U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

63–875 PDF 2011

ICE WORKSITE ENFORCEMENT—UP TO THE JOB? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JANUARY 26, 2011 

Serial No. 112–2 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM REED, New York 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT

ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman 

STEVE KING, Iowa, Vice-Chairman 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JANUARY 26, 2011 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and 

Enforcement .......................................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy 

and Enforcement .................................................................................................. 3 

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................................... 8 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Kumar Kibble, Deputy Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 79 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 81 

Mr. Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies, 

Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 89 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 91 

Mr. Michael W. Cutler, Senior Special Agent (Ret.), Immigration and Naturalization Service, New York District Office 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 95 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 98 

Mr. Daniel Griswold, Director, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 101 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 104 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration Policy and Enforcement ........................................................... 5 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration Policy and Enforcement ........................................................... 11 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Letter from Lynn Shotwell, Executive Director, American Council on International Personnel (ACIP) ................................................................................... 126 

(1) 

ICE WORKSITE ENFORCEMENT— 

UP TO THE JOB? 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION

POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Elton Gallegly 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gallegly, Smith, Poe, Gowdy, Ross, Lofgren, Pierluisi, and Jackson Lee. 

Staff Present: (Majority) George Fishman, Subcommittee Chief 

Counsel; Marian White, Clerk; and Tom Jawetz, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Good afternoon, everyone. 

One of the things about chairing a Committee, I like to see my 

trains run on time. And today is probably a better example than 

most, when we are fighting the weather. And we are expecting 

votes on the floor here in the next 30 to 45 minutes, and there will 

be a series. So I want to try to get as much in before we have to 

break as possible. 

I welcome everyone here today and just say that the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement is holding its 

first hearing of the 112th Congress. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the Members of the Subcommittee as we begin 

our work this session. 

I especially want to welcome Congresswoman Lofgren. I know 

she is on her way. I have worked with Zoe for many years and she 

is a very capable person. Ms. Lofgren, as you know, was the Chairwoman during the previous two Congresses, and she brings with 

her a great deal of expertise on the issues under the jurisdiction 

of this Subcommittee. 

Let me now turn to today’s hearing, which will be an overview 

of ICE’s worksite enforcement efforts. 

We are in the midst of a job depression more severe than most 

Americans have witnessed in their lifetimes. Over 14 million Americans are currently unemployed. The most vulnerable American 

workers have been especially hard-hit. The official unemployment 

rate for native-born Americans without a high school degree exceeds well over 20 percent, and their underemployment rate exceeds 32 percent. That is almost a third of that entire class of 

workers. 

2 

And yet, at the same time, millions of illegal immigrants hold 

jobs. Even when low-skilled Americans can find jobs, their wages 

are depressed by illegals and other low-skilled immigration. Harvard economist George Borjas has estimated that immigration in 

recent decades has reduced the wages of native-born workers without a high school degree by almost 9 percent. 

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made it unlawful for employers to knowingly hire or employ immigrants not eligible to work and required employers to check the identify and work 

eligibility documents of all new employees. 

Unfortunately, IRCA simply asked employers to see if the documents presented by their employees reasonably looked genuine. 

The easy availability of millions of counterfeit documents have 

made a mockery of this process. Compounding the flawed design of 

IRCA, first the INS and then U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement failed to vigorously enforce the employer sanctions law. 

Then, in 2006, the Bush administration reinvigorated worksite 

enforcement. It placed a new focus on criminal prosecutions of both 

illegal immigrant workers who steal Americans’ identities and employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants. The number of 

civil arrests increased from 445 in the year 2003 to 5,184 in the 

year 2008. And the number of criminal arrests increased from 72 

to 1,103. And the number of criminal convictions increased from 

156 to 908. 

The net result of this new strategy was more jobs and higher 

wages for American and other legal workers. One employer subject 

to a worksite enforcement action raised wages by more than a dollar an hour and hired 200 legal workers. At another, 400 legal 

workers applied for the 361 jobs left by deported illegal immigrants. 

As Chairman Smith will elaborate, the Obama administration 

has relaxed the get-tough strategy of the Bush administration’s 

ICE director, Julie Myers. ICE still audits the employment records 

of employers, but what happens to the illegal workers that it uncovers? 

Minnesota Public Radio reported about the aftermath of an audit 

that identified 1,200 illegal immigrants in well-paying janitorial 

jobs. ‘‘The most important rumor to dispel was that the workers 

were arrested.’’ In the story, a retired ICE official wondered ‘‘how 

effective this enforcement will be, considering the workers are free 

to move into other jobs.’’ And a representative of the Immigration 

Law Center believes that the vast majority of the 1,200 illegal 

workers will ‘‘probably try to wait it out, hoping for the laws to 

change so they can work here legally.’’ 

The Obama administration’s strategy clearly does a grave disservice to American workers. At today’s hearing, we will hear from 

both ICE and its critics as to the optimal worksite enforcement 

strategy. The result of ICE’s efforts must be that those jobs that 

are available go to Americans and to legal residents. 

At this time, I would like to yield to my good friend. And, as I 

said in my opening statement, I have had the honor of working 

with Zoe Lofgren for many years. I have great respect for her. And 

while we don’t always agree on every issue, I think we have 

3 

worked in a very civil way, and our differences have never been 

personal. 

So, with that, I would yield to my friend and neighbor from California, Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. And I want to congratulate 

you, Mr. Gallegly, as the new Chair of this Committee and Mr. 

King as Vice-Chair and, certainly, Mr. Smith as Chair of the Committee. 

Today’s hearing is the first of many I expect we will have on the 

role that immigration plays in the U.S. economy and its impact on 

American jobs. And I hope and actually do expect, as you have just 

noted, that throughout these hearings, as with the new Congress, 

our two sides of the aisle will put aside heated rhetoric and work 

to solve some of the intractable problems that the country has been 

facing for far too long. 

I think everyone agrees that our immigration laws are broken. 

For decades, these laws have not met the needs of our country— 

not of American businesses, American workers, or American families. And it is these broken laws that have led us to the morass we 

now find ourselves in. 

Rather than fix those laws, like one would fix a broken car, some 

may now be suggesting that we just step on the pedal harder. But 

you can’t keep enforcing a broken system without doing real damage. The truth is that continuing to increase enforcement without 

reforming the broken system will actually hurt the economy and 

American workers. Yes, increased enforcement may open up a particular job here or there, but this approach will actually destroy 

many more jobs than it creates. 

What we often hear from colleagues on the other side of the aisle 

is that this issue boils down to simple math: that every time we 

find and deport an undocumented worker, we open a job for a native worker. But this math is bad math. It simply does not take 

into account the complex realities of our economy. 

We held a hearing last September on our agricultural labor force, 

which is composed mostly of unauthorized workers. Under their 

simple math, the wrong math, if we just removed these workers, 

Americans would run to fill those jobs. But that is not even remotely true. Experts from all sides agree that, even in this poor 

economy, Americans are not returning to the fields as migrant 

workers to pick tomatoes, apples, or strawberries. And the increase 

in wages necessary to get U.S. workers to go to the fields as migrants would hike production costs so high that U.S. food products 

would no longer be competitive with imported products. The end result would be the closure of American farms, a less secure America, 

and mass offshoring of millions and millions of U.S. jobs. 

Let’s be clear here. If we just ramp up enforcement without reforming the system, job losses in agriculture would not be confined 

to the fields. The Department of Agriculture reports that every onfarm job supports or creates about 3.1 upstream and downstream 

jobs—jobs in manufacturing, seed production, processing, packaging, distribution, and accounting—that are overwhelmingly filled 

by United States workers. The truth is that every time we deport 

a farm worker, we also deport three other jobs that are held by 

Americans. 

4 

This is the real math we need to heed. Enforcement without reform may open up a job here or there, only to destroy four others 

over here. 

Over the past 4 years, this Subcommittee held dozens of hearings 

on our immigration system. We heard time and time again from 

economists, business leaders, experts from all backgrounds and 

across ideological lines that an enforcement-only approach is damaging to businesses and workers. Some are now asking us to pay 

no attention to that testimony. They are asking us to simply step 

on the gas, whatever the damage. 

Our laws need to be fixed so that they can work for our economy, 

our people, and our country. Yes, we need to secure our borders 

and make sure that only authorized workers are employed in the 

United States. But we also need an immigration system that meets 

the needs of our economy, one that grows when and where we need 

workers and shrinks when and where we don’t. Without that, we 

will keep spending billions of taxpayer dollars enforcing broken 

laws. 

