you?
Obviously, population is another whole question. Are there ever
too many people of the world? We haven't got there yet.
One of the great economists that recently died, Julian
Simon said, ``The ultimate resource is people. People create
other resources.'' Again, everything has to be limited. I think
from the Catholic Church's point of view, we talk about the
common good, and we have to have our laws that deal with
immigration and population, that deal with the common good.
Again, one of the issues you brought up is the labor
market. We don't have control over the labor market in the
United States. We don't understand it very well. We have got
various views of what the labor market is and displacement that
is caused by undocumented workers or documented aliens. We have
no consensus. We have on both sides of the issue great
disagreement. Now, that is part of the problem we are having,
to come to some kind of a decision with Congress. You have got
conflicting information, and I think some of the information is
correct and some of it is incorrect, if you want my opinion.
But you need to look at that very carefully.
I think a restrictionist point of view, just because we
fear people coming to this country, that is the only basis of
it, obviously can't be held on any tenable way.
Mr. King. And I thank the Bishop. And I would just point
out that Congress does have to answer that question.
I appreciate your testimony and all of your testimony, and
I would yield back to the Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentleman.
The questions of the Subcommittee being completed, I want
to thank members of the panel, witnesses that have appeared
today, your contribution to the record.
Gentleman from Texas want questions?
Mr. Gohmert. If I could ask a few.
Mr. Hostettler. Oh, I am sorry.
Mr. Gohmert. I am sorry.
Mr. Hostettler. No, no. The gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Gohmert, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My friend from Iowa has pointed out some interesting things
and asked some interesting questions, and he doesn't ask easy
questions, but I would like to go one past a point he made
about 46 percent people in Mexico being interested in coming to
the United States and go through that.
You know, those of you that have been to Mexico, you are
familiar with it, you deal with people, Mexican nationals in
this country, you know they have some really smart people. I
would submit that the United States citizenry, on the average,
is not smarter than those in Mexico, that, on the average, we
do not have harder working people than those in Mexico. Mexico
has incredible, vast resources.
So the question I come to, what over the U.S. history and
the Mexican history has caused the United States and Mexico to
come to the point that nearly half of their people want to
leave and come here? Anybody got any insights into that?
Because if we can answer that question, then we could really
get to the heart of dealing with this issue, I would think.
Bishop DiMarzio. I think you are living in a globalized
world, and when our neighbors to the south have a different
economy, different opportunities, you just have to look at your
TV sets, they don't have to go too far.
Mr. Gohmert. Okay. But that begs the question: What has
caused that different economy?
Bishop DiMarzio. Well, it is an inequality between the
economic development of nations, underdevelopment in certain
countries and superdevelopment in others, so that the
equalization of this is a macro issue.
Mr. Gohmert. But the expression has been used over the
years, ``Capital is a coward.'' Money flows into places where
it is at least risk. So why has the capital not gone to Mexico
to develop that country where half of America wants to go to
Mexico? What has made the difference? Why has that economy
flourished here and not flourished there? That is what I would
like to get to the heart of.
Bishop DiMarzio. Obviously, capital also wants to be safe,
and if they don't feel that they are secure, if there is an
unstable government or government that has taken advantage of
the investment of capital, that is a problem. But, again, the
trade agreements that we are trying to negotiate, have
negotiated with many of these Latin American countries do hold
some hope if we recognize that it is not only good----
Mr. Gohmert. Yes, but that is talking about where do we go
from here. I would like to get to the heart, if anybody else
has an answer.
Mr. Gadiel. Perhaps it is the corruption that is so endemic
in Mexico and the fact that perhaps property is not secure and
that there is an oligarchy that--and I can't give you any deep
thing, but I know the country is highly corrupt and there is an
oligarchy, and that is not conducive to a middle class. And
then, naturally, it is going to cause people to want to come to
this country.
Mr. Gohmert. Yes, sir?
Mr. Cutler. Yes. I think Peter is on the right path. I
think it is a matter of much of the GNP is enjoyed by a very
small percent of the Mexican economic elite so that wages are
depressed, working and living conditions are horrific for
anybody except for those at the very top of the economic food
chain in Mexico. Whereas, in the United States I think there
are greater opportunities for a much broader spectrum of our
citizens.
And I think that because of that, there are greater
economic opportunities in the United States, better standard of
living in the United States, as compared with what Mexico is
experiencing.
Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Maxwell, do you have any comment?
Mr. Maxwell. Yes. There is one important point here is they
can come here and do it simply, under the radar and send money
back, and that is a very important piece of the puzzle.
Mr. Gohmert. Yes, but that doesn't answer my question, why
they can come here and make more money than they can, why they
don't have a thriving economy in Mexico. And I hated to cut the
Bishop off but I really want to get to this because I think it
is at the heart of all of this we are discussing. If we can
figure out and point our finger to why they are not as
successful or more so in Mexico, then we get to the heart of
the problem, then we deal with why people want to come here
instead of stay in their own beautiful, wonderful country.
And my time is running out, so I would just propose this to
you: It has been mentioned that perhaps there is a great deal
of corruption and oligarchy. The GNP is enjoyed by a very small
number of people. I would submit to you that that means that
they are not a nation of laws. They don't follow the law. It is
dictated by whomever happens to be in charge.
And that, apparently, from what some of you have said, the
difference is, in this country, for most of our history, we
have done a far better job of following the law and applying it
across the board and even though there is unfairness, we do a
better job of applying it across the board and enforcing it
than Mexico has.
And so how ironic that we would be asked to ignore our law,
the very thing that has made us more successful, potentially,
than Mexico, and we are being asked to ignore our law, which
would make us like the country 46 percent apparently want to
leave.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentleman.
Once again, I want to thank the members of the panel for
your testimony and your contribution to the record. It has been
highly valuable.
All Members will have 5 legislative days to make additions
to the record.
We have noticed the markup of two private immigration bills
and a private claims resolution. Currently, we do not have a
working quorum of six Members, so, therefore, without
objection, the Chair will recess the Subcommittee, subject to
the call of the Chair later this afternoon when we are able to
get a working quorum.
We are recessed.
[Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned
subject to the call of the Chair.]
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
At the hearing today, we will hear testimony on whether
implementation of the Senate's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of
2006, S. 2611, would result in an administrative and national security
nightmare. We also will hear testimony on the possibility that
criminals and terrorists will be able to slip through the security
clearances and that they will create new identities for themselves that
will be recognized by the U.S. government.
We have had extensive experience with legalization programs. We
have implemented seven of them in the last 20 years. This includes the
Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA), the Nicaraguan Adjustment
and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), the Haitian Refugee
Immigration Fairness Act (HRIFA), and the Legal Immigration and Family
Equity Act (LIFE Act). The experience with IRCA, however, is the only
one that has involved millions of applications.
In implementing the IRCA legalization programs, INS worked closely
with other federal agencies; leased additional office space at 109
locations; hired and trained approximately 2,000 additional employees,
including a large number of retired former federal employees; and
obtained assistance from volunteer agencies.
IRCA specified that application fees would have to be high enough
to cover program expenses. In addition to the filing fee, applicants
were required to pay for services performed in connection with the
application, such as fingerprints, photographs, and medical
examinations.
INS permitted applicants to file their applications with community
organizations, which were called ``Qualified Designated Entities''
(QDEs), instead of applying directly to INS. Approximately 980 QDEs
participated in the program.
INS was able to process 3 million applications. This included 1.7
million people in the regular legalization program and another 1.3
million in the program for special agricultural workers.
The primary issue with regard to S. 2611 is whether U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services ( USCIS) would be able to process
millions of additional benefits applications. Emilio Gonzalez, the
director of USCIS, has acknowledged that if USCIS had to institute a
guest-worker program today, the system could not handle it. He went on
to explain, however, that USCIS is undergoing a complete overhaul,
which includes everything from upgrading immigration facilities to
computerizing the paper files that currently must be mailed across the
country when an applicant changes addresses. USCIS expects to be able
to handle the increased case load if S. 2611 is enacted.
INS was able to process 3 million applications 20 years ago, and we
have two advantages now that INS did not have in 1986. First, we have
the benefit of experience with seven large legalization programs,
including IRCA. Second, technology has improved dramatically in the
last 20 years. When the IRCA legalization applications were being
processed, information was still being disseminated in mailings and by
telephone, and computer capability was primitive compared to what
computers can do today.
