[Senate Hearing 111-560]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-560
THE UNITING AMERICAN FAMILIES ACT: ADDRESSING INEQUALITY IN FEDERAL
IMMIGRATION LAW
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 3, 2009
__________
Serial No. J-111-27
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-633 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN CORNYN, Texas
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
RON WYDEN, Oregon
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Matt Miner, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Wisconsin, prepared statement.................................. 76
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 1
prepared statement........................................... 85
Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New
York........................................................... 24
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama.... 3
WITNESSES
Beck, Roy, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, NumberUSA
Education & Research Foundation, Arlington, Virginia........... 15
Bond, Julian, Chairman, National Board of Directors, National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP),
Washington, D.C................................................ 11
Nadler, Hon. Jerrold, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New York.................................................... 4
Nugent, Christopher, Co-Chair, Committee on the Rights of
Immigrants, Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities,
American Bar Association, Washington, D.C...................... 13
Speier, Hon. Jackie, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.................................................. 6
Stewart, Gordon, London, England................................. 9
Tan, Shirley, Pacifica, California............................... 7
Vaughan, Jessica M., Director, Policy Studies, Center for
Immigration Studies, Center for Immigration Studies, Franklin,
Massachusetts.................................................. 18
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), Charles H. Kuck,
President, Washington, DC, statement........................... 28
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, statement........................................... 30
American Civil Liberties Union, Caroline Fredrickson, Director,
and Joanne Line, Legislative Counsel, Washington, DC, statement 31
American Council on International Personnel (ACIP), Rebecca K.
Peters, Director and Counsel for Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, statement...................................... 35
Beck, Roy, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, NumberUSA
Education & Research Foundation, Arlington, Virginia, statement 37
Bond, Julian, Chairman, National Board of Directors, National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP),
Washington, D.C., statement.................................... 43
Bragar, Robert, Amsterdam, Netherlands, statement................ 48
Calvillo, Angela, Clerk of the Board, San Francisco Board of
Supervisors, San Francisco, California, statement.............. 49
Carey, Rea, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task
Force Action Fund, Washington, DC, statement................... 53
Checkoway, Robert, International Vice Chair, Democrats Abroad,
Washington, DC, statement...................................... 55
Concerned Women for America's (CWA), Wendy Wright, President,
Washington, DC, statement...................................... 56
CSI Consulting & Investigations, John N. Sampson, Aurora,
Colorado, statement............................................ 57
Council for Global Equality, Mark Bromley, Chair, and Julie Dorf,
Senior Advisor, and Ambassador Michael Guest, Retired Senior
Advisor, Washington, DC, joint statement....................... 59
Chrisler, Jennifer, Executive Director, Boston, Massachusetts,
statement...................................................... 61
Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly, Alton, Illinois, statement........ 63
Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Washington,
DC, statement.................................................. 66
Focus on the Family, Tom Minnery, Senior Vice President,
Government and Public Policy, Colorado Springs, Colorado,
statement...................................................... 78
Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA),
Washington, DC, statement...................................... 80
Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Washington,
DC, statement.................................................. 82
Kindler, Jeffrey B., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Pfizer
Inc., New York, New York, statement............................ 84
Love exiles Foundation, Martha McDevitt-Pugh, Chair, Robert
Bragar, Board Member, Robert Checkoway, Board Member, and Lin
McDevitt-Pugh, Board Member, Amsterdam, Netherlands, statement. 87
Maxwell, Michael J., former Head, Security and Integrity, Bureau
of Citizenship and Immigration Services, Washington, DC,
statement...................................................... 89
National Center for Lesbian Rights, Kate Kendell, ESQ., Executive
Director, San Francisco, California, statement................. 96
National Immigrant Justice Center, Mary Meg McCathy, Executive
Director, Chicago, Illinois, statement......................... 99
National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, New York, New
York, statement................................................ 100
Nugent, Christopher, Co-Chair, Committee on the Rights of
Immigrants, Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities,
American Bar Association, Washington, D.C., statement.......... 102
Perkins, Tony, President, Family Research Council, Washington,
DC, statement.................................................. 107
People for the American Way, Marge Baker, Executive Vice
President for Policy and Program Planning, Washington, DC,
statement...................................................... 110
Quinn, Christine C., Council Speaker, New York, New York,
statement...................................................... 112
Sampson, John, retired, Department of Homeland Security,
washington, DC, statement...................................... 115
Schulman, Yisroel, Esq., Presidet and Attorney-in-charge, New
York Legal, Assistance Group, New York, New York, statement.... 117
Solmonese, Joe, President, Human Rights Campaign, Washington, DC,
statement...................................................... 120
Stewart, Gordon, London, England, statement...................... 126
Stonewall Young Democrats, Shawn Amsler, President, Los Angeles,
California, statement.......................................... 128
Tan, Shirley, Pacifica, California, statement.................... 129
Tiven, Rachel B., Esq., Executive Director, Immigration Equality,
New York, New York, statement.................................. 132
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, Adam G.
Gerhardstein, Director, Washington, DC, statement.............. 142
Vaughan, Jessica M., Director, Policy Studies, Center for
Immigration Studies, Center for Immigration Studies, Franklin,
Massachusetts, statement....................................... 143
THE UNITING AMERICAN FAMILIES ACT: ADDRESSING INEQUALITY IN FEDERAL
IMMIGRATION LAW
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J.
Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Leahy, Schumer, Specter, and Sessions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Chairman Leahy. Good morning. We have a number of things
going on in the Judiciary Committee, so I apologize for the
delay. But I am delighted to see Congressman Nadler and
Congresswoman Speier here, and I apologize to them and the
other witnesses that we have been delayed.
You know, for too long, gay and lesbian American citizens
whose partners are foreign nationals have been denied the
ability to sponsor their loved ones for lawful permanent
residency. Under current immigration law, many citizens have
been forced to choose between their country and their loved
ones. No American should face that kind of a choice. The
preservation of family unity is at the core of our immigration
legal system, and this American value has to apply to all
families.
During the past several years, Americans have increasingly
come to reject the notion that their fellow Americans who are
gay or lesbian should not have loving relationships. My own
State of Vermont has been at the forefront of this. Federal
policy should encourage--let me emphasize that--Federal policy
should encourage rather than restrict our opportunity as
Americans to sustain the relationships that fulfill our lives.
Today, we will hear testimony on the Uniting American
Families Act, a bill I introduced last Congress. Our bill will
allow the committed partners of Americans the opportunity to
immigrate. What we consider today with this legislation is an
issue of fairness under Federal law. It is time for the United
States to join 19 other nations, many of which are our closest
allies, in providing our gay and lesbian citizens this benefit
under our immigration laws.
There is no place for discrimination in our Federal law. I
note that traditional civil rights leaders like Congressman
John Lewis and Julian Bond, the Chairman of the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, have said
unequivocally that the issue of gay rights is an issue of civil
rights. To quote Chairman Bond: ``Gay and lesbian rights are
not special rights in any way. It isn't `special' to be free
from discrimination. It is an ordinary, universal entitlement
of citizenship.''
Some have expressed concern that if Federal immigration law
were to recognize committed same-sex partnerships for purposes
of immigration benefits, opportunities for fraud would
increase. That has always been an issue, and I am confident
that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will have no
more difficulty discovering fraudulent arrangements between
same-sex couples than heterosexual couples. They have to make
that decision all the time. Our immigration agencies are well
trained and highly experienced in this regard. I have little
doubt that when this legislation is enacted, the immigration
agency will safeguard against fraud and abuse in same-sex
partnerships just as it does for heterosexual couples.
The benefits this legislation seeks to provide are not
contingent upon the definition of marriage. I believe that is
an issue best left to the States. Former Vice President Cheney
and I are often thought about because of our brief conversation
a couple years ago on the floor of the Senate, which I will not
put into the record.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Leahy. But this week, he said much the same thing
I have about States being able to decide whether their law
would recognize gay marriages.
Again, in Vermont--if I might just digress for a moment and
just tell you one story. When we were considering our civil
union law in Vermont, the then-retired Senator, no longer
alive, Senator Bob Stafford--and I think, Congressman, you
remember Senator Stafford. A wonderful man, almost the
stereotype of a New England Republican, very tall, straight,
had been a Governor, had been a Congressman, a World War II
hero. He came to a public hearing to talk about it, and he said
that 57 years before then, he had met a young woman in Bellows
Falls, Vermont, and they got married. He said, ``Everything I
have ever done in life--Attorney General, Congressman,
Governor, Senator, the times I was at war--I was able to do
better because of her love and her support.'' And we were all
wondering just where this was going. And he said, ``If we have
two people who love each other, what difference does it make if
they are the same sex or not? What difference does it make? If
they love each other and support each other and make each other
better, isn't that what we should want? ''
There were several other people who were going to speak at
the meeting. We all just stood up and said, ``Me, too. Go
ahead.''