Some argue we need to enforce our laws and secure our border 

before we can ever discuss reforms to our broken system. But the 

truth is that every day that passes is a day in which we pursue 

an enforcement-only approach, and that is damaging to our country. 

I have additional comments, Mr. Gallegly, but, given that the 

bells have rung, I would ask unanimous consent to put the additional comments in the record. And perhaps we can hear from some 

of our witnesses before the vote. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:] 

5 


Lofgren-1.eps
6 


Lofgren-2.eps
7 


Lofgren-3.eps
8 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Now, I would yield to the gentleman, the Chairman of the full Committee, my good friend from Texas, Lamar 

Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Mr. Chairman, congratulations to you on the first hearing 

of this Subcommittee. You have mentioned some compliments directed toward Ms. Lofgren, the gentlewoman from California, in 


Lofgren-4.eps
9 

her previous role as Chair of this Subcommittee. She ought to 

reread those comments because they were very complimentary 

even though she may have missed some of them. 

I also happen to agree with something she said at the very end 

of her opening statement, and that is that only authorized workers 

should be employed. And we can certainly agree with that. 

I do have an opening statement. I will try to get through it fairly 

quickly. And, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, I think we have 

a couple of votes, but hopefully our witnesses won’t mind waiting 

for us to vote and return. 

With unemployment over 9 percent for 20 months, jobs are 

scarce and families are worried. According to the Pew Hispanic 

Center, 7 million people are working in the United States illegally. 

These jobs should go to legal workers, and securing these jobs for 

American and legal immigrant workers should be a priority of the 

Federal Government. 

The Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, 

should enforce the law and conduct more worksite enforcement activities. Each time ICE arrests, detains, or deports an illegal worker, it creates a job opportunity for an American worker. Each time 

the Department of Justice brings a criminal action against an employer who knowingly hired illegal workers, it sends a powerful 

message that their employment will not be tolerated. 

Unfortunately, worksite enforcement has plummeted under the 

Obama administration. Administrative arrests have fallen 77 percent from 2008 to 2010. Criminal arrests have fallen 60 percent. 

Criminal indictments have fallen 57 percent, and criminal convictions have fallen 66 percent. And the number of the investigative 

hours devoted to worksite enforcement has fallen by 34 percent in 

the last 2 years. 

How does the Administration justify these policies? With millions 

of Americans unemployed, it is hard to imagine a worse time to cut 

worksite enforcement efforts by more than half. 

ICE will testify today that it has increased the number of audits 

of companies’ employment eligibility verification forms they filled 

out for their employees. The number of audits has increased from 

503 in 2008 to over 2,000 in 2010, and the amount of fines has 

gone up, as well. 

However, these audits are of questionable benefit. The GAO has 

found that, quote, ‘‘ICE has faced difficulties in settling and collecting final fine amounts that meaningfully deter employers from 

knowingly hiring unauthorized workers. ICE officials told us that, 

because fine amounts are so low, the fines do not provide a meaningful deterrent. The amount of mitigated fines may be, in the 

opinion of some ICE officials, so low that they believe that employers view the fines as a cost of doing business, making the fines an 

ineffective deterrent for employers who attempt to circumvent the 

law,’’ end quote. 

Stewart Baker, the Department of Homeland Security’s Assistant 

Secretary for Policy Development in the prior Administration, said 

that, quote, ‘‘the fines are ridiculously low, sometimes less than a 

New York City parking ticket.’’ 

10 

And what happens to the illegal workers who are seldom arrested? They go down the street and knock on the door of the next 

employer and take possibly another job from an American worker. 

Critics of worksite enforcement claim that illegal immigrants 

hold jobs that Americans won’t do. But even in the agriculture industry, where amnesty supporters insist we need illegal workers, 

50 percent of the agriculture jobs are held by citizens and legal immigrants. Statements that are Americans are not willing to do 

these jobs demeans the hardworking Americans who actually do 

this work on a daily basis. 

Citizens and legal immigrants should not be forced to compete 

with illegal workers for jobs. The Administration should put the interest of American workers ahead of illegal workers. All the Administration has to do is conduct worksite enforcement. Twenty-six 

million Americans who are unemployed or underemployed are asking the question, ‘‘Mr. President, why aren’t you protecting American jobs?’’ 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would yield just a moment to the Ranking Member for a unanimous consent request. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I do request unanimous consent to submit a series of statements 

prepared for today’s hearing from leaders in the labor, faith, refugee, and immigration advocacy community. And, in lieu of the 

time, I would simply submit the lists and statement to the record. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

11 


LCLAA.eps
12 


NIFS-1.eps
13 


NIFS-2.eps
14 


NIFS-3.eps
15 


NIFS-4.eps
16 


NIFS-5.eps
17 


NIFS-6.eps
18 


NIFS-7.eps
19 


NIFS-8.eps
20 


NIFS-9.eps
21 


NIFS-10.eps
22 


NIFS-11.eps
23 


NIFS-12.eps
24 


NIFS-13.eps
25 


NIFS-14.eps
26 


NIFS-15.eps
27 


NCFS-1.eps
28 


NCFS-2.eps
29 


NCFS-3.eps
30 


NCFS-4.eps
31 


NCFS-5.eps
32 


NCFS-6.eps
33 


NCFS-7.eps
34 


NCFS-8.eps
35 


NCFS-9.eps
36 


SEIU.eps
37 


Tulli-1.eps
38 


Tulli-2.eps
39 


Tulli-3.eps
40 


Tulli-4.eps
41 


Tulli-5.eps
42 


Tulli-6.eps
43 


Tulli-7.eps
44 


Tulli-8.eps
45 


Tulli-1.eps
46 


Tulli-2.eps
47 


NIF-1.eps
48 


NIF-2.eps
49 


NIF-3.eps
50 


NIF-4.eps
51 


NIF-5.eps
52 


NIF-6.eps
53 


NIF-7.eps
54 


NIF-8.eps
55 


NIF-9.eps
56 


NIF-10.eps
57 


NIF-11.eps
58 


NIF-12.eps
59 


NIF-13.eps
60 


NIF-14.eps
61 


NIF-15.eps
62 


NIF-16.eps
63 


NIF-17.eps
64 


NIF-18.eps
65 


NIF-19.eps
66 


NIF-20.eps
67 


NIF-21.eps
68 


NIF-22.eps
69 


NIF-23.eps
70 


NIF-24.eps
71 


NIF-25.eps
72 


NIF-26.eps
73 


NIF-27.eps
74 


NIF-28.eps
75 


NIF-29.eps
76 


NIF-30.eps
77 


NIF-31.eps
78 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I see that Mr. Conyers isn’t here, so what I would 

like to do, at this point, is introduce our witnesses. Then we are 

going to have to recess to go over and vote. 

I don’t know how many—do you know how many votes we have? 

So it is about probably 45 minutes to an hour. So, if you folks 

can stand by. 

First of all, we are honored to have a very distinguished group 

of witnesses today. 

Mr. Kumar Kibble is the deputy director of the U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement. He serves as the chief operating officer 

for the principal investigative agency of the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Kibble began his government career in 1990 as 

an infantry officer in the U.S. Army, 82nd Airborne. He received 

his bachelor of science degree from the U.S. Military Academy at 

West Point. 

We are pleased to have you here, sir. 

I think most of us know Mark Krikorian. Mr. Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a nonprofit, 

nonpartisan research organization in Washington, D.C., which examines and critiques the impact of immigration on the United 

States. He is the author of ‘‘The New Case Against Immigration, 

Both Legal and Illegal.’’ Mr. Krikorian holds a master’s degree 

from the Fletcher School of Law in diplomacy and a bachelor’s degree from Georgetown University. 

Welcome, Mr. Krikorian. 

Mr. Michael Cutler is a retired senior special agent with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, New York District Office. He 

joined the INS in 1971 as an immigration inspector at JFK airport. 

In fact, I think that was one of the first places I met you, along 

the line. 

Mr. Cutler has served in many positions, including as senior special agent, and was assigned to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. Mr. Cutler retired from the INS in February 

2002 after a career that spanned more than 30 years. 

And our last witness, Mr. Daniel Griswold, is the director of the 

Center for Trade Policy Studies at Cato Institute here in Washington, D.C. He is the author of the Cato book, ‘‘Mad About Trade: 

Why Main Street Should Embrace Globalization.’’ He received his 

bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Wisconsin at 

Madison and a diploma in economics and a master’s degree in the 

politics of the world economy from the London School of Economics. 

