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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

35–602 PDF 2007

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: PERSPECTIVES FROM FAITH-BASED AND IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, 

AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 22, 2007

Serial No. 110–37

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 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOSEPH GIBSON, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES,

BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas

UR MENDOZA JADDOU, Chief Counsel 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 22, 2007

Page 

OPENING REMARKS 

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

of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 1

WITNESSES 

Reverend Luis Corte ́s, Jr., President, Esperanza USA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 2

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 4

Most Reverend Thomas G. Wenski, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 

Diocese of Orlando 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 13

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 15

Reverend Charles G. Adams, Senior Pastor, Hartford Memorial Baptist 

Church 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 25

Mr. Gideon Aronoff, President and CEO, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society 

(HIAS) 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 28

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 30

Reverend Derrick Harkins, D.Min., Pastor, Nineteenth Street Baptist Church 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 33

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 34

Mr. Dan Kosten, Director, World Relief Refugee and Immigration Programs, 

National Association of Evangelicals 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 36

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 38

Mr. Jim R. Edwards, Jr., Ph.D., Adjunct Fellow, Hudson Institute 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 44

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 45

Mr. Stephen Steinlight, D.Phil., Center for Immigration Studies, former National Affairs Director at the American Jewish Committee (AJC) 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 49

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 51

Ms. Marleine Bastien, Executive Director, Fanm Asyisyen Nan Miyami, Inc, 

Haitian Women of Miami 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 57

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 59

Ms. Janet Murguı ́a, President and CEO, National Council of La Raza 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 62

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 65

Ms. Deepa Iyer, Executive Director, South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 74

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 77

Ms. Karen K. Narasaki, President and Executive Director, Asian American 

Justice Center (AAJC) 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 87

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 88

Page

IV

Mr. Niall O’Dowd, Chairman, Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 93

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 95

Mr. Noel J. Saleh, President, Arab Community Center for Economic and 

Social Services (ACCESS) Board of Directors 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 96

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

Ms. Rosanna Pulido, Illinois Spokesperson, ‘‘You Don’t Speak for Me’’

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 99

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 100

Mr. Jan Ting, Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 103

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 105

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

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

Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International 

Law ........................................................................................................................ 119

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on 

the Judiciary ......................................................................................................... 119

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ....... 120

Letter from Richard T. Foltin, Legislative Director and Counsel, American 

Jewish Committee, to the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chairwoman, and the 

Honorable Steve King, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ...................... 122

Letter from the Christian Reformed Church in North America, et al. to 

President George W. Bush and Members of the United States Congress ....... 123

Congressional Black Caucus Statement of Principles on Immigration Reform . 129

‘‘The Fiscal Impact of Immigration Reform: The Real Story,’’ by Daniel Griswold, Director, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, May 21, 

2007 ....................................................................................................................... 130

Prepared Statement of the Conveners of the Latino Congreso ............................ 134

Letter from Eric M. Gutie ́rrez, Legislative Staff Attorney, Mexican American 

Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), to the Honorable Zoe 

Lofgren, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ................................................... 140

Revised Prepared Statement of Ms. Karen K. Narasaki, President and Executive Director, Asian American Justice Center ................................................... 143

(1)

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: 

PERSPECTIVES FROM FAITH-BASED AND 

IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES 

TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, 

REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:04 p.m., in Room 

2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe Lofgren 

(Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lofgren, Gutierrez, Jackson Lee, 

Ellison, Conyers, Lungren, and Gohmert. 

Staff present: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Chief Counsel; David 

Shahoulian, Majority Counsel; George Fishman, Minority Counsel; 

and Benjamin Staub, Professional Staff Member. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The Immigration Subcommittee will come to order 

about an hour late, with tremendous apologies to everyone. We had 

votes called just as our hearing was to begin, and we have been 

voting ever since. 

And so, by unanimous consent, we will postpone opening statements. We will postpone the adoption of our rules, which we will 

do later. And we will go directly to our first panel. 

Everyone has been waiting, but I understand that two of our witnesses actually must leave 4 minutes ago, and I am wondering if 

we could hear from them first and then go to the other witnesses 

in their turn. 

And that would be Reverend Corte ́s, the Reverend Luis Corte ́s, 

Jr., the president and CEO of Esperanza USA, who also works with 

the Federal Home Loan Bank in Pittsburgh. He was appointed to 

the Pennsylvania Minority Business Development Association by 

Governor Rendell and has done numerous other impressive things. 

And also, His Excellency Bishop Thomas G. Wenski of the 

Roman Catholic Diocese of Orlando, who has done many things, 

but I will not read the whole introduction, so that I can allow him 

to leave. 

If we may, Reverend Corte ́s, first. Your written statement will be 

made part of the record. If we could ask you to briefly summarize 

before we go to the bishop to ask the same thing, and then we will 

go to the other panel. 

2

STATEMENT OF REVEREND LUIS CORTE ́ S, JR.,

PRESIDENT, ESPERANZA USA 

Reverend CORTE ́S. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the invitation 

to appear before you today and to share our thoughts on the essential components we need for a workable, compassionate, comprehensive immigration reform. 

As faith leaders, we are called to ground our conduct and treatment of others in our reading and understanding of Scripture. So, 

too, for guidance on immigration policy, we turn first to Scripture. 

Our support for comprehensive immigration reform comes from the 

Biblical mandate to advocate on behalf of the stranger in one’s 

land—a practice that we learn from the Old Testament. 

It is written in Leviticus 19:33-34, ‘‘When an alien resides with 

you in your land, you shall not oppress him. The alien who resides 

with you shall be to you as the citizen among you. You shall love 

the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. I 

am the Lord, your God.’’

In Matthew, chapter 25, verses 35 and forward, Christ calls on 

all his followers to treat immigrants with fairness, justice and hospitality. ‘‘For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat. I 

was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger 

in your land and you invited me in.’’

Our call for Congress is to pass comprehensive immigration reform. It is to recognize our history as a nation of justice, mercy, 

and compassion. These are American principles, and they must not 

be abandoned in any new immigration reform. 

I want to take a moment to congratulate your Senate colleagues 

of both parties, Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Jon Kyl, for 

reaching a consensus on one of the most complicated and politically 

charged policy issues this Congress will face. While the deal, as we 

see it, is far from perfect, I am hopeful that their proposal could 

be the platform for the workable, compassionate, comprehensive solution we seek. 

I had hoped that Senator Kyl’s conservative credentials would 

have finally put to rest the continuing distortion of the word amnesty. As Christians, we understand amnesty. Amnesty is what 

Christ provided for us—a forgiveness for our sins when he paid for 

our sins with his life. True amnesty is unconditional and without 

penalty. 

The dictionary defines amnesty as the act of an authority, as a 

government, by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals. A pardon is defined as the excusing of an offense without exacting a penalty. Amnesty is a free pass. And what is being discussed in our country today is far from a free pass. 

American people understand this. Both Republicans and Democrats have understood this. A Quinnipiac University poll last November, after all the campaign rhetoric before the election, had 66 

percent of Republicans and 72 percent of Democrats supporting a 

temporary guest worker program with a path to citizenship. 

Just recently, April 15 to 19, the Terrence Group and Lake Research survey showed once again the American people of all parties, of all demographic groups, are far ahead of their politicians. 

Seventy-five percent of likely voters favor passage of a legislation 

that would create a path to citizenship. 

3

Support for this legislation crosses all racial and partisan ideological lines. Whites, African-Americans, Hispanic Americans and 

Asian Americans would support the legislation from 70 to 75 percent; Republicans and Democrats, 76 and 74 percent; very conservative voters, 74 percent; conservative Christians at 78 percent; and 

that famous group called ‘‘talk radio listeners,’’ 76 percent. 

No one in these groups believes that what has been offered is 

amnesty. 

There is a lot of good in the agreement that the Senate is discussing. Measurable efforts to secure our borders are sound policy. 

The creation of the Z visa is a workable solution. Revising the visitors’ visas to allow parents to come to the United States is a workable compromise that balances our pro-family values with the unfortunate and, I believe, irrational fear of chain migration. 

Several of the compromises present real concerns. Not allowing 

access to Social Security contributions seems hypocritical, especially for conservatives, who, when arguing in support of tax cuts 

say, it is your money. 

We are hopeful that adult children—always integral parts of 

families—can be included in the expanded visitor’s visa. 

But by far, my biggest concern is a merit system that on its face 

seems to favor the wealthy and highly educated over low-skilled, 

low-wage workers who are essential to our workforce and to our 

communities. 

We will withhold judgment until all details are known. But the 

idea of creating a meritocracy in America strikes of the reason we 

had a revolutionary war against the British. 

Let me be clear. Although there are a number of pieces that cry 

out for revision and many more we wish were not in that compromise at all, we understand that, if we are going to see comprehensive immigration reform become law, if we are going to be 

able to finally bring 12 million hardworking, contributing members 

of our communities out of the shadows and away from the fear they 

have learned to live with, we must work in the political climate of 

the day and seek compromise. 

No one wishes to isolate the dangerous elements of our society 

more than we do. Criminals prey on our people, and no one is more 

vulnerable than the undocumented. 

The strident, obstructionist, often xenophobic voices of the ‘‘send 

them home’’ crowd are wearing thin on the American public. We 

have heard that they are wearing thin on the patience of many 

House Members and look to you for leadership to equip your colleagues of both parties with the information they seek to back 

down to these bullies. 

The Hispanic Evangelical Church stands ready to be a full partner with the Federal Government to educate our people about this 

legislation, to offer greatly expanded English and citizenship classes and to be the place where people will come forward and move 

out of the shadows. 

We look forward to working with you and your colleagues in the 

days and weeks ahead to see real, compassionate, workable, comprehensive immigration reform become law. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Reverend Corte ́s follows:]

4

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LUIS CORTE ́S, JR.


LC-2.eps
5


LC-3X.eps
6


LC-4.eps
7


LC-5.eps
8


LC-6.eps
9


LC-7.eps
10


LC-8.eps
11

ATTACHMENT


LC-9.eps
12


LC-10.eps
13

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very, very much. 

Bishop Wenski, if we could now hear from you? 

And then I realize you both have to leave, and we appreciate 

your spending an hour waiting for us. 

TESTIMONY OF THE MOST REVEREND THOMAS G. WENSKI, 

U.S. CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, DIOCESE OF ORLANDO 

Bishop WENSKI. Thank you. 

I would like to thank you and Ranking Member Steve King for 

inviting me to testify today, and also to thank the full Committee 

Chairman, John Conyers, for his leadership in this issue, and, of 

course, Representative Gutierrez for his hard work over the years 

on this important issue and also for the STRIVE Act, which is a 

very good bill to look at and hopefully will educate the Senate. 

Madam Chair, the issue of immigration has been widely debated 

in our country. It has been analyzed as an economic, cultural, social issue. But from the perspective of our church, immigration is 

ultimately a humanitarian issue with important moral implications. 

In my oral statement, I would like to focus on the bishop’s concern with the bill pending before the Senate. My complete testimony expands on these issues and goes on to comment more fully 

on the bishop’s views on comprehensive immigration reform. 

We are encouraged that the legislation that the Senate is considering contains a program that would permit many undocumented 

migrants currently in the United States to come out of the shadows, legalize their status and earn permanent residency. 

We are also encouraged by provisions that would devote visas to 

reducing the backlog in the availability of some of the family preference visas. 

However, we are deeply concerned with a number of the provisions in that legislation. We will be working to modify those provisions as the bill works its way through the Senate. And we strongly 

urge that you not replicate these problematic provisions in any legislation that the House takes up and passes. 

While we appreciate the inclusion in Title IV of the Ag Jobs legislation, we strongly oppose the Title’s adoption of a temporary 

worker program that does not provide workers with the option of 

pursuing a path to permanent residency. 

We also have misgivings about workers having to return home 

after 2 years and remain outside of the country for a year. We 

think this will have the unintended consequence of continuing the 

problem of illegal stay in the country. 

Also, families would only be allowed to be with the temporary 

worker for 2 years out of a potential 6 years while working in the 

United States. 

We also have serious concerns about much of Title V of the bill 

that the Senate is currently considering. They include the elimination of the first, second, third and fourth family preference categories, the elimination of parents of U.S. citizens from the immediate relative category, capping parents of U.S. citizens at 40,000 

visas a year. 

14

Last year, 120,000 parents came to join their U.S. citizen children. That leaves out 80,000 of people that would not benefit under 

the current proposed legislation. 

It eliminates more than 200,000 family-based visas each year. It 

dismisses the petitions of more than 800 petitioners who have filed 

their family preference petitions after May of 2005 from the family 

preference system. 

The imposition of an untried and untested merit-based system 

that gives no weight to family ties is very problematic to us. And 

the reduction of more than 50 percent in special immigrant visas, 

including the reduction by more than 50 percent of the visas available to special immigrant religious workers and the elimination of 

the diversity visa program, is also quite troubling. 

We urge your Subcommittee to protect family unity in our immigration system by replacing Title V in the Senate bill with Title 5 

of the STRIVE Act. We should not abandon family unity as the cornerstone of our immigration system. 

We have two major concerns with the legalization program contained in Title VI of the Senate legislation. We are troubled that 

legalizing aliens through the Z visa would—those Z visa holders 

would be unable to petition for their immediate family members, 

who live outside of the United States, until they obtain permanent 

residency. 

This could take a minimum of 8 years and go up to 13 years before they could have family members join them. Again, I think that 

would have the unintended consequence of continuing illegal entry 

into the country and exacerbating the prison problem we are trying 

to solve. 

A second concern that we have with Title VI is the requirement 

that Z visa holders return to their home country to apply for permanent residency. This requirement could place an undue burden 

on applicants who are either unable to afford a return home or unwilling to, for fear of not being allowed to return. 

This could have an unintended chilling effect on participation in 

the legalization program, which would defeat the whole purpose of 

the program. 

We urge the Subcommittee to examine this aspect of the program 

and eliminate it or amend it, replace it with the ‘‘touch back’’ provision contained in the STRIVE Act. 

We also urge the Subcommittee to carefully consider our recommendations on implementation issues, which I have expanded 

upon in my written testimony, to ensure that legalizing immigrants 

will be able to better integrate in our society. 

Finally, Madam Chair, we are concerned with the triggers in the 

Senate bill, which must occur prior to implementation of certain aspects of the legalization programs. 

One trigger is the construction of 370 miles of wall along our 

southern border, the hiring of 18,000 Border Patrol agents and the 

implementation of some aspects of REAL ID. And this has to be 

done before the temporary worker program and the residency program can go into effect. 

These programs should not be dependent on events which may 

or may not occur. 

15

We are hopeful that the House of Representatives, as you debate 

this issue, you will assure that neither legal or undocumented immigrants will be made scapegoats of the challenges we face as a 

nation. 

Rhetoric which attacks the human rights and dignities of the migrant does not serve a nation of immigrants. Xenophobic and antiimmigrant attitudes do not make us a better people. And we are 

better than that as a nation. 

The U.S. bishops are hopeful that this debate will consider not 

only the negative impacts of illegal immigration, but also the many 

benefits that immigrants bring to our communities and our nation. 

The problem is not the immigrants. The problem is the broken 

system. And rather than scapegoating the immigrants, we should 

fix the system. 

And we look forward to working with you, the Subcommittee and 

the full Committee, in the months ahead to do just that. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Bishop Wenski follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS G. WENSKI

I am Bishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando, Florida, and am here today to testify 

on the issue of immigration reform on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic 

Bishops (USCCB). 

I would like to thank Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), chairwoman of the 

House Subcommittee on Immigration, and Representative Steve King (R-IA), ranking member, for having me today and for holding a hearing on the faith-based views 

on immigration reform. I would also like to thank full Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) for his ongoing leadership and support for immigration 

reform. 

Madam Chairman, the U.S. Senate is currently engaging in a historic debate on 

immigration reform. We are hopeful that the Senate will pass a fair and humane 

immigration bill and send it for consideration to the House of Representatives. We 

know that you have worked tirelessly since becoming Chair of this subcommittee to 

find a consensus in the House of Representatives on this important issue. We are 

hopeful that your leadership will produce comprehensive immigration reform legislation which comports with standards of fairness and justice. 

My purpose in testifying today is to communicate the position of the Catholic 

Church in the United States on the best model for immigration reform and to comment on legislation currently being considered in the Senate and U.S. House of Representatives. My testimony will focus upon 1) the role of the Catholic Church in the 

immigration reform debate; 2) the position of the USCCB on S. 1348, the Secure 

Borders, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which is currently being considered by the Senate; 3) the position of the Catholic Church on 

comprehensive immigration reform; and 4) the position of the USCCB on H.R. 1645, 

the Security Through Regularized Immigration Act of 2007 (STRIVE), that has been 

referred to your full committee. 

THE ROLE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE IMMIGRATION REFORM DEBATE

Madam Chairman, the issue of immigration is complex, and it elicits strong opinions and emotions from all sides of the public debate. The immigration issue touches 

upon our national economic, social, and cultural interests, and it has been analyzed 

and dissected predominately in those terms. From the perspective of the Catholic 

Church, immigration reform is ultimately a humanitarian issue because it impacts 

the basic human rights and dignity of the human person. 

As providers of pastoral and social services to immigrants throughout the nation, 

we in the Catholic Church witness the human consequences of a broken immigration system every day in our parishes, social service programs, hospitals, and 

schools. Families are divided, migrant workers are exploited and abused, and 

human beings unnecessarily die in the American desert. As a participant in the 

public debate, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has attempted to 

point out the human suffering that occurs in our country each day as a result of 

16

1Pope Pius XII, Exsul Familia (On the Spiritual Care of Migrants), September, 1952. 2Pope John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rel Socialis, (On Social Concern) No. 39. 3Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia in America (The Church in America), January 22, 1999, no. 65. 

an immigration system that lacks due process protections and fails to provide the 

legal status and legal avenues needed to protect immigrants from exploitation. 

As a moral matter, the United States cannot employ a system which accepts the 

toil, taxes, and other contributions undocumented immigrants make to our nation 

without providing them the protection of the law. I would also add that sending nations have an obligation as well to pursue policies that produce living wage jobs so 

that their citizens can remain in their country and support their families in dignity. 

Madam Chairman, the Catholic Church also will play an instrumental role once 

a new immigration bill is implemented and thus has a strong interest in helping 

to pass legislation which is fair and humane. The Church is present in communities 

around the nation and throughout sending countries. Migrants and immigrants will 

come to us to ask us to shepherd them through the new system. They also will ask 

us whether they should ‘‘come out of the shadows’’ and participate in any new program. We want to be able to tell them with authority and credibility to come into 

the light of day. 

Catholic Social Teaching and Immigration

The Catholic Church is an immigrant church. More than one-third of Catholics 

in the United States are of Hispanic origin. The Church in the United States is also 

made up of more than 58 ethnic groups from throughout the world, including Asia, 

Africa, the Near East, and Latin America. 

The Catholic Church has a long history of involvement in the immigration issue, 

both in the advocacy arena and in welcoming and assimilating waves of immigrants 

and refugees who have helped build our nation throughout her history. Many Catholic immigration programs were involved in the implementation of the Immigration 

Reform and Control Act (IRCA) in the 1980s, and those programs continue to serve 

immigrants today. In fact, the USCCB) was a national coordinating agency for the 

implementation of IRCA. We have a strong working relationship with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that would be largely responsible for implementing any 

new legalization and temporary worker programs. There are currently 158 Catholic 

immigration programs throughout the country under the auspices of the U.S. 

bishops. 

The Church’s work in assisting migrants stems from the belief that every person 

is created in God’s image. In the Old Testament, God calls upon his people to care 

for the alien because of their own alien experience: ‘‘So, you, too, must befriend the 

alien, for you were once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt’’ (Deut. 10:17–19). 

In the New Testament, the image of the migrant is grounded in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. In his own life and work, Jesus identified himself with newcomers and with other marginalized persons in a special way: ‘‘I was a stranger and 

you welcomed me.’’ (Mt. 25:35) Jesus himself was an itinerant preacher without a 

home of his own as well as a refugee fleeing the terror of Herod. (Mt. 2:15) 

In modern times, popes over the last 100 years have developed Church teaching 

on migration. Pope Pius XII reaffirmed the Church’s commitment to caring for pilgrims, aliens, exiles, and migrants of every kind, affirming that all peoples have the 

right to conditions worthy of human life and, if these conditions are not present, 

the right to migrate.1 Pope John Paul II stated that there is a need to balance the 

rights of nations to control their borders with basic human rights, including the 

right to work: ‘‘Interdependence must be transformed into solidarity based upon the 

principle that the goods of creation are meant for all.’’ 2 In his pastoral statement, 

Ecclesia in America, John Paul II reaffirms the rights of migrants and their families 

and the need for respecting human dignity, ‘‘even in cases of non-legal immigration.’’ 3

In an address to the faithful on June 5, 2005, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI 

referenced migration and migrant families; ‘‘. . . my thoughts go to those who are 

far from their homeland and often also from their families; I hope that they will 

always meet receptive friends and hearts on their path who are capable of supporting them in the difficulties of the day.’’

In our recent joint pastoral letter, the U.S. and Mexican Catholic bishops further 

define Church teaching on migration, calling for nations to work toward a 

‘‘globalization of solidarity:’’ ‘‘It is now time to harmonize policies on the movement 

17

4Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope. A Pastoral Letter Concerning Migration from the Catholic Bishops of Mexico and the United States,’’ January 23, 2003, n. 57. 

of people, particularly in a way that respects the human dignity of the migrant and 

recognizes the social consequences of globalization.’’ 4

For these reasons, the Catholic Church holds a strong interest in the welfare of 

immigrants and the ways in which our nation welcomes newcomers from all lands. 

The current immigration system, which can lead to family separation, suffering, and 

even death, is morally unacceptable and must be reformed. 

POSITION OF THE USCCB ON S. 1348, THE SECURE BORDERS, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2007

Much attention is being focused on legislative efforts underway in the other body, 

where the Senate is considering a bipartisan comprehensive reform proposal negotiated between the White House and several senators, including Senators Edward 

M. Kennedy (D-MA) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ). 

The bishops are encouraged that the legislation that the Senate is considering 

contains a program that would permit many undocumented migrants currently in 

the United States to come out of the shadows, legalize their status, and earn permanent residency. The bishops also are encouraged by provisions that would devote 

visas to reducing the backlog in the availability of some of the family preference 

visas. However, we are deeply concerned with a number of the provisions in that 

legislation. We will be working to modify those provisions as the bill works its way 

through the Senate. And we strongly urge that you not replicate these problematic 

provisions in any legislation that the House takes up and passes. 

In a statement released on May 17, 2007, Bishop Gerald Barnes, chairman of the 

USCCB Committee on Migration, stated that the U.S. bishops outlined three specific problem areas, including the legalization program in Title VI, the new worker 

visa program in Title IV, and the changes to the family preference system in Title 

V. While these areas do not represent the totality of our concerns, for purposes of 

this testimony I would like to focus upon them for the subcommittee. 

Title IV—Temporary Worker Program 

While we appreciate the inclusion in Title IV of AgJOBS legislation, we strongly 

oppose the Title’s adoption of a temporary worker program that does not provide 

workers with the option of pursuing a path to permanent residency. This could create an underclass of workers in our society who are easily exploitable and without 

full rights and privileges in the society. We also have misgivings about workers having to return home after two years and remain outside of the country for a year. 