You know, I know what a wonderful marriage the Staffords
had. My wife and I have been married 47 years, trying to
emulate the same.
Now, just last month, President Obama and Secretary of
State Clinton announced a new policy to provide domestic
benefits to the men and women in our foreign service who are in
same-sex domestic partnerships. President Obama and Secretary
Clinton acknowledged what many American corporations already
recognize, many of our largest corporations: The happiness and
the stability of their employees in their personal lives is
essential to success and productivity in their professional
lives. And I applaud that.
There is more work to be done. You know, it was not long
ago that homosexuality barred an immigrant from entry into the
United States. It is time to take that constraint off the
committed same-sex partners of American citizens.
I hope we are going to be returning to the question of
comprehensive immigration reform. This is just one of the
issues to be faced. Senator Schumer, who chairs our Immigration
Subcommittee, has begun a series of hearings to prepare us for
that, and I hope today's hearing will help. And, again, I
welcome our new Ranking Member--not that new anymore. He has
had a baptism of fire in the last few days. Senator Sessions.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF ALABAMA
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for your courtesy on so many things, actually. You have been
very helpful to me as I have tried to get my feet on the
ground, and you have the experience on this Committee that is
almost unprecedented, and I value your counsel and your
courtesy very much.
Mr. Chairman, I have looked at this legislation and have
given it some review, and I have a number of concerns that
would prevent me from supporting it. I think it does amount to
a redefinition of marriage, contrary to what the Congress has
explicitly stated. I do think, as you made reference, that
establishing a lawful system of immigration for this country
that respects and affirms our great heritage of the rule of law
is important, and we must do it in a way that actually works. I
believe this bill would make that more difficult.
It seems that we would be creating a special preference and
benefit for a category of immigrants based on a relationship
that is not recognized by Federal law and overwhelmingly by
most States. By creating a new and a legally tenuous, I
suggest, definition of ``permanent partnership,'' we would be
expanding the avenue for fraud and abuse for an unlimited
number, perhaps, of people who may not even fit into the idea
that the drafters have in mind with this legislation.
I think for the first time ever, this legislation would
create a Federal recognition of same-sex marriage which is not
the current law. It would reverse current law. In 1996,
Congress overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act 85-
14. President Clinton signed it into law. It included a
provision which expressly defined the word ``marriage'' as
``only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband
and wife.''
So 29 States, as this debate has continued, have now
enacted constitutional amendments that bar the formal
recognition of gay marriage, and others have passed statutory
bars to that effect.
I would just say that, of course, individuals can carry
themselves out publicly as a partnership as they desire. The
question is: Do you get the same legal benefits that you might
get in certain circumstances, such as the immigration benefit
to bring your spouse to the country? I think that would be a
policy that we should not adopt and would be against the
settled will of the American people and the settled will to
date of the U.S. Congress.
There is a real potential for fraud with this legislation.
I remember many years ago prosecuting cases as a United States
Attorney involving marriage fraud. Recently, Senator Specter
and I--well, 2 or 3 years ago now--took a trip to South
America, and the consulate official there who approves
immigration visas talked about how difficult marriage fraud
cases are, how many they see, and it is a major loophole, he
told us, in our system. Many cases of spousal immigration fraud
arise when a citizen or a legal permanent resident brings their
spouse to the United States, and so the permanent partner
standard that would not be a recognized union in the country
perhaps from which that person comes now could provide an
additional avenue for abuse of the marriage preference for
immigration into our country.
So, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things that concern
me about the legislation. I think it is not something that
Congress would be inclined to pass. But I value the hearing. I
look forward to the testimony of our Congressman and
Congresswoman and discussion of the issue as we go forward.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you. As you may gather, there is
somewhat of a split on the panel. But I am glad we are having
the hearing, and, again, I appreciate Senator Sessions' being
willing to be here for the hearing, too.
Representative Jerrold Nadler is Chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil
Rights, and Civil Liberties. He represent New York's 8th
Congressional District, first elected to the House of
Representatives in 1992, after serving for 16 years in the New
York State Assembly. He is the lead cosponsor of H.R. 1024, the
House version of this.
Congressman, it is always good to see you.
STATEMENT OF HON. JERROLD NADLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Representative Nadler. Good to see you, Senator.
Good morning, Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Sessions.
Thank you very much for holding this important hearing on the
Uniting American Families Act and for inviting me to testify.
As the sponsor of this legislation in the House, I
appreciate the opportunity to testify today and to offer my
thanks to Chairman Leahy for sponsoring the Uniting American
Families Act in the Senate and for being such a tremendous
champion of the issue. I know the Committee is on a tight time
schedule so I will be brief.
I have always found that among the worst kinds of injustice
are those in which the law acts, perhaps unintentionally, in a
gratuitously cruel manner; that is to say, it harms individuals
for no purpose at all. Sometimes the law must harm people
unavoidably. But to harm people for no purpose at all is out of
bounds. It is this kind of injustice, this kind of gratuitous
cruelty that the Uniting American Families Act would correct.
I first introduced the Uniting American Families Act 9
years ago after hearing from constituents and others about the
pain that immigration laws are inflicting on their lives. Just
because they were gay or lesbian, these Americans were not
allowed to sponsor their partners for immigration purposes.
What this unequal policy means is that tens of thousands of gay
and lesbian Americans face a terrible choice between leaving
the country to be with the person they love or remaining here
in the United States and separating from their partner. Or
given the law in the other country, it is entirely possible
that the two partners may find it impossible to be together in
either country. This runs directly counter not only to the goal
of family unity, which is supposed to be the bedrock of
American immigration policy; it runs directly counter to any
consideration of plain humanity and to any consideration of not
being purposelessly and gratuitously cruel to the people
involved.
We can right this wrong by passing the Uniting American
Families Act. It is very simple. It would give same-sex couples
the same immigration benefits as opposite-sex couples. And I
must differ here with Senator Sessions. This is not part
properly of the debate over same-sex couples marriage. That is
a separate debate. I happen to support same-sex marriage, but
it is a completely separate debate. This simply says that for
immigration purposes we are not going to single out these
couples and say, ``You cannot sponsor your partner. You cannot
get married because you are the same sex, and you cannot
sponsor your partner. And, therefore, you must remain separate
and apart, perhaps a continent apart.''
That is cruel. This legislation is not intended to legalize
gay marriage. It is not intended to deal with that issue at
all. It is intended to alleviate a gratuitous and purposeless
cruelty in the law for about 36,000 people.
Same-sex couples would have to prove the bona fide nature
of their relationships just as opposite-sex couples do, or face
the same harsh penalties for fraud. So the argument that this
would increase the odds of fraud--the odds of fraud would be
exactly the same as under the current law. It would not be
decreased. That is a question of enforcement. It would not be
increased.
Our unequal immigration laws presently wreak havoc on the
lives of thousands of bi-national couples and families across
the country. It does not have to be that say, and in a just
country, it should not be that way. We can end this injustice
and stop this gratuitous cruelty by passing the Uniting
American Families Act.
When Congress considers, I hope later this session, a
comprehensive immigration bill, this bill certainly should be
made part of it. I will do my best to ensure that this is the
case on the House side.
Thank you again, Senator Leahy, for your leadership on this
basic issue of fairness, for holding this hearing, and for
providing me with the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nadler appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Congressman, and I know you have
got a million things going on over in the other body, and I
appreciate your being here.
Representative Nadler. Thank you.
Chairman Leahy. Congresswoman Speier, Jackie Speier,
represents California's 12th Congressional District.
Representative Speier worked with Senator Feinstein to
introduce a private bill in the Senate to enable Ms. Shirley
Tan, one of today's witnesses, to obtain lawful permanent
residency. And I understand, Congresswoman, you are going to be
introducing Ms. Tan. Is that correct?
Representative Speier. That is correct.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACKIE SPEIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Representative Speier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Sessions. Thank you for holding this hearing on the
Uniting American Families Act, which seeks to fix a fundamental
injustice that rips children from the arms of their parents
and, sadly, suggests that our constitutional guarantee of equal
protection under the law is often quite unequal. I commend
Congressman Nadler and Chairman Leahy for introducing twin
bills on this issue.