So you see we have a very distinguished group of witnesses 

today. And I wish we could start the testimony now, but because 

we are about 7 minutes away from a vote we will recess and reconvene. And, hopefully, there will be some Members that will be able 

to get back. 

So, with that, we will recess until we finish voting. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I call the Subcommittee back to order. 

Thank you for your patience. The storm is moving in, so we are 

going to move on as quickly as we can. And we have lost several 

of our Members, but we have the most important one,so. 

79 

Mr. Kibble, we will recognize you. For the sake of trying to expedite things, I would ask you to please work with us on the 5- 

minute thing, and appreciate your patience. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF KUMAR KIBBLE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT 

OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. KIBBLE. Chairman Gallegly, distinguished Members of the 

Subcommittee, to the extent they are here, on behalf of Secretary 

Janet Napolitano and Assistant Secretary John Morton, I want to 

thank you for the opportunity to discuss ICE’S worksite enforcement efforts. 

DHS is pursuing an aggressive strategy with respect to worksite 

enforcement. Our strategy focuses on employers that knowingly 

violate the law, deterring those who are tempted to violate the law, 

and offering easy tools, like E-Verify, to help employers comply. We 

do this through the robust use of I-9 inspections, civil fines, and debarment. 

The success of our approach to worksite enforcement is clear in 

the numbers. In fiscal year 2010, ICE opened a record 2,746 worksite enforcement investigations. This more than doubled the number from 2008. We also issued more notices of inspection to employers, quadrupling the number from 2008. We issued a record of final 

orders directing businesses to pay fines amounting to just under $7 

million; saw a record $36.6 million in judicial fines and forfeitures; 

and debarred a record 97 unscrupulous businesses and 49 individuals, preventing them from doing business with the government. 

Our approach also prioritizes the criminal prosecution of the 

worst employers that knowingly hire illegal workers; abuse and exploit their workers; engage in harboring, smuggling, and trafficking 

of workers; and also facilitate document or benefit fraud. 

The main reason people come to the United States illegally is for 

the opportunity to work. By focusing on employers who provide jobs 

to illegal aliens, we are attacking one of the root causes of illegal 

immigration. By following our tough approach, we are creating a 

culture of compliance—a culture in which employers seek to get on 

the right side of the law and hire lawful workers. 

As the clearest example that this approach is working, look to 

Tyson Foods. Just last week, Tyson became one of ICE’s IMAGE 

partners. That program, or the ICE Mutual Agreement Between 

Government and Employers, is a partnership that helps big and 

small companies maintain a lawful workforce and protect themselves from fraud. 

Tyson is a Fortune 500 company, with 115,000 employees, and 

is the world’s largest meat processor. They are a leader of industry. 

A decade ago, they were investigated and indicted for their hiring 

practices. Today, they proudly stand with us as an example of a 

company that knows that getting right with the law is good for 

business, good for workers, and good for the country. We at ICE 

can’t wait to find the next Tyson Foods. 

In short, our approach is working. 

I am aware of the concerns raised about ICE’s overall number of 

administrative arrests at worksites, and I would respond with a 

few points. 

80 

First, our number of administrative arrests at worksites cannot 

and should not be considered in a vacuum. Our worksite efforts 

have been part of a broader enforcement strategy that, for the last 

2 years, has resulted in the removal of more illegal aliens from the 

United States than ever before. Moreover, a record number of those 

were criminal convicts. Whether we are apprehending people at 

worksites or apprehending them elsewhere, we are apprehending 

and detaining and removing more people than ever in the Nation’s 

history. 

Second, we are more strategic in our approach than ever. It costs 

approximately $12,500 to arrest, detain, and remove an individual 

from the United States. So we have focused our limited resources 

wisely and successfully removed a record number of criminals last 

year. Our approach has made communities safer. 

Finally, we have more resources along the Southwest border 

than ever. That is more staffing, technology, and infrastructure 

protecting the border and slowing the flow of illegal immigration. 

In short, we are committed to an overall approach to enforcement 

that is working. We look forward to continuing to build on our current successes and working with you through the remainder of this 

fiscal year and beyond. 

Thank you again for this opportunity, and I welcome any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kibble follows:] 

81 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KUMAR KIBBLE


KK-1.eps
82 


KK-2.eps
83 


KK-3.eps
84 


KK-4.eps
85 


KK-5.eps
86 


KK-6.eps
87 


KK-7.eps
88 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Kibble. And thank you 

for being so succinct with your testimony. 

Mr. Krikorian? 


KK-8.eps
89 

TESTIMONY OF MARK KRIKORIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. KRIKORIAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There are 14.5 million Americans looking for work and 26 million 

who are unemployed or underemployed. Yet, immigration policy 

takes no note of these facts. 

According to a report just last week from Northeastern University, over the past 2 years, employment declined in the United 

States by more than 6 million jobs, and yet, more than 1 million 

new immigrants got jobs during that time. 

Only about a third of those new immigrant job holders were illegal immigrants. Now, what that means is that legal immigration 

is a big part of this disconnect between employment and immigration enforcement. But that is not something that this Administration or any other can deal with on its own. 

But the one-third of those new job holders who are illegal immigrants is a different matter altogether. And the problem there is 

not a badly designed immigration system but, rather, a lack of enforcement of existing laws by the executive branch. 

As part of the current Administration’s April 2009 worksite enforcement strategy, real worksite enforcement has declined significantly, as Chairman Smith spelled out in his opening statement. 

What has increased in this area is audits of employee I-9 forms and 

the number and total dollar amount of fines against employers. 

Now, such audits and fines are by no means a bad thing, and increasing them has been a positive step. The problem is, they are 

only good as far as they go, and they don’t go that far. 

By limiting worksite enforcement to the personnel office, the current strategy foregoes the benefits of a full-spectrum enforcement 

approach that includes both audits and raids, both fines and arrests, focusing on both employers and employees. One colleague observed to me just yesterday that the current ICE focus on audits 

is as effective as the FBI doing gang suppression by just giving 

talks at high schools, without actually arresting any gang members. 

The benefits of full-spectrum enforcement are clear from recent 

experience. First of all, it opens up jobs for Americans. As an example there—and I spell it out more in my written testimony—is the 

Smithfield pork plant in Tar Heel, North Carolina, which was raided in 2007. As a result of that and the removal of illegal workers 

there, Americans were able to be hired. 

Initially, when the plant opened, American workers were most of 

the staff. But, over time, slowly but steadily, Americans were removed, replaced by illegal workers. And what happened was, as a 

result of the raids, just the Black American share of the workforce 

went from 20 percent before the raids to 60 percent after the raids. 

A second benefit of comprehensive worksite enforcement, instead 

of today’s more selective and limited approach, is that it raises the 

wages of blue-collar American workers. And we have seen this very 

clearly as a result of the raids on the six Swift meatpacking plants 

in 2006. And what happened after those raids was that the level 

of wages and bonuses at those plants increased by 8 percent as a 

result of that raid. It was an 8 percent raise for legal workers because of that immigration raid. 

90 

A third benefit of full-spectrum enforcement is that it is necessary to gather evidence on crooked employers. In other words, it 

is tough to go after employers if you are not arresting and not 

doing raids and arresting the illegal workers, who are then able to 

provide information. 

We saw that most clearly in the Agriprocessors meatpacking 

plant raid in Iowa. Before the raid, State officials had been trying 

to gather information on the various abuses in that plant and had 

really gotten nowhere. As a result of the raid, it tore away the curtain and exposed the plant’s squalor and mass illegality, leading to 

arrests of management for criminal child labor and other violations. Merely auditing that plant’s personnel records, while scrupulously avoiding any arrests of illegal immigrants, might well 

have meant that, today, that Agriprocessors plant would still be 

abusing children on its factory floor. 

And, finally, a full-spectrum worksite enforcement approach is 

necessary to turn off the magnet of jobs that attract illegal immigrants in the first place. The point of enforcement is not to arrest 

and deport every illegal worker and punish every illegal employer. 

The point is to make it clear to them that there is a significant 

chance that could happen, so you end up with voluntary compliance 

with the law. This is the way it works in any other kind of enforcement area—taxes or traffic laws or what have you. 