We fear this may result in some workers choosing to stay illegally. 

Other problems we have in Title IV include its unrealistic requirements for health 

insurance and minimum income levels, and the reliance on the unrealistic triggers 

found in Title I of the legislation before the temporary worker program can begin 

to operate. 

Title V—Reconfiguration of the Legal Immigration System 

We have serious concerns about much of Title V of the bill that the Senate is currently considering. These include opposition to the elimination of the 1st, 2b, 3rd, 

and 4th family preference categories; elimination of parents of U.S. citizens from the 

immediate relative category; capping parents of U.S. citizens at 40,000 visas per 

year; elimination of more than 200,000 family-based visas each year; dismissal of 

the petitions of more than 800,000 petitioners who filed their family preference petitions after May of 2005 from the family preference system; imposition of an untried 

and untested ‘‘merit-based’’ system that would give virtually no weight to family 

ties; a reduction by more than 50 percent in special immigrant visas, including a 

reduction by more than 50 percent in visas available to special immigrant religious 

workers; and elimination of the diversity visa program. 

We urge the subcommittee to protect family unity in our immigration system by 

replacing Title V of the Senate bill with Title V of the STRIVE Act. This would 

maintain the family preference system as currently administered and clear up interminable family backlogs. From the church perspective, a family member from Central America, Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, or elsewhere could well offer the country 

as much as a computer software engineer. We should not abandon family unity as 

the cornerstone of our immigration system. 

Title VI—Legalization Program 

We have two major concerns with the legalization program contained in Title VI 

of the Senate legislation. First, we are troubled that legalizing aliens, known as Z 

18

visa holders, would be unable to petition for their immediate family members who 

live outside the United States until they obtain permanent residency. Under this 

legislation, this process would take a minimum of eight-to-thirteen years but could 

take much longer. We urge the subcommittee to amend this aspect of the program 

and permit immediate family members to permanently reunite with a Z visa holder 

in a timely manner. 

A second concern we have with Title VI is the requirement that Z visa holders 

return to their home country to apply for permanent residency. This requirement 

could place an undue burden on applicants who are either unable to afford a return 

home or unwilling to for fear of not being allowed to return. It could have an unintended ‘‘chilling’’ effect on participation in the permanent residency program, an effect which could defeat the purpose of the program. We urge the subcommittee to 

examine this aspect of the program and eliminate it or, at a minimum, replace it 

with the ‘‘touch back’’ provision contained in the STRIVE Act. 

Other concerns we have with Title VI of the Senate bill includes what may well 

be excessive fees for persons attempting to legalize their status and inadequate 

funding for the infrastructure to shepherd the estimated 12 million migrants 

through the legalization process. We also are concerned that the unrealistic triggers 

found in Title I of the legislation could impede the ability of Z visa holders to adjust 

their status, thus relegating them to a permanent state of uncertainty. 

We hope to work closely with you and other members of the Committee in coming 

weeks on these and other concerns we have with the Senate bill. 

The Position of the USCCB on Comprehensive Immigration Reform 

Madam Chairman, the U.S. Catholic bishops believe that any comprehensive immigration reform bill should include 1) an earned legalization program that gives 

migrant workers and their families the opportunity to obtain permanent residency; 

2) a new worker visa program that protects the labor rights of both U.S. and foreign-born workers and gives participants the opportunity to earn permanent residency; 3) reform of the family-based preference system to ensure that families are 

reunited in a timely fashion; 4) restoration of due process protections for immigrants; and 5) policies that address the root causes of migration, such as the lack 

of sustainable development in sending countries. We also urge Congress to ensure 

that provisions are included to facilitate the implementation of any bill in an efficient and fair manner. 

Earned Legalization Program. A main feature of comprehensive immigration 

reform should be an earned legalization program which provides the more than 12 

million undocumented persons in the nation legal status and an opportunity to earn 

the opportunity to apply for permanent residency. Such a program should be workable, achievable, and fair. For example, a program cannot be so complicated as to 

be ultimately unworkable, and it should not be so onerous as to discourage otherwise qualified applicants from ‘‘coming out of the shadows.’’ This program should 

include waivers so as to maximize those eligible for legalization. It should ensure 

confidentiality in the application and adjudication process and provide for meaningful judicial review for those who might be unfairly denied. The legalization program 

should allow immediate family members outside of the United States to join their 

loved one (spouse or parent) in the United States. Finally, it should not require eligible persons to travel back to their home country for processing. 

The Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2007 (S.340, H.R. 

371) ‘‘AgJobs’’ represents a bipartisan initiative that would help protect both a vital 

industry and a labor force which is vulnerable to exploitation. Introduced in the 

House of Representatives by Representatives Howard Berman (D-CA) and Chris 

Cannon (R-UT), this measure represents a negotiated agreement between the agricultural employers and the United Farm Workers. In the terms of this agreement, 

the legislation would both stabilize the labor force in this important industry and 

ensure that employers have access to a work-authorized supply of labor, if necessary. 

The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act) represents another bipartisan initiative that would allow some undocumented students 

to be eligible for in-state tuition and legal status as permanent legal residents. Having entered the United States as very young children, often through no fault of their 

own, these students have contributed to their schools and communities. Many have 

lived in the United States for years. 

We urge Congress to enact both of these important pieces of legislation by including them in a comprehensive immigration reform measure. 

New Worker Visa Program. Perhaps the most problematic aspect of immigration policy reform is the creation of a new worker program that protects the basic 

rights of all workers, both foreign and domestic. The history of ‘‘guest worker’’ proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:58 Sep 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\052207\35602.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35602
19

grams in the United States has not been a proud one. Indeed, the Bracero program, 

the largest U.S. experiment with temporary laborers from abroad, ended abruptly 

in 1964 because of abuses in the program. The U.S. Catholic bishops have long been 

skeptical of large-scale ‘‘guest worker’’ programs. Nevertheless, the status quo, 

which features a large underclass of undocumented workers unprotected by the law, 

is unacceptable. 

In this regard, the U.S. and Mexican bishops have proposed the following elements for a ‘‘new worker program.’’ From both sides of the border, the Catholic 

Bishops have agreed that these elements, if properly implemented, would help protect the rights of foreign and U.S. workers and ensure that legal avenues are provided for future migrants to enter the country in a safe, legal, and humane manner.

• Wage and Benefit Levels. Any worker program must feature wage levels 

and benefits given domestic workers in an industry. Overtime pay should be 

available. Benefits such as worker’s compensation, social security, housing, 

and health-care should be made available.

• Worker Protections and Job Portability. Workers should enjoy the same 

protections of U.S. labor law as U.S. workers, regardless of industry, including a right to redress grievances in federal court and a transparent arbitration system; safe and sanitary working conditions; and expressed terms of employment. Workers should be able to move to other employment within an industry and not be tied to one employer. Work accrued toward permanent residency should not be affected by changing jobs or employers.

• Family Unity. Workers should be able to be joined by spouse and children 

in the United States during the length of the worker’s visa. Either spouse 

should be eligible for work authorization, regardless of whether he or she 

works in the program. Spouses and children should be able to become eligible 

for permanent residency at the same time as the worker in the program.

• Labor-Market Test. A mechanism should be included to ascertain whether 

U.S. workers within an area are adversely impacted by the hiring of workers 

from abroad. Employers should be required to advertise job openings in the 

United States to the maximum extent practicable and make good-faith efforts 

to recruit U.S. workers for a sufficient amount of time.

• Mobility. Workers and their families should be able to travel throughout the 

United States, travel back and forth from the United States to their country 

of origin, as well as travel from work site to work site, regardless of location, 

for the duration of their visa. Visas should be renewable as long as workers 

meet the requirements of the program, and applicable waivers to bars to admission should apply.

• Enforcement Mechanisms. Resources should be appropriated to ensure 

proper enforcement of worker protections in the program. Workers should be 

given the right to sue in federal court for violation of rights.

• Path to Residency. Workers should have the option of working to earn permanent residency over time, similar to an earned legalization program, as 

outlined elsewhere in my testimony.

In our view, any new worker program must contain these elements in order to 

avoid the abuses of past such programs and to ensure that worker’s rights are protected. In addition, the new worker program should be enacted in conjunction with 

a legalization program for the undocumented so that groups of workers are not pitted against each other. A just worker program also will mitigate the amount and 

effects of undocumented migration, which can lead to the abuse, exploitation, or 

even death of migrants. 

Family Reunification. Family reunification, upon which much of the U.S. immigration system has been based for the past 40 years, must remain the cornerstone 

of U.S. immigration policy. Immigrant families contribute to our nation and help 

form new generations of Americans. Even while many migrants come to the United 

States to find employment, many come as families. 

The U.S. family-based immigration system, which helps keep families together, is 

in urgent need of reform. The current visa quota system, last revised by Congress 

in 1990, established statutory ceilings for family immigration that are now inadequate to meet the needs of immigrant families wishing to reunite in a timely manner. The result has been waiting times of five years or more—and more than eight 

years for Mexican permanent residents—for spouses to reunite with each other and 

20

5 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service Fact Sheet, January, 2004. 

for parents to reunite with minor children. The waiting times for adult siblings to 

reunite can be twenty years or longer.5

The family preference system should be reformed in the following manner:

• Raising current world-wide numerical limitations. Significantly raising 

the current world-wide numerical limitations on immigrant visas, as well as 

raising the ceiling on various family visa categories could dramatically reduce 

the current family backlog. Currently, the Immigration and Nationality Act 

(INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 480,000. 

In addition, the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at seven 

percent of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits. These limitations result in lengthy waits for family members 

abroad awaiting visas to immigrate to the United States. Raising these numbers significantly would reduce these waits.

• Changing the treatment of ‘‘immediate relatives.’’ The immediate relative category, which currently includes only the children, spouses, and parents of U.S. citizens is not subject to the family preference numerical limitations. However, the number of immediate relative visas granted is subtracted 

from the overall family immigration cap. Reducing the family backlog can be 

achieved by: 1) not counting immediate relatives of U.S. citizens against the 

family immigration cap and 2) placing the immediate relatives of lawful permanent residents into the same category as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. This would help free up visas for other categories.

Enforcement Regime and Due Process. Madam Chairman, I would like to 

concentrate at this point in my testimony on how the enactment of comprehensive 

immigration reform would enhance, not undermine, our ability to protect our nation 

from terrorist threats. By enacting comprehensive immigration reform, the United 

States would better be able to identify who is already in the country and to identify 

and control who enters it. For example, a greater portion of the 11–12 million undocumented persons in the nation likely would emerge ‘‘from the shadows’’ and identify themselves to the government in order to participate in the earned legalization 

program. The establishment of additional employment-based and family-based visas 

for low-skilled workers and their families would provide legal avenues for those 

seeking to enter the United States, helping to better ensure that the government 

knows who is entering the country and for what purpose. 

Madam Chairman, I am not alone in this assessment. Last year, nine former 

Homeland Security officials issued a statement which read, ‘‘enforcement alone will 

not do the job of securing our borders. Enforcement at the border will only be successful in the long-term if it is coupled with a more sensible approach to the 10–

12 million illegal aliens in the country and the many more who will attempt to migrate to the United States for economic reasons.’’

At this point, Madam Chairman, I would like to offer several principles which we 

believe should govern your deliberations and decisions on any new enforcement 

measures adopted in a comprehensive immigration reform bill: 

Any new enforcement measures are best implemented within comprehensive immigration reform. We believe that any new enforcement measures are best 

applied within the context of comprehensive immigration reform. By creating legal 

avenues for immigration that meet our economic needs and help reunite families, 

and by legalizing the undocumented population who pass specific and rigorous security checks, enforcement personnel can more easily identify those who truly threaten 

our communities and nation: drug and human traffickers, human smugglers, and 

terrorists. 

Enforcement measures should not be overly punitive or undermine due 

process. Legislation adopted by the House of Representatives in 2005 included provisions that criminalized undocumented persons and those providing them assistance. Other provisions removed due process protections for immigrants, including 

permanent residents and other legal immigrants. Such measures do not deter illegal 

immigration but instead undermine the fairness in our immigration laws. 

Enhanced protection should be respectful of human rights and human 

life. Federal border enforcement personnel play a crucial role in protecting our nation and deserve our respect and support for their commitment to our security. We 

are grateful for their ongoing efforts to identify and rescue migrants who are in distress. We support more resources for infrastructure and staffing at ports-of-entry, 

which would help relieve an overburdened system, promote our security, and allow 

for more expeditious and humane treatment of immigrants. However, we oppose enVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:58 Sep 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\052207\35602.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35602
21

6Strangers No Longer, n. 56. 

forcement strategies which may lead migrants into remote areas of the desert, and, 

thereby, lead to more deaths. 

Immigrants should not be treated as criminals. We do not believe that the 

large majority of undocumented immigrants are criminals and should not be treated 

as such. In cases where immigrants have engaged in criminal activity, they should 

be dealt with in our criminal justice system in a fair and balanced way. We are concerned with reports that these immigrants are being detained in substandard and 

crowded conditions, including in ‘‘tent cities’’ or local jails. Immigrants should not 

be detained on a mandatory or indefinite basis or without having their ‘‘day in 

court.’’ Enforcement measures should reflect these goals. 

Families and children deserve special care and attention. Efforts should be 

made to keep families together through release or alternatives to detention, wherever possible. If detention is necessary, a family should be held in a non-penal setting. Children should be protected from dangerous conditions and, if unaccompanied 

by a parent or guardian, have access to counsel and be placed in the least restrictive 

setting. 

Asylum-seekers and refugees should be afforded protection. Those who come 

to our shores in need of protection from persecution should be afforded an opportunity to assert their claim to a qualified adjudicator and should not be detained 

unnecessarily. The expansion of ‘‘expedited removal,’’ a practice that puts bona fide

refugees and other vulnerable migrants at risk of wrongful deportation, should be 

halted. At a minimum, strong safeguards, such as those suggested by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, should be instituted to prevent the return of the persecuted to their persecutors. 

Madam Chairman, the U.S. Catholic bishops reaffirm the right of our nation to 

secure our borders. The above principles will help guide this effort so that the basic 

human rights and dignity of persons are protected. 

Finally, we urge the committee to reexamine the changes made by the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which eviscerated due process protections for immigrants. We urge you to restore judicial discretion in removal proceedings so that families are not unnecessarily divided. 

Root Causes of Migration. In our pastoral letter, the U.S. and Mexican Catholic 

bishops write, ‘‘the realities of migration between both nations require comprehensive policy responses implemented in unison by both countries. The current relationship is weakened by inconsistent and divergent policies that are not coordinated 

and, in many cases, address only the symptoms of migration and not its root 

causes.’’ 6

It is critical that the Congress and the administration look at the immigration 

issue with Mexico and other governments as part and parcel of the entire bilateral 

relationship, including trade and economic considerations. Addressing the immigration systems of both nations, for example, will not control the forces that compel 

migrants to come to the United States. 

In an ideal world for which we must all strive, migrants should have the opportunity to remain in their homelands and support themselves and their families. In 

this regard, we renew our call to both the U.S. and Mexican governments to resume 

bilateral migration negotiations so that all issues that impact migration to the 

United States are addressed. 

Implementation Issues. It is important to understand that the manner in which 

comprehensive immigration reform is implemented is vital to its success. A publicprivate partnership is necessary so that immigrant communities are aware of the 

facts of the application process (thus eliminating the involvement of ‘‘notarios’’) and 

are able to receive assistance in accessing the program. 

It will be essential that Congress provide adequate resources for DHS to implement and execute any earned adjustment program. As passed by the Senate, the 

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA) of 2006 anticipated this by establishing fees that would generate approximately 66 billion dollars of revenue dedicated to processing applications for earned adjustment. 

The fee-generated funds will not be adequate to meet the financial needs of this 

implementation program; Congress will also need to directly appropriate funds to 

get the program started. Additionally, Congress must be diligent in its oversight and 

to ensure that fee-generated funds are not diverted for other purposes, as has often 

been done in the past 

While some may quarrel with the use of appropriated funds for this purpose, I 

would suggest that the alternative would likely require the expenditure of far more 

funds and yield a less desirable result. The cost of properly implementing an earned 

22

7 69 Federal Register 5088 (February 2, 2007) 

adjustment program is tiny when compared to the cost of deporting 12 million, 

which has been estimated as $240 billion, or $25,000 per immigrant. 

Mr. Chairman, we believe that any comprehensive legislation can be implemented 

through a combination of reasonable fees imposed on applicants with some supplemental funding appropriated by Congress. Fees should not be imposed, however, 

which place the program out of the reach of qualified applicants. 

We recommend the inclusion of the following elements in any legislation to ensure 

that a program is implemented appropriately:

• Confidentiality. Applicants for both the legalization and temporary worker 

program should be extended confidentiality and not be subject to arrest and 

deportation if they fail to qualify for the program. This would ensure maximum participation in the program and would prevent those who do qualify 

are not discouraged or intimidated from applying.

• Qualified Designated Entities Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)-accredited Qualified designated entities (QDEs) should be created to assist in implementation of both programs.

• Reasonable Implementation Period. Sufficient time should be given between enactment and implementation so that regulations, procedures, and infrastructure are in place. Deportations of prospective applicants should be 

suspended between these two dates.

• Creation of a Separate Entity. A separate entity, similar to the asylum 

corps, should be created within the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to implement the legislation. Such an entity should be 

adequately funded through appropriations.

• Derivative Benefits. Immediate family members should receive the same 

immigration benefits under legalization/temporary worker program as the 

worker.

• Generous Evidentiary Standards. For purposes of verifying an alien’s eligibility for legalization, evidentiary standards should be based upon ‘‘preponderance of the evidence’’ and should include a wide range of proof, including 

attestation.

• One-Step Legalization. A one-step legalization program would verify eligibility and security and background checks in one process up front and not in 

a two-step process, i.e. upon conditional status and then permanent status.

• Operational Terms should be defined. Operational terms in the bill, such 

as ‘‘continuous residence,’’ ‘‘brief, casual, and innocent,’’ and ‘‘known to the 

government,’’ should be defined in the legislation to avoid later confusion.

• Broad humanitarian waiver. A broad waiver of bars to admissibility for legalized aliens, such as unlawful presence, fraud, or other minor offenses, 

should be included in the legislation.

The inclusion of these elements in any legislation would facilitate the implementation of any program. 

In addition, the Congress and the Administration should take steps to reduce the 

current immigration adjudication backlogs so that immigrants receive benefits in a 

timely way, and so that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) can 

successfully work towards implementing new programs. 

Moreover, the government has just proposed an increase in fee applications by 

three times for green card applications, leaving these benefits financially out of 

reach of many applicants.7

Madam Chairman, reduction in the current backlogs in naturalization and adjustment of status applications as well as the maintenance of affordable fees should be 

part of our nation’s efforts to reform our immigration system. We recommend that 

Congress evaluate the budget of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 

(USCIS) and provide more directly appropriated funding for infrastructure and 

backlog reduction. Without more efficiency in the system, a new comprehensive reform program of any type may be unworkable, absent the creation of a new entity 

to implement it. 

THE POSITION OF THE USCCB ON THE SECURITY THROUGH REGULARIZED IMMIGRATION

AND A VIBRANT ECONOMY ACT OF 2007 (STRIVE)

To date in the 110th Congress, H.R. 1645, the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act of 2007 (STRIVE), bipartisan legislation inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:58 Sep 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\052207\35602.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35602
23

troduced by Representatives Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ), best comports with the principles needed for a just and humane immigration reform bill. The 

legislation contains a viable program for legalizing the undocumented population 

and giving them an opportunity for permanent residency, a new worker program 

with appropriate worker protections and wages, and reductions in family immigration backlogs. We believe that the STRIVE Act should be the vehicle for comprehensive reform in the House of Representatives. 

We have some concerns, however, about several provisions in Title II of the legislation, which we hope will be addressed during the legislative process. For example, 

we believe that passport fraud provisions found in section 221 of the measure would 

place bona fide refugees at risk, many of whom must resort to the use of false travel 

documents obtained in their home country because they cannot obtain government 

documents from authorities that may be persecuting them. We also object to aspects 

of section 234c of the bill that seeks to deal with penalties for persons who harbor 

and smuggle aliens. Although the section would exempt religious organizations from 

some of its penalties, it would place other groups and individuals, including labor 

unions, at risk of prosecution for providing basic needs assistance to undocumented 

immigrants. We believe these and other provisions in Title II should be removed 

from the legislation or substantially modified. 

We also have some concerns with the ‘‘triggers’’ contained in the STRIVE Act—

goals which must be achieved prior to the implementation of the legalization programs. The legislation requires the implementation of the first phase of an electronic employer verification system and the creation of the infrastructure necessary 

to improve immigration document security for a tamper-resistant identification card. 

We urge a provision which allows the legalization programs to go forward if these 

goals are not met within the deadlines outlined in the legislation. 

Despite these reservations, we believe the STRIVE Act contains the right structure and formula to effectively address our immigration crisis and should be the 

basis for any immigration reform legislation considered by the U.S. House of Representatives. 

CONCLUSION

Madam Chairman, the U.S. House of Representatives, and specifically your subcommittee, will soon consider historic immigration reform legislation. We ask that 

you consider strongly our recommendations in this area and pass a fair, just, and 

workable bill. 

We urge you and the House leadership to permit amendments to improve the 

final product of any legislation. 

We are hopeful that, as the House of Representatives debates this issue, neither 

legal nor undocumented immigrants will be made scapegoats of the challenges we 

face as a nation. Rhetoric which attacks the human rights and dignity of the migrant does not serve a nation of immigrants; additionally, xenophobic and anti-immigrant attitudes will only serve to lessen us as a nation. The U.S. bishops are 

hopeful that this debate will consider not only the negative effects of illegal immigration but also the many benefits that immigrants bring to our communities and 

our nation. 

Madam Chairman, the U.S. bishops look forward to working with you in the 

months ahead to fashion an immigration system which upholds the valuable contributions of immigrants and honors the rule of law. 

Thank you for your consideration of our views.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Bishop. And we understand 

that you have to leave, but we do very much appreciate your patience and being here. 

We will now introduce the rest of our panel. The voices of the 

faithful are very important as the nation considers the issue of immigration. 

And I would like to turn to the Chairman of the full Committee 

to introduce Reverend Adams, because he has a close connection 

with Reverend Adams. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe 

Lofgren, and to my friends, Judge Gohmert and Luis Gutierrez and 

Congressman Ellison, our newest Member from Minnesota on the 

Judiciary Committee. 

24

This is a pleasure, because I have worked with Dr. Charles 

Adams of Hartford Memorial Church in Detroit for more years 

than we care to recount. He went to Harvard School of Divinity. 

And I just wanted you to know that the one thing on this long 

list of things that he accomplished is that he was one of the founders of the Progressive Baptist Convention, the Conference of Progressive Baptists in the United States, some 20 years or so ago. 

He is still the senior pastor at Hartford Baptist Church in Detroit and currently teaches at the Ecumenical Theological Seminary 

in Detroit. 

I am proud of the activism that follows Dr. Martin Luther King, 

that he and I have talked about many times. And he has become 

the chair—he was the president of the Detroit branch of the 

NAACP, which was then, and is still, the largest branch of its kind 

in the nation. It holds a 10,000-person dinner every year at Cobo 

Hall. 

He speaks and lectures and preaches around the world, including 

before the United Nations on the South African apartheid. He has 

been with the World Council of Churches. 