I thank you also for allowing me to introduce my
constituent, Shirley Tan from the scenic and hard-working city
of Pacifica, California, where, when God and sunshine conspire
to lift the fog, you can see the beautiful Pacific Ocean that
Shirley and so many of my constituents crossed from her native
Philippines to enjoy.
I only recently met Shirley and her family. That is because
they are not political people. They are a family. They go to
church. They have involvement in their local school. Shirley
and her partner of 23 years, Jay Mercado, are not activists
trying to change the world by marching and shouting from the
rooftops. They are parents, like most of us, who hope to change
the world by quietly raising confident, studious, and generous
children.
I did a home visit a couple of months ago, spent an hour
and a half with the family, flipped through family albums, 23
years of family albums, talked to their sons, who were
cheerful, and fearing of losing their Mom. They are just an
all-American family.
Shirley and Jay both sing in their church choir, and their
twin boys got straight A's and are active at school, both
playing on the junior high school basketball teams. This family
would be no different than the thousands of other families in
my district with one or more foreign-born parents were it not
for the fact that, through no fault of their own, they are
victims of an anomaly in U.S. law that tears families apart
based solely on the gender of the person that a citizen or
legal resident happens to fall in love with.
I want to thank my good friend Senator Dianne Feinstein,
who introduced a private bill for Shirley. She has a 2-year
reprieve. That is not good enough in our America that offers
equal protection under the laws.
Shirley Tan and her family are exemplary members of our
community who, after being thrust these few months into the
public spotlight, have handled themselves with grace and
dignity.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me now to introduce
Ms. Tan to tell her compelling story.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Congresswoman, and thank you,
Congressman Nadler. I am sure we will be talking a lot as the
summer goes on.
Chairman Leahy. I would ask you to please come and sit
down, Ms. Tan, and Gordon Stewart, and my friend Julian Bond,
who is here; Christopher Nugent, Roy Beck, and Jessica Vaughan.
I do not know if those things have the names on the back of
them or not.
Congresswoman, did you want to say anything more about Ms.
Tan? I think you covered it pretty well, especially the--I am
thinking of those family photos, the albums and all. Thank you.
Shirley Tan, as has already been said, is from Pacifica,
California. I have been there a number of times. It is a
beautiful area. She lives with her partner, Jay Mercado. She
has been there for 23 years. Together they have 12- year-old
twin sons, Joriene and Jashley. Are these your sons here? Okay.
Hi, guys. In the family archives someday, they will go back and
they will see that you were at this hearing. That is why I
wanted to make sure your names were mentioned.
Ms. Tan came to the United States--and I am sorry I have to
bring this up--from the Philippines after she had been brutally
attacked by an assailant who also murdered her mother and
sister. She is the primary caretaker for her elderly mother-in-
law. She is a volunteer in her children's school and a
eucharistic minister at her local Catholic Church. Ms. Tan,
please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY TAN, PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Tan. Chairman Leahy, members of the Committee, thank
you for your invitation to appear before you this morning. My
name is Shirley Tan, and I am a 43-year-old mother and
housewife from Pacifica, California. I am grateful for the
opportunity to share my story with you and grateful, too, for
Chairman Leahy's leadership on an issue that is so critically
important to my family and the tens of thousands of others
across the country.
I am honored to be here today with my 12-year-old twins,
Jashley and Joriene, and my partner of 23 years, Jay Mercado. I
met Jay when, as a graduation present, my father brought me to
the United States. Our relationship continued even after I
returned to the Philippines following the expiration of my 6-
month visa.
When I returned to the Philippines, I learned that the man
who had, 10 years before, brutally murdered my mother and
sister, and almost killed me as well, was released from prison.
Without anywhere else to go, I decided to go to Jay where I
would be safe.
In 1995, I hired an attorney to apply for asylum and
legalize my stay in the United States. When my application was
denied, my attorney appealed the decision.
I did not know it, but my appeal had also been denied. All
the while, Jay and I went about building our life together. I
gave birth to Jashley and Joriene, the biggest joy in our lives
and became a full-time Mom.
Our family has always been like every American family, and
I am so proud of Jay and the twins. The boys attended Catholic
school through sixth grade and are now in Cabrillo School. I am
a Eucharistic minister at Good Shepherd Church, where Jay and I
both sing in the Sunday Mass choir.
We have never felt discriminated against in our community.
Our friends, mostly heterosexual couples, call us the ``model
family'' and even said we are their role models. We try to
mirror the best family values, and we attribute the fact that
our children are so well adjusted to the love, security, and
consistency that we, as parents, have been able to provide.
Jashley and Joriene's classmates at school know they have two
Moms, and it has never been an issue.
Our lives, I can say without any doubt, were almost perfect
until the morning of January 28, 2009. That morning, at 6:30
a.m., Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents showed up at
my door.
The agents showed me a piece of paper, which----
Chairman Leahy. Ms. Tan, if we can hold a moment. I think
your son, understandably, is upset. If he would like to go in
this back room--if you would like to go in the back room,
please--if you would like to go with your mother in the back
room, you can. Please. It is all right.
I have a grandson the same age.
All right. I just wanted you to know, young man, your
mother is a very brave woman. You should be very proud of her.
Go ahead. Go ahead, Ms. Tan.
Ms. Tan. The agent showed me a piece of paper which was a
2002 deportation letter, which I informed them I had never
seen. Before I knew it, I was handcuffed and taken away, like a
criminal, as Jay's frail mother watched in hysterics. I was put
into a van with two men in yellow jumpsuits and chains and
searched like a criminal, in a way I have only seen on
television and in the movies.
All the while my family was first and foremost the center
of everything on my mind.
How would Jay work and take care of the kids if I was not
there?
Who would continue to take care of Jay's ailing mother, the
mother I had come to love, if I was not there?
Who would be there for my family if I was not there?
In an instant, my family, my American family, was being
ripped away from me.
And when I did return home, I had an ankle monitoring
bracelet. I went to great lengths to hide it from my children.
I have a partner who is a U.S. citizen, and two beautiful
children who are also U.S. citizens, but none of them can
petition for me to remain in the United States with them.
Passage of the Uniting American Families Act, UAFA, will
not only benefit me, but the thousands of people who are also
in the same situation as I am.
After 23 years building our life together, Jay and I know
that our family is still at great risk of separation. We have a
home together. Jay has a great job. We have a mortgage, a
pension, friends and a community. We have everything together,
and it would be impossible to re-establish elsewhere. We have
followed the law, respected the judicial system, and simply
want to keep our family together.
For my children, and couples and families like ours, it is
critically important that we end discrimination in U.S.
immigration law.
Chairman Leahy and members of the Committee, it is a great
privilege to be here with you today. I was honored to receive
your invitation.
I humbly ask for your support of the Uniting American
Families Act which would allow me to remain with my family and
to strive for citizenship in this wonderful country that has
been so good to me and my partner and such a blessed home to
our children.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tan appears as a submission
for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Ms. Tan.
Our next witness is Gordon Stewart. He is a director and
team leader with Pfizer Pharmaceutical. He has been with the
company for 14 years, I believe. Originally from my home State
of Vermont, Mr. Stewart now lives in London--I will mention as
a result of our current immigration law and the inability of
his partner of 9 years to obtain a U.S. visa. Mr. Stewart was
forced to sell his home in the United States and relocate to
London to keep his family intact. Is that correct?
Mr. Stewart. Yes.
Chairman Leahy. Please go ahead, and make sure your
microphone is on. Please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF GORDON STEWART, LONDON, ENGLAND
Mr. Stewart. Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions, I
am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
am an American citizen living abroad simply due to the fact
that our country's immigration laws have forced me to leave the
United States in order to be with my partner, Renato, the
person I love.
I am here today because, like so many other Americans in
similar situations, I believe it is imperative that we fix our
broken immigration system, and specifically that it is long
past time we treat lesbian and gay Americans and our families
equally under the law. I traveled to be with you today from
London where I work for Pfizer.
I am fortunate to have worked for Pfizer more than 14
years. Pfizer is a company that recognizes domestic
partnership. Unfortunately, the U.S. Government does not
recognize Renato, my partner of more than 9 years. Renato lived
with me in the U.S. as a full-time student, studying English
and pre-Law. He was corporate counsel for a multinational in
Sao Paolo before coming to New York. In June 2003, while
enrolled as a student, he returned to Brazil for what we
thought would be a routine second renewal of his student visa.