But if illegal immigrants are not being arrested because we are 

not having raids, we don’t have a full-spectrum worksite enforcement, there just isn’t that much for workers or illegal workers or 

illegal employers to fear. And, in a sense, what we are doing is we 

are sending the signal that it is not really that big a deal to be an 

illegal alien working or to be hiring illegal immigrants. And when 

we send that kind of signal, illegal workers and illegal employers 

understand what we are telling them, and they continue doing 

what they are doing. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Krikorian follows:] 

91 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK KRIKORIAN


MK-1.eps
92 


MK-2.eps
93 


MK-3.eps
94 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Krikorian. 

Mr. Cutler? 


MK-4.eps
95 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL W. CUTLER, SENIOR SPECIAL AGENT 

(RET.), IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, NEW 

YORK DISTRICT OFFICE 

Mr. CUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

both you and your colleagues for your leadership in immigration 

enforcement and for this invitation to be here today. 

The effective enforcement of our Nation’s immigration laws and 

the creation of an immigration benefits program that has real integrity are vital components of the war on terror and in efforts to 

protect our Nation and our citizens from various transnational 

criminal organizations such as the Mexican drug cartels. Simply 

stated, we cannot protect our Nation or our citizens from these and 

other threats while our borders remain porous and millions of illegal aliens, whose true identities are unknown and unknowable, live 

and work in communities throughout the United States. 

Our Nation’s immigration laws can only be effectively enforced if 

all elements of the enforcement program and the immigration benefits program operate cooperatively in a unified system. 

The majority of illegal aliens enter our country seeking unlawful 

employment. Aliens who run our borders often pay pernicious 

smugglers, who may force them to facilitate the smuggling of narcotics into our country. The revenue that the smuggling trade provides finances criminal organizations throughout the world. 

Illegal aliens are likely to pay other criminals, such as fraud document vendors and identity thieves as well, in order to secure identity documents. 

Many illegal aliens are young men who, at least initially, leave 

behind their wives and girlfriends. This large population of illegal 

aliens provides potential clientele for houses of prostitution that 

leads to more crime, more human trafficking, and more unspeakable exploitation. 

Effective law enforcement requires deterrence to be an integral 

part of the strategy. Effective worksite enforcement must seek to 

deter unscrupulous employers from intentionally hiring illegal 

aliens, but it must also seek to deter illegal aliens from entering 

our country in the first place looking for jobs. 

The passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act, or 

IRCA, of 1986 included provisions that, for the first time, deemed 

the intentional hiring of illegal aliens to be a violation of law. It 

represented a balanced approach to deterring the employment of illegal aliens by penalizing the employers. Today, however, what we 

are seeing is an effort to simply go after the employer and not the 

illegal alien. So this doesn’t have the balanced approach that the 

law should provide—that field operations should provide. 

Effective worksite enforcement investigations would take significant pressure off our Nation’s porous borders and would also 

staunch the flow each year of tens of billions of dollars of money 

that are wired or otherwise transmitted by illegal aliens from the 

United States to their home countries, thereby adding to our burgeoning national debt. This is money that is not spent in the 

United States, money that is not invested in the United States, 

money that is not earned by United States citizens or resident 

aliens. 

96 

And at the present time, as we have heard today, so many Americans are having an increasingly difficult time of trying to support 

themselves and their families. Everyone talks about the need to 

create new jobs, but if the jobs are created but then don’t go to 

American citizens, our citizens and our Nation don’t benefit from 

these new jobs. 

While I am not an economist, I am convinced that increasing resources to the worksite enforcement program would save our Nation’s economy more money than would be invested in such an increase in resources. An effective worksite program would also provide important national security and community safety benefits. 

Terrorists and criminal aliens often seek employment as a means 

of embedding themselves in a community. Terrorists and criminals 

are often described by the jobs that they held at the time that they 

were arrested, jobs that provided them with money, camouflage, 

and mobility. Aliens engaged in terrorism or criminal activities 

often seek to acquire lawful immigration status by committing immigration benefit fraud. And this is an issue that I hope that you 

will delve into in detail in future hearings. 

But it is important to note that, as an INS special agent, I often 

apprehended criminal aliens on the jobs where they worked. These 

aliens had lengthy conviction records and may well have been previously deported, but they were working illegally in jobs that enabled them to hide in plain sight. 

Leaders at the DHS often note their concerns about illegal aliens 

working at critical infrastructure, and they talk about airports and 

military bases and so forth. Well, recently, officials at the DHS 

raised concerns about Mumbai-style attacks being carried out in 

the United States that would target hotels or places where large 

numbers of people congregate. And there was also stated concerns 

about an al Qaeda operation that would seek to poison people. 

Given that, it would logically follow that critical infrastructure 

should also include food-processing plants. 

In my nearly 40 years of involvement with the immigration 

issue, I have not seen any Administration distinguish itself by effectively securing our borders or enforcing our immigration laws. 

However, I believe the current Administration has all but rolled 

out the welcome mat to illegal aliens, frankly. High-level members 

of the Administration have stated that illegal aliens would not face 

the threat of arrest in most of these worksite investigations. 

Last week, the Wall Street Journal talked about the Employment 

Compliance Inspection Center that is supposed to facilitate the auditing of I-9’s and supporting documents. Again, going after that is 

worthwhile, but if you are missing the idea of arresting the illegal 

aliens, then you are missing the boat. 

Furthermore, the President and Members of both houses of Congress have spoken frequently about the need to place illegal aliens 

on a pathway to U.S. citizenship, thereby all but declaring that illegally entering our country should be a prerequisite for United 

States citizenship. 

I also want to touch briefly on the lawsuit filed by the Justice 

Department against the State of Arizona to try to block Arizona 

from enforcing its own laws. Again, the message is a dangerous 

one, because it offers more encouragement to illegal aliens and 

97 

those foreign nationals who aspire to become illegal aliens in our 

country. 

If morale was low when I was an INS special agent because of 

the reasons that we discussed earlier, the lack of resources and so 

forth, then I would imagine morale must be incredibly low at this 

point in time. 

Final point: Prior to the Second World War, the Department of 

Labor was responsible for enforcing our immigration laws. The concern was that an influx of large numbers of foreign workers would 

drive down wages and worsen the working conditions of the American worker. And, indeed, our laws still reflect that it is illegal to 

hire foreign workers if, in so doing, harm is done to the American 

workforce. 

Effective worksite enforcement efforts can protect our Nation and 

our workers and turn off the power to the magnet that draws so 

many illegal aliens to our country. The time has long since come 

for our government to actually provide resources and leadership to 

properly enforce these important provisions of our laws. And I am 

gratified that you are holding this hearing. 

I thank you for the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cutler follows:] 

98 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL W. CUTLER


MC-1.eps
99 


MC-2.eps
100 


MC-3.eps
101 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Cutler. 

Mr. Griswold? 

TESTIMONY OF DANIEL GRISWOLD, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR 

TRADE POLICY STUDIES, CATO INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. GRISWOLD. Chairman Gallegly, Chairman Smith, Ranking 

Member Lofgren, Members of the Committee, thank you very 

much. 


MC-4.eps
102 

I am confident we all share the goals of reducing illegal immigration, securing our borders against those who would do us harm, 

and promoting economic growth and job creation. With those objectives in mind, I believe that focusing primarily on worksite enforcement will continue to be an expensive distraction until we reform 

our immigration laws to reflect the realities of America’s 21st-century labor market. 

Our policy of relying solely on enforcement of current immigration law has failed. This is true for both border and interior enforcement. Since 1992, our spending on border enforcement has 

gone up more than 700 percent. The number of agents at the border has gone up fivefold. Since the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, U.S. employers have been subject to fines for 

knowingly hiring undocumented workers. Yet, during two decades 

of increased enforcement, the number of illegal immigrants in this 

country has roughly tripled. 

Our enforcement-only approach is at odds with the economic and 

demographic realities of our dynamic American economy. Our economy routinely creates hundreds of thousands of net new jobs each 

year that require only short-term, on-the-job training. I am talking 

about home health aides, food preparation and serving workers, retail salespersons, landscaping and groundskeeping workers, waiters 

and waitresses. 

At the same time, the number of Americans who have traditionally filled such jobs continues to shrink. Over the last decade, the 

number of adult Americans in the workforce without a high school 

diploma has dropped by 3 million, and that number is going to continue to drop. It is good news, but it adds to this problem. 

Immigrants fill the growing gap between expanding low-skilled 

jobs and the shrinking pool of native-born Americans who want to 

fill them. Immigrant workers enable important sectors of the U.S. 

economy, such as retail, agriculture, landscaping, restaurants and 

hotels, to expand, to attract investment, and to create middle-class 

jobs in management, bookkeeping, marketing, and other areas that 

employ native-born Americans. 