He is a member of the general board of Christian Ethics Committee of the Baptist World Alliance, the World Council of Churches’ board of directors, general board of the National Council of 

Churches, board of trustees of Morehouse College in Atlanta, Morris College of Sumter, South Carolina, and an activist in the true 

spirit of the reason that brings one, two, three, four, five, six, 

seven, eight people to a panel. This Subcommittee never has more 

than four members on its panels. 

But the question of what is the role of faith-based leaders in 

shaping a huge, comprehensive immigration policy is so important 

to us, that we have you all here. 

Thank you very much, and welcome. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Chairman Conyers. 

I would now like to introduce Mr. Gideon Aronoff, who is the 

president and CEO of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. Prior to 

joining the Aid Society in 2000, he worked for nearly a dozen years 

in a number of leadership positions within Washington’s and Boston’s respective Jewish communities. He is a member of the board 

of directors of the National Immigration Forum and has worked 

tirelessly to build coalitions among community-oriented organizations. Mr. Aronoff earned his bachelor’s degree from Brandeis and 

his law degree from Cornell. 

We are also pleased to have the Reverend Derrick Harkins with 

us today, pastor of the Nineteenth Street Baptist Church right here 

in Washington, D.C. Prior to his pastorate in Washington, Dr. Harkins was the Senior Minister of the New Hope Baptist Church of 

Dallas, Texas. During his tenure there, he served as President of 

the Greater Dallas Community of Churches and was a founding 

board member of the Dallas Leadership Foundation and the Morals 

and Values Project. He is a member of the General Council of the 

Baptist World Alliance, the Association for Clinical Pastoral Education, and serves as a member of the board of directors for World 

Relief, where he has been instrumental in directing a significant 

amount of resources to rebuilding the Gulf Coast. Dr. Harkins received his bachelor’s degree from Boston University, his Master of 

25

Divinity from the Union Theological Seminary in New York City, 

and his Doctorate in Homiletics from the United Seminary in Dayton, Ohio. 

I would also like to welcome Dan Kosten, the director of World 

Relief Refugee and Immigration Programs at the National Association of Evangelicals. Having worked with World Relief for over 5 

years, Mr. Kosten provides technical support for a network of over 

20 offices that offer a number of programs involving refugees, trafficking victims, and immigrants. Born in Taipei, Taiwan, Mr. 

Kosten worked for nearly 10 years in Central Africa, beginning as 

a member of the Peace Corps. He received his bachelor’s degree 

from Calvin College and his master’s degree in Missions and Intercultural Studies from Wheaton College. He is a member and deacon at Chapelgate Presbyterian Church. 

Next, I am pleased to welcome the minority’s two witnesses, the 

first of whom is Dr. Jim Edwards, an Adjunct Fellow at the Hudson Institute. Dr. Edwards co-authored the book, The Congressional 

Politics of Immigration Reform, which was nominated for the 

Hardeman Prize, and has contributed chapters to several published 

volumes, including Debating Immigration, edited by Carol M. 

Swain. Here on Capitol Hill, Dr. Edwards has served on the staffs 

of Congressman Ed Bryant, Congressman John Duncan, Jr., and 

Senator Strom Thurmond. He earned his bachelor’s and master’s 

degrees from the University of Georgia and his doctorate from the 

University of Tennessee. 

And finally, I am pleased to welcome the minority’s second witness, Dr. Stephen Steinlight, a senior policy analyst at the Center 

for Immigration Studies. Dr. Steinlight earned his bachelor’s degree with honors from Columbia University and studied at Princeton University as a Woodrow Wilson Fellow; at Clare College, Cambridge University as a Kellett Fellow; and at the University of Sussex as a Marshall Scholar, where he earned his doctorate. 

Again, thank you very much for your patience in waiting for us, 

but it was worth the wait for us to hear all of you. So, if we may 

begin. 

As mentioned earlier, all of your written statements will be made 

a part of the record. We do ask that you summarize your statements in about 5 minutes, so that we will have a chance to ask 

some questions. 

When this little machine has a yellow light, and when that yellow light goes on, it means that you have only got 1 minute left. 

And when the red light goes on, it means that the 5 minutes are 

up, and we would ask you to try and wind up so that the next witness can be heard. 

So, we will begin with you, Reverend Adams. What an honor it 

is to have you here today. 

TESTIMONY OF REVEREND CHARLES G. ADAMS, SENIOR 

PASTOR, HARTFORD MEMORIAL BAPTIST CHURCH 

Reverend ADAMS. My name is Charles G. Adams, pastor of Hartford Memorial Baptist Church in Detroit, Michigan. I am a constituent and an admirer of Chairman John Conyers, to whom I am 

grateful for this privilege. 

26

For the better part of my life, I have been a preacher and the 

pastor of Hartford Church, whose legendary leader was my predecessor, the late Reverend Dr. Charles A. Hill, Sr., who was active 

in the formation of organized labor in Detroit, the advancement of 

the civil rights movement and also the speaking of human rights 

for aliens and those who were not born in the United States, but 

found life in the United States. 

I speak in opposition to some aspects of the pending comprehensive reform legislation. While I applaud the existence of the proposed legislation as significantly progressive, I find many flaws 

that are both puzzling and troubling. 

My concerns are, one, if there is to be a border fence, it is ominously extended 370 miles, and 200 miles of vehicle barriers. And 

if such construction is to be a prerequisite to the immigration reform that is now before us, will such a prerequisite delay the needed immigration reforms indefinitely, since a long delay of barrier 

construction is to be expected? 

And will such a fence, that is described in some plans as triplelayered metal fencing, prove to be a hindrance to the existence of 

wildlife and become an impervious barrier to many wild animals in 

the area that are needed for the balance of nature? 

Many species of animals will not be able to fly over or to fight 

through the fence to get to the Rio Grande, their only available 

source of fresh water. 

The New York Times reports, moreover, that the border fence 

might also prevent other animals from swimming across the river 

to mate with loved partners on the other side. Such an outcome 

would be deleterious, if not destructive, of the $150 million a year 

tourist industry in that area. 

Secondly, the proposal before us seems unnecessarily to complicate and frustrate an effective, fair and reasonable way of legalizing immigrants. They are charged too much money, they have to 

wait too long, and they have too many hoops to jump through in 

order to qualify for documentation. 

In many respects, what is being proposed is inferior to the status 

quo. 

Thirdly, the proposal creates a permanent underclass of temporary immigrant workers, who are taken to be good enough to 

work here, but not good enough to live here and thrive here. 

The shift from family-based—and this is my fourth objection—

the shift from family-based immigration to merit-based immigration will destroy millions of families on both sides of the border, in 

defiance of the fact that we are all a family-based, world community of marvelously diverse people who need each other in order to 

survive and to thrive. 

It is a horror to imagine human civilization that is not family 

based. Without the family and the communities that are built by 

the family, life in America, according to 17th century philosopher 

Thomas Hobbes, would be ‘‘poor, solitary, nasty, brutish and short.’’ 

We must not allow this to happen. Motivated by faith, we know 

that we are better than that. 

Saint Anselm used to say, Fides quaerens intellectum—‘‘Faith 

seeks change and intelligence.’’ It also seeks ethical responsibility, 

27

social equality and unfettered opportunity to rise higher. Faith perpetuates hope and generates love. 

It was Harvard philosophy professor Josiah Royce who coined the 

phrase ‘‘beloved community’’ and inspired the intellectual consciousness of Martin King, Jr., who found in Royce’s writing a powerful social commentary, conceived from those Bible scriptures that 

articulate the demand of God for justice as a religious priority. 

The God of the Hebrew Bible and of the Greek New Testament 

made justice, not personal piety, the ultimate priority. That God is 

love does not denigrate justice, but necessitates justice. 

There is an old black spiritual that asks the question, ‘‘Is you got 

good religion?’’ Not just is you got religion, but is it good religion? 

There is a whole lot of dangerous, bad, sick religion in the world. 

Bad religion can make you hard, cold, mean, and insensitive. Bad 

religion is worse than no religion. 

I heard Harvard New Testament scholar Krister Stendahl say, 

‘‘There is not an evil cause in the world that has not been sponsored by somebody’s sick, perverted, bad, hateful religion.’’

Bad religion spawned the medieval military crusades. Bad religion grabbed the enforcement of the State to destroy freedom of 

conscience. Bad religion set up the Inquisitions to enforce religious 

conformity. Bad religion murdered the Anabaptists, burned Joan of 

Arc at the stake, executed John Huss and Hans Denck, persecuted 

and banished Roger Williams. 

Bad religion killed William Tindale for translating the Bible into 

the vernacular of the people. Bad religion took apartheid to South 

Africa, brought slavery to America, fostered segregation, bigotry, 

exploitation, organized the Ku Klux Klan, generated the Nazi 

Party, created the immoral majority, produced division and hostility, hatred and dislocation. 

Bad religion assassinated Mahatma Gandhi, murdered Anwar 

Sadat, slew Indira Gandhi, cut up Lebanon, destroyed Iran, devastated Iraq, oppressed the poor, made September 11, 2001 a day 

of infamy, killed Martin Luther King, Jr., and devastated Yugoslavia. 

Bad religion takes life; good religion gives life. Bad religion castigates; good religion liberates. Bad religion talks about national defense; good religion talks about national purpose. Bad religion divides; good religion unites. Bad religion hates; good religion loves. 

Bad religion segregates; good religion integrates. Bad religion stays 

in church; good religion works in the world. Bad religion hangs 

around the alter; good religion takes the Jericho road. 

Bad religion builds fences; good religion builds bridges. 

Let us build bridges and not fences, and we will be a stronger, 

greater, freer America and world. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Reverend. 

Mr. Aronoff? 

And when the red light goes on, your time is up. There was no 

way I was interrupting Reverend Adams. 

Reverend ADAMS. I did not see the light. Where is the light? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Oh, that is all right. [Laughter.] 

You had me. You had me. I was not going to interrupt. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I thought you had seen the light; that is why you 

are here. 

28

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Aronoff? 

TESTIMONY OF GIDEON ARONOFF, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

HEBREW IMMIGRANT AID SOCIETY (HIAS) 

Mr. ARONOFF. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for 

the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee and to present 

the Jewish community’s perspective on comprehensive immigration 

reform. 

My name is Gideon Aronoff, and I am the president and CEO of 

the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. HIAS is the international migration arm of the American Jewish community, which for 126 

years has assisted over 4.5 million refugees, vulnerable Jewish and 

non-Jewish migrants, to safety and security in the United States 

and elsewhere around the world. 

HIAS, along with our national and local Jewish community partners, has been actively engaged in advocacy to support comprehensive immigration reform, to address our broken immigration system in a way that is both workable and humane. 

On March 20, 2007, in a show of broad support, more than 30 

prominent leaders in the American Jewish community sent a letter 

to congressional leadership urging passage of fair and workable, 

comprehensive immigration reform. Leaders of the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, United Jewish Communities, Jewish Council for Public Affairs and many, many other 

national and local leaders endorse this effort. 

We believe that any immigration reform legislation to fix the current system must include the following: border protection and interior enforcement policies that are both effective and humane; an 

opportunity for hardworking immigrants who are already here to 

come out of the shadows, regularize their status, and after satisfaction of reasonable criteria, pursue a path to citizenship; reforms in 

our family-based immigration system that will significantly reduce 

waiting times for separated families; and finally, creation of legal 

channels for new immigrant workers with full worker protections. 

Today, both Congress and the Administration are working to see 

that comprehensive immigration reform is enacted this year. The 

House took the first step by introducing the bipartisan STRIVE 

Act, and I commend Congressman Gutierrez and Congressman 

Flake and all of the co-sponsors of this important bill for getting 

the ball rolling on this year’s effort. 

Last week, the White House and Senate Democrats and Republicans appear to have reached a deal on immigration reform that 

will include a path to legalization for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants living and working in this country, as well 

as creating a new worker visa program. 

Notwithstanding the imperative to proceed with the legislation, 

we are concerned about provisions of the new bill that appear to 

undercut family reunification, create a point system that undervalues the central role of family ties, and lacks a solid path to citizenship for temporary workers. 

For our community, we are inspired by the central Jewish teaching that emphasizes welcome, protection, and love for the stranger. 

This principle is referenced 36 times in the Torah, more than any 

other principle. 

29

And for us, this basic value frames our perspective on how we 

should analyze various policy proposals, and how they will influence our nation and our security and our communities’ interests. 

First, I would like to briefly discuss the role that immigration 

plays in the top national priority: improving security. 

While there have been ugly and inaccurate attempts to create 

the false impression that our immigration problems and our terrorism problems are one and the same, there are legitimate concerns that a porous border and a shadow society of undocumented 

immigrants and false documents will provide access to the United 

States and places for terrorists and criminals to hide. 

This should be acknowledged, because comprehensive immigration reform can play a positive role in improving security on our 

borders and in the interior of our country. 

In this regard, efforts must be undertaken immediately to provide sufficient financial, human, and technological resources to 

help secure our borders and to create a workable employer 

verification system, so that unscrupulous employers who wish to 

circumvent the system cannot succeed in hiring unauthorized 

workers. 

These attempts to tighten enforcement, while at the same time 

providing opportunities for the current undocumented immigrant 

population, will allow the best targeting of enforcement resources 

on migrants who pose the greatest danger of terrorist or criminal 

connections, rather than maintaining the current situation, where 

immigration agents are forced to waste valuable resources chasing 

after busboys and nannies. 

Second, it is clearly in our interest that our immigration system 

continues to value family-based immigration and immigrants—a 

segment of our immigration system that honors both American interests and our country’s multiple religious traditions. 

Employment-based immigration need not be increased at the expense of family-based immigration, because family immigrants also 

work. They fill jobs that would otherwise go unfulfilled, and they 

contribute to our economy. 

Proposals that restrict rather than enhance the ability of family 

members to reunite in fact will cause a great pressure to create 

new waves of illegal immigration. And that is the purpose of what 

we are trying to achieve through comprehensive immigration reform. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you——

Mr. ARONOFF. For the Jewish community—and I will complete—

the issues around the current debate put forth a very clear alternative. We either can move forward this year to address the problems of undocumented migration, or we can accept the status quo, 

which means continued migrant deaths, sporadic raids that separate families, exploitation of immigrant workers through illegal immigration system, prolonged wait for family members, inconsistent 

policy at the local level, and a chaotic and wasteful border and interior enforcement scheme that places the United States’ security 

in jeopardy. 

This alternative is unacceptable, and I look forward to working 

with the Committee to move this forward. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aronoff follows:]

30

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GIDEON ARONOFF

Thank you for this opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law to share the 

Jewish community perspective on comprehensive immigration reform. My name is 

Gideon Aronoff and I am the president and CEO of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS). 

HIAS, the international migration arm of the American Jewish community for 126 

years, has assisted over 4.5 million refugees and vulnerable Jewish and non-Jewish 

migrants around the world by providing overseas assistance, resettlement in communities across the United States, and citizenship and other services to immigrants 

and refugees. 

HIAS, along with our national and local Jewish community partners, has been actively engaged in advocacy in support of comprehensive immigration reform legislation to address our broken immigration system in a way that is both workable and 

humane. We believe that for any immigration reform legislation to fix the current 

system, it must include: border protection and interior enforcement policies that are 

effective and consistent with American humanitarian values; an opportunity for 

hard-working immigrants who are already here and contributing to this country to 

come out of the shadows, regularize their status upon satisfaction of reasonable criteria and, over time, pursue a path to citizenship; reforms in our family-based immigration system to significantly reduce waiting times for separated families who often 

have to wait as many as twenty years to be reunited; the creation of legal channels 

for workers and their families who wish to migrate to the U.S. to enter our country 

in an orderly manner and to work in a safe environment with their rights fully protected; and programs to enhance citizenship and encourage integration of newcomers into American society. 

Today, both Congress and the Administration are working to see that comprehensive immigration reform legislation is enacted this year. The House took the first 

step by introducing the STRIVE (Security Through Regularized Immigration and a 

Vibrant Economy) Act, H.R. 1645. Introduced by Representatives Luis Gutierrez (DIL) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ), the STRIVE Act is a bipartisan bill that seeks to address 

issues surrounding unauthorized migration to the United States in a comprehensive, not piecemeal, fashion by including tougher border security and enforcement 

measures, a new worker program, visa reforms, an earned legalization program for 

the undocumented with a path to citizenship; the DREAM Act which will make undocumented students eligible for citizenship and allow states to grant them in-state 

college tuition; AgJobs; and the Strengthening American Citizenship Act. 

We’re especially pleased that the bill would hasten family reunification through 

the reduction of backlogs and includes protections for detained asylum seekers. The 

bill would enhance the family immigration system, and would implement many of 

the recommendations made two years ago by the United States Commission on 

International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) in its report on asylum seekers in expedited removal. For half a century, the principles of family unity and refugee protection have been the foundation of our immigration policy. This bill goes far in upholding these fundamental principles. HIAS commends Representatives Gutierrez and 

Flake, and all of the cosponsors, for proposing legislation that is both practical and 

humane. 

Last week, Senators on both sides of the aisle reached a deal on immigration reform that provides a path to legalization for the estimated 12 million undocumented 

immigrants living and working in this country, and 400,000 visas for new workers 

to enter the country and fill jobs that would otherwise go unfilled. We are encouraged that Senate Republicans and Democrats, along with the White House, have 

come together to deal with the issue of legalization and a path to earned citizenship 

for immigrants working and contributing to our society. It is essential that this debate move forward to address our country’s pressing need for real comprehensive 

immigration reform. 

Notwithstanding the imperative to proceed with this legislation, we are extremely 

concerned about the provisions in the new bill that would undercut family reunification, create a point system that undervalues the central role of family ties, and lacks 

a solid path to citizenship for temporary workers which could lead to the creation 

of an underclass of exploited workers without basic rights. While this legislation is 

a positive step that moves the process forward, allowing the Senate to address current problems of undocumented migration, we want to be sure that in the end Congress enacts legislation that respects families, rewards work while protecting workers, restores the rule of law and strengthens our economy, borders, and our nation. 

For the Jewish community, the struggle to convert our current illegal immigration 

system into a legal immigration system that serves our country’s and our commuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:58 Sep 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\052207\35602.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35602
31

1 Convened by the Migration Policy Institute, the Independent Task Force on Immigration and 

America’s Future was co-chaired by Spencer Abraham, a former Republican senator and President Bush’s first energy secretary, and Lee Hamilton, president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. The task force 

issue a report titled ‘‘Immigration and America’s Future: A New Chapter.’’

nity’s social and economic interests and treats immigrants with dignity, humanity 

and care is an effort to fulfill the fundamental teachings of our tradition and the 

lessons of our history as a people of migration. 

Central Jewish teachings emphasize offering welcome, protection and love for the 

Ger (stranger). This is referenced in the Torah 36 times—more than any other principle. The Jewish tradition also includes principles of Piddyon Shevuyim (redeeming 

the captive), Chesed (kindness), and Hachnasat Orchim (hospitality) that create a 

solid framework for a compassionate response to the needs of immigrants and refugees. The Jewish tradition however, has been understood to allow communities to 

exclude migrants from permanent settlement based on concern over adverse economic impact on the community and therefore cannot be seen as supporting an absolute right of settlement or complete open borders. Instead, the full scope of interests and community needs must be factored in to identify the ‘‘most Jewish’’ approach to any specific immigration question. 

Along these lines, evidence continues to mount in favor of the conclusion that immigration is in our economic and national interest. The fact is that American employers need workers and are not finding them in the U.S. Between 2002 and 2012, 

according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. economy is expected to create 

some 56 million new jobs, half of which will require no more than a high school education. Yet at the same time, the American labor force is shrinking. More than 75 

million baby boomers will retire during that same period. Also, declining native-born 

fertility rates will be approaching replacement level (stagnating), and native-born 

workers are becoming more educated with every decade. 

Additionally, an independent task force on immigration last concluded that immigration augments and complements the workforce exceptionally well, helps the U.S. 

maintain a competitive edge and adapt to global market conditions, and gives our 

economy a particular dynamism. However, they also concluded that despite the positive net benefits of immigration, illegal immigration can have a negative impact on 

wages at the bottom of the pay scale.1

The best way to reduce the negative consequences of illegal immigration is to 

change the system into a legal system where low skilled workers can protect their 

rights. This change would both improve their standing and prevent their employment from undermining the standing of native born workers. 

Now I’d like to briefly discuss the role that immigration plays in the top national 

priority of improving security in post 9/11 America. While there have been very ugly 

and inaccurate attempts made to create a false impression that our immigration 

problems and our terrorism problems are one and the same, there are legitimate 

concerns that a border that is porous and a shadow society of undocumented immigrants and false documents can provide access to the United States and places to 

hide for terrorists and criminals. 

This should be acknowledged because smart immigration policy can play a positive role in improving security on the borders and in the interior of our country. Advocates of comprehensive immigration reform should not shy away from recognizing 

this as a significant benefit of reform. Efforts must be undertaken immediately to 

provide sufficient financial, human and technological resources to help secure our 

borders and to create a workable employer verification system so that unscrupulous 

employers who wish to circumvent a new legal immigration system are not able to 

hire unauthorized workers. 

These attempts to tighten enforcement while providing legal opportunities for the 

current undocumented immigrant population and future flows of immigrant workers 

will allow the best targeting of enforcement resources on those migrants who pose 

the greatest danger of terrorist or criminal connections rather than maintaining the 

current situation where immigration agents are forced to waste resources chasing 

busboys and nannies. This will also help the authorities to fight against the smugglers and document forgers who have been enriched and empowered by our current 

illegal immigration system. 

Finally, it is clearly in our interest that our immigration system continues to 

deeply value family-based immigrants—a segment of our immigration system that 

honors both American interests and our country’s religious traditions. Employmentbased immigration need not be increased at the expense of family-based immigration because family-based immigrants also work, they fill jobs that would go otherwise unfilled, and they contribute to our economy. Proposals that restrict, rather 

32

than enhance, the ability of family members to reunite ignore the reality that family 

reunification is one of several root causes of undocumented migration and therefore 

fail to provide the long-term solution that is intended by comprehensive immigration 

reform and that our nation deserves. 

The emphasis we place in our immigration laws on the reunification of families 

also makes sense in terms of helping our newcomers adapt to their new home. Family members play a crucial role in one another’s lives by providing an important 

safety net, and helping each other adjust to their new surroundings by pooling resources and sharing responsibilities, such as caring for children and elderly parents. 

They take care of one another in times of economic, physical, or emotional hardships, thereby decreasing reliance on government welfare or private charities. Furthermore, it is through these immigrant family networks that the spirit of entrepreneurship can thrive and that small family businesses are created. 

The proposals that seek to restrict family reunification are born from the notion 

of ‘‘chain migration,’’ just as restrictionists used the term ‘‘amnesty’’ last year to enfeeble an earned legalization program. Yet there is nothing inherently bad about 

chain migration. Much of today’s American Jewish community would not be here 

today if it weren’t for chain migration, and in fact, nearly all Americans owe their 

American ancestry to some sort of chain migration. For the Jewish community, 

which has been dispersed throughout the world, America’s commitment to family reunification in its immigration policy has been a beacon of hope, allowing many Jewish families to be brought back together in a nation of opportunity and safety. 