The renewal was rejected, and he has never been able to return
to our home in the U.S. For weeks, I left his things exactly as
they were the day he left, hoping that soon he would be able to
come home.
Renato wanted to live and study in the United States. He
was a volunteer in our community. Yet, because the immigration
laws did not recognize him as my family member, nothing I could
do would bring him back to our home.
So to be with Renato, I commuted to Brazil from New York
every other weekend for more than a year and a half. This
commuting took a huge toll on me emotionally, physically, and
financially. Eventually, I was fortunate to find a position
with Pfizer in the United Kingdom. The U.K. Government has
recognized us as dependent partners, not a married couple, and
we both have the right to live and work in the U.K. While we
are grateful for this solution, it means separation from our
family and friends and puts significant limitations on our
career.
The United States' discriminatory immigration laws have
also affected my extended family of five siblings and nine
nieces and nephews, and I am happy that my nephew from Vermont
is with us today in the audience. If I want to be with my
family----
Chairman Leahy. Do you want to mention him just so that it
can be part of the record?
Mr. Stewart. Yes. His name is Chester Martin, and he is
seated here.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you.
If I want to be with my family for important family
occasions, I have to travel alone and leave Renato in London.
In August, I will attend my niece's wedding in California. It
will be a big family reunion, but my partner will not be able
to join us. Renato cannot even get a tourist visa to the U.S.
Imagine what that means.
Recently, when my sister was diagnosed with cancer, Renato
could not travel with me to visit her, and I could not spend as
much time with her as I wanted because I live and work in
London. That is the reality of our life together.
Last year, I reluctantly and very sadly sold our family
farm in Goshen, Vermont, because I cannot travel there with
Renato. Our family had the farm from when I was 6 years old,
and our parents both died and are buried on the property.
Imagine what it is like to own a property that you cannot visit
with your partner. It is impossible to maintain a 19th-century
farmhouse from the other side of the Atlantic. That is the
reality of American immigration law for couples like us.
I am deeply disappointed that my country has treated Renato
this way, and I am furious that we cannot live together in the
U.S. Despite the fact that I am a citizen, a tax-paying, law-
abiding, and voting citizen, I feel discrimination from my
Government.
The U.K. has allowed both Renato and me to move there based
on my temporary transfer from Pfizer. The U.K. recognizes
permanent partners for immigration purposes as do 18 other
countries. The U.S. should do the same.
The decision to move to the U.K. was the best decision I
could have made at that time. But I would like to be able to
come home to my country, the country that I love. I should have
the right to come with my partner to visit or to live, but we
cannot. That is the reality of U.S. immigration law.
Thousands of other lesbian and gay families are separated
like we are. Unlike us, however, they have not had the support
of a wonderful company like Pfizer to help find a solution to
this impossible situation. The Uniting American Families Act
needs to be passed now. I hope today's hearing will be a step
in that direction.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Senator Leahy
for the strong stand he has taken on supporting families like
mine. Let me also thank the Committee for taking the time to
listen to my story. I am the voice of many wonderful Americans
who have been forced to make the difficult choice between
family and partner and country and partner.
Allow me to add that my company, Pfizer, has earned, the
top rating of 100 percent for five consecutive years in the
Corporate Equality Index, an annual ranking published by the
Human Rights Campaign Foundation that evaluates businesses on
their treatment of LGBT employees, investors, and customers.
Pfizer Chairman and CEO Jeff Kindler has said Pfizer supports
its LGBT colleagues because ``doing better in recruitment and
retention, in understanding diverse markets, and in making
Pfizer a better place to work does ultimately drive up our
value.'' However, he said we mainly ``support our LGBT
colleagues because it is the right thing to do.''
America should also support its LGBT citizens and families
because it is indeed the right thing to do.
Again, thank you, Chairman Leahy.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stewart appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Well, thank you very much. I know the area
where your farm is in Goshen, one of the prettiest parts of a
very pretty State.
I would also note for the record, we have talked several
times about other countries that have already done what my
legislation would propose doing. The countries are Canada,
Australia, the United Kingdom, Israel, Brazil, Belgium,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, and Sweden.
Our next witness is Julian----
Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I would note, I think in
almost every one of those countries they have far more controls
than this legislation would propose. But we can talk about that
later.
Thank you.
Chairman Leahy. Yes. Julian Bond, our next witness, has
been Chairman of the National Board of Directors of the NAACP
since 1998. He was first elected to public office in 1965. He
served four terms in the Georgia House of Representatives,
which was a cataclysmic change--I might add parenthetically, I
think Mr. Bond knows even more how cataclysmic it was--for
Georgia and six terms in the State Senate, which was ultimately
very much to the value of his State.
In addition to his role as Chairman of the NAACP, he is a
member of the board for People for the American Way, the
Southern Poverty Law Center, the Council for a Livable World,
serves on the Advisory Board of the Harvard Business School
Initiative on Social Enterprise, among others. He holds 25
honorary degrees, is a distinguished professor at American
University, a professor of history at the University of
Virginia, and a graduate of Morehouse College.
Mr. Bond, I am delighted you are here. Please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF JULIAN BOND, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED
PEOPLE (NAACP), WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Bond. Thank you, sir. I would like to begin by thanking
Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions for holding this
hearing and for your strong and steadfast support of families
of all types.
The preservation and strengthening of the family unit has
long been a rallying point for the NAACP, and I am happy to say
my middle son, Michael, joins me here.
Chairman Leahy. Now you are in the family archives, too.
Mr. Bond. Family sponsorship accounts for more than 85
percent of legal immigration to the United States. But a
backlog of visas--experienced in many immigration categories,
but especially for family members--currently separates
immigrants from spouses and their young children for over 5
years and separates elderly parents, adult children, and
siblings for as many as 23 years. The current family-based
immigration system has not been updated in 20 years. There are
currently 5.8 million people in the family immigration backlog
waiting unconscionable periods of time to reunite with their
loved ones.
It is for this reason that the NAACP strongly supports
legislation in the Senate that would fix our Nation's
immigration laws to again make family reunification a highly
functioning element of our national immigration policy.
Specifically, the NAACP supports the Reuniting Families Act,
Senate bill 1085, introduced by Senator Menendez of New Jersey,
and the Uniting American Families Act, Senate 424, which has
been introduced by the Chairman of this Committee, Mr. Leahy.
In the House of Representatives, the NAACP supports
legislation to be introduced tomorrow by Congressman Mike
Honda, also to be called the ``Reuniting American Families
Act,'' which incorporates both S. 1085 and S. 424. I would
hasten to add that we support the provisions in the Uniting
American Families Act because the NAACP strongly believes that
the definition of ``family'' is not restrictive and can and
should include non-traditional family units. We do not believe
that immigration law, or any laws or policies for that matter,
should discriminate against gay and lesbian families or family
members.
Too much of our national debate over immigration has
focused on enforcement and undocumented workers. The NAACP
feels strongly that genuine reform must include provisions to
fix an antiquated system with the result being the
reinvigoration of one of the most compelling goals of the
American immigration laws: the reunification of American
families.
Given all the benefits socially, economically, and morally
of ensuring that effective family reunification is an integral
part of our Nation's policy, there can be no question that the
NAACP supports an overhaul of current law to ensure that the
family preferences policies are functioning well and without
discrimination.
The NAACP would also like to stress that the definition of
``family'' should not be interpreted so stringently as to omit
people who are in a loving, committed relationship but happen
to be of the same gender.
It was, in fact, the Immigration Act of 1965 that put
family unification at the core of our Nation's policy,
replacing the old ``Quota Acts'' of the 1920s. The 1965 Act
made huge strides in eradicating the old, racist policies that
put a premium on people from Northern and Western Europe and
made it next to impossible for people of color to immigrate to
the United States.
We clearly need to update our immigration policies to more
efficiently promote family unification, and in the spirit of
promoting civil rights that was the guiding force behind the
1965 law, we should include families of all different races and
ethnicities, including families with gay and lesbian members.
It is because we support the civil rights protections of all
people and because we are opposed to discrimination based on
any criteria that we support inclusion of the Uniting American
Families Act in any comprehensive immigration reform. This
legislation will ensure that gay and lesbian couples and
families are treated just like other families who are bi-
national. The inclusion of the Uniting American Families Act in
comprehensive reform would ensure the continuation of an
expansion of civil rights to people who have historically been
left out and mistreated by American immigration policies.
In closing, let me reiterate the NAACP's strong belief in
the benefits of strong, united families. As such, we support
the inclusion of modifications to the existing family
reunification policies in our Nation's immigration laws to
facilitate more families being brought together faster and with
less hassle.