It is misleading to assert that every low-skilled immigrant we 

can round up and deport will mean jobs for an unemployed American. The real economy doesn’t work that way. Low-skilled immigrants, whether legal or illegal, do not compete directly against the 

large majority of American workers. 

American companies hire immigrant workers to fill millions of 

low-skilled jobs because there are simply not enough American 

workers willing to fill those same jobs. The pay and working conditions in many of these jobs do not match the qualifications and aspirations of the large majority of Americans currently looking for 

employment in our recovering economy. 

We cannot enforce our way out of unemployment. There is no 

causal relationship between the inflows of immigration and higher 

overall unemployment in the U.S. economy. If anything, more aggressive enforcement against low-skilled immigration will arguably 

have a negative effect on our economy and the jobs and incomes of 

American households. 

Removing millions of low-skilled workers from our labor force 

through enforcement would reduce the incentives for investment in 

103 

the affected industries. It would reduce the relative job openings in 

more skilled positions, disrupting employment for native-born 

Americans. 

In agriculture, for example, the USDA estimates there are 3.1 related jobs off the farm for every job on the farm. Eliminating the 

on-farm jobs would put at risk many more jobs paying middle-class 

wages and employing native-born Americans. 

A 2009 Cato study found that a 30 percent reduction in lowskilled immigration to the United States through more vigorous interior enforcement would cause a drop in the incomes of American 

households by $64 billion a year. In contrast, the same study estimated that immigration reform that allowed more low-skilled immigrants to enter the United States legally could boost the incomes 

of American households by $180 billion a year. 

The best approach to reducing illegal immigration would be to 

expand opportunities for legal immigration while targeting enforcement against terrorists, criminals, and others who continue to operate outside the system. 

We know from experience that legal immigration, if allowed, will 

crowd out illegal immigration. Here we can learn two valuable lessons from the Bracero program, which allowed Mexican workers to 

enter the United States temporarily from 1942 to 1964. 

One lesson is that temporary workers should be given maximum 

mobility to change employers. The fatal flaw of the Bracero program was that it tied workers to specific employers as a condition 

of the visa. This gave too much leverage to employers, resulting in 

abuses that led Congress to shut down the program. 

The more positive lesson from the Bracero program is that, for 

all its shortcomings, it did provide a legal alternative to illegal immigration. 

Early in the 1950’s, we were apprehending a million people a 

year at the border because the program offered an insufficient 

number of visas to meet the labor demands of a growing U.S. economy. Instead of merely redoubling our enforcement efforts, Congress dramatically increased the number of visas to accommodate 

demand. The result: Apprehensions at the border dropped more 

than 90 percent. 

Back then, as we could expect now, foreign-born workers rationally chose the legal path to entry when it was available. When the 

Bracero program was abolished in 1964, legal immigration began 

to rise inexorably, and that has continued to the present time. 

To sum up, Mr. Chairman, a program of legalization would 

transform the enforcement debate. Instead of wasting resources on 

a futile effort to root out millions of low-skilled immigrant workers 

who are productively contributing to our Nation’s economy, we 

could focus our enforcement efforts on apprehending those who 

want to do us harm. 

Large-scale illegal immigration will end only when America’s immigration system offers a legal alternative, consistent with the underlying realities of our labor market. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Griswold follows:] 

104 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL GRISWOLD


DG-1.eps
105 


DG-2.eps
106 


DG-3.eps
107 


DG-4.eps
108 


DG-5.eps
109 


DG-6.eps
110 


DG-7.eps
111 


DG-8.eps
112 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Griswold. 

Mr. Kibble, I was interested in your comments relative to the significant increase in removals or deportation. Are these formal deports, or are they voluntary deports, or are they a letter telling a 

person that they have to leave, or is it a green van trip to the border and released? Could you give me a definition of a removal or 

a deport? 


DG-9.eps
113 

Mr. KIBBLE. Sir, when we reference removals, we are talking to 

the formal orders of removal as well as voluntary returns. And 

when you look at our results over the last 2 years, we have removed—and this means people leaving the country—we have removed more than we ever have in our history. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Well, what is the percentage of voluntary removals versus formal deports? 

Mr. KIBBLE. I don’t have that number readily available. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I remember listening to Janet Reno not too many 

years ago, when she said, in the southern California area, the U.S. 

Attorney’s district there, that their policy was that they didn’t initiate any formal deports until after there had been a second felony 

conviction. 

Have you ever heard that before, from a policy standpoint, of a 

United States attorney? 

Mr. KIBBLE. I am not familiar with that, sir. But—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. What is the criteria for formal deportation? 

Mr. KIBBLE. If someone is unlawfully in the country, they enter 

into proceedings, and they receive their due process. And, ultimately, they, you know, they may have a—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. So anyone that doesn’t agree to voluntary deportation, you would immediately start the process, keep them in custody until they were formally deported? 

Mr. KIBBLE. Sir, we would place them in removal proceedings. 

However, we have a limited detention space, so we have to make 

smart—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. How many show up for their dates, what percentage? 

Mr. KIBBLE. I don’t have that number handy—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Well, I could just tell you, I had a visit to Kennedy a few years ago and also to Miami. And when they had individuals come into the country and they would appeal the denial of 

entrance, of those that were considered low flight risk and were 

given a date and a paper to appear, the ones that were considered 

low flight risk, 94 percent never returned. That is pretty well-documented, and I did a white paper many years ago on that. But—— 

Mr. KIBBLE. May I respond, sir? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Sure. 

Mr. KIBBLE. We are essentially resourced to remove roughly 

400,000 people a year. So we have tried to take that resourcing and 

use it wisely, prioritizing threats to public safety and national security; border violators, recent border violators; as well as immigration fugitives and others that try to game the system in terms of 

our border controls. 

I think every one of those removals—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I don’t doubt that. But ‘‘every one’’ and ‘‘6 percent’’ is a different situation. 

My concern is, what is the real definition of removal? Are they 

really removed? Are they given notice? Are they put into a—— 

Mr. KIBBLE. They are removed from the country, sir. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay. What is your recidivism rate? How many 

do you—now you have great IDENT system, right? And the IDENT 

is pretty conclusive, when you re-arrest someone, it is pretty easy 

114 

to tell. Could you tell me if you have ever had anyone that re-entered the country that had been deported? 

Mr. KIBBLE. Oh, of course we have folks that have re-entered the 

country that had been deported, sir. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. More than 10 times, the same person? Ever heard 

of that? 

Mr. KIBBLE. I know there have been instances of that. 

But, I mean, to the larger point, sir, I mean, we are doing everything we can with the resources that are available. And we are 

breaking records, removing—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. But the question is, a formal deport versus a voluntary deport, the difference, as I understand it—and correct me 

if I am wrong—if you give them the option of voluntary deportation 

and then they re-enter the U.S., it is basically, ‘‘Well, hey, you have 

to go home again.’’ However, if you have been formally deported 

and you re-enter the country, it is a felony; is that not correct? 

Mr. KIBBLE. Yes, sir. I mean, a re-entry after deportation is a 

violation—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay, right. 

One other quick question before my time runs out. The GAO has 

expressed criticism on I-9 audits, saying that businesses simply 

view these civil fines as kind of a part of doing business, just like 

you would to pay for any other type of overhead costs. 

Would you say that is a fair assessment? 

Mr. KIBBLE. No, sir, I would not. If you look at the fines as they 

were a couple years ago, we issued 18 final orders for about 

$675,000. That has dramatically increased to—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. But are they—— 

Mr. KIBBLE [continuing]. Almost $7 million. 

And, sir, the way they are contesting these in court and entering 

into settlements and aggressively trying to negotiate, it is clear to 

me that they are taking these fines very seriously. 

We have also reformed the system so that there is less room for 

mitigation, as we have seen in years past. So these are meaningful. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Do you find that courts are usually going the 

maximum, or are they a little more lenient with—whether it is a, 

let’s say, a $500 fine per head or maybe even a $100 fine? 

Mr. KIBBLE. Sir, in the context of civil fines, we are generally setting those based on the violations that we identify during our audits. In the context of judicial fines and forfeitures, there, again, we 

are breaking records—$36.6 million in judicial fines and forfeitures. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Has it been effective? 

Mr. KIBBLE. Sir, I believe the strategy is working. There is always room to continue to mature it. But, to the extent that we can 

touch more businesses with both criminal and civil sanctions and 

also outreach and training for the employers that want to be on the 

right side of the law, we will establish that culture of compliance 

that we are looking for. 