Today’s newcomers have the same hope. Conjuring fear of the other and sensationalizing an onslaught of immigration does not contribute to sound and humane 

policy making. Immigrant families are good for our economy, good for our communities, and contribute to the overall development of our nation. Any reform proposal 

that seeks to serve our nation’s moral, economic, and security interests must preserve the opportunity for family reunification as the cornerstone of American immigration. 

America would not be the dynamic and prosperous nation that it is today were 

it not for the immigrants who came and continue to come to our shores seeking opportunity and freedom. Yet today we see an anti-immigrant backlash in our communities, and sadly this is not a new phenomenon. American Jews are especially familiar with the undercurrent of fear and suspicion of newcomers that exists in our 

country today. The wave of Jewish immigrants to America in the early 1880’s who 

were fleeing grinding poverty and murderous pogroms, anti-Jewish uprisings in 

Russia and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, was eventually met with an anti-immigrant backlash that resulted in the National Origins Quota of 1924, which severely 

restricted immigration from Eastern Europe and Russia after that time. 

The twentieth century’s wave of immigration, followed by the Holocaust that destroyed most of the European Jewish community, made the United States the home 

of the largest Jewish population in the world during the 20th century. Yet again, 

Jews that were fortunate enough to reach America’s shores were greeted with suspicion. In 1939 a Roper poll found that only thirty-nine percent of Americans felt 

that Jews should be treated like other people. Fifty-three percent believed that 

‘‘Jews are different and should be restricted’’ and ten percent believed that Jews 

should be deported. The United States’ tight immigration policies were not lifted 

during the Holocaust, and it has been estimated that 190,000-200,000 Jews could 

have been saved during the Second World War had it not been for the deliberately 

created bureaucratic obstacles to immigration. Yet despite the suspicion with which 

our community has been greeted throughout our history, Jews continue to make 

major contributions to the cultural, scientific, political, and economic life of the 

United States. 

America is at a crossroads: as the new Congress tackles the pressing issues facing 

the country today, what happens regarding immigration policy will have effects lasting for generations to come. What is needed is a careful, considered, and compassionate approach to immigration policy that incorporates the pressing security concerns of all Americans, while maintaining America’s historical essence as a welcoming haven. 

Unlike many circumstances where American communities face difficult choices between their deepest values and immediate interests, taking a comprehensive approach to immigration reform fulfills both our humanitarian and other interests simultaneously. The American Jewish community has joined with our other faith and 

immigrant advocate partners in calling on Congress to pass a humane and workable 

comprehensive immigration reform bill that this nation not only wants, but also deserves. The status quo of insecurity, exploitation, separation, and suffering is unacceptable, and we cannot let another year pass us by without having solved this crisis. 

33

I look forward to working with the Subcommittee as you move forward and would 

be happy to answer any questions.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Aronoff, we appreciate this testimony. 

Reverend Harkins? 

TESTIMONY OF REVEREND DERRICK HARKINS, D.MIN., 

PASTOR, NINETEENTH STREET BAPTIST CHURCH 

Reverend HARKINS. Good afternoon, Chairperson Lofgren and 

Members of the Subcommittee. I am the Reverend Dr. Derrick Harkins, pastor of the Nineteenth Street Baptist Church, founded in 

1839 and with roots extending to 1802. 

It was the first African-American Baptist congregation and is one 

of the most historic houses of worship here in the District of Columbia, with a stalwart history of enfranchising the 

disenfranchised in the embrace of the gospel. 

In my capacity as a pastor, as well as because of my participation with Christians for comprehensive immigration reform, I have 

been able to assess and contribute to the discussion of one of the 

most imperative issues of our time: the status of the immigration 

system within the United States of America. 

The immigration system in America is beyond being broken. It 

is in crisis. 

Because this crisis is not simply one limited to issues of documentation and border enforcement but because it is a crisis that is 

tearing at the very fabric of individuals, families and communities, 

it is one that the church is, in my opinion, compelled to address. 

The Hebrew prophet Micah declared that God’s expectation of 

the faithful is to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with 

our God. 

We take in part from that mandate the understanding of bringing both justice and compassion to circumstances of human need. 

And also we understand the need to soberly, humbly and prayerfully consider the response from the church to this crisis, in order 

that far more light and heat is added to the present dialogue and 

subsequent solutions. 

I here must assert that it is fully appropriate for the church, the 

faith community, to take its place in the public square and, without 

regard for partisan politics, speak transformative, spiritual, and social change. 

Contrary to the opinions of any given television commentators, 

this does not represent the conflation of religion and politics for political adventurism. It is one of the very things we must do to lay 

claim to our Biblical mandate and to the realization that faith 

without works is dead. 

I commend Congress as you begin the heavy lifting of crafting 

legislation that is fair and comprehensive, that keeps our nation secure and that preserves family values, as well as strengthening the 

economic and social fabric of our society. 

But I also come to you today with a pastor’s heart and with the 

deeply held concern that any laws enacted consider the very American tradition of compassion. 

The heart of what we teach, preach, and live is anchored in the 

good news of Christ’s saving and liberating love, that has not built 

walls, but broken every barrier down. 

34

Family, in its strongest and most stable structure, is an essential 

pillar of our society. Within the church, the institution of family is 

supported, encouraged and applauded. 

In my own congregation, I see again and again, and am truly 

thankful for, the examples of family strength and values in the 

homes and lives of those who have immigrated to the United 

States. 

The limitation of family-based immigration by the reduction of 

family reunification visas would impair that family structure in 

significant measure. Siblings, adult children and parents—those directly affected by any potential reduction—are, in many examples 

and cultural contexts, core and not merely extended family. 

It is also important to note here that the idea of chain immigration is without basis. The concept asserting that immigrants sponsor an uncontrollable number of family members—the reality is 

that only immigrants who have already gained legal, permanent 

residency or U.S. citizenship are able to sponsor relatives. Within 

the present system, an average of 1.2 family members are sponsored. 

It is within the structure of families that immigration reform can 

wield the most enduring benefits. Through a process of restitution, 

integration into the larger community and a pathway to earned 

citizenship, we will do away with what is now in great part a de 

facto amnesty, which has kept millions of hardworking individuals, 

who wish to become productive, law-abiding members of our society, in the shadows and has prevented numerous families from 

being fully intact and stable to society’s benefit. 

In addition, let me just say that many within the historically African-American church have made their voices heard in support of 

comprehensive immigration reform. Like the overwhelming majority of all Americans, African-American voters support immigration 

reform that includes enforcement and a path to citizenship. 

It is the legitimate, continuing legacy of the civil rights struggle 

and part of the very nature of the African-American church that 

one should speak for those who have no voice, advocate for those 

who have no power and stand for those who are not represented. 

But yet, with a fair and compassionate, earned pathway to citizenship, those who are now in the shadows will be able to speak, 

be empowered, stand for themselves. 

Let me end with words far more enduring than my own. Exodus 

23:9 says, ‘‘Do not oppress an alien. You yourselves know how it 

feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.’’

I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Reverend Harkins follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DERRICK HARKINS

Chairperson Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and members of the Subcommittee: 

I am The Reverend Doctor Derrick Harkins, Pastor of the Nineteenth Street Baptist 

Church. Founded in 1839 and with roots extending to 1802, it was the first AfricanAmerican Baptist congregation, and is one of the most historic houses of worship 

in the District of Columbia. 

In my capacity as a pastor, as well as because of my participation with Christians 

for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, I have been able to assess and contribute 

to the discussion of one of the most imperative issues of our time, the status of the 

immigration system within the United States of America. 

35

The immigration system in America is beyond being broken, it is in crisis. Because this crisis is not simply one limited to issues of documentation and border enforcement, but because it is a crisis that is tearing at the very fabric of individuals, 

families, and communities, it is one that the church is, in my opinion, compelled 

to address. 

The Hebrew Prophet Micah declared that the Divine expectation of the faithful 

is to ‘‘do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God.’’ We take in part, 

from that mandate, the understanding of bringing both justice and compassion to 

circumstances of human need. And also we understand the need to soberly, humbly, 

and prayerfully consider the response from the church to this crisis in order that 

far more light than heat is added to the present dialogue and subsequent solutions. 

It is fully appropriate for the church, the faith community, to take its place in 

the public square, and without regard for partisan politics, seek transformative spiritual and social change. Contrary to the opinions of any given television commentators, this does not represent ‘‘the conflation of religion and politics for political adventurism,’’ it is one of the very things we must do to lay claim to our Biblical mandate. 

I commend the Congress as you begin the ‘‘heavy lifting’’ of crafting legislation 

that is fair and comprehensive, that keeps our Nation secure, and that preserves 

family values as well as strengthening the economic and social fabric of our society. 

But I also come to you today with a pastor’s heart, and with the deeply held concern that any laws enacted consider the very American tradition of compassion. 

Family, in its strongest and most stable structure is an essential pillar of our society. Within the church the institution of family is supported, encouraged, and applauded. In my own congregation, I see again and again, and am truly thankful for 

the examples of family strength and values in the homes and lives of those who 

have immigrated to the United States. 

The growing vitality of the church is due in large measure to the presence of the 

immigrant community. According to Dr. Todd Johnson of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. ‘‘The immigrant Evangelical church is growing rapidly in the U.S. 

and around the world. Among Evangelicals in the United States, the fastest growing 

are found among the independent immigrant churches.’’

The limitation of family based immigration, by the reduction of family reunification visas would impair that family structure in significant measure. Siblings, adult 

children, and parents (those directly affected by any potential reduction) are in 

many examples, and cultural contexts, core and not merely ‘‘extended’’ family. It is 

also important to note here the idea of ‘‘chain’’ immigration is without basis. The 

concept asserting that immigrants sponsor an uncontrollable number of family 

members. In reality, only immigrants who have already gained legal permanent 

residency or U.S. citizenship are able to sponsor relatives. Within the present system an average of 1.2 family members are sponsored. 

It is within the structure of families that immigration reform can wield the most 

enduring benefits. Through a process of restitution, integration into the larger community, and a pathway to earned citizenship we will do away with what is now in 

great part, a de facto amnesty, which has kept millions of hard working individuals 

who wish to become productive law-abiding members of our society in the shadows, 

and has prevented numerous families from being fully intact and stable to society’s 

benefit. 

In addition let me say that many within the historically African-American church 

have made their voices heard in support of comprehensive immigration reform. Like 

the overwhelming majority of all Americans, African-American voters support immigration reform that includes enforcement and a path to citizenship. It is the legitimate continuing legacy of the Civil Rights struggle and part of the very nature of 

the African American church that one should speak for those who have no voice, 

advocate for those who have no power, and stand for those who are not represented. 

But yet with a fair and compassionate earned pathway to citizenship, those who are 

now in the shadows will be able to speak, be empowered, and stand for themselves. 

I thank you for the opportunity to speak before your Subcommittee today, and 

look forward to answering any questions you may have.

36

ATTACHMENT

CHRISTIANS FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

JOINT STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES

Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform represents a coalition of Christian organizations, churches, and leaders from across the theological and political 

spectrum united in support of comprehensive immigration reform. Despite our differences on other issues, we are working together to see comprehensive immigration 

reform enacted this year because we share a set of common moral and theological 

principles that compel us to love and care for the stranger among us, including the 

following:

• We believe that all people, regardless of national origin, are made in the 

‘‘image of God’’ and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect (Genesis 

1:26–27, 9:6).

• We believe there is an undeniable biblical responsibility to love and show 

compassion for the stranger among us (Deuteronomy 10:18–19, Leviticus 

19:33–34, Matthew 25:31–46).

• We believe that immigrants are our neighbors, both literally and figuratively, 

and we are to love our neighbors as ourselves and show mercy to neighbors 

in need (Leviticus 19:18, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:25–37).

• We believe in the rule of law, but we also believe that we are to oppose unjust 

laws and systems that harm and oppress people made in God’s image, especially the vulnerable (Isaiah 10:1–4, Jeremiah 7:1–7, Acts 5:29, Romans 13:1–

7).

The current U.S. immigration system is broken and now is the time for a fair and 

compassionate solution. We think it is entirely possible to protect our borders while 

establishing a viable, humane, and realistic immigration system, one that is consistent with our American values and increases national security while protecting 

the livelihood of Americans. The biblical principles above call us to support comprehensive immigration reform legislation that includes the following elements:

• Border enforcement and protection initiatives that are consistent with humanitarian values while allowing the authorities to enforce the law and implement American immigration policy;

• Reforms in our family-based immigration system that reduce the waiting time 

for separated families to be safely reunited and maintain the constitutionally 

guaranteed rights of birthright citizenship and the ability of immigrants to 

earn naturalization;

• An opportunity for all immigrant workers and their families already in the 

U.S. to come out of the shadows and pursue the option of an earned path towards permanent legal status and citizenship upon satisfaction of specific criteria;

• A viable guest worker program that creates legal avenues for workers and 

their families to enter our country and work in a safe, legal, and orderly manner with their rights and due process fully protected and provides an option 

for workers to maintain legal status independent of an employer sponsor; and

• A framework to examine and ascertain solutions to the root causes of migration, such as economic disparities between sending and receiving nations.

Immigration reform that incorporates these elements, rejects anti-immigrant and 

nativist measures, and strengthens our American values will enrich the vitality of 

America and advance the common good. We stand together in calling upon President Bush and Congress to seek humane and holistic immigration reform within 

this legislative year.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Reverend. 

Mr. Kosten? 

TESTIMONY OF DAN KOSTEN, DIRECTOR, WORLD RELIEF REFUGEE AND IMMIGRATION PROGRAMS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS 

Mr. KOSTEN. Thank you very much. 

37

In the course of human events in this nation’s history, there have 

been times when courageous men and women have stepped forward 

to define the true character and unique values of this nation. Their 

words I cannot match in eloquence or power, so I will quote them 

as a reminder of our national heritage. 

Their words are also reflective of many key Biblical principles—

principles that apply to the immigration dialogue. 

In 1863, President Lincoln in his Gettysburg address said, ‘‘Four 

score and 7 years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent 

a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition 

that all men are created equal.’’

President Lincoln continued by saying, ‘‘Now we are engaged in 

a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.’’

Our nation and our dedication and commitment to these principles have endured, only to be tested once again in this age by the 

war on terrorism. In the past, as in the present, the lives of many 

have been lost for such dedication. 

Are we prepared to honor that loss and reaffirm the equality of 

mankind? Or will we justify the disenfranchisement and exploitation of a portion of this nation’s population by labeling them illegal? 

The issue for many undocumented immigrants is that there is no 

process for restitution to address the infraction of entering illegally 

or overstaying a visa. There are appropriate penalties for the 

crimes committed, and the penalty must match the offense. 

Many immigrants do not currently have a means by which to receive lawful status in the United States, and they go undetected by 

living in the shadows. If they could apply for lawful status, they 

would much more likely come forward and the government could 

better target the small number of potential criminals and terrorists. 

We often hear the concern that immigrants do not share our 

American values and are adding to the moral decay of our country. 

As an evangelical organization that has worked in serving the immigrant population over the past 25 years, I strongly object to this 

thinking, because the vast majority of immigrants are hardworking, family-loving, and willing to learn English and integrate 

into our communities. 

Rather than saying that immigrants do not share our American 

values, we must teach them our American values. And the church 

must play an integral role in this. 

Once again, and this time in 1963, 100 years later, we were reminded by Reverend Martin Luther King of the principles on which 

this nation was founded. He encouraged us that day to dream, to 

dream of a new day where we could—and what it could and should 

look like. 

He said, ‘‘I have a dream that my four little children will one day 

live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their 

skin but the content of their character.’’

We can still dream today. I have a dream that one day we will 

extend the right hand of fellowship to human beings that currently 

live in the shadows, and provide them, along with their family, 

with a means of restitution, as well as the opportunity to experiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:58 Sep 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\052207\35602.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35602
38

ence the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness which they entered 

this nation to secure. 

A cornerstone principle for evangelicals is the sanctity of life. The 

sanctity of life values the family. Families are the building block 

of an ordered and procreative society. By allowing immigrant families to be more quickly reunited, we allow for more stable and 

stronger communities. 

Immigration through the family has been the cornerstone of our 

immigration system, and it must remain so. The sanctity of life values the family, celebrates diversity and does not end at birth or at 

the border. 

Thank you, and may God lead you and this nation to respond to 

this critical need for comprehensive immigration reform. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kosten follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAN KOSTEN

Thank you Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and the members of the 

House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and 

International Law for providing me with the opportunity to testify before you on an 

Evangelical perspective on Comprehensive Immigration Reform. This is indeed a 

tough issue that requires good thought, frank discussion, and honest solutions, and 

I thank the Committee for tackling the issue of immigration reform from all angles, 

including the faith-based angle. 

As the Director of Refugee and Immigration Programs for World Relief, I am responsible for the technical support for a network of 24 offices that have programs 

to serve refugees, trafficking victims, and immigrants. As the humanitarian arm of 

the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), we have worked with Evangelical 

churches over the past 60 years to relieve human suffering, poverty and hunger 

worldwide in the name of Jesus Christ. The NAE is made up of 53 member denominations, representing 45,000 churches in the United States. World Relief’s mission 

is to work with the poorest of the poor—and in the U.S. with foreign born populations including refugees and immigrants. World Relief has worked for over 60 

years with local churches to create sustainable solutions that help the desperately 

poor in more than 30 countries. We feel it is a part of our Biblical mandate to reach 

out to those in need, our neighbors, and our communities. World Relief’s programs 

include disaster relief, refugee assistance, immigrant assistance, trafficking victim 

protection, AIDS ministries, child survival and development, agricultural development, and micro-enterprise development. 

Through our work with immigrants, we have seen the consequences of a broken 

system that has separated families for many years. We are compelled to speak from 

our experience by engaging the Evangelical community on the issue of immigration 

reform. Through our work with churches, we have seen the immigrant church as 

the fastest growing church in the Evangelical community. The issues of immigration 

policy and immigrants in our communities will always be with us, and Evangelicals 

must think carefully about their response to the trends and changes brought about 

by immigration. In this debate on Comprehensive Immigration Reform, we have 

heard concerns from church leaders and members about the need to secure our borders and stop illegal immigration but also the call to show compassion to the stranger in our midst. We as Evangelicals must look to the Bible as a guide for examining 

this issue closely and how we as Evangelicals should respond, through the lens of 

Scripture, to immigrants and immigration policy. 

THE BIBLICAL REALITY AND GOD’S LOVE FOR THE FOREIGNER

God loves the stranger and foreigner, and equates our relationship with Him as 

strangers and aliens apart from the work of Christ. The Bible commands us to welcome the stranger. Modern reality also requires us to embrace the immigrant population, many of whom are our brothers and sisters in Christ, and a growing force 

in the church. Through immigration, God is bringing citizens of many closed and 

un-reached countries into contact with American Christians. We as Evangelicals 

therefore welcome the opportunity to share our faith with people who might otherwise have no opportunity to hear the Good News. The immigrant Evangelical church 

is growing rapidly in the U.S. and around the world. Among Evangelicals in the 

United States, ‘‘the fastest growing are found among the Independent immigrant 

39

1Dr. Todd M. Johnson, Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, ‘‘USA Evangelicals/evangelicals in Global Context: Trends and Statistics.’’ 2 All Scripture references are taken from The Holy Bible, New International Version. 

3 Jonathan Robert Nelson, Remarks for The American Bar Association’s, ‘‘Fortress America: 

The State and Future of U.S. Immigration Law and Policy,’’ held at the National Press Club, 

January 26, 2006. 

churches. . . . In 20 years, African, Asian, and Latin American Evangelicals . . . 

will likely be at the forefront of . . . global movements as well as their manifestations in the USA.’’ 1

In the Bible, God repeatedly calls us to show love and compassion to ‘‘aliens,’’ or 

immigrants. In Deuteronomy 10:18–19,2 we are told that ‘‘[God] defends the cause 

of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. 

And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt.’’ 

God also reminds us throughout the Old and New Testament that we ourselves, as 

Christians, are aliens on this Earth, not only physically in this world-which is not 

our home, but also spiritually estranged from God until Christ’s sacrifice. Leviticus 

19:33–34 teaches us that, ‘‘[w]hen an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. 

Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.’’ Thus, 

we as Christians are called to identify with the plight of the stranger amongst us 

for we ourselves were once aliens in Egypt. 

Love also in the Christian tradition requires specific acts of care and respect. In 

the Gospel of Luke, Jesus answers the question of ‘‘who is my neighbor?’’ with the 

parable of the Good Samaritan. (Luke 10:29–37) Part of what makes the Good Samaritan parable so compelling is that the Samaritan, who was a stranger or alien 

himself, was the one who stopped to help the Jewish man. This and other parables 

remind us that ‘‘we are all aliens sent out to help other aliens find a place of safety 

in this world.’’ 3 God does not distinguish among arbitrary divisions such as country 

of origin. Instead, God desires to include all people in His Kingdom, for ‘‘There is 

neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ 

Jesus.’’ (Galatians 3:28) 

The Bible shows us that God moves people for a reason and migration is often 

reflective of His overall purpose for mankind. Mark 17:26 states that ‘‘From one 

man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and 

he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.’’ 

For example, God called Abraham from Ur, called the Israelites out of Egypt and 

into the Promised Land, and even moved Jesus’ family from Bethlehem, then to 

Egypt and Nazareth. We must couch our current discussion of immigration reform 

within the fuller understanding of God’s purposes through the movement of people 

and the history of migration throughout the Bible and into current times. 

SUPPORT FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

As Congress continues debate on immigration reform, there will be specific policy 

prescriptions offered in various legislative proposals that will make us continuously 

reflect on our Biblical principles. As an Evangelical organization committed to the 

rule of law but also to acting compassionately to those in our midst, we call for legislation to include the following specific principles:

• Reforms in our family-based immigration system to significantly reduce waiting times for separated families who currently wait many years to be reunited;

• The creation of more responsive legal avenues for workers and their families 

who wish to migrate to the U.S. to enter our country and work in a safe, 

legal, and orderly manner that prevents their exploitation and assures them 

due process;

• The option for those individuals and families who are already living in the 

U.S. and working hard, to apply for permanent legal status and citizenship 

if they choose to do so, by meeting specific restitution and application criteria; 

and

• Border protection policies that are consistent with humanitarian values and 

with the need to treat all individuals with respect, while allowing the authorities to carry out the critical task of enforcing our laws.

World Relief believes that a comprehensive approach to immigration reform is required—one that addresses the root causes of why immigrants come to the U.S. in 

the first place and addresses the complex and outmoded immigration system that 

currently exists. For example, current law has created numerous barriers for legitiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:58 Sep 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\052207\35602.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35602
40

4http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf, stating that as of March 2005, there were nearly 

11 million undocumented individuals in the U.S. 5http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/46.pdf. 

6 Evangelical Project for Public Engagement. National Association of Evangelicals, For the 

Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility, 8, 10 (2004). 7Definition from Merriam-Webster OnLine, http://www.m-w.com/. 

mate refugees abroad and seekers of asylum in the U.S. to receive the protection 

they deserve. Additionally, approximately eleven million ‘‘undocumented’’ immigrants currently live in the United States,4 and more than three million U.S. citizen 

children live in families headed by an undocumented immigrant.5 An ‘‘undocumented’’ individual does not have permission to work or live in the U.S. 