Again, I would like to thank the Chairman for holding this
important hearing and for your support of all kinds of
families. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bond appears as a submission
for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much, Mr. Bond.
Our next witness is Christopher Nugent, who is Co-Chair of
the Committee on the Rights of Immigrants of the Section of
Individual Rights and Responsibilities of the American Bar
Association. He currently is senior pro bono counsel with the
Community Services Team of Holland and Knight. He works there
specifically on immigration and public policy-related cases.
Mr. Nugent has over 20 years of experience in the field of
immigration policy. He is the recipient of numerous awards for
his work. He is a graduate of Sarah Lawrence University, holds
a law degree from the City University of New York.
Mr. Nugent, please go ahead, sir.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER NUGENT, CO-CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON THE
RIGHTS OF IMMIGRANTS, SECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Nugent. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, and thank you,
Ranking Member Senator Sessions. It is a privilege and an honor
for me to appear before you. I am appearing today at the
request of Tommy Wells Jr., the President of the American Bar
Association, who was unable to attend the hearing. On behalf of
the American Bar Association and its over 400,000 members, I
would like to thank you for this exceptional opportunity to
express the ABA's strong support for the Uniting American
Families Act, which we hope will be integrated into any
comprehensive immigration reform legislation.
As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA has
a strong interest in ensuring that our immigration laws are
both fair and effective, as well as supporting efforts to
combat legal discrimination on the basis of race, gender,
ethnicity, religion, nationality, and sexual orientation.
In the particular area of immigration, the ABA has adopted
numerous policy recommendations concerning the administration
of our system of legal immigration. Central among these
recommendations is the core principle that the basis upon which
foreign nationals should be able to seek permanent resident
status should be both humane and equitable and should reflect
the historic emphasis on both family reunification and the
economic and cultural interests of the United States.
The ABA has also adopted numerous policy recommendations
that oppose discrimination based on sexual orientation. We
recognize the importance of providing committed gay and lesbian
couples and their families with basic legal protections to help
those families stay together.
Family unification is an express and central goal of
immigration policy in the United States and has been for more
than 50 years. Currently, however, this principle fails the
families of U.S. citizens and permanent residents whose same-
sex partners are foreign nationals. U.S. policy allows foreign
spouses and fiance(e)s to immigrate and live with their U.S.
partners, but it discriminates against gay and lesbian U.S.
citizens and permanent residents by prohibiting them from
sponsoring their partners for permanent residence in the U.S.
As a result, as we have heard today, thousands of lesbian and
gay bi-national couples and their children are being kept
apart, driven abroad into virtual exile, or forced to live in
fear of being separated, detained, or deported.
This policy damages not only those families, but the United
States society generally. According to the 2000 U.S. Census,
there are 35,820 same-sex bi-national couples that live
together in the United States. But due to current law and
policy, they are prevented from immigrating to the United
States, and many bi-national couples are forced to leave this
country, depriving our Nation of the economic, cultural,
social, and other contributions that these individuals could
have made here.
Gay and lesbian partners are ineligible to access
immigration opportunities, regardless of the depth of their
love and the permanency of their commitment to one another.
The Uniting American Families Act would not repeal or
affect the Defense of Marriage Act in any material way. Rather,
the Act simply seeks to provide a viable mechanism by which
permanent partners of gay and lesbian U.S. citizens and
permanent residents have access to valid immigration status on
an equivalent basis to married straight couples.
Moreover, gay and lesbian couples would be subject to
exactly the same rigorous documentation criteria that are
imposed upon heterosexual spouses, including productions of
documents like joint leases, mortgages, joint bank accounts,
family photos, and the like. The petitioning American partner
also would be required to sign a bind Affidavit of Support,
which is a contract that would obligate him or her to
financially support the beneficiary for 10 years in the United
States.
In addition, the current penalties, which are 5 years
imprisonment or a $250,000 fine--for marriage fraud under the
Immigration Nationality Act and the U.S. Code would apply with
equal force and vigor to gay and lesbian couples. Accordingly,
for these reasons, the Act would not increase the opportunity
for marriage fraud.
In maintaining the current immigration restrictions that
discriminate against same-sex couples, the United States'
policy is in direct contradiction with many of our closest
allies, including the United Kingdom, Australia, and Israel,
which facilitate and embrace immigration benefits for same-sex
partners.
In conclusion, central to this Nation's long history of
immigration law and policy is to ensure that Americans and
their loved ones are able to stay together in the United
States. The current failure to recognize gay and lesbian
permanent partnerships for immigration purposes is gratuitously
cruel and unnecessary. Critical protections, as provided in the
Uniting American Families Act, should be afforded and enacted
to help gay and lesbian partners maintain their commitment to
one another on an equal basis with different-sex spouses.
I thank you for your consideration of my testimony, and I
look forward to your questions. Thank you, Chairman Leahy.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nugent appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much, Mr. Nugent, and thank
you for the emphasis on the kind of scrutiny that would be
given to anybody making this kind of an application. As I
understand, it is the same scrutiny as somebody who is a
heterosexual couple, married couple, that would face the same
kind of scrutiny. Is that correct?
Mr. Nugent. Exactly. It would be the same exacting scrutiny
and very vigorous documentation requirements and the threat of
civil and criminal penalties. And as your bill, Chairman Leahy,
states, it states that part of the bill is to penalize
immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships. So
that is integrated and central to your bill.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
Roy Beck is the founder and CEO of NumbersUSA, a grassroots
organization dedicated to immigration reduction. Prior to
joining the organization, Mr. Beck worked as a journalist for
over 30 years. He is the recipient of numerous awards for
reporting on religion and politics and is a graduate of the
University of Missouri School of Journalism.
Mr. Beck, glad to have you here, sir.
STATEMENT OF ROY BECK, FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
NUMBERSUSA EDUCATION & RESEARCH FOUNDATION, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
Mr. Beck. Thank you very much. I thank the Committee for
the opportunity for NumbersUSA to testify about S. 424.
The key issue for us is that S. 424 creates a new,
unlimited category of immigration, but it does not include any
offsets of reducing green cards in other categories.
NumbersUSA was founded as a nonprofit, nonpartisan
organization in 1996 to carry out the immigration
recommendations of two Clinton-era national commissions. We now
have 900,000 on-line activist members who support that mission.
We believe that all immigration bills should be reviewed in
light of the principles of those two commissions.
First, President Clinton's Council on Sustainable
Development recommended that annual green card numbers be cut
low enough to allow for U.S. population stabilization.
Environmental sustainability in this country was seen by the
Commission as impossible if Congress continued to force massive
U.S. population growth through immigration.
The second was the bipartisan U.S. Commission on
Immigration Reform that was chaired by the late Barbara Jordan.
It recommended deep cuts in immigration to remove the economic
injustice that current immigration causes and imposes on the
most vulnerable members of our community. NumbersUSA examines
every immigration proposal on the basis of how it would advance
or impede the numerical recommendations of the two Clinton-era
commissions. These commissions recognized that immigration
policy has been assembled piecemeal without thought to how the
total number of green cards affects the overall national
community.
These Commissions recognized that our immigration policy
has been assembled piecemeal, without thought about how the
total number of green cards affects the overall national
community. Thus, a bill like S. 424 will tend to be examined
entirely outside its environmental consequences, even though we
are in a time of grave environmental concerns. It will tend to
be examined outside its economic impact despite our 9-percent
unemployment rate. But nearly every adult who is permanently
added to the U.S. population through immigration legislation
would be a potential competitor to unemployed and underemployed
American workers. Every new immigrant increases the total U.S.
carbon footprint and ecological footprint.
Every piece of our complex policy caters to a particular
special interest. Now, special does not mean illegitimate. It
just means it is special. It is not the national interest
overall. But the combined effect of all of these pieces on our
Nation's immigration policy has a profound consequence on the
entire national community in terms of the public infrastructure
deficit, economic disparities, and stewardship over our natural
resources.
I hope the Judiciary Committee will consider all those
implications every time it looks at immigration legislation in
the Congress. I noted in my written testimony that in many ways
immigration ought to come up before the Environment, Energy,
Health Services because it is the primary driver of population
growth in this country, which has profound effects on all of
those committees' work.
All of the long-term population growth in the United States
since 1972 has been due to Federal immigration policies.
In 1972, Americans chose to reduce the U.S. fertility rate
to below the replacement level of 2.1. It has been just below
that ever since. Yet the 1990s saw the biggest population boom
in our history--larger even than the 1950s baby boom. This
decade is very similar.