If I could just address one other point you mentioned, sir, having 

to do with the recidivism. Because, again, worksite has to be looked 

at in the context of the broader immigration enforcement strategy. 

We have unprecedented numbers of prosecutions for illegal reentry. In fact, we are using our own attorneys, almost 55 of them, 

115 

to help the U.S. Attorney’s Office in prosecuting these violations of 

re-entry. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much. 

You know, I am going to try to lead by example around here, and 

I overstayed my red mark, and I apologize for that. 

The gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a few questions of my own. 

First, Mr. Krikorian, just briefly, you, in your testimony today, 

discussed a recent study by the Center for Labor Market Studies 

at Northeastern University that purported to demonstrate that recent immigrants were gaining employment while Americans were 

losing their jobs. And then you cited a story by Reuters in your 

written testimony, not the report itself. 

Have you seen the report itself and analyzed it? 

Mr. KRIKORIAN. No. I have looked for it. No, I am not sure it is— 

I think they did it for Reuters, so I am not—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I asked my staff to call the Center and ask 

for the report, and they refused to give it to us. And they said it 

isn’t being made public. I just wondered if you had a copy—— 

Mr. KRIKORIAN. No, I do not. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. If we could get it from you. 

Mr. KRIKORIAN. It looked like—it said ‘‘exclusive for Reuters,’’ so 

I assume they paid for it or something like that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yeah. I will just advance my view that if something can’t ever be examined by people, I am not going to rely on 

it. 

Mr. Griswold, we appreciate your testimony. And I am wondering, the Center for American Progress reported that, in their 

analysis, the direct cost on government to deport all undocumented 

workers would be $285 billion in 5 years. Now, that, as I understand it, considered apprehension, detention, processing, transportation, enforcement costs, but it didn’t take a look at the broader 

impact, what would the impact be on the economy, of pulling out 

11 million people. 

Have you looked at it? Do you have insights that you could share 

on what those costs would be to the American public? 

Mr. GRISWOLD. Yeah. In a word, the costs would be huge. 

It is interesting: The Cato study that I mentioned found a significant benefit for American households if we had increased legal immigration. It found a cost of $64 billion a year, just from reducing 

low-skilled immigration by 30 percent. Those costs would increase 

significantly if we were able to reduce it even more. 

An interesting thing, Ms. Lofgren, is that, 6 months after the 

Cato study came out, the Center for American Progress came out 

with another study that showed very similar economic gains from 

a legalization program. And so, here you have the Cato Institute— 

libertarian, free market—and the Center for American Progress— 

center-left—coming to the same conclusion, that low-skilled immigration is good for the U.S. economy. And suppressing it through, 

I think, futile efforts, but even if they could work and remove millions of low-skilled workers, we would pay a very high price as an 

economy. And, as you have pointed out and others have pointed 

116 

out, it would cost jobs in upstream and downstream industries, as 

well. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask you this, if I can. You know, I am of 

the opinion—and I am glad that Mr. Kibble is here. 

I am sorry I missed your testimony. I was detained coming back 

from the floor, but I did have a chance to read it and review it. And 

I appreciate that you have been given a job to do, you know, which 

is to enforce the laws we have. You have not been asked or tasked 

to reform the laws that we have. That is our job. And so, I am not 

going to criticize you for doing your job as outlined. But it just 

seems to me that it is a losing effort. 

I remember the first hearing that we had when I assumed the 

Chair of the Immigration Subcommittee and we had the career 

head of the border patrol as a witness, who was a very crusty, interesting guy. And it was his testimony to us that, if we could get 

the busboys and nannies out of the line, crossing illegally in the 

desert, he would appreciate it, so he could focus in on the drug 

dealers and the traffickers and the like. 

But he also suggested that we can’t repeal the law of supply and 

demand. You know, we have failed to reform our laws so that this 

immigration system meets our needs, that it serves America’s 

needs. And, consequently, we have a situation that is chaotic when 

we should instead have order. 

So I guess this isn’t a question, more a statement of appreciation 

for you, Mr. Kibble. All of the stats—the number of people incarcerated—it is unprecedented numbers of people who have been deported. We are spending more money on the border today than in 

the history of the United States. We have more Border Patrol 

agents on the border than in the history of the United States. And 

yet we have this problem because we have failed—we, the Congress, have failed—to come to grips with our need to reform the 

system so it actually works for Americans. 

And, with that, the light is on. I would yield back, with thanks 

for Mr. Kibble and all the other witnesses. We don’t see everything 

eye to eye, but we do appreciate your volunteering to testify here 

before us today. 

Mr. GOWDY. [Presiding.] Thank you. 

At this point, I will recognize myself. 

Special Agent Kibble, help me understand the dichotomy between misdemeanors and felonies, if they exist, with respect to immigration violations. Are there felonies and misdemeanors that employers could be charged with? 

Mr. KIBBLE. Yes, sir. In fact, the strategy factors in—one of the 

challenges in terms of criminal investigations of employer is that, 

in and of itself, knowingly hiring can be a misdemeanor offense. 

When we consider other aggravating factors, such as other egregious employment schemes that include harboring, smuggling, trafficking, then it rises to a felony violation. And, quite frequently, I 

mean, with limited resources, working with the U.S. Attorney’s offices—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, that is what I want to go to right now. How 

many felony criminal matters were opened in 2010 with respect to 

employers? 

Mr. KIBBLE. Well, we charged 196. 

117 

Mr. GOWDY. A hundred and ninety-six. 

Mr. KIBBLE. I am sorry. What year did you ask, sir? 

Mr. GOWDY. Employers. 

Mr. KIBBLE. Last fiscal year, though? 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, sir, 2010. And those were criminal matters that 

were opened or those were indictments? 

Mr. KIBBLE. Those were criminal arrests and indictments. If 

criminally charged—— 

Mr. GOWDY. How many matters were opened and declined by the 

United States Attorney’s Office? 

Mr. KIBBLE. I don’t have those numbers, sir, but I can go back 

and look into it. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I guess what I am getting at is I am trying 

to understand whether this is a DOJ, a prosecutorial issue, where 

they are declining matters that you have investigated and put time 

and effort into, or if this is an administrative decision that has 

been made, not to go after employers? 

Mr. KIBBLE. Oh, no, sir. We are pursuing—I have been doing this 

for a little while now. As far as criminal charges against employers, 

we are pursuing them as aggressively as I have seen it in my personal experience. And, again, we have record-breaking numbers to 

show for that. 

Mr. GOWDY. More criminal or civil pursuits? 

Mr. KIBBLE. Well, criminal charges against the employer, but 

then also record-breaking achievements in terms of our civil efforts 

to removal people from the country. 

Mr. GOWDY. Correct me if I am wrong. Employers sometimes 

have the option of paying a civil fine and avoiding criminal responsibility? 

Mr. KIBBLE. Well, sir, it is a multipronged strategy. And, oftentimes, the employers are in a tough spot in terms of having to 

triage and figure out whether documents that have been provided 

by the employee—by the illegal worker are, in fact, correct. So, as 

in any other white-collar crime investigation, it takes time to sort 

through that. And, in many instances, we may not be able to establish to meet that burden, in terms of knowledge on the part of the 

employer. 

Mr. GOWDY. Is there a different standard of proof required for 

the Administration of a civil fine than a criminal conviction? 

Mr. KIBBLE. Well, the civil fine, sir, is tied to the inspection of 

the Form I-9’s. And there are technical and substantive violations. 

And after we do an audit, we will work with the businesses for a 

period of 10 days to resolve any technical violations. 

But then, if we have substantive violations that relate to—that 

make it difficult for us to verify a workforce, then we can fine for 

that violation, up to $1,100 a violation. 

Mr. GOWDY. How many employers went to the Bureau of Prisons 

last year for hiring illegal immigrants? 

Mr. KIBBLE. I don’t know—I don’t have the conviction of sentencing stats readily available, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. Guess. Twenty? Ten? Five? 

Mr. KIBBLE. Sir, I mean, we criminally charged 196, but they are 

working their way through the process. 

Mr. GOWDY. Actual employers, people, not corporations, people. 

118 

Mr. KIBBLE. No, people. Employers, human resource managers. 

Mr. GOWDY. A hundred and ninety-six? 

Mr. KIBBLE. I beg your pardon? 

Mr. GOWDY. A hundred and ninety-six in 2010? 