Many undocumented children are raised here but are unable to attend college or 

work legally. Individuals are risking their lives and literally dying to come to the 

United States. Families face inhumane waits of up to twenty years to reunify with 

family members. There are an inadequate number of visas for employers to hire the 

foreign workers necessary for jobs that they cannot find native-born Americans to 

fill. We have a growing black market characterized by widespread use of false documents, increasingly violent smuggling cartels, and exploitation of undocumented 

workers. 

THE ISSUE OF LEGALITY AND THE PENALTY FOR BREAKING THE LAW

Evangelicals recognize that, ‘‘Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.’’ (Romans 

13:1) Therefore we support the importance of following and enforcing laws, while 

simultaneously recognizing that laws were created for the well-being of human 

beings and society. Ultimately the laws must answer to God’s higher law, which requires us to treat all human life with sanctity. All persons bear the image of Christ 

and thus should be treated with the dignity and respect that we would afford our 

Savior. Valuing persons includes doing what we can to preserve them, to care for 

them, and to create fair systems that lead to healthy societies.6 We must from time 

to time ask if our human-made laws create a just and better existence for those who 

are created in God’s image. 

We do not condone any violations of the law, such as living in the United States 

illegally, but we recognize that our complex and inadequate immigration system has 

made it nearly impossible for many of the hard-working people that our country 

needs, to enter or remain in the country legally and/or reunite with family members. 

Despite the difficult immigration system, adherence to the rule of law is a nonnegotiable, and as we consider immigration reform, we can look to the Bible to help 

inform our decisions about justice, restitution, redemption, restoration and integration into our communities. Immigrants are often hard-working, God-fearing individuals and if provided the opportunity, would want to admit wrong-doing and come 

out of the shadows as law-abiding, contributing members of our society. They should 

be provided an opportunity to admit their wrong-doing of maintaining undocumented presence in the U.S. but the punishment must be in line with the offense, 

and it must be recognized that not all offenses are one and the same. Our legal system has always recognized that the punitive and corrective measures must coincide 

with the crime committed. The Biblical concept of restoration into full fellowship is 

something we must consider in this debate as we seek to integrate those who are 

here as undocumented individuals into our communities. We feel they share our values of family and hard work and are willing to become productive, law-abiding 

members of our society if given the opportunity. 

The issue for many undocumented immigrants is that there is no restorative 

measure to address the infraction of entering illegally or overstaying a visa. Unfortunately the term illegal is often used to justify the marginalization of the immigrant population. Such practice only compounds the problem and does not resolve 

it. The two ways to resolve this issue are to deport everyone here illegally, or create 

an immigration system with restitution and a path to legal status or citizenship. 

World Relief supports an opportunity for those who are law-abiding, hard-working 

immigrants to come out of the shadows and admit they broke the law, and start 

on the process of restitution whereby they can become fully integrated members of 

our society. 

We must also address the issue of the word amnesty and its use in recent debate. 

Amnesty as defined in the dictionary is defined as ‘‘the act of an authority (as a 

government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.’’ 7 The word 

amnesty is often used by those opposing Comprehensive Immigration Reform because they believe that providing a path to earned legalization would be giving a 

blanket pardon to those who broke immigration law to be here illegally. We must 

41

strongly reiterate that providing earned legalization is not a blanket pardon as immigrants would have to pay a penalty in addition to proving that they can be lawabiding and productive members of our society. The current debate surrounding immigration and the various legislative proposals being discussed do not in any way 

condone breaking of the law or provide a blanket pardon without some redress for 

the wrong that was committed by being here illegally. There are appropriate penalties for the crimes committed and the penalty must match the offense. Many immigrants do not currently have a means by which to receive lawful status in the 

United States, and they go undetected by living in the shadows. If they could apply 

for current lawful status, they would be much more likely to come forward, and the 

government could better target the small number of potential criminals and terrorists. World Relief has also encountered a catch-22 situation with individuals who entered the U.S. without inspection but who would now qualify for lawful permanent 

residence status. Under current law, they must return to their home country to be 

interviewed, but are often unwilling to do so because they face the 3 and 10 year 

bars to re-entry due to unlawful presence in the U.S. for more than 6 and 12 months 

respectively. Fixing some of these barriers would allow many individuals to move 

forward in the process of obtaining legal status. 

CARING FOR THE STRANGER

We often hear the concern that immigrants do not share American values and are 

adding to the ‘‘moral decay’’ of our country. As an organization that has worked in 

serving the immigrant population over the past 25 years, I strongly object to this 

thinking because the vast majority of immigrants are hard-working, family-loving 

and willing to learn English and integrate into our communities. Rather than saying 

that immigrants do not share our American values, we must then teach them our 

American values, and churches must play an integral role in this. 

The issue of immigration tends to play on our worst fears, because it confronts 

our sense of personal and national identity and because it alters our expectations 

concerning economic prosperity and security. We can choose to respond in fear, and 

let the instincts of ‘‘fight or flight’’ take over, or we can remind ourselves, as God’s 

people, of our true identity in Him. We can see the case of Egypt in Genesis, when 

Joseph was welcomed by the Egyptian Pharaoh but later on in Exodus, the Egyptians felt threatened by their foreigners which resulted in the enslavement and 

eventual mass exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt. While we need to address the 

realities of the impact of immigration on our economy and communities, we must 

do so in a way that is not held captive to fear, because we are first and foremost 

citizens of God’s kingdom. 1 John 4:18 states: ‘‘There is no fear in love. But perfect 

loves drives out fear . . .’’ To create a society of fear is to create an unstable and 

broken society. As Franklin D. Roosevelt famously said in his first inaugural address to the nation in the midst of the Great Depression, ‘‘The only thing we have 

to fear is fear itself.’’

God offers abundant grace to everyone and demonstrates this mostly clearly on 

the Cross. As the Body of Christ, our purpose is to imitate Him, by showing compassion and justice to everyone regardless of their individual situation and by investing 

in and valuing their lives. Grace motivates God’s people towards works of sacrificial 

compassion and justice. Just as God’s work of grace requires Christ’s sacrifice, so 

we are called to make sacrifices, both individually and corporately, in our lives for 

the sake of others. The power of God’s grace blurs the human distinction between 

giver and recipient, between neighbor and stranger, which in turn creates opportunities for unexpected mutual blessing as we realize that our material possession do 

not really belong to us. We are moved to show compassion to all people, regardless 

of ethnic and cultural boundaries, as our identity is rooted in Christ. 

The pursuit of prosperity has been a powerful force in guiding migration throughout American history. In assessing public opinion towards immigrants, polls almost 

exclusively deal with immigration within an economic context: do immigrants help 

or hurt the economy, rather than seeking to uncover the cultural and personal contributions that immigrants make to our society? Do we only value immigrants who 

contribute to our nation’s wealth? God does not measure our value based upon what 

we have to offer or contribute to an earthly economy. As God’s people, we must resist the temptation to measure others’ value to our society on the basis of their contribution to our affluence. In the Biblical example of Ruth and Boaz, we see that 

Boaz married Ruth despite what many thought would be a marriage that would be 

a burden and detriment to Boaz’s personal wealth and affluence. However, because 

of Boaz’s compassion on Ruth, we see he was able to play an instrumental role in 

the lives of those in the genealogical line of David and Jesus, and participated in 

God’s plan for the world by not shunning immigrants as threats to his prosperity. 

42

8 Evangelical Project for Public Engagement. National Association of Evangelicals, For the 

Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility, 14 (2004). 9 Evangelical Project for Public Engagement. National Association of Evangelicals, For the 

Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility, 14 (2004). 

THE ISSUE OF SECURITY

In light of recent terrorist activities aimed at the U.S., it is imperative that our 

government try everything possible to secure the well being of its citizens. However, 

allowing 10–12 million immigrants to remain in the country without a system to 

identify them, does nothing to assure us of our security. In fact by not addressing 

the undocumented population, many would indeed call the current situation as ‘‘de 

facto’’ amnesty. 

In order to address the issue of immigration in a way that would add to our national security, our government must recognize two things about the current situation: First, we can assume that immigrants must not pose a significant security 

threat to the US or else we would be doing far more to address this current security 

dilemma than we are currently doing. Second, the legalization of this immigrant 

population would serve our security concerns because it would allow U.S. immigration enforcement officials to focus on those who may have intentions to harm our 

country. 

As a measure of security, the creation of walls should only be considered as a last 

resort. The impacts of walls are detrimental to those who are living on both sides 

of the wall and have been purported by many to actually increase the number of 

undocumented in our country by preventing people from returning to their country 

of origin if they so desire. The United States has been a historic champion of bringing down such walls, and to now be a proponent of walls sends the wrong message 

to the world and does more to divide neighbors rather than resolve our current immigration problem. Building walls without creating legal avenues to address the 

reasons why they cross the border in the first place would only perpetuate the illegal immigration problem. 

THE ISSUE OF FAMILY

From Genesis onward, the Bible tells us that the family is central to God’s vision 

for human society. God has revealed himself to us in the language of family, adopting us as His children (Rom. 8:23, Gal. 4:5) and teaching us by the Holy Spirit to 

call him Abba Father (Rom. 8:15, Gal. 4:6).8

Government does not have the primary responsibility for guaranteeing wholesome 

family life. That is the job of families themselves and of other institutions, especially 

churches. But governments should understand that people are more than autonomous individuals; they live in families and many are married. While providing individuals with ways to remedy or escape abusive relationships, governments should 

promote laws and policies that strengthen the well-being of families.9

Families are the building blocks of an ordered and procreative society through 

which people are able to grow and experience the love of God. That value has been 

reflected in our immigration system which allows U.S. citizens and legal permanent 

residents to apply for certain relatives to immigrate to the U.S. Indeed, our country 

has been built on the backs of immigrant families and our American history is the 

story of the importance of family to the immigrant experience. Immigrants often 

rely on their family members to help create family businesses and family members 

are able to care for one another when here together. They are often able to give back 

to the community more as a family unit than they would as individuals as they 

work and live together to care for sick relatives, watch children, and provide each 

other with moral support and encouragement. We must continue to place priority 

on reunifying families as quickly as possible through immigration reform. The current backlog in which family members are separated for long periods of time creates 

undue hardship for the immigrants who are trying to work hard and contribute to 

their communities. By allowing immigrant families to be more quickly reunited, we 

allow for more stable and stronger communities. Immigration through family has 

been the cornerstone of our immigration system through the decades and we must 

continue to value and strengthen that which has made our country so great. 

The issue of chain migration must also be addressed as we consider reforms in 

our family-immigration based system. Chain migration is a myth. This concept purports that immigrants sponsor an uncontrollable number of family members. In reality, only immigrants who have already gained legal permanent residency or U.S. 

citizenship can sponsor relatives for permanent residence. On average, they only 

43

10Lowell, Lindsay and Micah Bump. Projecting Immigrant Visas: Report on an Experts Meeting. 2006. <http://www12.georgetown.edu/sfs/isim/Event%20Summaries&Speeches/Lowell,%20ProjectionsWorkshop.pdf>. 11 Immigration through a Family Member. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid 

=0775667706f7d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel= 4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM 

10000045f3d6a1RCRD 

sponsor an average of 1.2 family members.10 Since there are already highly restrictive caps on family reunification visas, and all admitted family members must qualify under one of the categories approved by Congress, there is no opportunity for 

‘‘chain migration’’ to occur. Only children, spouses, parents, and siblings qualify for 

such sponsorship—cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents, and other extended family 

members cannot come to the United States through the family system.11 Also, to 

sponsor a family member, a U.S. citizen or LPR must prove they have a stable income and commit to financially support their family members, so they do not rely 

on public benefits. 

CONCLUSION

In the recent debate in Congress, we appreciate that the recent legislative proposals have moved away from an enforcement-only approach and now seem to be 

comprehensive in nature. However, we have concerns with the following and hope 

that members of the Subcommittee will consider these important principles when 

formulating immigration reform legislation:

• Trigger provisions—Immigration reform legislation must be enacted as quickly as possible so families will be reunited, and the undocumented will come 

out of the shadows to pursue legal status. We have concerns that the setting 

of border enforcement triggers will result in comprehensive immigration reform being further postponed while we wait for certain ends that may never 

be achieved.

• Touch back provisions—Some legislative proposals would require immigrants 

to touch back to their country of origin before pursuing citizenship in the 

United States. This provision if implemented could prolong the separation of 

families for long periods of time, and could prevent a quick and easy way for 

immigrants to continue to work and be able to provide for their family members in the United States.

• Severe cut backs to family immigration—Family immigration is the cornerstone of our immigration system and has allowed immigrants in our communities to thrive in their new environment. Immigration reform must not cut 

the ability of immigrants to apply for their family members. The unity of family as a basis for immigration should qualify on that merit alone. Any means 

to undercut family reunification undermines the value of family to our country. We must also be careful that we do not eliminate certain family preference categories for those who have already applied and have been waiting 

patiently for their members to come to the U.S. This would undermine the 

fairness of our immigration system and disadvantage those who ‘‘played by 

the rules.’’

• Adequate worker visas—Worker visas based on current and projected market 

demands must be included in immigration reform legislation. The lack of an 

adequate number of such visas is one of the reasons there is such a large undocumented population in our country today. An immigration bill must be reflective of our changing economic reality but also the rights and dignity of 

those who come here to work.

• Border security—any border security measure that is proposed must be carefully considered for their effectiveness in increasing our national security and 

not be used to overly penalize immigrants, or simply provide us with a false 

sense of security.

We believe that a comprehensive approach is required that goes beyond border 

protection alone and addresses the current problems of our immigration system, by 

looking at root causes of immigration, developing workable solutions, and providing 

dignified relief to the millions of immigrants who are contributing to our communities, despite their lack of legal status. We also advocate for reforms that better 

protect those seeking refugee and asylum status. 

The Lord calls the church to speak prophetically to society and work for the renewal and reform of its structures. The Lord also calls the church to practice the 

righteous deeds of the kingdom which requires us to demonstrate God’s full love for 

44

all, by crossing racial, ethnic, economic, and national boundaries. The issue of immigration reform is a tough issue but also a moral one that our leaders in Congress 

and the Administration must take up with compassion, not fear, and rational 

thought, not irrational racism, as the basis for positive dialogue. We must not forget 

that there is a faith angle to the immigration debate because people are bearers of 

the image of God and that all Americans, except Native Americans, are immigrants 

or descendants of immigrants. As Christians, we believe it is our calling to help government live up to its divine mandate to render justice (Rom. 13:1–7; 1Pet. 2:13–

17). In the power of the Holy Spirit, we are compelled outward in service to God 

and neighbor. Comprehensive Immigration Reform is needed so that we can restore 

the rule of law yet act compassionately to those in our midst. 

Our immigration system must reflect what has made America strong, namely its 

recognition that ‘‘all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator 

with certain unalienable rights.’’ As evangelicals we would add to it that we follow 

Jesus’ example by suffering and living sacrificially for others. 

I believe it is wholly possible to create a fair and just system for the immigrants 

in our country today, and for the future of those who will come; and that it is possible and imperative to do so in this session of the Congress. 

Thank you.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Kosten. 

Dr. Edwards? 

TESTIMONY OF JIM R. EDWARDS, JR., PH.D.,

ADJUNCT FELLOW, HUDSON INSTITUTE 

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Chairman, Congressman Conyers and 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much for inviting 

me here today. I commend you for giving a serious consideration 

to the faith perspective. 

Now, I do not claim my conclusions are infallible, and I do not 

claim to be a theologian, but C.S. Lewis said you do not want 

theologians writing civil laws. That is not their calling. 

On many subjects, we see that Scripture is clear, like proscribing 

murder. But on things like immigration, Scripture leaves to prudential judgment. So, Christians may come to different conclusions, 

as you have seen today. 

I will touch on nine Biblical principles that I believe are most 

apt, and then briefly assess a couple of key immigration proposals. 

First, the two cornerstone commandments: Love the Lord, your 

God, with all your heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbor as 

yourself. 

Second, God has given both temporal and eternal obligations. 

‘‘Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.’’ Some 

commands apply to individuals, others to civil government. 

Third, God’s principles of justice and mercy are complementary. 

We must be acute in sorting out passages about favoritism, mercy, 

equality and whether they apply to the state. For instance, the 

state cannot turn the other cheek, while people can. 

Fourth, God ordains earthly authorities as his agents to restrain 

evil, protect the innocent and punish the wrongdoer. We have been 

blessed with the rule of law and should safeguard it. 

Fifth, God in his providence established particular governments 

for particular peoples in particular places at particular times, such 

as Daniel 2:21 tells us, ‘‘He changes times and seasons; he sets up 

kings and deposes them.’’

Sixth, Scripture passages often referenced in immigration discussions address immigrant policy more than they do immigration policy. They do not really speak to how immigrants are admitted. 

45

Seventh, Old Testament laws reflect an assimilationist ethic. 

Resident aliens were to adopt Israel’s customs and observe its laws. 

Eighth, making immigration policy is a legitimate role of civil 

governments. Civil authorities are God’s agents, and they may determine how many immigrants and the process for regulating immigration. Government’s duty primarily is to protect its own citizens. 

Finally, law has moral dimensions. Civil laws develop, regulating 

certain conduct for the public good, like whether we drive on the 

left or right side of the road. Regulating immigration and borders 

acquires moral dimensions. To rationalize or excuse the breaking 

or lax enforcement of them harms the larger principles of peace, 

the rule of law and justice. 

Now, applying these principles to a couple of immigration proposals. 

First, what about legalization? Well, there are other policy options besides the extremes of mass deportation or mass legalization. Legalization may end up abrogating love your neighbor and 

Biblical standards of justice. It may put the poorest Americans, 

law-abiding employers, citizens and lawful immigrants below those 

who broke our laws, including illegitimate employers. 

We can all empathize with someone who aspires for a better life. 

But there are lawful ways to obtain it. 

‘‘What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his 

soul?’’ Mass legalization would subject all our laws and the rule of 

law to contempt. That is a pretty high price. 

Second, a guest worker program. The increase of foreign laborers 

by 400,000 to 600,000 a year could devastate the livelihoods of 

American workers. It shows favoritism to the rich, who will be able 

to use guest workers to depress wages and benefits. 

The wealthy will pocket more money on the backs of the poor. 

James, chapter two, springs to mind. 

American wages will fall, because the world is full of willing 

workers who would marginally improve their own earnings here. 

The average Mexican earns one-twelfth the average American’s 

wages. Some 4.6 billion people earn less than the average Mexican. 

So, guest worker will do the most harm to the most vulnerable 

Americans, including minorities, the disabled and recent lawful immigrants. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Edwards follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES R. EDWARDS, JR. 

Madam Chairman, Ranking Member King, members of the subcommittee, thank 

you for inviting me to present a faith perspective on the immigration issue. I commend you for giving serious consideration to this important aspect. My remarks represent the earnest, considered views of a lay Christian who has sought to honor the 

Lord God (as Colossians 3:23 instructs, to work heartily for the Lord’s pleasure) as 

I have engaged in my calling to the public policy sphere. 

I certainly don’t claim that my conclusions are infallible because, like every other 

human being who has ever lived (except Jesus), I am imperfect. As Francis Schaeffer said, ‘‘Having been made in the image of God, man is magnificent even in ruin. 

God made man to be responsible for his thoughts and actions. . . .’’ That wonderful 

description instills both humility and love. 

I don’t claim to be a theologian. But as C.S. Lewis said, you don’t want 

theologians writing civil laws; that’s outside their calling. Rather, you want faithful 

46

believers whom God has called into the public policy field and equipped for that 

work. 

On many subjects, Judeo-Christian Scripture is clear. It contains proscriptions on 

murder, theft, and perjury, for instance. But on immigration, as with other areas 

of public policy, Scripture isn’t definitive. That would leave the specifics of immigration policy in the realm of prudential judgment. 

In other words, one would need guidance from applicable biblical principles, to 

apply those principles according to the specific facts known from general revelation 

and particular circumstances, and to exercise sound judgment. This process would 

necessarily involve a fair reading of the Bible, taking passages in context, weighing 

various texts, and giving prayerful consideration to how those texts should be regarded here, now. It would require reason, logic, and dispassionate weighing of 

these factors. And, of course, a biblical approach would require removing, as much 

as humanly possible, ulterior motives. 

Thus, while different Christians may arrive at different conclusions as to policy 

specifics on subjects like immigration where Scripture is silent or unclear, that fact 

would represent the freedom they have in the Lord as His creatures and His followers—not that the Lord is Himself of a divided mind. With many policy matters, 

more than one course of action that would pass muster with the Lord God exists, 

or fulfill His will. I believe this is the case with immigration. 

NINE BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES

How might those seeking to exercise prudence approach the immigration issue? 

From what biblical guidance can we derive sound immigration policy? I submit that 

we might begin with five general principles from Scripture. 

First, the two cornerstone commandments: Love the Lord with all your heart, 

soul, and mind; and love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus said these summarize 

God’s moral law, the Ten Commandments (Matt. 22:37–40). They are timeless. They 

oblige each person, and that standard, exercised by individuals, would thereby be 

reflected in civil society. 

Second, God has given both temporal and eternal obligations. In Matthew 22:21, 

Jesus says, ‘‘Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.’’ This principle implies that some binding moral commands may apply differently to individuals and to civil government. 

Third, God doesn’t contradict Himself, and God’s principles don’t contradict one 

another. Thus, His principles of justice, fairness, and equality don’t contradict, but 

are complementary to His principles of mercy. Also, both justice and mercy principles obligate us more to some people over others. 

Elements of both sets of principles apply to us individually and as a body politic, 

but not always equally. For example, Exodus 23:2 warns us ‘‘not [to] show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit.’’ But James 2:1 says ‘‘don’t show favoritism [to 

the rich].’’ James 2:9 calls showing favoritism ‘‘sin.’’

In the context of the Golden Rule, the obligation to show mercy is greater for individuals than could rightly be expected of civil government. Luke 6:30–31 says, ‘‘Give 

to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand 

it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.’’ Obviously, that would be 

unjust for civil government to attempt, and such an attempt at mercy would result 

in injustice (as well as be unwise and profligate with public resources). The state 

can’t turn the other cheek (Luke 6:29–30). The state can’t give its tunic. The state 

can’t turn a blind eye toward someone who has stolen. The state can’t forgive someone 70 times seven times (Matthew 18:21–22). 

Scripture indicates certain priorities in our personal and corporate obligations. I 

Timothy 5:8 says, ‘‘If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for 

his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.’’ 

Clearly, God organizes society around groups of people: families, communities, 

tribes, nations. Such verses imply priorities of duty and allegiance, for individuals 

and for the state. 

Fourth, God ordains civil government. Earthly authorities are established as His 

agents to restrain evil, protect the innocent, and punish the wrongdoer. Notably, Romans 13:1–7 reads in part, ‘‘The authorities that exist have been established by 

God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what 

God has instituted. . . .’’ Civil governments are part of God’s common grace to protect people in a world in which evil exists. Thus, people appropriately owe allegiance 

and duty to temporal governing authorities. 

In the West (formerly known as Christendom), legislatures deliberate in a democratic process and enact civil laws. Courts of law assess punishment for 

lawbreaking, according to the rules established in those duly enacted laws, rather 

47

than turning to mob rule or a tyrant’s whim. This characteristic, the rule of law, 

has come to us under God’s common grace. Or, as Democratic Senator Sam Ervin 

was fond of saying, ours is ‘‘a government of laws and not of men.’’ The rule of law 

is our nation’s greatest characteristic, and it should be safeguarded. 