There is only one reason for this gigantic population boom
that defies all of the environmental hopes and dreams that were
back in the 1960s and 1970s when I first began reporting on the
environmental movement, and they are opposite the trends
recommended by President Clinton's Sustainability Commission.
That reason is that Congress has repeatedly overridden the
American people's choice of a stabilizing future and instead
forced massive population growth through increases in green
cards.
I am not aware that Congress has ever stated that it wanted
to increase the population. I am not aware that Congress has
ever said that the American people prefer to have an extra 130
million people the Census Bureau says that immigration will
cause over the next 50 years or 40 years. But this is the
result of making decisions on green cards piecemeal instead of
looking at the overall consequences and the overall numbers.
Until the first Earth Day in 1970, immigration averaged
about 250,000 a year, and that was about what it was in the
1950s and 1960s. But a succession of immigration decisions by
Congress have raised the 250,000 green cards to a million-a-
year level by 1990, and it has been there ever since.
In order to meet the Sustainability Commission's
recommendations of moving toward a stabilized U.S. population,
green card numbers would have to be cut back at least 75
percent. Like nearly all sustainability issues, the setting of
green card numbers is not primarily for those of us who are
living in the next decade. They are for our children and
grandchildren later this century, and they are for the
generations to come that will be in this country.
I want to just finish then by saying that, in a nutshell,
our concern about S. 424 is that it represents another
piecemeal congressional act that would increase the numbers of
green cards each year with no regard for the resulting increase
in population pressures.
Without a reduction in immigration and population growth,
it will be close to impossible to meet carbon goals, energy
goals, infrastructure goals without a fundamental slashing of
the American standard of living.
If Congress would take a bill like S. 424 and create
offsets at the same time, our organization does not have a
position on how these green cards are passed out. But we do
believe that the direction of green cards must be moving toward
the quarter million level from the million level. Thus, a bill
such as S. 424 that adds green cards should cut, we think, at
least three green cards in other categories in order to move in
the right direction. By adding green cards without reducing
others, passing S. 424 would be irresponsible to the
environment, to future generations, and to the most
economically vulnerable members of our national community.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beck appears as a submission
for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much, Mr. Beck.
Incidentally, you talk about doing this in a comprehensive
fashion. Did you support President Bush's comprehensive
immigration plan?
Mr. Beck. No. No, because it added lots of green cards.
Chairman Leahy. Okay. I did support President Bush on that
one.
Mr. Beck. I know.
Chairman Leahy. But it did not go anywhere.
The next witness is Jessica Vaughan. She is the Director of
Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies. Ms.
Vaughan is a former State Department consular officer, has
extensive experience with visas, immigration benefits, and
immigration law enforcement. She holds a bachelor's degree in
international studies from Washington College, a master's
degree in government from Georgetown University. Again, your
whole statement will be placed in the record, but please go
ahead, Ms. Vaughan.
STATEMENT OF JESSICA M. VAUGHAN, DIRECTOR, POLICY STUDIES,
CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES, FRANKLIN, MASSACHUSETTS
Ms. Vaughan. Thank you all very much for the opportunity to
be here today to discuss this bill. And just for the record, I
am a former Vermonter, also, another one on the panel.
Chairman Leahy. Whereabouts?
Ms. Vaughan. Randolph.
Chairman Leahy. Randolph. That is very pretty. Not that far
from Montpelier, where I was born. Thank you.
Ms. Vaughan. Thank you.
First off, I want to say that I fully understand the goal
of this legislation and the difficulties that some aspects of
current law present, particularly for same-sex couples. But
looking at this from the perspective of the administration of
the law, and as somebody who has adjudicated some of these
cases, and after discussing it with others who know the current
process very well, I do see a number of problems with the bill.
It is addressing the issue from the wrong direction, I
believe, and as a result would create major new problems for
officials who adjudicate immigration benefits applications and
for the many individuals who are involved in those
applications.
Immigration law specifies exactly which types of
relationships can qualify for visas, green cards, and other
benefits, and in most cases they do refer to marriage or
employment or another close family tie that can be established
through official documentation that is verifiable. Right now,
Federal law defines ``marriage'' as between a man and a woman,
and immigration law and all other areas of Federal law are
subject to that definition.
If the goal is to give same-sex long-term partners equal
access to immigration benefits, then the target really should
be the Defense Of Marriage Act, not the Immigration and
Nationality Act. If that law were changed, then this bill would
not be necessary, and the change would apply to all other areas
of Federal law, whether it is Social Security benefits or
veterans benefits or what have you. I do not see a good reason
to single out immigration law for that kind of a change.
Then also from a practical standpoint, this bill is really
just unworkable and would create havoc in our legal immigration
system. First of all, there is the problem of official
documentation. In most places, there is no mechanism to
recognize or document permanent partnerships. And our whole
immigration system is dependent on documents that can be
verified.
Eligibility is established by presenting documents that
prove that the sponsor and applicant have a qualifying
relationship, whether it is marriage, parent-child, employer-
employee, or sibling. And adjudicators review these documents
to determine the eligibility of the people before them. For
marriage-based applications, that is a marriage certificate.
There is no investigation at that point, at the point of
reviewing the petition. That may happen later if they are
applying overseas, but usually it does not occur because about
half of applications occur from within the United States. So
usually there is no interview.
It is already hard enough with all the different kinds of
marriage certificates here and the prevalence of fraudulent
documents in so many countries overseas to verify even the
legitimate marriages. So what happens when consular officers
and USCIS adjudicators have to try to evaluate a permanent
partnership, which is a relationship that does not officially
exist in most places? I found about 10 States, plus the
District of Columbia, that allow same-sex marriage or civil
unions or domestic partnerships, and those presumably would be
able to provide some kind of documentation. But I only found
about 21 foreign countries that have these kinds of
partnerships, mostly in Europe----
Chairman Leahy. How many?
Ms. Vaughan. Twenty-one that I could find.
Chairman Leahy. And Israel and South Africa.
Ms. Vaughan. Israel recognizes other countries'. It does
not have it itself, apparently, according to the sources I saw.
Chairman Leahy. South Africa, too.
Ms. Vaughan. South Africa, yes. Most of them are in Europe.
But people from these countries only make up about 6 percent of
legal immigration to the United States. So there is really a
very small number of people who would be able to provide some
kind of official documentation of their partnership. And I do
think it is unreasonable to try to expect consular officers or
USCIS adjudicators to try to do additional investigations to
verify the authenticity of most of the rest of the other
applications they would be getting under this legislation. It
just is not feasible with the resources that they have today.
So this bill, by creating a relationship that is difficult
to document is going to introduce new opportunities for fraud
in a program that is already a magnet for misrepresentation and
abuse of the system.
It is important to remember that this is going to create--
it is going to help a lot of people. It has the potential to
help a lot of people. But it will also create thousands of new
victims of marriage fraud as well. Marriage is by far the most
common route for foreign nationals now. I counted that last
year more than 400,000 people obtained green cards as a result
of marriage to either a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident,
or someone else who qualified for a green card. And that is
about 40 percent of total legal immigration to the United
States. So it is a lot of people who come in through this
route. And while most of these marriages are legitimate, still
marriage fraud is one of the most common ways for otherwise
unqualified people--many of whom are illegal aliens--to obtain
green cards.
We published a report last year on marriage fraud and
documented all the different types of it, whether it is mail-
order brides or cash for vows or exploitative relationships or
what we call ``heart breakers,'' and all of these methods are
sure to be used in the context of permanent partnerships.
Chairman Leahy. Ms. Vaughan, we will put your full
statement in the record. I want others to have time. I have to
be at another thing. I know Senator Sessions will have
questions and Senator Specter will. I will turn the gavel over
to either Senator Specter or Senator Schumer if he comes. I do
apologize. You make a very good point on the question of fraud,
and as Mr. Nugent pointed out, we are trying to put the same
law in, and we do not want to put extra work on overworked
consular officers, but we all have to work hard. And we will
put in the same fraud protections in there for this as we do
for other married couples, because the point you make is a very
good one. We should try to be able to root out fraud.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Vaughan appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. I am also going to put in the record 34
statements in support of this from organizations across the
country. Mr. Stewart, it includes Pfizer.
Ms. Tan, thank you for coming today. I know part of this
has been difficult for Jashley and Joriene, but you can be very
proud of them.
Ms. Tan. Thank you.
Chairman Leahy. They look like very nice young men, and
they should be proud of both their parents, and they should
know that there are people who want to help them.