Mr. KIBBLE. A hundred and ninety-six, sir, we criminally 

charged. 

Mr. GOWDY. You will agree, I hope, that criminal consequences 

get people’s attention more so than civil consequences? 

Mr. KIBBLE. Yes, sir, they do. 

Mr. GOWDY. There is a full range, a panoply of negative consequences that go along with a criminal convention that don’t exist 

with a civil one. 

Mr. KIBBLE. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. Are you convinced that your department and the 

United States Attorney’s Office are as aggressively pursuing the 

employers themselves as can be done? 

Mr. KIBBLE. Sir, with the tools that are available, absolutely. 

However, I would add that part of getting to that deterrence that 

we were looking for, to the point you are alluding in terms of the 

importance of a criminal charge, it is also important that we touch 

as many businesses as we can so that they all feel that, at one 

point or another, they could be engaged by ICE. And that is going 

to get us to a culture of compliance—— 

Mr. GOWDY. But you concede with me, as a wonderful law enforcement officer, which I am sure you are, that nothing gets people’s attention quite like seeing a colleague go to prison, agreed? 

Mr. KIBBLE. Absolutely. But this is an issue, though, that 

spans—that is more complex than that. I mean, we are—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Tell me how it is more complex. We do it in every 

other category of crime. We send people to the Bureau of Prisons, 

whether it be for 6 months or 6 years or life. And that is how we 

deter criminal conduct. 

Mr. KIBBLE. That is absolutely correct, sir. And that is why we 

have record-breaking achievements in terms of our criminal prosecutions of employers. 

My point is, if we really want to deter and create a culture of 

compliance much more broadly—that is why the aggressive use of 

I-9’s are so effective in terms of ultimately getting these employers, 

holding them accountable and getting them on the right side of the 

law. 

Mr. GOWDY. My time is up. 

I will recognize the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Pierluisi. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As my colleagues and I travel around our Nation, we hear a consistent message from the American people: Fix our broken immigration system by enacting comprehensive reform. 

Sensible worksite enforcement designed to identify and penalize 

those employers who violate Federal law is one important aspect 

of our Nation’s approach to immigration policy. However, unless we 

do more, an enforcement-only approach will hurt the economy and 

cost American jobs over the long term. 

Although many people would rather not acknowledge it, undocumented workers play an important role in our economy by performing jobs that would otherwise largely go unfilled. Without their 

119 

labor, for example, a large percentage of America’s farms would 

close, leading to the loss of millions of upstream and downstream 

jobs held by U.S. workers. 

The undocumented workers who fill agricultural jobs sweat and 

toil for low wages and often work far away from their families. Because they have no legal status, often they and their employers do 

not pay taxes. These workers also have no rights that they can feasibly exercise, which results in a lowering of labor standards for all 

workers, including native-born American workers. 

If we truly want to help law-abiding businesses and protect the 

rights of all American workers, we will find a way to bring undocumented workers out of the shadows and on to the tax rolls. 

The Obama administration should continue to focus its worksite 

enforcement on bad-actor employers who exploit the broken immigration system to undermine their competitors. By stopping employers who violate immigration and labor laws, our government 

would protect all workers, including native-born American workers, 

and help level the playing field for honest businesses. 

Illegal immigration is not a problem that happened overnight, by 

the way, and we cannot expect the Obama administration to solve 

it overnight, especially without reform of our Nation’s immigration 

laws. 

Let me address my first question—and I know time will probably 

permit just one for now—to Mr. Kibble. 

I know that, in April of 2009, Secretary Janet Napolitano announced the shift in worksite enforcement strategy. As you have 

testified, this strategy included a commitment to emphasize enforcement against employers who exploit workers. This makes 

sense because employers who exploit workers are trying to game 

the system. Such employers undercut those who are trying to play 

by the rules. This not only harms good employers, but it drives 

down the wages and working conditions for all workers, including 

immigrants and U.S. citizens alike. 

Now, I have a statistic that troubles me. Worksite arrests have 

increased from 510 to 4,940 since 2002. That sounds good. In this 

same period of time, there have only been 90 arrests of company 

representatives. 

If we do not hold employers accountable, how can we expect to 

end this jobs magnet? So that is one question I raise to you. I 

mean, are we really addressing those employers? 

And, also, if you can expand on the way that ICE identifies and 

targets employers who abuse workers, I will really appreciate it. 

Mr. KIBBLE. Thank you for the questions, sir. 

We are aggressively pursuing criminal sanctions against employers, particularly with these aggravating factors of abusing and exploiting the workforce, harboring, smuggling, trafficking. We are 

going after them very aggressively. And we have a number of successes in terms of forced labor and other schemes that we have broken up. 

And, again, I get back to record-breaking results in terms of our 

criminal charges against employers—196. It has never been as high 

as that. 

To your other point, in terms of the human trafficking, DHS has 

the Blue Campaign. We have quite a focus on dealing with human 

120 

trafficking. And it is important to make the distinction between 

trafficking and smuggling. Smuggling is transportation-based. Trafficking is exploitation-based. So where we find elements of force, 

fraud, and coercion, we aggressively pursue these trafficking investigations. 

Now, our investigations start from leads, they start from tips, 

particularly with respect to human trafficking. We have 18 fulltime victim witness coordinators and 350 collateral victim witness 

coordinators. And the point of that is that, to successfully prosecute 

a trafficking scheme, it is important to have a victim-centered approach. Because to the extent we can enlist the aid of that victim 

as a witness, we will be able to more successfully prosecute the 

trafficker and, therefore, prevent that from occurring again and 

again. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. I thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico. 

And I would recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Ross. 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kibble, is there any role for State and local law enforcement, 

in terms of worksite enforcement? 

Mr. KIBBLE. I mean, to the extent, sir, that, in some instances— 

I just came—I was the special agent in charge in Denver. And we 

have had instances where State and local officers, as the front line, 

may identify schemes or even, in fact, egregious employment patterns that are referenced, that are referred to us for further investigation. 

Mr. ROSS. Is that more the exception than the rule, would you 

say, that you would have State and local law enforcement in that 

particular capacity? 

Mr. KIBBLE. Well, in terms of classical police, yes. But we work 

very closely with a lot of State and local agencies that can assist 

us in terms of validating whether a workforce is authorized or not. 

Mr. ROSS. The IMAGE program that has been created that allows for employers to voluntarily participate, how has that been? 

Has that been successful, in your experience? 

Mr. KIBBLE. I think it has been very successful. There are 12 

best practices that we promote through the IMAGE program. And 

the key here is that there are employers that we are trying to penalize, that we are trying to deter, but there are also employers 

that want to do the right thing but they need assistance in terms 

of scrubbing the workforce. 

So one of the key practices in IMAGE is to promote and encourage the use of E-Verify, in terms of validating—— 

Mr. ROSS. Right. 

Mr. KIBBLE. That is the best tool available for an employer to 

validate whether they have an authorized worker on their hands 

or not. 

Mr. ROSS. Is there anything you would recommend in terms of 

incentivizing or, you know, expanding the opportunities for employers to want to participate in IMAGE? 

Mr. KIBBLE. In IMAGE? 

Mr. ROSS. Yeah. 

Mr. KIBBLE. Well, the training that we offer, I will tell you, we 

have a fairly comprehensive program. Recommending and encourVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:37 Feb 23, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\012611\63875.000 HJUD1 PsN: 63875
121 

aging the use of E-Verify is one of them, but we also offer training 

in detection of fraudulent documents. And this is free. We offer 

training and outreach in sound hiring practices. We recommend 

other practices that help to maintain an authorized workforce. We 

also provide training in anti-discrimination to aid the employer, as 

far as that concern. 

And we have offered training to roughly 14,000 employers 

through the IMAGE program. 

Mr. ROSS. And it has been successful? 

Mr. KIBBLE. Yes, we have been pleased with the results. 

Mr. ROSS. Good. 

Mr. Krikorian, how would you respond to Mr. Kibble’s assertion 

in his preliminary report that, quote, ‘‘Just targeting the employers 

who knowingly break the law is a successful strategy to deter unlawful employment when workers themselves are not prosecuted 

and free simply to find new jobs’’? 

Mr. KRIKORIAN. Well, I mean, there are two problems with that. 

The first is, unless you are actually arresting the illegal immigrant workers, you are not creating the environment within which 

you can see an attrition of the illegal population. In other words, 

they will just walk down the street—— 

Mr. ROSS. And take one job after the next one. 