Fifth, God in His providence establishes particular governments for particular 

groups of people in particular places at particular times. That includes specific 

forms of government and specific rulers and officials. Daniel 2:21 says, ‘‘He changes 

times and seasons; he sets up kings and deposes them.’’ Acts 17:26 says, ‘‘He determined the times set for them [’every nation of men’] and the exact places where they 

should live.’’ Deuteronomy 32:8 confirms the same principle, making special reference to the Hebrews: ‘‘When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, 

when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the 

number of the sons of Israel.’’

These first five, general biblical principles provide right motive and attitude, balance and appropriate sophistication, understanding of civil government’s role, and 

grounds for basing prudent judgments. Immigration policy can now be considered 

in light of four, more specific biblical principles. 

First, a careful reading of the Scripture passages often referenced in connection 

with immigration shows that they really address immigrant policy rather than immigration policy. These passages address treatment of aliens once they are in a 

country. They say nothing about the criteria or the process by which aliens originally were admitted to the nation. We hear passages like Leviticus 19:33–34: ‘‘When 

an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you 

must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were 

aliens in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.’’ Exodus 22:21 reads, ‘‘Do not mistreat an 

alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.’’ Such verses speak to fairness 

toward foreigners, just as related verses say to treat widows and orphans. It would 

be a flying leap in illogic to argue that the Bible says not to mistreat resident aliens; 

therefore, a nation must admit every foreigner who wishes to enter that country, 

on his own terms or otherwise. 

Second, Old Testament laws reflect an assimilationist ethic. These laws required 

resident aliens to assimilate to Israel. The aliens were to adopt Israel’s customs and 

observe its laws. For instance, Deuteronomy 16:9–15 requires all residents, including aliens, to observe the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Booths. Those were significant, public events in that society. 

Other laws accorded only Hebrews certain privileges. For instance, Deuteronomy 

15:3 allows the exacting of credit loaned to a foreigner in the seventh year, when 

Hebrew debt was forgiven. In this, the Lord didn’t contradict Himself, nor was He 

being unfair towards aliens. So, while God calls for fairness in general, He lets society make distinctions between citizens and noncitizens. 

Third, making immigration policy is a legitimate role of civil government. Civil 

authorities, acting as God’s agent, have the responsibility for determining how many 

people, on what basis, by what priorities, the process to regulate the visitation, permanent residence, and acquisition of citizenship of foreigners, etc. Those laws may 

differ from nation to nation, from period to period. Regulating immigration is the 

government’s exercise of prudential judgment. It must assess the best, most valid, 

and reliable data to make its decisions. A government’s primary duty is to protect 

its own citizens, as made clear by the above principle of why God invests authority 

to the state. 

Fourth, a reasonable (or just) law, if not inherently moral (such as outlawing murder), possesses moral dimensions. This reflects the Judeo-Christian concept of the 

rule of law. Though some conduct is not inherently evil, laws develop regulating certain conduct for the public good. Scholar Paul Marshall has illustrated this principle 

regarding driving on the left or right side of the road. He says, ‘‘Only after the law 

is passed do these actions take on a whole new context and become matters of morality.’’ Similarly, whether a hike across the plains has moral implications depends 

on whether that hike involves crossing onto private property and thus trespassing 

or crossing a national border. 

Regarding immigration, Marshall notes that most illegal immigrants ‘‘simply desire a better life, and are willing to risk their lives in striving for it. . . . If there 

were no border then who could object to what they do? It is the fact of a border, 

a political invention, that makes their action wrong.’’ Notably, even desperate circumstances don’t justify a lawless act. Proverbs 6:30–31 says, ‘‘Men do not despise 

a thief if he steals to satisfy hunger when he is starving. Yet if he is caught, he 

must pay sevenfold, though it costs him all the wealth of his house.’’ Despite quite 

understandable reasons behind an act of lawbreaking, the greater principles of preserving the peace, and law and order in society at large are at stake. In this example, the prosecutor has a duty to press charges and hold the person accountable for 

48

his actions, while the person from whom food was stolen may choose not to bring 

a civil lawsuit. 

These four principles indicate that a lot of factors are at play and many elements 

must be carefully weighed, along with the five general principles. What do they 

mean for individuals versus the state? What do they mean for both the receiving 

society and the immigrant? Is it consistent with the role of civil government and 

the rule of law to change the law to accommodate wholesale breaking of the law 

in question? Is amnesty an appropriate measure? By what standard is a law regarded as just or unjust? Is it possible to solve the complex problems intertwined 

in our immigration situation all at once, in one bill, without running an undue risk 

of unintended consequences that will only make matters worse? These are the questions and immense challenges facing Congress. 

CONSIDERING ‘‘COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM’’

With respect to the approaches taken in H.R. 1645, the STRIVE Act, and the Senate immigration legislation that as been negotiated ex parte, allow me to speak generally and in light of the biblical principles I have laid out. 

Concerning the legalization provisions, it has been suggested that all of the illegal 

aliens (12 to 20 million) cannot be deported, and so they all must be legalized. This 

approach sets up a false choice. Other policy options exist: continuing with the status quo; incentivizing attrition through steadily stepped-up enforcement; 

incentivizing aliens’ voluntary exit through innovative financial programs; adopting 

qui tam rewards for citizens who report immigration benefits fraud, alien smuggling, employment of unlawful foreign workers, ID fraud; adding ‘‘constructive 

knowledge’’ to employer sanctions laws, withholding visas to source countries until 

they stop their people from unlawfully emigrating to the U.S. 

The United States has tried the legalization route before; it has not only failed, 

but actually exacerbated the situation. Immigration amnesties have sparked more 

illegal immigration, for the simple reason that people conclude that the United 

States will not enforce its immigration laws very vigorously and, if they come on 

in, eventually they will be legalized. 

The people hurt most by legalizations have been similarly situated native-born 

Americans and recent immigrants. These tend to be lower income and lower skilled 

people. The people who gain the most from such legalizations are the well-off: Employers who are let off the hook for having employed an illegal workforce and gaining an unfair competitive advantage over law-abiding employers, powerful business 

interests, and special interests that now in new ways can exploit those who are legalized. This sounds more like showing favoritism to the rich and to the alien, and 

failure by civil authorities to protect the innocent among the citizenry. It seems like 

injustice by grasping for ‘‘mercy.’’

Legalization would appear to risk abrogating ‘‘love your neighbor’’ and biblical 

standards of justice. It puts the poorest Americans, law-abiding employers, citizens 

crying out for their government to faithfully enforce the laws, and lawful immigrants beneath those who broke our laws to get here, owe our nation no allegiance, 

and have been (and will continue to be) grossly subsidized by middle-class taxpayers. We all can empathize with someone who aspires for a better life. We wish 

the same for ourselves and our children. But there are lawful ways and there are 

unlawful ways to achieve an improved life. The end doesn’t justify the means; what 

does it profit a man to gain the whole world and yet lose his soul? (Mark 8:36) 

Particularly in light of the utter failure of previous amnesties, the legalization 

route at this juncture would seem to constitute the government’s failure to wield 

the sword for justice. The laws that have been broken are just, duly enacted laws 

that deserve to be enforced. To lead with mass legalization subjects all our laws, 

and the rule of law, to contempt. That course is a very high price to pay, sacrificing 

a treasure as precious as the rule of law. Though ‘‘mercy’’ may be the motive, injustice it would bring. Amnesty will most certainly leave us with illegal immigration 

three or four times greater in another decade or so than we have today. 

With respect to a guestworker program, the increase of laborers by some 400,000 

to 600,000 foreign workers each year—on top of the more than one million legal immigrants we already have annually, the escalated processing of 7 million chain migrants, and the 12–20 million legalization recipients—could devastate the livelihoods of American workers who will face head-to-head job competition. That kind 

of volume of imported labor would seem to show favoritism to the rich, who will be 

able to use the guestworker route to drive down wages, degrade working conditions, 

and drop fringe benefits they presently provide to attract and retain workers. In 

other words, the wealthy will pocket more money on the backs of the poor. The 

verses from James spring to mind. 

49

It’s easy to envision what will come about. The labor supply will be flooded. With 

more workers vying for jobs, they can command less generous wages and benefits. 

The requirements for first advertising for an American worker can be expected to 

be pretty lame. That was the case with last year’s Senate bill, various ‘‘guestworker’’ 

measures such as for H2Bs, and will undoubtedly be the case here. Remember that 

the official unemployment statistics don’t reflect the millions who’ve dropped out of 

the workforce. 

When American middle-class wages not only continue to stagnate but fall, it will 

be attributable to increasing the labor supply via foreign guestworkers. A lot of 

‘‘willing workers’’ would marginally improve their own earnings here relative to 

what they earn in their home countries. But what about the well-being of Americans 

who could and otherwise would do those jobs, for decent pay? Aren’t they the government’s first responsibility? The average Mexican worker earns 1/12th the average American’s wages. Some 4.6 billion people in the rest of the world earn less 

than the average Mexican. The massive increase of foreign ‘‘willing workers’’ as is 

being proposed will most harm the most vulnerable Americans, including minorities, 

the disabled, and recent lawful immigrants. 

So the balancing of justice and mercy, protecting the innocent citizen, and differentiating between what one should do as an individual versus what society 

through its government should do take on very weighty dimensions—moral concerns, in fact. I trust these moral principles will inform your decisions. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Ms. LOFGREN. Dr. Steinlight, you are next. And all of those 

buzzings and lights mean that they are calling us for still more 

votes, so we will listen to you, Dr. Steinlight, and then perhaps we 

can just limit ourselves to 2 minutes of questions each and we will 

run off and vote and come back for the second panel. 

Dr. Steinlight? 

TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN STEINLIGHT, D.PHIL., CENTER FOR 

IMMIGRATION STUDIES, FORMER NATIONAL AFFAIRS DIRECTOR AT THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE (AJC) 

Mr. STEINLIGHT. Good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to 

appear before this panel. It is a privilege for a first-generation 

American, the son of a refugee. 

I am Stephen Steinlight, senior policy analyst at the Center for 

Immigration Studies. I am here in a different capacity, however, to 

share my understanding of my faith’s teachings regarding the current immigration debate. 

I am a proud American and a faithful Jew. My religious values 

are rooted in Judaism prophetic tradition that teaches redemption 

is achieved through pursuing justice. 

As I understand it, justice is defined in part as the absolute preemptory connection between actions and consequences. Without individual accountability, justice means nothing. 

The holiday of Shavuot, Pentecost, begins at sundown tonight. It 

commemorates God’s giving of the law, the Torah, to the Israelites, 

and through them to all humanity. 

Rabbinical commentators traditionally linked Pentecost to Passover, the exodus from Egyptian bondage, reflecting rabbinic understanding of freedom’s dangers. Unrestrained liberty leads to anarchy. 

At Mount Sinai, God bestowed the gift of law to educate, limit 

and ennoble freedom. 

Katharine Bates echoed this union of principles in ‘‘America the 

Beautiful:’’ ‘‘Confirm thy soul in self-control, by liberty in law.’’

The millions that have entered America unlawfully and broken 

countless laws to remain produce these principles. So does subVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:58 Sep 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\052207\35602.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35602
50

stitute Senate 1348, by offering instant parole and the profligate Z 

visa to those that exhibit contempt for the rule of law. 

We ignore history and justice at our peril. The 1986 amnesty 

multiplied illegal immigration five-fold. 

Since anyone can quote scripture, it is not surprising how frequently faith representatives supporting the Bush-Senate immigration bill employ it—or rather, abuse it—obsessing on passages from 

the Hebrew Bible, especially Leviticus 19. This includes the Jewish 

establishment, which survey research shows does not reflect the 

opinions of most Jews. 

Ordinary Jews, like most Americans, are not xenophobes, but 

draw a bright line between legal and illegal immigration. They oppose exponentially increased immigration, guest worker programs 

and amnestying illegal aliens. 

Like most Americans, given, the option, they choose attrition of 

the illegal population through vigorous law enforcement. Supporters of the Senate-Bush bill fixate on Leviticus 19. We have 

heard it quoted many times: ‘‘When strangers sojourn with you in 

your land, you shall do them no harm. You shall love them as yourselves, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.’’

This is the routine rhetorical climax. It is presumably unassailable. Leviticus 19, they declare, supports Senate bill 2611, substitute 1348, end of story. Or is it? 

It does not require much hermeneutical acumen to see the meaning of a key term, ‘‘sojourn,’’ has been misconstrued for political 

purposes. 

The word in the Hebrew Bible for stranger is ‘‘ger v’toshav.’’ The 

precise English word is sojourner. 

It first appears in Genesis 4:23, describing Abraham when he 

dwells briefly with the Hittites. It appears in Chronicles 29:15, 

when King David employs it metaphysically to contrast the transitory nature of human experience with the eternality of God, steward and creator of the universe, of the earth on which we dwell 

briefly as wanderers. 

Richard Elliott Friedman, leading authority on Biblical Hebrew, 

translates it as ‘‘alien’’ and ‘‘visitor.’’ Every English dictionary defines sojourn as ‘‘temporary stay.’’

Thus, this passage offers no scriptural sanction to argue 12 million illegal aliens should be permitted to remain permanently in 

the United States. 

Terms for immigrant and immigration are absent in the Bible. 

Narratives of inclusion are rare. We know the rule by the exception—the Book of Ruth. 

The Bible also addresses the inclusion of strangers in civil and 

legal terms. In Exodus 12:49, Leviticus 24:22 and in Numbers, it 

proclaims there shall be one law for citizens and strangers alike. 

This is anachronistically misread as a bill of rights for sojourners. 

The contrary is true. 

Strangers are meant to conform to Israelite law. Strangers did 

have rights, but they earned them by an ancient form of naturalization: circumcision and abandonment of idolatry. Strangers 

were required to obey all Israelite laws strictly and not undermine 

the legal fabric of Israelite society. 

51

Leviticus 19 commands us to love the stranger. Substitute bill 

1348 is about greed, not love. And Leviticus 19 surely does not 

command us to exploit strangers as cheap labor or for partisan advantage. 

The bill’s reactionary, inhumane provision of 400,000 to 600,000 

guest workers violates the Holiness Code of Leviticus that demands 

dignity for laborers, including the most humble. We are told to be 

holy, because ‘‘I, the Lord thy God, am holy.’’ And our holiness is 

tested by our treatment of laborers. 

Cherry-picking the Bible to exploit poor immigrants at the expense of working class and impoverished Americans, African-Americans most especially, to enrich wealthy employers is nothing less 

than sacrilege. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Steinlight follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN STEINLIGHT

Good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this panel. It’s a 

privilege for a first-generation American, the son of a refugee. 

I’m Stephen Steinlight, Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies. I’m here in a different capacity, however: to share my understanding of my 

faith’s teachings regarding the current immigration debate. I’m a proud American 

and a faithful Jew. 

My religious values are rooted in Judaism’s prophetic tradition that teaches redemption is achieved through pursuing justice. As I understand it, justice is defined—in part—as the absolute, peremptory connection between actions and consequences. Without individual accountability, justice means nothing. 

The holiday of Shavuot—Pentecost—begins at sundown today. It commemorates 

God’s giving of the law, the Torah, to the Israelites and, through them, to humanity. 

Rabbinical commentators traditionally linked Pentecost to Passover, the Exodus 

from Egyptian bondage—reflecting rabbinic understanding of freedom’s dangers. 

Unrestrained liberty leads to anarchy. At Mount Sinai, God bestowed the gift of law 

to educate, limit and ennoble freedom. Kathleen Bates echoed this union of principles in ‘‘America the Beautiful:’’ ‘‘Confirm thy soul in self control by liberty in 

law.’’

The millions that have entered America unlawfully and broken countless laws to 

remain traduce these principles. So does S.1348 by offering the profligate Z-Visa to 

those that exhibit contempt for the rule of law. We ignore history and justice at our 

peril. The 1986 amnesty multiplied illegal immigration five-fold. 

Since anyone can quote Scripture, it’s not surprising how frequently faith representatives supporting the Bush-Senate immigration bills employ it—or, rather—

abuse it—obsessing on passages from the Hebrew Bible, especially Leviticus 19.

This includes the Jewish Establishment, which surveys show does not speak for 

America’s Jews. Ordinary Jews, like most Americans, are not xenophobes, but draw 

a bright line between legal and illegal immigration. They oppose exponentially increased immigration, guest worker programs, and amnestying illegal aliens. Like 

most Americans—given the option—they choose attrition of the illegal population 

vigorous law enforcement. 

Supporters of the Senate-Bush bills fixate on Leviticus 19: ‘‘When strangers sojourn with you in your land, you shall do them no wrong. The strangers who sojourn 

with you shall be as the natives among you, and you shall love them as yourself; 

for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.’’

This is their routine rhetorical climax. It’s presumably unassailable. Leviticus 19,

they declare, supports S.2611 cum S.1348. End of story. 

Or is it? 

It doesn’t require much hermeneutical acumen to see the meaning of a key term—

sojourn—has been misconstrued for political purposes. 

The word in the Hebrew Bible for stranger is ‘‘Ger v’toshav.’’ The precise English 

equivalent is sojourner. It first appears in Genesis 4:23 describing Abraham when 

he dwells briefly with the Hittites in what is now Hebron. It last appears in Chronicles 29:15 where King David employs it to contrast the transitory nature of human 

existence with the eternality of God, creator and steward of the earth on which we 

briefly dwell as wanderers. 

Richard Elliot Friedman, a leading authority on biblical Hebrew, translates it as 

‘‘alien’’ and ‘‘visitor.’’ Every English dictionary defines sojourn as a temporary 

52

stay. Thus, this passage offers no scriptural sanction to argue some 12 million illegal 

aliens should be permitted to remain permanently in the United States. 

Terms for immigrant or immigration are absent in the Bible. Narratives of inclusion are rare. We know the rule by the exception—he Book of Ruth. The Bible also addresses the inclusion of strangers in civil and legal terms. In Exodus 12:49, Leviticus 24:22 and in Numbers 15:14, it proclaims there shall be one 

law for citizens and strangers alike. This is often cynically misread as a bill of rights 

for sojourners. The contrary is true. Strangers must conform to Israelite law. 

Strangers did have rights, but they earned them by an ancient form of naturalization: circumcision and abandoning idolatry. Strangers were required to obey all 

Israelite laws strictly and not undermine the legal fabric of Israelite society. 

Leviticus 19 commands us to love the stranger. S.1348 is about greed, not love, 

and Leviticus 19 surely does not command us to exploit strangers as cheap labor 

or for partisan advantage. S.1348’s reactionary, inhumane provision for 400,000–

600,000 ‘‘Guest workers’’ violates the Holiness Code of Leviticus that demands dignity for laborers, including the most humble. We are told to be ‘‘holy because I the 

Lord am holy.’’ Our holiness is tested by how justly we treat laborers. 

Cherry-picking the Bible to exploit poor immigrants at the expense of workingclass and impoverished Americans—African Americans especially—to enrich 

wealthy employers is nothing less than sacrilege. 

Thank you.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Dr. Steinlight. We have about 8 minutes before we have to be on the floor. Usually it is—because they 

carry on the first. 

So we are, by unanimous consent, are going to limit ourselves to 

about a minute-and-a-half of questions apiece, so that we can at 

least each ask you one question before we rush to the floor. 

The bad news is, we have got to go vote. The good news is, it 

is the last today, so the second panel will not be interrupted. 

I am going to turn first to Chairman Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Of all the times that we need more time, we get less time, because this, to me, is the most important and interesting hearing we 

have had on immigration. 

Dr. Adams, in my brief time, please discuss what you have heard 

from our good friends Dr. Edwards and Dr. Steinlight, in terms of 

where faith comes into this. Should you even be here to begin with? 

I mean, are we to exclude faith-based opinion? 

Reverend ADAMS. I believe that the separation between church 

and state in the United States is not meant to suppress either side 

of our reality as human beings, of both civil law and eschatological 

compulsion. 

I think eschatological compulsion, or faith, belief in the ultimate, 

and a belief in the temporal and the temporary, not the final, not 

the perfect, but we just do the best we can as human beings, realizing that, as citizens we exercise our right to vote, to make laws, 

to change laws, to correct laws. 

And as believers in God, or in some ultimate being, we recognize 

our freedom to participate out of that motivation. But that does not 

give us domination over people who have a different definition of 

the ultimate. 

So, I would think that we have a right to speak, but we do not 

have a right to dictate or to dominate. And what I hear is free 

speech on the part of people who come out of a religious motivation, who are participating in the public square as equal partners. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Reverend Adams. 

Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. 

53

And, Reverend Adams, I really appreciate your comments and I 

appreciate your faith. Obviously, you are a man who lives what he 

preaches, a heart as big as all outdoors. 

I do agree—you know, I have concerns about merit-based versus 

family-based. One of the great hopes that I have with the immigrants that I see coming in from other countries, be it from Mexico, 

Latin America, Asia, even Irish, different groups, they have such 

strong families. And we have lost that in America. And I am hopeful that that is something immigration will revive in America. So, 

that is a concern of mine. 

But, sir, when you talked about bad religion, talks about national 

defense—I believe Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. I do. 

But I also believe, if people like me did not commit time like I did 

to serve for the national defense, there would be no one allowed in 

this country to talk about national purpose. 

I also believe that when you get to Romans 13, you know, God 

allows governments to exist. And there are supposed to be laws. 

And some of us have committed our lives, either as prosecutors, as 

my 4 years in the Army—many different ways, as a judge. And so 

many times I have to come down on laws I did not like, I did not 

agree with. 

But the rule of law seems to be the one thing that separates us 

from countries who have been impoverishing their people, like 

Mexico. 

We ought to be demanding a better nation to take care of people, 

so they would not have to break up families and come here. We 

ought to be demanding better neighbors. 

And so, that is something I think the thrust ought to be, not that 

we are evil because we want to provide for the common defense, 

as the Constitution says, that we took an oath to uphold, but that 

we need to be vigilant and protecting people, like all of you here 

who care so deeply for humanity. 

And I do appreciate your time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

Mr. Gutierrez for a minute? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you. 

Number one, I want to thank all of you for coming here this 

afternoon. I know that we are all very inspired by your words and 

by your testimony here. 

I think that church-based organizations have played a critical 

role in the development of this nation, from the first Pilgrims getting off the boat to today. 

I know that I want to particularly thank my friends in the Jewish community for all of the hard work that they have done to advocate for comprehensive immigration reform. 

I want to thank the black ministers that are here for bringing 

the historical context of the church in your own struggle for civil 

and human rights here, and for standing up for immigrants today. 

We have heard here—if there was anybody that should be able 

to be assimilated, it should be African-Americans, mostly Protestant and English speaking. And yet we know about the prejudice 

and the segregation that you have confronted and continue to confront, but that together we will tear those barriers down. 

54

And I just want to say, lastly, that I guess it all depends on the 

eyes that you see a community. Some people see someone from Ireland that does not have documents and sees someone that has 

overstayed their visa illegally. I see somebody who wants to go 

back home and see their parents. 

I see somebody from Haiti, and they see a black man. I see somebody, if he were only one country over in the Antilles, would have 

permanent residency and citizenship here, if he were from Cuba. 

So, I only make those comments to say that our laws are both 

fair and unfair, are wise and unwise, and are laws that are good 

and bad laws. And I think that you have spoken to that issue here 

today. And sometimes laws are bad and men have to correct them. 