I could not help but think that the family you have and the
contribution to your community are things the Federal
Government should protect. You work actively in your community,
in your local Catholic Church, and other areas. And both your
story and Mr. Stewart's story remind us that when we discuss
this policy, there are real people involved. I just slipped Mr.
Stewart a note saying that our family has had the same
farmhouse for 50 years in Middlesex, and I know how--Middlesex
is not that much different than Goshen.
So we know that what you want to do is provide your family
with a good education, provide them with their welfare. How
about others in your community? How do they feel? Do you
receive support within the community from people on this?
Ms. Tan. Yes, I----
Chairman Leahy. Press the button so your microphone will be
on. If the little red light comes on, it is on. Go ahead.
Ms. Tan. My whole community in Pacifica gave me their
utmost support. The congregation, the Church of Good Shepherd,
my parish priest, the pastor, he wrote a very nice letter to
Senator Dianne Feinstein in support of my plight. And all of
the community leaders, they are extending their sympathy, and
my friends, the school community where my sons attend the
Cabrillo School, they were extending their support and sympathy
in this time of our life.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
Mr. Stewart, you are now working for Pfizer in England. You
are paying your taxes in England. If this would work, you would
be in the United States. You would be a taxpayer not only in my
State but wherever Pfizer had you. Is that correct?
Mr. Stewart. I am actually under the earned income
exclusion. I also pay taxes in the U.S. as a U.S. citizen
living abroad. So I, in fact, pay a heavy tax burden in the
U.S. as well.
Yes, if I were able to----
Chairman Leahy. But your skills would be used here in the
United States.
Mr. Stewart. Yes. The headquarters of Pfizer are in New
York, and the policy of Pfizer to send people abroad or move
them around the global organization is so that they can add the
most value to the company. And, obviously, at a certain point,
my skills could be best used back in headquarters, I believe.
And I believe that is why we have the support of our CEO and
chairman.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
Mr. Bond, you--and I do not mean to embarrass you; it
becomes almost a cliche. You are an icon in the civil rights
movement and are recognized by all of us in that regard. I
listened to your statement, the benefits of family unity and
all. Would you say your statement could apply very well to Mr.
Stewart and Ms. Tan.
Mr. Bond. Absolutely. We think we are all united in wanting
the same thing, and the arguments you have heard from personal
stories are so compelling, it is hard to see how someone could
turn away.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
You know, Mr. Nadler used the words ``gratuitous harm.'' I
do not think that is the fair definition of where we are. It
seems that the U.S. Government and most governments in the
world have defined marriage as between a man and a woman. They
give preferences in several different areas--joint tax returns
or other advantages of being in that relationship that has been
approved by the State. The State does not order that people
cannot live together if they are same-sex couples and cannot
share all kinds of responsibilities and activities together. It
does not prohibit that. But it does not give that special
status. And you think about maybe brothers and sisters live
together a long time and are close, just roommates or partners
or friends in business or other activities. They are not given
preferences either. So at some point, the law has to draw
lines. Our Congress has voted not long ago overwhelmingly that
marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. So
that is kind of where we are, and most nations, I think, in the
world would agree with that.
I do note that this legislation has caused some concern
among the pro-immigration forces. The U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops, who support immigration and family
unification issues in a pretty strong way, recently wrote that
the reunification bill would ``erode the institution of
marriage and family by according marriage-like immigration
benefits to same-sex relationships, a position that is contrary
to the very nature of marriage, which pre-dates the church and
the State.''
Also, Mr. Samuel Rodriguez, head of the National Hispanic
Christian Leadership Conference, called it ``a slap in the face
to those of us who fought for years for immigration reforms,''
adding that it would divide the very broad and strong coalition
we have built on behalf of comprehensive reform.
Well, I just say that to say that there are some
differences here of a significant nature on this question.
Mr. Nugent, just briefly, our research tells us that the
countries that have this kind of immigration policy, at least
in some form, all have more restrictions and requirements of
proof than this bill would have. If you know that answer I
would like your response. If not, perhaps the ABA would take a
moment to check and see how well other countries have written
their law to eliminate as much fraud as possible.
Mr. Nugent. Yes, I would prefer that the ABA submit their
response in writing, but I----
Senator Sessions. You think the ABA had all that
information when they passed the resolution adopting this?
Mr. Nugent. To my knowledge, they surveyed all the other
countries in terms of their requirements.
Senator Sessions. Who votes for the ABA to make such a
resolution? I am a member. I do not recall knowing that you
were voting on it.
Mr. Nugent. It was at last year's meeting.
Senator Sessions. So just the delegates who showed up at
the national meeting voted.
Mr. Nugent. People can vote.
Senator Sessions. Every delegate that showed--was it the
entire ABA Conference or some committee?
Mr. Nugent. No, it is through the House of Delegates, so
the delegates votes.
Senator Sessions. The delegates, not the ABA members and--
--
Mr. Nugent. The delegates represent their constituents.
Senator Sessions. How many is that?
Mr. Nugent. I do not have the exact number of the ABA
delegates. I think it is around 500.
Senator Sessions. All right. Ms. Vaughan, with regard to
this fraud issue, you have done a good bit of work on that, and
I saw in your statement already that it is a big problem. As I
indicated, when Senator Specter and I were in the Caribbean, we
were talking to a consulate official, and I am not sure if
Senator Specter was in that conference, but we got into a long
discussion about this. He said this was the No. 1 fraud issue
he faced. When they caught people flatly committing fraudulent
documents, nobody prosecuted it. There was no ability to do
anything about it. And it was just a constant abuse of the
system. And he thought it was the most abused part of the
system.
How would you respond to that?
Ms. Vaughan. Oh, I would agree, absolutely, that marriage
fraud is the single most difficult problem in immigrant visas
because there are so many applications that depend on marriage
and documenting marriage. It is just ripe for it. There are so
many different kinds of it. And so that is why it is critically
important to be able to verify that the relationships are
valid, and that is why we have a provision in the law that
makes the green card conditional for 2 years. And then the
couple has to come back to establish that they are still
married.
But even so, you know, the motivation----
Senator Sessions. They have to come back and show--does
this bill require that?
Ms. Vaughan. My understanding is that it imposes the same
standards on permanent partners as it does on marriage cases.
But the problem is that--well, for one thing, marriage itself
is an institution that brings with it legal entanglements, and
we think that having--that the prospect of marriage is
something that actually does deter some people who might be
tempted to engage in marriage fraud for cash or for whatever
reason, because they think it is kind of a benign crime,
because of the legal entanglements--in other words, the spouse
has access to your bank account, to your home, and so on, and
you have to demonstrate the bona fides of the relationship. And
so permanent partnerships have no such legal standing.
Senator Sessions. In the United States in particular.
Ms. Vaughan. In the United States in particular, and in
many other countries in the world. So what is to stop--you
know, I can imagine somebody who would be tempted to perpetrate
this kind of fraud would just say, well, what do I have to lose
by establishing a permanent partnership? Nothing. If we are to
end the partnership, I lose nothing. I gain from, you know,
however many thousands of dollars I make for establishing this
fraudulent partnership, and there is no risk to me as an
individual.
Senator Sessions. How about the situation--isn't it true
that if you have a spouse in Colombia, let us say, that spouse
would go to the U.S. consulate on Colombia and would present a
marriage certificate or some document that virtually every
nation in the world provides for people who are actually in a
heterosexual marriage relationship, right? But that kind of
documentation is not available in most countries in the world
where 94 percent of the people who used the marriage
relationship to come to the United States as a preference, that
would not be available. And so the consulate official has now
got a real complex decisionmaking requirement before they can
determine whether or not that is--what kind of relationship it
is. Wouldn't that complicate their lives significantly?
Ms. Vaughan. Oh, absolutely. It is hard enough with
marriage certificates, but at least those you can verify by
calling the country's Department of Vital Statistics or, you
know, there are lots of other ways to discover that the
government of that country has recognized this relationship.
With permanent partnerships, they do not exist in most
other countries of the world, so there would be no way that the
adjudicating officer could have any confidence that this was a
legitimate, officially recognized relationship. That is very
problematic.
Senator Sessions. There are other possible partnership
relationships that could be implicated by this statute that
would require even further and more complex analysis. I think
the clarity of the preference, the benefit--the clarity of the
benefit provided to a traditional marriage relationship
provides some help in keeping integrity in the system and its
being abused. To go beyond that I think would really open up
the system to very grave consequences.