Mr. KRIKORIAN. But the other side of it is that one of the best 

ways of getting leads and evidence about crooked employers is actually to do the raids. In other words, this is why I referred to that 

meatpacking plant in Iowa, that the State authorities had just not 

been able to, sort of, pierce the veil and really get effective information on what was going on. It was only after the arrests. 

And they arrested 400 illegal immigrants on a variety of genuine 

criminal charges. These were people stealing American children’s 

identities, ruining their credit histories or, if they didn’t even have 

credit histories yet, ruining their futures. Their ability to get student loans in the future would have been compromised. So these 

were people engaged in serious criminal activity. 

But then they were able to find out much better what was going 

on inside the firm in a way that they just would not have been able 

to had they not conducted that raid. 

Mr. ROSS. You also wrote extensively, I think, about modifying 

driver’s licenses to get a better and more secure form of ID. Is that 

something you can expound on, in terms of how you think it might 

be beneficial in worksite enforcement? 

Mr. KRIKORIAN. Well, obviously, the key to the I-9 process, even 

when it has E-Verify to back it up, is the ID that people are showing. 

Mr. ROSS. Right. 

Mr. KRIKORIAN. And Congress passed the Real ID Act, and 

States have been making real progress in bringing their licenses up 

to Federal standards. And the point there is to make sure that, 

when you present a document to an employer, you actually are who 

you say you are. 

And because, frankly, most employers who are employing illegal 

immigrants aren’t crooks, they don’t really know what they are 

doing. They may suspect somebody is an illegal immigrant, but 

there is a limit to what they can do about it. 

122 

That is why we need, sort of across the board, both better standards for driver’s licenses, as well as E-Verify and a variety of other 

methods, so that employers will know when a job seeker is lying 

to them and when he is telling the truth. 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you. 

I see my time is up. 

Mr. GOWDY. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Ross. 

The Chair would recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Let me thank the Chairman for holding this hearing, along with 

the Ranking Member, and express my apologizes. This is organizational week, and, as the Ranking Member on Transportation Security, we were organizing our Subcommittee agenda for the 112th 

Congress. 

But I do want to thank the panelists for being here and indicate 

to some of the Members who are on this Committee that two of 

these panelists are old friends. This is dj vu. This is same story, 

same place, and same results. 

So I really would hope that this Committee would have the courage of convictions to really do something about immigration reform. 

Because, otherwise, Mr. Griswold, we could be here in 2025, speaking the same song—singing the same song, and speaking it for 

those of us who can’t sing. 

So let me start with Mr. Kibble, to ask him—and I am sorry, Mr. 

Kibble. How long have you been in your position? 

Mr. KIBBLE. In the position of deputy director? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KIBBLE. For about 2 months. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Two months, sir. That is okay. You know, this 

is a new Administration. And were you associated with ICE previously? 

Mr. KIBBLE. Yes, I have been in ICE and the legacy Customs 

Service before that since 1994. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right, sir. Would you consider your work 

a failure? 

Mr. KIBBLE. No, not at all. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, why don’t you explain that to me? Because it hasn’t been personalized, but we have characterized ICE 

work as a failure. Do you consider that you have not been steadfastly conforming to the laws of which govern ICE enforcement, 

your internal enforcement work? 

Mr. KIBBLE. I would just say, ma’am, that we—you know, in law 

enforcement in general, you deal with a world of finite resources. 

And, particularly in Federal law enforcement, we look to target the 

most effective piece or part of the enterprise. As we do in drug trafficking, we focus on the supplier. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. To grab you the biggest pull, the biggest return. 

Mr. KIBBLE. So, in this case, you know, in worksite enforcement, 

there is a relentless, a surgical, a laser-like focus on holding employers accountability and making sure they are on the right side 

of the law. Because, in the final analysis, they are the ones that 

are supplying the jobs. 

123 

So it is just—it is balancing—it is making the most impact, 

achieving the greatest good with the resources that are available. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I compliment you on that, because I will be 

the first to raise my hand and say that I was appalled at the raids. 

You did that a couple years ago. And there may be some more discreet ones. And some would argue that that was a big celebration. 

In my district, people were falling off ladders and pregnant women 

were being trampled. It was not effective. 

What I understand you to say now is that you are meticulously 

going to the employer, holding their feet to the fire, and ensuring 

that they are complying. Is that my understanding? 

Mr. KIBBLE. That is correct, ma’am. But an important component 

of that strategy, for that to work, to have that culture of compliance, we have to touch as many businesses as possible, large and 

small—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you need more resources to answer the call 

of those who say the employer enforcement is a good thing. Is that 

what I hear you saying? Or you have already touched all the businesses you think you need to touch? 

Mr. KIBBLE. No. No, no, no. We are constantly looking at ways, 

and particularly with aggressive I-9 audits, to get to that culture 

of compliance, to address as many of those businesses, so that we 

can get to that deterrence, that climate of accountability. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And do you see anything in the Obama administration, President Obama administration, that wouldcounter 

you enforcing the law and being effective in touching employers 

and letting them know how serious we are about focusing on the 

hiring of documented individuals? Do you see anything to the contrary? 

Mr. KIBBLE. Ma’am, the key thing for us to do is to just take the 

resources that we have, and particularly as a career officer, to take 

the resources that are available, the policies and the laws as we 

find them, and make aggressive use of them. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But nobody has called you from the White 

House or from General Holder’s office and said, ‘‘Stop doing what 

you are doing’’? 

Mr. KIBBLE. No. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. 

Mr. Griswold, where can we go, seriously, on this issue of immigration reform? Enforcement is good. I can’t imagine that this Administration is—the Administration has the greatest number of undocumented coming through and it is an open door. It is not. But 

if we don’t fix the comprehensive aspect of it, if we don’t regularize 

individuals, are we going to be here in 2025 like I said? 

Mr. GRISWOLD. I think we can make an appointment. If we just 

continue with enforcement only, I think we are going to be here for 

years and years, wrestling with the same problem. 

I think Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano said it well; it 

needs to be a three-legged stool. You need to have smart enforcement. You need to have some way of legalizing those who are here. 

And you have to have a robust worker program so we can accommodate the future labor needs of our economy. 

It is simple supply and demand. We have demand for these 

workers. The supply of Americans who have traditionally filled 

124 

these jobs is shrinking. Immigrant workers have filled the gap. We 

don’t allow them to come in legally in sufficient numbers. It is not 

that there are no Americans who will do these jobs; there is just 

not sufficient number in these industries. 

So we need to change our law. Otherwise, we are going to be 

wasting billions of dollars, hundreds of people are going to be dying 

at the border each year. We need to change our law. And only 

Members of Congress can do that. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I don’t want the bad guys to rule. This 

kind of process allows bad guys to take over the borders of Texas, 

California, Arizona, because they are in charge. The human smugglers—they are all in charge. 

This last point—and I thank the Chairman for his indulgence— 

this very last point. Did you propose—and I am sorry; as I said, 

I was in an earlier meeting—did you propose to take away American jobs? Are you intending to take away American jobs with how 

you are configuring, reforming the immigration system? You have 

to get on the record to say what you mean as it relates to American 

jobs and Americans not being able to have work. 

Mr. GRISWOLD. Yeah, quite the opposite. These low-skilled immigrants complement American workers. They allow middle-income 

Americans to work in these important industries. These low-skilled 

immigrants actually attract investment. They create job opportunities in upstream and downstream industries for middle-class Americans, it has been shown. If we were able to deport those 7 million 

or 8 million low-skilled workers in the workforce, it would be a disaster for the U.S. economy. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman for his indulgence. 

And, Mr. Griswold, I look forward to engaging you. 

Mr. Cutler, thank you so very much. You are a longtime colleague. 

And, Mr. Krikorian, we have been together before. We thank you. 

And, Mr. Kibble, thank you so very much. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, ma’am. I thank the gentlelady from Texas. 

And I would like to thank all of the witnesses. The weather is 

inclement, the voting schedule is unpredictable, to say the least. 

And you have been very patient. And we have all benefitted from 

your expertise and your patience and collegiality with us. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit to the Chair additional written questions for the witnesses, 

which we will forward and ask the witnesses to respond as promptly as they can so their answers may be made part of the record. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit any additional materials for inclusion into the record. 

With that, again, I would like to thank all the witnesses. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(125) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

126 

LETTER FROM LYNN SHOTWELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

AMERICAN COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL PERSONNEL (ACIP) 


ACIP-1.eps
127 


ACIP-2.eps
128 

Æ 


ACIP-3.eps