Thank you so much. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

Mr. Ellison? 

Mr. ELLISON. Let me join my colleagues in thanking all of you 

for sharing your views. 

I do believe that, while the sacred needs to inform the secular 

government, that it should not dominate it, as the reverend said. 

But for me, it is very important to hear the voices from the faith 

community as we go through this debate. 

I believe that our laws should be just and should be good. And 

I think it was Saint Augustine who said that an unjust law is not 

really law at all. 

Is that right, Reverend? Yes? I got that one right. [Laughter.] 

So, the thing is, is that I want to thank you all for talking about 

what is justice, what is charity, what is generosity. I think America 

should be a nation that stands for open doors and generosity. At 

the same time, I do not think that negates the rule of law. 

And so, I really just want to demonstrate and express my appreciation, and I wish we had time for more questions. Unfortunately, 

we really do not. 

But if we have more time later, I would like to do this. If we 

could open up the record to include information on Muslim American communities——

Ms. LOFGREN. Can we do all the insertions when we come back? 

Mr. ELLISON. Okay. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And that will be without objection. But I want 

to——

Mr. ELLISON. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And we will certainly do that when we come back. 

Mr. ELLISON. And if I did have time to ask a question, I would 

ask if you all think that it would be important to include Muslim 

voices in this debate. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Luckily, we——

Mr. ELLISON. It looks like we are saying yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Luckily, we will have some of those voices in our 

next panel. 

And I have not used my 2 minutes of time, because we have to 

rush to the floor. 

I would just like to say that, like Reverend Adams has said, no 

religious voice in our community can dominate what the civil legislature does. But I also feel that the voices of the faithful will inform our decision, or should inform our decision. 

55

And so, I appreciate your willingness to be here, to give us your 

comments and to open your hearts to us. 

And with that, we will recess this hearing. 

And the second panel, we will be back in about half an hour 

without further interruptions. 

So this hearing is recessed till after the last vote. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. LOFGREN. The Immigration Subcommittee will resume. 

And the good news is that the votes are over for the day. And 

the second piece of information is to once again apologize. We have 

no control over when votes are called on the floor, and we do apologize for disrupting this hearing so severely. 

I would like to introduce the second panel who is with us today. 

And I understand Ms. Murguı ́a has to leave at 5:30. I think we will 

have time for her testimony, but Cecilia Mun ̃ oz will sit in for her, 

without objection, if there are questions. 

I would like to introduce Marleine Bastien, the founder, former 

president, and current executive director of Fanm Ayisyen Nan 

Miyami, Haitian Women of Miami, founded in 1991. Ms. Bastien 

and her organization have created a host of vital service programs 

for women in southern Florida. She is additionally one of the 

founders of the Haitian-American Grassroots Coalition and the 

Justice Coalition for the Haitian Children of Guantanamo. She has 

received Amnesty International’s Human Rights Award, a Ms.

Woman of the Year Award, and a Leadership for a Changing World 

Award from the Ford Foundation. 

We are also pleased to have Deepa Iyer with us, the Executive 

Director of South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow (SAALT). 

Ms. Iyer began her public interest career at the Asian Pacific 

American Justice Consortium and later served as a trial attorney 

with the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of 

Justice. Ms. Iyer most recently served as the Legal Director of the 

Asian-Pacific American Legal Resource Center. Born in India, Ms. 

Iyer came to the United States at the age of 12. She has taught 

courses on legal issues facing Asian-Americans at Columbia University and Hunter College in New York. She earned her bachelor’s 

degree with honors from Vanderbilt University and her law degree 

from the University of Notre Dame Law School. 

I am next honored to welcome Janet Murguı ́a, the president and 

CEO of the National Council La Raza, or NCLR, the nation’s largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization. She 

began her career in Washington as the legislative counsel to former 

Kansas Congressman Jim Slattery and later worked from 1994 to 

2000 at the White House. She became former President Clinton’s 

deputy of legislative affairs. She returned home to her home-State 

of Kansas to serve as the Executive Vice Chancellor for University 

Relations at the University of Kansas before returning to the nation’s capital. Ms. Murguı ́a currently sits on the board of the Independent Sector and the board of the Hispanic Association on Corporate Responsibility, the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, 

and the Merrill Lynch Diversity and Inclusion Council. A member 

of the executive committee on the Leadership Council on Civil 

Rights, Ms. Murguı ́a received three degrees from Kansas University: two bachelor’s degrees and a law degree. 

56

I am next pleased to introduce Karen Narasaki, president and 

executive director of the Asian American Justice Center, or AAJC. 

Ms. Narasaki serves as the Vice Chair of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Vice President of the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. She additionally chairs the Rights 

Working Group and the Asian Pacific American Media Coalition. 

And she serves on the boards of the Lawyers Committee for Civil 

Rights Under Law and the National Commission on Adult Literacy. 

Among her numerous awards, Ms. Narasaki was named one of the 

100 Most Powerful Women in Washington by Washingtonian Magazine in 2001 and 2006, and the Congressional Black Caucus 

Chair’s Award in 2003. She graduated with honors from Yale University and the Order of the Coif from the University of California 

School of Law at UCLA. 

Next I am pleased to introduce Niall O’Dowd, chairman of the 

Irish Lobby of Immigration Reform. Mr. O’Dowd is the founder of 

Irish America magazine and the Irish Voice newspaper in New 

York. In addition to his distinguished career as an immigrant advocate, Mr. O’Dowd initiated the Irish American Peace Delegation in 

1992 that played a key role in bringing about the Irish Republican 

Army ceasefire and the Irish peace process. His recent book, Fire 

in the Morning, accounting the September 11 terrorist attacks, has 

become a bestseller in Ireland. 

We are also pleased—oh, I am going to allow Mr. Conyers to introduce Mr. Saleh. 

Is Ms. Pulido—will be here later. 

Ms. Pulido is one of the minority witnesses, Illinois spokeswoman 

for You Don’t Speak For Me. Born and raised in Chicago, she 

worked for 3 years as a police dispatcher, completed two tours of 

duty with the Minuteman Project as an original minuteman in 

April 2005 and 2006, and she manages her own errand and escort 

service for senior citizens, and created and produced a talk show 

for seniors called ‘‘Caregivers Radio.’’

The minority’s second witness is Jan Ting, a Professor of law at 

Temple University. A Temple professor, Ting served as director of 

the Graduate Tax Program from 1994 to 2001 and specialized in 

tax law as an attorney at the Philadelphia law firm of Pepper 

Hamilton and Scheetz. He was appointed Assistant Commissioner 

of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1990, and served 

with the Justice Department through 1993. The National Asian Pacific American Law Students Association named him 2003 Asian 

American Law Professor of the Year, and he has served as a Senior 

Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, among many other 

honors. His B.A. is from Oberlin, his master’s from the University 

of Hawaii, and law degree from Harvard University. 

And now I will ask the Chairman of the Committee to introduce 

Noel Saleh, a member of the panel from his State and someone 

well-known to him. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren, and my colleague, Luis Gutierrez. 

My old friend, attorney Noel Saleh is here, and I just wanted for 

the record to have the pleasure of introducing him. 

He is the President of the board of directors of an organization 

called ACCESS, Arab Community Center for Economic and Social 

57

Service. It is one of the nationally premier Arab-American organizations that does social services for the community. 

And they distinguish themselves by working in the community 

for everybody. You do not have to be Arab-American to go to the 

Arab-American Center for help. And they have been honored in 

many ways, and we are delighted to have him here. 

He has 25 years or more of immigration litigation experience. 

And until 3 years ago, he was also a Staff Director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan. 

He sits on the board of National Immigration Forum, the Rights 

Working Group, and the executive board of the Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit. He is also on the Michigan Advisory 

Committee to the United States Civil Rights Commission. 

And we welcome you, Noel. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to all of the witnesses. 

We will make your written statements part of the record. We ask 

that each of you summarize in about 5 minutes. And these little 

machines are—hopefully you can see them—they turn yellow when 

you have 1 minute left. And I will do a little tapping noise so you 

know. 

And I hope that you will summarize so that we will have a 

chance, even at this late hour, to ask you questions. 

As you know, this hearing is on comprehensive immigration reform. And you, as leaders in the communities of the United States 

are important voices for us to hear, especially in light of the Senate’s action and hopefully actions here in the House that will follow. 

So let me turn first to you, Ms. Bastien. 

TESTIMONY OF MARLEINE BASTIEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

FANM ASYISYEN NAN MIYAMI, INC, HAITIAN WOMEN OF MIAMI 

Ms. BASTIEN. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to 

speak to you today. 

I was here 3 weeks ago with a delegation from Miami-Dade 

County. Little did I know that I would be back this afternoon, testifying in front of you in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. 

And I repeat: comprehensive immigration reform. 

Madam Chair, as you know, Haitians have suffered discrimination in this country for years. Even under the worst dictatorships 

of the Duvaliers in the early 1980’s, Haitians have been forcibly repatriated, in complete denial of their rights of due process. 

You may know that for years now, we have been fighting for 

TPS, temporary protective status, for Haitians. Recently, 3 weeks 

ago, as you know, Hondurans, Salvadorans, Nicaraguans were 

awarded TPS once more, and Haitians have been denied TPS over 

and over again. 

So, we know the meaning of discrimination. We know the meaning of suffering. 

So, as many immigrants in this country, working hard, sometimes two and three jobs, contributing to the social, political and 

economic fabric of this nation, we were waiting with open hearts 

for this new comprehensive immigration reform. 

58

And I must say that what we have in front of us has us greatly 

concerned. And you have heard the consensus among all the people 

who testified today about some of the problems that we have with 

the proposal. 

It seems to me that there was good intention in crafting this proposal. However, what I see missing is a lack of empathy. If it were 

not for a lack of empathy, how could it deny so gravely the importance of family values? 

We need a fair legislation that understands and respects family 

values, that keeps families together. Families are the core of our 

society. Strong families make strong communities, make better for 

communities. And this proposal ignores that fact, and it aims at dividing families once more. 

Many of the provisions in this proposal are expensive, unreasonable, unnecessary, and unworkable. 

These include the ‘‘touch back’’ requirements, which, in itself, is 

really, really, really, really, really, really neglectful of families’ 

unity. 

How can we be serious about comprehensive immigration reform, 

if we are asking the head of families to go back to their home countries, which oftentimes is so unsafe, like in the case of Haiti, where 

there is now an advisory preventing Americans and others from 

visiting, because of the turmoil and kidnappers that occur there on 

a daily basis? And this is true for other lands around the world. 

How else could it be to deny workers the path to citizenship? We 

value their work. We value their labor. And yet, we want them to 

come here, work, and then when we are tired of them, we want to 

ask them to go back to their nation, without giving them a chance 

to become U.S. citizens. 

Legalization must include persons with final orders of removal. 

Haitians, as you may know, fall a lot in this category, because for 

over the years, Haitians have been denied their rights of due process. 

Haitian political asylum claims have been denied, despite proof 

of repression and instability in Haiti. 

If there is no criminal record, persons with final orders of disputation should not have to seek waivers to be able to stay. And 

they should be included in any—I mean in any—comprehensive immigration reform. 

My colleagues who came previously spoke overwhelmingly about 

some of these concerns. But I would be remiss if I were not to talk 

to you about a specific position, which it is not included, will really 

create more concerns for us in the immigrant community, especially the Haitian immigrant community. 

If the omission of Haitian improvement act, it was included in 

the Senate proposal last year, but for one reason or the other, it 

was excluded in this proposal this year. 

What is HRIFA? Haitian Immigration Fairness Act of 1998 was 

signed into law by President Clinton in 1998, to address refugees 

and immigrants who have been living here since before 1995. 

Because of a technicality in this law, many Haitians were unable 

to address their status, and they are all facing deportations right 

now. We are talking about 5,000 or more people, including 3,000 

U.S.-born citizens. 

59

1See ‘‘Successes and Challenges for U.S. Policy to Haiti,’’ Hearing Before the Committee on 

Foreign Relations, United States Senate, 108th Congress First Session, July 15, 2003, Testimony of Steven David Forester, Esq., Senior Policy Advocate, Haitian Women of Miami, which 

I incorporate herein by reference. That testimony describes this history of discrimination in detail, citing statistics, federal court cases, and facts, and thoroughly outlines the pressing need 

for legislation to correct or ‘‘fix’’ flaws in the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998 

(HRIFA). As discussed infra, such HRIFA Improvement legislation has been introduced thrice 

in the House of Representatives since 2003 and currently comprises Section 519 of the STRIVE 

Act. Although it was included in S. 2611, the comprehensive immigration reform bill which 

passed the Senate last May, one glaring defect of the current Senate proposal is that it does 

not currently contain such HRIFA Improvement legislation, a defect which should be remedied. 2See ‘‘If only they had a golden arm,’’ Carl Hiaasen, Miami Herald, April 8, 2007; editorial, 

‘‘Haitians in America Meet Requirements for TPS,’’ South Florida Sun-Sentinel, August 25, 

2006; editorial, ‘‘Straight to the Point: TPS for Haitians,’’ Miami Herald, January 25, 2006; 

‘‘Haitians deserve protected status,’’ Steven David Forester, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, September 25, 2006; ‘‘Policy is ‘white foot, black foot’,’’ Carl Hiaasen, Miami Herald, February 5, 

2006; ‘‘Thousands march for Haitian rights,’’ Miami Herald, April 23, 2006; Haitian Protection 

Act of 2007, H.R. 522; press release and letter to President Bush of Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, May 

3, 2007, ‘‘The continuation of unfair and discriminatory immigration policies toward Haitians 

has not allowed Haiti to obtain the sense of normalcy that its Central American counterparts 

are being given the opportunity to achieve.’’ 3See ‘‘Remittances to Haiti topped $1.65 billion in 2006, says IDB fund,’’ press release, InterAmerican Development Bank, March 5, 2007. ‘‘About 1.1 million adults in Haiti receive remittances, typically 10 times a year, at an average of $150 at a time. About half the families that 

receive money from abroad have incomes of less than $500 a year. . . . Most Haitians who receive remittances use the money to cover basic expenses. However, many families manage to 

save a portion of their money or invest it in small businesses, home improvements or the education of their children.’’ Id. 

In order for us to really show our strong support behind comprehensive reform, Haitian improvement act must be included in 

this proposal. 

Immigrants are a huge asset to our State, and we need to do 

more to remove the barriers of their integration. Economic common 

sense and basic human decency dictate the shift in the way that 

immigrants are treated in our country. 

Comprehensive immigration reform on a Federal level is a first 

step toward recognizing that immigrants are not a threat, but an 

asset. We need to be humane and fair about this. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bastien follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARLEINE BASTIEN

Madame Chairwoman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me 

to testify before you. Haitian communities are comprised of decent, hard-working, 

tax-paying refugees and immigrants, seeking the American dream, whose U.S.-born 

children are our future, and whose remittances sustain their relatives in Haiti. Haitians have suffered from discriminatory U.S. immigration policies for decades. Despite fleeing harsh dictatorships, they have been interdicted at sea and summarily 

repatriated without asylum screenings, indefinitely detained often for years, and repeatedly denied fair asylum proceedings and determinations.1 Three weeks ago, 

Temporary Protected Status was again properly renewed for 18 months for affected 

Honduran, Nicaraguan, and Salvadoran nationals, extending a halt of their deportations, due to still-incomplete recovery from Hurricane Mitch in 1998 and earthquakes in 2001. But Haitians, despite broad recognition that they fully qualify, have 

never been granted such protection.2

The failure to grant Haitians TPS, continuing to deport good people who have 

been here for years, endangers U.S. borders. Haitians in the United States remit 

$1.17 billion annually which supports nearly a million adults in Haiti.3 When longresident hard-working people are deported to this hemisphere’s poorest country, it 

not only rips them away from their U.S.-born children, forcing those children to 

make the wrenching choice between the only parents they have ever known and the 

only country they have evern known—the United States—it also instantly cuts off 

the flow of money which sustains their relatives in Haiti, thereby causing the very 

desperation which a sound Haiti policy should seek to prevent and leading many 

Haitians, all of whom love their country, to attempt dangerous, often deadly 700 

mile sea voyages which so unnecessarily tax U.S. Coast Guard, Border Patrol, deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:58 Sep 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\052207\35602.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35602
60

4See ‘‘Sweat, generosity of emigrants Haiti’s lifeline,’’ op-ed by Ana Menendez, Miami Herald, April 8, 2007. See also the IDB report cited in footnote 3 and many of the items cited in footnote 

2. 5See ‘‘She’s the face of immigration policy,’’ by Ana Menendez, Miami Herald (front page), 

April 11, 2007; ‘‘Immigration chaos tears a family apart,’’ by Ana Menendez, Miami Herald, March 7, 2007; ‘‘Split decision: Deportation redefines families, As more longtime residents are 

deported, many are forced to choose whether to leave their U.S.-born children behind,’’ by Ruth 

Morris, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, February 25, 2007; ‘‘U.S. adding fugitive squads that target 

immigrants who ignore expulsion orders,’’ by Ruth Morris, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, February 26, 2007; ‘‘Increased deportations targeting all illegal immigrants,’’ by Victor Ramos, Orlando Sentinel, May 14, 2007 (focusing on Alexandre Nicolas); ‘‘Family apart as immigration debate goes on,’’ by Ana Menendez, Miami Herald, December 14, 2005; ‘‘A father is gone, guilty 

of being Haitian,’’ by Ana Menendez, Miami Herald, September 10, 2005. 

tention, and judicial resources. To protect our children and our borders, we should 

keep these parents with their children and their remittances flowing to their relatives.4

This year the deportations of good people with no criminal record have accelerated: Joseme Charles, here since 2000, leaving two asthmatic U.S.-born children behind; Alexandre Nicolas, here since 1994, despite an approved I-130, U.S.-citizen 

wife, and U.S.-born daughter; Marie Thelusma, here since 2000, deported despite 

U.S.-citizen husband and son and a scheduled adjustment interview to actually become a legal permanent resident.5 This isn’t right or sensible. And it’s the tip of the 

iceberg; most cases we don’t even hear about. ICE took these parents away from 

their spouses and children in about five minutes during unannounced pre-dawn 

raids on their apartments, leaving no time even for goodbyes. 

We need a fair and workable path to legalization but have serious misgivings 

about the Senate proposal, which is many ways is much worse than what the Senate passed last year. The historic principle of family reunification must remain a 

core value of our immigration laws. The proposal’s elimination of four of five familybased categories, and its arbitrary slashing of the number of visas available for parents of U.S. citizens, is radically inconsistent with American history and traditions 

and undermines the hopes of millions. Whatever happened to family values? Skilled 

or unskilled, all human beings are of equal worth and dignity in the sight of God. 

Have we forgotten what it means to be an American? Haitians, like all immigrants, 

work very hard, two and even three jobs, and the child of today’s waitress or taxi 

driver may be tomorrow’s brain surgeon or president of a major corporation. Have 

we forgotten ‘‘rags to riches’’, ‘‘only in America’’, and where Abe Lincoln came from? 

Many provisions are onerous, unreasonable, unnecessary, or unworkable. These 

include the touch-back requirement; the prohibitively high fees and penalties which 

discriminate against the poor and may bar millions for lack of funds from even attempting to legalize, defeating the plan’s purpose and keeping families living in fear 

and hiding; and the 8 to 15 year wait to become a legal permanent resident. The 

touchback provision serves no purpose except to penalize and endanger people, who 

shouldn’t have to pay the added cost nor be forced to go back to unsafe conditions. 

The State Department, for example, has issued an advisory warning Americans that 

it is unsafe to travel to Haiti, given the kidnappings and other turmoil. This is true 

of other lands from which refugees have fled. 

The temporary worker program’s restrictions against regularing one’s status devalues the worker and will result in a new undocumented population. 

Legalization must include persons with final orders of removal. Haitians disproportionately fall into this category, as they usually were paroled into the country 

or came forward soon after arrival in compliance with the law. Especially given a 

well-documented history of discrimination in denying Haitian asylum claims, it 

would be unfair to exclude persons with final orders, and devastating to long-established, hard-working families with U.S.-born children. If there is no criminal record, 

persons with final orders should not have to seek waivers of any kind which, unless 

a pure formality—in which case they are unnecessary—may bar deserving applicants. 

My colleagues will expand on these and other fundamentally flawed provisions in 

the Senate proposal. Permit me to focus on an omission which must be remedied 

if Haitian-American needs are even minimally to be met. This is the Senate proposal’s omission of a HRIFA Improvement provision to fix unintended flaws in the 

Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998, referred to by its acronym, 

HRIFA. 

In contrast to the Senate proposal, HRIFA Improvement is included in the 

STRIVE Act as Section 519; was part of S. 2611, the immigration bill which passed 

the Senate last year; and was previously introduced in the Senate in 2004 and 

thrice in the House since 2003 by Representative Kendrick Meek. 

61

6See e.g., three CBS local South Florida reports by Jennifer Santiago, 2005–2006; editorial, 

‘‘Immigration Issue: A loophole leaves Haitians eligible for safe harbor facing deportation,’’ 

South Florida Sun-Sentinel, October 16, 2005; editorial, ‘‘Haitian immigrants merit fair relief 

Our opinion: Congress should approve law to end mistreatment,’’ Miami Herald, October 10, 

2005; ‘‘Unintended Consequences: After thirteen years in Miami, Omila Foufoune Cesaire faces 

deportation to the Haiti she fled in fear,’’ by Tristram Korten, Miami New Times, September 

15, 2005; ‘‘Dividing Families: Approximately 3,000 Haitians who have been living, working, and 

raising families in the United States for more than 10 years face deportation because of a legislative oversight,’’ by Paige Stein, Boca Raton News, July 19, 2004; editorial, ‘‘A remedy for Haitians Our opinion: Press for approval of Rep. Meek’s bill,’’ Miami Herald, January 13, 2004; 

‘‘Flaw in immigration law threatens deportation for some Haitian refugees,’’ by Ken Thomas, 

Associated Press, San Francisco Chronicle, December 29, 2003, Naples Daily News, December 

30, 2003, and many other papers; ‘‘Haitian Immigrants in U. S. Face a Wrenching Choice,’’ New 

York Times (top of front page), March 29, 2000; lead editorial, ‘‘No room for 5,000 Elians,’’ San 

Francisco Chronicle, April 3, 2000; NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw segment, April 6, 2000; 

ABC Evening News segment, July 4, 2000; ABC’s Nightline with Ted Koppel (program, ‘‘Equal 

Justice?’’), May 25, 2000; ABC’s Nightline with Ted Koppel (segment of Miami townhall meeting), April 7, 2000; editorial, ‘‘A cruel choice for Haitian parents,’’ Tampa Tribune, April 10, 

2000; op-ed, ‘‘Elian’s Case Should Shed New Light on Haitians’ Plight,’’ by Mike Harden, Columbus Dispatch, April 12, 2000; ‘‘Haitian parents facing deportation fearful for U.S.-born children,’’ 

by Jody Benjamin, South Florida Sun-Sentinel (front page, local), April 16, 2000; The Tavis 

Smiley Show, Black Entertainment Television (hour program), April 24, 2000; lead editorial, 

‘‘Haitian Parents of U.S. Kids Deserve to Remain Here Together,’’ Miami Herald, May 4, 2000; 

op-ed, ‘‘Protect 5,000 American Children, Don’t Deport Parents’’, by Steven Forester, Miami Herald, May 5, 2000; editorial, ‘‘The harassment of Haitian refugees,’’ Tampa Tribune, August 16, 

1999; and see previous footnotes. 7 HRIFA’s intent and purpose was to end ‘‘two decades of discrimination against the Haitians,’’ 

144 Cong. Rec. S 13003 (Nov. 12, 1998), and to provide a semblance of equal treatment for Haitians following the previous year’s enactment of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (‘‘NACARA’’). 8 In 1994 President Clinton accurately said, ‘‘They’re chopping people’s faces off, killing and 

mutilating innocent civilians, people not even directly involved in politics.’’ He referred to them 

in his September 1994 television address justifying U.S. intervention. Secretary of State Christopher on July 10, 1994 said Haiti’s military was raping the wives of Aristide supporters, and 

respected human rights groups documented the regime’s use of rape as an instrument of political terror. Assistant Secretary of State John Shattuck wrote:

Beginning last summer, politically motivated killings in Port-au-Prince rose sharply, . . .