The second issue is whether terrorists and criminals would be able
to slip through the background checks that would be performed as part
of that application process. This is not a situation in which we are
trying to prevent terrorists and criminals from entering the United
States. The undocumented immigrants who would be able to apply for
legalization under S. 2611 are already in the United States. Moreover,
legalization applicants would receive the same security checks that are
performed on other aliens who are seeking residence in the United
States. If the security checks are inadequate, they are inadequate for
all applicants, not just legalization applicants.
Another issue is whether terrorists and criminals would be able to
use fraudulent documents to create new identities. We are much better
at dealing with document fraud now than we were 20 years ago when the
IRCA applications were processed. It also is worth noting that the 9/11
terrorists used their own identities when they entered the United
States as nonimmigrant visitors. They did not need false identities to
enter or to remain in the United States. We cannot deal with terrorists
unless we know who they are, which is an intelligence issue, not an
immigration issue.
__________
Letter from the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative
in Congress from the State of Wisconsin and Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary; the Honorable Henry J. Hyde, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois, Chairman, International Relations Commitee;
and the Honorable Peter T. King, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York and Chairman, Homeland Security Committee to the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops
__________
Report from the United States Government Accountability Office entitled
``Immigration Benefits: Additional Controls and a Sanctions Strategy
Could Enhance DHS' Ability to Control Benefit Fraud,'' submitted by
Michael Cutler, Former Executive Examiner, Inspecter, and Special
Agent; Immigration and Naturalization Service
__________
Article entitled: ``Irish in America Are `Under Seige','' by Caitriona
Palmer, 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
irish in america are 'under siege'
by caitriona palmer
WASHINGTON D.C.--Irish immigration activists warned U.S. lawmakers
last week that the future of the Irish community in America is at risk
if comprehensive immigration reform is not passed.
``The facts are clear to us,'' said Niall O'Dowd, chairman of the
Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform. ``Without immigration reform, the
Irish-born community in the United States will no longer exist and one
of the greatest contributors to the success of this nation will be no
more.''
Speaking as a witness before the U.S. Senate's Judiciary Committee
hearing on immigration, O'Dowd said that the Irish undocumented
community in the U.S. was ``under siege'' and that America would be the
``big loser'' should Irish immigrants have to return home.
``Our neighborhoods are disappearing, our community organizations
are in steep decline. Our sporting and cultural organizations are
deeply affected by the lack of legal emigration,'' he said.
``The sad reality is that there is simply no way for the
overwhelming majority of Irish people to come to the United States
legally at present.''
Testifying before a sparsely attended committee that included
Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy, an avid supporter of the ILIR, O'Dowd
told the hearing that current immigration law would have prevented
Kennedy's ancestors from entering the country.
``If the Irish antecedents of Andrew Jackson, John F. Kennedy and
Ronald Reagan were trying to enter the United States today they would
have to do so illegally,'' he said.
Praising the ILIR for their efforts, Kennedy said that prior
immigration reform in the U.S. had unintentionally penalized the Irish.
``The way that the legislation was developed worked in a very
dramatic and significant way against the Irish,'' Kennedy said.
The hearing was the first opportunity for the ILIR, a New York-
based grassroots organization that has dramatically raised the profile
of the undocumented Irish community in the U.S., to provide a formal
presentation to senior U.S. lawmakers about the effects that living in
the shadows has had on the community.
``Their driver's licenses will not be renewed which means mothers
cannot drive their children to school. The day-to-day struggle of
living illegally in America has taken a heavy personal toll on them. I
submit that they deserve better,'' O'Dowd said.
Under the glare of bright lights and against the whirr of digital
cameras, O'Dowd sat at a long rectangular table in front of the
imposing horseshoe-shaped committee table. A large clock with bright
red numbers kept track of the five-minute speaking time allotted to
each witness.
Scattered behind O'Dowd in the packed committee room on Capitol
Hill were dozens of supporters, many of whom were undocumented, wearing
the now-familiar green and white ``Legalize the Irish'' t-shirts.
They listened as other witnesses including Commerce Secretary
Carlos Guitierrez, a native of Cuba and a naturalized citizen,
testified that immigration was to the key to America's future economic
health.
``I have lost many things in my life - my wallet, my keys,''
Guitierrez told the committee. ``But I have never lost my passport. It
is my most prized possession.''
Sitting in the back row of the room listening intently to the
testimony was Bruce Decell, whose 28-year-old son-in-law, Mark
Petrocelli, died in the north tower of the World Trade Center on Sept.