Chairman Specter, I would just offer for the record a
number of letters and comments. John Sampson, a 27-year veteran
of immigration enforcement with INS and its successor, U.S.
Customs Enforcement, ICE, the Family Research Council, Focus on
the Family, Concerned Women of American Eagle Forum have
submitted the letters that they would like to be made a part of
the record. We would offer that.
Senator Specter [presiding]. Without objection, they will
be made a part of the record.
[The information referred to appears as a submission for
the record.]
Senator Specter. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
Senator Schumer.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW YORK
Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize
to you and to the witnesses for being here late. We had a
discussion on the health care bill in the Finance Committee.
That is coming up. I had to be there. I am just going to read
an opening statement, because I am supportive of Senator
Leahy's bill, and then you get on with other questions.
Now, about a month ago, I chaired a hearing of the
Immigration Subcommittee regarding the prospects for
comprehensive immigration reform. It was a great hearing. As
you know, Mr. Chairman, I am Chairman of the Immigration
Subcommittee, and we are going to make a very strong attempt to
try to get comprehensive immigration reform this year that I
think can unite rather than divide people, because most
Americans are both pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal
immigration. And this bill will be very tough on each.
At the hearing, Pastor Joel Hunter--he is one of America's
most knowledgeable and influential conservative religious
leaders. He is pastor of a huge church and has an amazing
following and is a wonderful person. His testimony on
immigration, you know, brought tears to the eyes of many
people, and he reminded us that ``Our broken immigration system
produces both broken and crooked people and tempts many to
predatory practices''--something I know that all the witnesses,
including Ms. Vaughan just talking about it, are worried about.
Well, I urge my colleagues to read his testimony from last
month, both in testimony as it applies to this bill, but as it
applies to comprehensive immigration reform. And Pastor Hunter
counseled us that, in order to fix this broken system, we must
adopt an immigration system that deems each person is valuable,
prioritizes the family, and provides compassion for those most
in need. And that is why I am a sponsor of the Uniting American
Families Act.
For those who oppose this act, citing concerns of fraud, I
counter with what our immigration officials themselves tell me.
They say that what truly engenders fraud is the current broken
system which lamentably places bi-national same-sex couples in
the dilemma of either being torn apart from their loved ones or
breaking the law. Ms. Tan has testified about that.
For those who question the morality of permitting same-sex
partners to obtain immigration benefits, I believe we should
value the sanctity of preserving the family structure in
whatever form it may take and in providing compassion for all
Americans who yearn to live with their family.
This Act incorporates the same principles that I believe
should govern comprehensive immigration reform. It is tough on
fraud and law breakers. It encourages people to abide by the
law, requires people to prove they are really in a permanent
partnership prior to receiving an immigration benefit. And,
best of all, it fixes an aspect of our broken immigration
system in order to discourage illegal immigration and encourage
legal immigration.
The time has come for us to help people like Ms. Tan and to
make the promise of America real for this sympathetic segment
to the American population who is adversely and irrationally
affected by our current immigration law.
The division I guess I would have with Jeff, my colleague
Senator Sessions, is this: Do not let the perfect be the enemy
of the good. No law is going to be perfect. But this law will
encourage people to abide by the law rather than break it,
because we know that love is one of the most strong forces that
God has created, and people are going to figure out ways to
keep that love intact, and sometimes it leads them to break the
law, which is wrong. Why not have the law understand that and
make a process that is more law-abiding rather than less?
That is, I guess, what I would say, and I thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for both calling on me and chairing the hearing. I
thank all of the witnesses for their patience. And I thank
Senator Leahy for introducing this bill.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Senator Schumer.
The trend nationally has been to recognize relationships
between people of the same sex. There have been five States now
which have given full marriage equality to members of the same
sex. Other States have sanctioned civil unions. Still other
States have sanctioned domestic partnerships. Some States have
recognized same-sex marriage performed in other States. And
some States have limited relationship recognition laws.
Where there has been such a significant trend to giving at
least recognition to civil unions, I believe it is entirely
consistent to accord people that opportunity on immigration so
that if you have a same-sex union to give equal standing as
really a civil rights issue. Not necessary to get into the
issue as to whether it would be constitutionally protected with
the different status of an undocumented immigrant, for example.
But I think Senator Leahy's legislation goes in the right
direction, and I support it.
The issue of same-sex marriage has changed very materially
since the Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1997. At that
time, there was a very substantial vote, 86-14, and I was among
the 86. Former President Clinton has made an interesting
comment about same-sex marriage when asked about his own
judgment on it. I think it is accurate to say that he remarked
that his views were evolving, which may be a fair statement. As
to what is happening nationally remains to be seen. But it is
my hope that an issue like this will not prove to be so
controversial that it derails our efforts to have comprehensive
immigration reform.
In 2006, this Committee passed out a comprehensive
immigration reform bill. It passed the Senate. There was a bill
which passed the House, and the House would not go to
conference, really largely along political lines. Their bill
was not comprehensive. It only dealt with the law and employer
verification. The political calculation boomeranged, and the
House went down to substantial defeat, and the Senate, by one
vote, changed control.
In 2007, the Committee did not take up the issue, and there
was an ad hoc committee, and a bill was taken to the floor and
was not successful. The issue of citizenship was a major
concern, which I think led to the bill's defeat. But on the
chronology, the comprehensive bill provided that the
undocumented immigrants, estimated at 12 million--nobody knows
for sure how many; it could be as many as 20 million--would
come at the end of the line, which had a process of about 13
years. So the citizenship was very far distant.
I introduced a discussion bill in July of 2007 which made a
couple of changes. One was on the family reunification issue
which was considered in the ad hoc deliberations, and I think
not wisely decided, without hearings and without the customary
markup. And my bill provided that the fugitive status would be
changed to try to bring people out of the so-called shadows to
be in a position to be identified so that we could deport the
criminal element. That is doable. You cannot deport 12 million
people. Get the people out of the so-called shadows so they pay
taxes and have standing in society.
The hearing has run late, and I do not propose to ask very
many questions. We do not often have a person of the stature of
Mr. Julian Bond. Mr. Bond, would you care to give a reaction to
a proposal which would seek to remove a major impediment to
political success by leaving immigration to another date? It is
going to be delayed 13 years in any event. A lot can happen in
13 years. But if we did not have in immigration citizenship as
an immediate consequence, I think it might alter a lot of
attitudes and remove a major impediment to comprehensive
reform. What do you think?
Mr. Bond. Thank you, Senator. It may well allow for some
time for consideration of other issues. But as you said about
the question of same-sex marriage, the trend in this country is
changing, as witnessed by the several States that have
legalized and other States that have provided some kind of
domestic partnership or something.
I think the likelihood is also true about immigration as a
general topic and what we ought to do about it. And although we
put it off for 13 years, I would hate to think we would put it
off for another 13, or even one 1 or 2.
I think we have a President who wants to do a lot of things
as quickly as he can, and I am glad that he is, because I think
for too long we have put things aside and waited for a more
proper moment.
Senator Specter. I did not quite follow your view as to my
suggestion that we make the immediate change on eliminating the
fugitive status.
Mr. Bond. Oh, I am sorry. I thought you were talking about
delaying the prospects of immigration discussion of the general
larger question. I misunderstood you.
Senator Specter. Oh, no. I am not proposing delaying it. I
am proposing since citizenship is not realistic for the
undocumented 12 million for a long period of time, because even
under the legislation which the Senate passed, comprehensive,
people were satisfied they would put them at the end of the
line, I do not think you can put them at the beginning of the
line. But if you made a change and just removed the fugitive
status, I think there would be a tremendous difference in the
way we treat the undocumented immigrants.
Mr. Bond. I think so, Senator. I am sorry. I completely
misunderstood the question you were asking. But I think so.
Senator Specter. Would you be willing to go along with
deferring the citizenship question and try to move ahead with
comprehensive reform by just removing the fugitive status?
Mr. Bond. Senator, I am speaking here today on behalf of a
small ``d'' democratic organization which makes decisions
slowly, and I am not in a position to say, yes, we would, or we
would not.
Senator Specter. Well, would you care to give a personal
opinion, having disclaimed your representative status?
Mr. Bond. No, probably not.
[Laughter.]
Senator Specter. Okay. Fair enough. You have the right to
remain silent.
Mr. Bond. Thank you.
Senator Specter. Nothing you say will be used against you.
Thank you all very much for coming, and that concludes our
hearing.
One additional item. Senator Sessions requested that the
record be kept open for a week, and we will honor that request.
[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Submissions for the record follow.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]