11, 2001. Wearing a photograph of his son-in-law on the lapel of his
suit and holding a large framed photo of the twin towers, Decell had
come to Washington D.C. to protest comprehensive immigration reform.
``If they're going to amnesty in millions more illegal aliens,
Americans are going to die. And I'm against it,'' he said, offering a
view held by many opponents of the Senate-backed bill.
One expert told the committee that illegal immigration jeopardized
U.S. national security and that terrorists could exploit what he called
a lax legal framework.
``When the United States provides an alien with resident alien
status or when we naturalize an alien, we are providing him with the
'keys to the kingdom,''' said Michael W. Cutler, a fellow with the
Center for Immigration Studies.
But Steve McSweeney, a 32-year-old undocumented contractor from
Ireland, said that he and other undocumented Irish had labored for
years in America and that they were only asking for legal status.
``I believe I've given my fair share to America,'' said McSweeney,
who has lived illegally in the U.S. for nine years.
``I was one of the first respondents to Ground Zero. I spent nearly
two weeks in hospital afterwards where I had a serious arm operation
because I cut my arm back there,'' he said.
The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was the latest in a series
of hearings called by the House of Representatives and Senate amid
fierce debate over how to address illegal immigration.
At stake is an immigration bill agreed by the U.S. Senate and
backed by President George W. Bush that would provide a path to
citizenship for the more than 11 million illegal immigrants currently
living in the U.S. Senate lawmakers are under intense pressure to reach
a compromise between this bill and a competing House bill that stresses
strict border security.
this article available at: http://www.irishecho.com/search/
searchstory.cfm?id=18030&issueid=477
(c) 2006 Irish Echo Newspaper Corp.
__________
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
July 27, 2006
Rep. John Hostettler, Chairman
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims
House Committee on Judiciary
Washington, DC 20510
Re: Submission for the Record - Hearing July 27, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security and Claims: ``Whether Attempted
Implementation of the Senate Immigration Bill Will Result in an
Administrative and National Security Nightmare"
Dear Chairman Hostettler:
The undersigned broad coalition of organizations writes to echo its
support and commitment to comprehensive immigration reform.
Collectively we call on Congressional leaders to focus on the substance
of the issue and on the economic and national security needs of our
nation. As evidenced by the calls to action made by the American
people, business and labor communities, unions, religious
organizations, immigrant rights groups and others, the time to act and
repair our broken immigration system is now and the way to do it is
comprehensive in nature. Republicans and Democrats from both Chambers
of Congress should work together towards a practical compromise that is
responsive to our country's needs. Moreover, we urge leaders to remain
committed to finding a procedural path that will result in a piece of
legislation that addresses the real issues and realities.
We recognize that the House and Senate approach this debate from
different perspectives and come to the table with two very different
pieces of legislation. Undeniably, negotiations during a conference
committee will be difficult. However, it is imperative that this
process continue to move forward and not be derailed by partisanship or
politics. The undersigned groups remain committed to the comprehensive
reform principles below and stand ready to work with Members of
Congress to address these issues:
Improve national security through smart and targeted
enforcement, combined with workable and realistic immigration
reform measures that would create disincentives for illegal
immigration;
The implementation of an efficient, practical and
accurate employee verification system. This system should be
rolled out in a reasonable manner so as not overly burden
employers or employees either financially or functionally;
A future guest worker program that will help to meet
the employment needs of our economy when U.S. workers are not
available and ensures appropriate workplace and wage
protections while providing these contributing members of
society the opportunity to earn legalization and citizenship;
and
A path to earned legalization and citizenship for
undocumented workers who meet qualifying criteria. This program
should include also a fix to the employment and family based
immigrant visa process and numerical limitations.
The opportunity before us is a unique one. We must all work
together to reform our immigration policies so that we can enhance our
security, protect our economy, and continue our heritage as a country
of immigrants. The alternative, to do nothing or worse, to do more
harm, is not and should not be an option. We urge you to work with
leadership towards a solution that Congress and the American people can
be proud of.
Sincerely,
Essential Worker Immigration Coalition
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
National Restaurant Association
American Immigration Lawyers Association
National Immigration Forum
Tamar Jacoby, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute
National Council of La Raza
Asian American Justice Center
Service Employees International Union
New American Opportunity Campaign
American Nursery and Landscape Association
Esperanza USA
Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform
Coalition for Immigration Security