Human rights abuses have qualitatively and quantitatively worsened in recent months. 

Soldiers and armed thugs stage almost nightly raids on neighborhoods where many 

Aristide supporters, live, raping the wives and children of political activists and critics 

of the regime, abducting young people, and disfiguring victims’ faces.

Raids have been conducted on clergy, fires set in private homes, and the bodies of men 

shot with their hands tied behind their backs are appearing on the streets of Port-auPrince, part of a new practice designed to terrorize the people.

A delegation from the IACHR [Inter-American Commission on Human Rights] has identified 133 cases of extrajudicial killings between February and May alone, and attributed full responsibility for those and other atrocities to the de facto authorities, i.e. the 

military and their supporters. The US government fully shares this conclusion.

Continued

The need for this specific corrective legislation to protect unquestionably deserving families and children has received extensive national media coverage and editorial support from 1999 to the present. This includes a top-of-the-front-page New 

York Times expose; a Ted Koppel Nightline half-hour; ABC and NBC national news 

segments; repeated editorial and op-ed support, etc.6

HRIFA’s sponsor, former Senator Bob Graham, praising one of the Miami Herald’s many editorials urging such relief, wrote in a letter to the paper’s editor on 

May 13, 2000, ‘‘We shouldn’t punish Haitians who fled tyranny and came here seeking refuge, freedom, and justice. To ensure that they have the opportunity to embrace these protections, Congress passed HRIFA in 1998. . . . We should do everything possible to fulfill our commitment and keep families from being torn apart.’’ 7

Senator Graham introduced a HRIFA Improvement bill in 2004. 

Miami-Dade County’s mayor and commissioners have urged enactment of HRIFA 

Improvement legislation in repeated delegations to Washington since 2003, most recently just three weeks ago. 

Despite the equities and support, those the Senate meant to protect by including 

and passing such a provision in last year’s bill are still being deported. These include children placed in removal proceedings after having aged out of derivative eligibility due to unconscionable, years-long government delays in processing their parents’ eventually-successful HRIFA applications, and otherwise-HRIFA-eligible ‘‘airplane refugees’’ who escaped murderous repression 8 during the 1991–1994 coup 

62

Haiti today presents a picture of brutality and lawlessness—in the unaccountability of 

the regime and its wide scale violations of human rights....

‘‘Human rights abuses in Haiti worsen,’’ op-ed, Miami Herald, July 14, 1994. See also contemporary human rights and media reports, e.g. ‘‘How U.S. error sent Haitian to his death,’’ by 

Susan Benesch, Miami Herald, April 18, 1994. 9See footnote 6 and former Senator Bob Graham’s letter above. 

years in Haiti but who were excluded from HRIFA coverage by a technical flaw in 

the original legislation.9 All were paroled into the United States by INS in 1995 or 

earlier and have always been law-abiding citizens.

The merits of the case were thoroughly reviewed in the July 15, 2003 Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony of Steven David Forester, my organization’s 

Senior Policy Director, and I respectfully ask permission for his testimony to be included in the record at this time. 

These deportations of long-resident deserving refugees devastate their lives and 

those of their spouses and U.S.-born children, and endanger our borders by drying 

up the remittances which sustain their relatives in Haiti. 

As a community spokesperson who is privileged to serve not only as Executive Director of Haitian Women of Miami but as President of the Florida Immigrant Coalition and Vice-Chair of the Haitian-American Grassroots Coalition, we cannot support legislation which does not contain a HRIFA Improvement provision. 

Separately, there are also a small number, at most a few hundred, HIV-positive 

Haitians who were paroled into the United States from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba before 1996 who also need protection. So many of them now lead healthy and productive lives through life-giving treatment available in the United Status, but not in 

Haiti. Unless they are covered, their deportation will amount to a death sentence. 

In sum, permit me to express my thanks for the honor of addressing this august 

subcommittee. We share the prayer that Congress shall enact comprehensive immigration reform legislation which will provide a fair and workable path to legalization 

for all immigrants, without the Senate proposal’s unwise jettisoning of family reunification values in favor of an untested and discriminatory theory and its prohibitively and unnecessarily costly, delayed, and onerous legalization provisions. Those 

aspects of the Senate proposal would embody a radical departure from humane 

American principles and may hurt or exclude millions of immigrants and their families, many of whom live in the Haitian-American community I represent here today. 

Thank you very much.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

I am going to leap to Ms. Murguı ́a, because she does have to 

leave. And then Cecilia Mun ̃ oz will fill in for the questions. 

Ms. Murguı ́a? 

TESTIMONY OF JANET MURGUI ́A, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA 

Ms. MURGUI ́A. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thanks to 

all of you. 

I commend you, the Chair, the full Committee on the Judiciary 

in here, John Conyers, and, of course, Congressman Luis Gutierrez. 

You have all demonstrated incredible leadership and commitment 

and dedication. 

I do appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and note that 

any of our sister organizations in the Latino community could have 

been here speaking for all of us. We work very closely together, and 

are very much in agreement on our views about the need for a debate on comprehensive immigration reform, to result in the best 

possible legislation for our community and the country. 

I have some brief points to emphasize, but request that my full 

statement be included in the record. 

I would like to begin by making it as clear as possible that for 

Hispanic Americans it is critically important that this debate 

produce a result that will serve our nation’s best interests and our 

community’s concerns. 

63

Latinos have a lot of urgency around this debate, as you saw during last year’s marches, as well as during the elections. All over the 

country, as tension builds around this issue, local governments are 

passing ordinances and laws aimed at dealing with immigration. 

These laws have two things in common. They do absolutely nothing to control immigration and they harm many people, including 

those of us who are not immigrants at all. 

In Georgia, local police have set up road blocks for the purpose 

of singling out anyone who looks like an immigrant. In dozens of 

communities across the country, landlords are being asked to do 

the same. 

Madam Chair, I am guessing that you do not carry documents 

in your wallet that would satisfy the Georgia police that you belong 

here. As a native-born American, neither do I. But one of us is 

more likely than the other to be challenged to prove that we belong 

in our own country. 

This is the result of the heated debate on this issue, and explains 

why, for us, immigration policy is a civil rights issue. 

You will find in my testimony a full explanation of the policy proposals that NCLR believes would be best to bring order and fairness to our system. 

I will highlight a few and raise a few concerns about the way the 

debate is moving forward in the Senate. 

First, it is essential that immigration reform provide a path to 

citizenship for 12 million undocumented immigrants living and 

working in the U.S. While there are a number of very loud voices 

raising concerns and mischaracterizing this proposal by calling it 

amnesty, it is by now well established that the majority of the public does support a path to citizenship that immigrants have to earn 

through working hard, paying taxes, learning English, and playing 

by the rules. 

NCLR’s particular concern is that such a program be workable. 

If we implement a legalization program whose requirements are so 

burdensome that immigrants cannot or will not apply, the immigration reform effort will have failed. 

We believe that the Senate is poised to make a good start, 

though we have a significant concern about some of the details, 

which may undercut the workability of the program. 

Our second major concern has to do with the temporary worker 

program, which is being proposed in the Senate. 

The White House has framed the debate by insisting that temporary must mean temporary. 

The program they propose does not provide a meaningful path to 

citizenship for temporary workers. This will result in the creation 

of a permanent second class work force. 

This is an enormous departure from who we are as a nation of 

immigrants. Historically, what America does well is invite newcomers to put down roots and become Americans. By saying that 

this group of workers, and saying to them, we want your labor, but 

we do not want you to stay, we will be creating a program which 

is doomed to fail, because many of these immigrants will stay. 

We should not pass a policy that we know will result in the next 

undocumented population. If we do this, the U.S. will have abanVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:58 Sep 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\052207\35602.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35602
64

doned the successful American model of assimilation with the 

failed model that has created so much unrest in Europe. 

This would be a profound mistake, and I urge you to do it differently when the House takes up this issue. 

Finally, we are deeply concerned that the Senate bill dismantles 

the family-and employment-based preference system in favor of a 

radical change, an untested point system which would open our 

legal immigration system up to anyone in the world who might desire to come here, regardless of their connection to the United 

States. 

We are particularly offended by the argument that the family 

categories being eliminated are for extended families. I do not believe that most Americans believe that their children become extended family when they turn 21, nor do they see their parents or 

their siblings as extended family. 

These categories are being eliminated in the name of our nation’s 

purported economic need. And in spite of the evidence, most immigrants who are performing successfully in our economy came 

through the family preference system. So, we must preserve family 

as a core principle. 

In conclusion, Madam Chairwoman, we are working diligently to 

move the Senate debate in a more positive direction. We hope that 

this Subcommittee will have a transparent and thoughtful process. 

We do believe that the STRIVE Act proposed by Congressman 

Gutierrez and Representative Flake is a right starting point in this 

debate, and we urge you to move it forward expeditiously. 

We understand the Senate compromise is a political one, and we 

recognize the urgency of moving this process forward. The current 

system is broken and must be fixed. But political compromises 

often produce mistakes that we all pay for. We urge you to take 

a different road and produce the best possible legislation to serve 

our country’s needs. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Murguı ́a follows:]

65

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANET MURGUI ́A


JM-2.eps
66


JM-3.eps
67


JM-4.eps
68


JM-5.eps
69


JM-6.eps
70


JM-7.eps
71


JM-8.eps
72


JM-9.eps
73


JM-10.eps
74

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, and we will see Ms. Mun ̃ oz 

pinch hit for you. 

And we will go back to Ms. Iyer. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF DEEPA IYER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

SOUTH ASIAN AMERICAN LEADERS OF TOMORROW 

Ms. IYER. Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to present to you information and views of the impact of immigration reform on the lives of 

current and future South Asian immigrants in the United States. 

And I commend you and your extremely helpful staff for conducting these hearings with stakeholders. 

As an immigrant myself, who moved from India to the state of 

Kentucky at the age of 12 with my family, I am a direct beneficiary 

of the family-based and employment-based system in its good and 

bad aspects. 

I am here representing SAALT, which is a national non-profit organization in the D.C. metropolitan area. Our national advocacy 

work is informed by over 20 South Asian community-based organizations, whom I am honored to represent here. 

First, a little bit about the South Asian community. Over 2.5 million strong, our community is extremely diverse along the lines of 

national origin, religion, immigration, and economic status. 

South Asians trace our ancestries to the regions in the Asian 

subcontinent, which includes Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri 

Lanka, and Nepal. Between 1990 and 2000, South Asians were the 

fastest-growing segment within the entire Asian American community. 

While the common perception is that all South Asians are well 

off, this is obviously not the case. Linguistic barriers and increasing 

rates of poverty are on the rise, and nearly 75 percent of the South 

Asian population is foreign born. 

Historically, South Asians have faced obstacles to migration and 

naturalization due to national origin quotas. Immigration laws 

after 1965 relaxed these restrictions and gave rise to greater opportunities for family-based and employment-based immigration. 

After 1990, even more diverse populations arrived, including specialty occupation workers, working class families, and asylum seekers. 

More recently, South Asians have been impacted by policies that 

criminalize immigrants, especially those that conflate national security with immigration in the wake of September 11th. 

Policies such as arbitrary detention, special registration and others, target individuals based on national origin and religious affiliation, and have especially South Asians of the Muslim faith. 

As a community, we have been and continue to be both positively 

and negatively impacted by immigration laws. I would like to provide some examples, but refer you to my fuller written testimony. 

First, the backlog. The family-based system is the cornerstone of 

South Asian immigration into the U.S. In 2005, over 30,000 South 

Asians were sponsored and admitted as immediate relatives. Yet 

South Asians wait extraordinarily long periods of time due to the 

backlog, in order to be reunited with family members—11 years for 

75

siblings of U.S. citizens, nearly 5 for children of green card holders 

in the U.S. 

This is the case for Sumathi, a young software engineer in Boston, who moved to the U.S. in 1999 and became a legal permanent 

resident. She married her physician husband in India in 2002, and 

applied to bring him over. But it is unlikely that his application 

will be processed for at least 5 years. 

Cases like Sumathi’s are just one of many, which is why we have 

grave concerns with provisions in the Senate bill that would eliminate family preference categories and set arbitrary cutoff dates for 

clearing the backlog that currently exists. 

Turning from family-based to employment-based immigration, in 

this context, both low-skilled and skilled workers of South Asian 

descent face challenges. In fact, many unskilled South Asian workers—janitors, cab drivers and domestic workers, who are part of 

America’s immigrant backbone—struggle with worker exploitation 

and have little chance for employment-based sponsorship opportunities. 

An example of such a predicament is one that we are monitoring 

in the Gulf Coast, where a company brought 300 South Asian nationals on temporary H-2B work visas to work as welders. After paying as much as $20,000 to receive their visas, the workers were promised refunds and paths to permanent residency status. However, once they arrived, all of these options disappeared. 

Without a temporary worker program that includes worker protections and paths to citizenship, safeguards that are missing for 

the most part in the Senate proposal, workers such as the ones in 

the Gulf Coast will continue to have few choices. 

In addition, skilled workers, especially those who are here on 

temporary H-1B visas, face unique sets of challenges, as well. In 

2005, over 100,000 individuals from South Asia entered America on 

H-1B visas. 

H-1B workers have concerns with the caps that are placed on 

these visas. In 2007, the cap was reached in just 1 day, and for 

long delays with green cards. In fact, one in five South Asians on 

employment-based visas is waiting to obtain a green card. 

While these concerns must be considered, we send a note of caution about proposals that would favor employment-based criteria, 

such as jobs and education, to the detriment of poor, working class 

people or those with family ties. 

And third, legalization of undocumented immigrants is also of 

concern to our community. Indians constituted the fourth-largest 

and fastest-growing undocumented population in America in 2005, 

jumping from 120,000 to 280,000, an increase of 133 percent in the 

5 years prior. 

The quest for legal immigration status in the U.S. becomes all 

the more urgent for undocumented students, as well as for South 

Asian survivors of domestic violence who are undocumented or on 

dependent visas. 

Finally, I would like to mention that many South Asians are also 

experiencing unexplained security-related delays with background 

checks in their green card and naturalization applications. And 

again, we are seeing this trend especially affect individuals who are 

Muslim. 

76

It is clear, then, that South Asians have a stake in immigration 

reform. As you continue to discuss the House’s version of an immigration reform bill, we hope that you will keep many of these concerns we have raised, especially with the Senate bill, in mind as 

we work toward fair and humane reform. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Iyer follows:]

77

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEEPA IYER


Iyer-2.eps
78


Iyer-3.eps
79


Iyer-4.eps
80


Iyer-5.eps
81


Iyer-6.eps
82


Iyer-7.eps
83


Iyer-8.eps
84


Iyer-9.eps
85


Iyer-10.eps
86


Iyer-11.eps
87

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

Ms. Narasaki? 

TESTIMONY OF KAREN K. NARASAKI, PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASIAN AMERICAN JUSTICE CENTER (AAJC) 

Ms. NARASAKI. Thank you, Chairwoman. We appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Asian American Justice Center. 

We work to advance the human and civil rights of Asian Americans. 

May, as you know, is Asian American and Pacific Islanders Heritage Month. And this year is the 125th anniversary of the Chinese 

Exclusion Act, which prohibited the immigration of Chinese laborers to the United States and led to a long string of legislation discriminating against immigrants from Asia until the passage of the 

1965 Immigration Act, along with other civil rights acts. 

We hope that this year will be the year that America enacts comprehensive immigration reform that is workable, effective, fair, and 

humane. 

According to the Census Bureau, there are almost 14 million 

Asian Americans living in the United States. Over 60 percent are 

immigrants, half who have already becomes citizens. Some have 

come as refugees or asylum seekers, others through the H-1B and 

other employment programs. Some are undocumented, but a majority have come through the family visa system. 

Immigrants coming to join Asian American families face some of 

the worst immigration backlogs, as you heard. 

A U.S. citizen petitioning for an unmarried adult son or daughter 

from China must wait approximately 6 years. A U.S. citizen petitioning for a brother or sister from the Philippines, the wait is 22 

years. 

In the employment-based system, highly educated and skilled immigrants from China, India and the Philippines wait 4 to 6 years 

before they can become legal permanent residents. 

The backlog of the family visas and the insufficient number of 

employment-based visas, both for high-and low-skilled workers, are 

two of the major reasons for undocumented immigration. The Department of Homeland Security estimates that 1 in 10 Asian Americans have no access to legal immigration status. 

For these reasons, we have long been an advocate for comprehensive reform. We believe the system should include tough but fair 

enforcement measures, a workable system of earned legalization 

and a realistic number and system of permanent visas that reflect 

reality in terms of the needs of our economy and of our families. 

We are looking for sufficient visas to facilitate timely and full reunification of families, particularly parents, adult children and siblings. And we believe that spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents should be moved up into the immediate preference category, to deal with the long separations that they currently face. 

We believe that you need to expedite the entire family immigration backlog before undocumented immigrants begin receiving their 

legal permanent residency status. It is only fair that they get in 

the back of the line of people who have decided to play by the rules. 

88

We believe that there needs to be a legal status and a path to 

permanent residence for undocumented immigrants and their families. And we are looking to create legal ways for people who want 

to contribute to our economy and come to work in the U.S. fully 

protected by our laws with a path to citizenship. 

Finally, we are seeking to restore due process to the immigration 

system that allows for meaningful judicial review of individual 

cases, as well as challenges to immigration policies. 

The White House has argued that family categories should be cut 

in favor of a point system that gives very little weight to the value 

and reality of family ties. 

Mr. Ting, I know, will speak in favor of this, but we believe you 

can meet both the economic needs in having a point system without 

destroying families. You can keep the family system while still creating something that works to help foster more employment-based 

visas. 

We think that, if you ignore the reality of strong family ties, it 

will mean a failure to address one of the big reasons for illegal immigration, and that is the enormous pull of family. 

There is a false choice based on the belief that we need to severely restrict immigration levels. It ignores the fact that the retiring baby boomer generation and the expanding economy means 

that we can increase immigration, not cut it. 

Indeed, some argue that family-based immigration system causes 

chain migration. It sounds ominous, but the reality is to the contrary. 

The requirement of affidavits of support already works to limit 

broad sponsorship. This requirement also results in a powerful incentive for sponsors to help ensure that the family members they 

bring in will contribute to the family’s overall economic wellbeing. 

Moreover, as you know, siblings, as well as parents and their 

adult children, provide an important safety net for each other. 

Finally, we believe that separation of families impedes the actual 

process of integration, which is so important to our national interest. It forces many immigrant workers to send money overseas 

rather than being able to invest it all in the local communities to 

buy homes and build businesses, and it means that they have to 

delay fully putting down roots into their new communities. 

We strongly believe that Congress can find workable, fair and 

humane solutions. We believe that the STRIVE Act is a good 

framework for comprehensive reform, and we look forward to working with you in the days ahead. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Narasaki follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAREN K. NARASAKI

Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit the following testimony on behalf of the 

Asian American Justice Center (formerly the National Asian Pacific American Legal 

Consortium). The Asian American Justice Center (AAJC) works to advance the 

human and civil rights of Asian Americans through advocacy, public policy, public 

education, and litigation. AAJC is one of the nation’s leading experts on issues of 

importance to the Asian American community including: affirmative action, antiAsian violence prevention/race relations, census, immigrant rights, immigration, 

language access, and voting rights. AAJC is affiliated with the Asian American Institute of Chicago, Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California in 

Los Angeles and the Asian Law Caucus in San Francisco. 

89

1http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?llang=en 2http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletinl1360.html 3http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ILLlPEl2005.pdf 

Because over 60 percent of the Asian American community is foreign born, immigration and immigrant rights are a priority for AAJC. The goal of AAJC’s immigration and immigrant rights program is to pursue fair, humane and nondiscriminatory 

immigration policies. We educate the general public and the Asian American community through use of ethnic and mainstream media, conferences and briefings; inform policy makers as to the impact of various restrictive and discriminatory proposals; provide the community with information on a wide range of immigration 

issues; monitor implementation of immigration laws by the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies; advocate for tough enforcement of anti-discrimination laws; and develop and disseminate education materials about various aspects 

of immigration laws of most relevance to the Asian American community. Furthermore, AAJC seeks to ensure Asian American communities have a strong voice in 

the national debate over how to reform our broken immigration system. 

INTRODUCTION

Family reunification is a fundamental cornerstone of our nation’s legal immigration system. The current push to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill 

must not abandon this foundation, but rather improve the ability of American families to contribute to our American economy. The ability to reunite with family members is important to attracting and retaining the most talented and hardest working 

immigrants the world has to offer. 

According to the 2005 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census Bureau, 

61 percent (over 8.5 million) of all Asians living in the U.S. are immigrants.1 Of the 

foreign-born Asian Americans, about 53 percent (over 4.5 million) immigrated to the 

U.S. within the last 15 years. The break-down of native-born and foreign-born U.S. 

citizens and non-citizens in the Asian American community are as follows: 

• 38.5 percent are native-born U.S. citizens.

• 34.2 percent are foreign-born but naturalized U.S. citizens.

• 27.3 percent are foreign-born and not U.S. citizens.

Although many foreign-born Asian Americans arrive in the United States through 

the employment-based immigration system or as refugees and asylees, the majority 

of Asians immigrating to the U.S. do so through the family-based immigration system. In 2005, 56 percent of immigrants from Asia came to the U.S. through family 

immigration. However, Asian countries suffer from some of the worst immigration 

backlogs in the world.2 In the family immigration system, a U.S. citizen parent petitioning for an unmarried adult son or daughter from China must wait approximately 6 years before s/he can immigrate to the U.S. A U.S. citizen petitioning for 

a brother or sister from India must wait approximately 11 years before s/he can immigrate to the U.S. If the brother or sister is from the Philippines, the wait is approximately 23 years. 

In the employment-based immigration system, highly educated and skilled immigrants from China, India, and the Philippines currently face possible waits of 4 to 

6 years before they can become lawful permanent residents. Finally, unless you 

have a qualifying U.S. citizen or permanent resident family member who can petition for you, or have highly specialized skills and/or post-secondary education, it is 

virtually impossible to legally immigrate to the U.S. As a result, the population of 

undocumented immigrants from Asia continues to rise. 

The Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics estimates 

1.3 million of the 10.5 million total undocumented immigrants in the United States 

in 2005 originated from Asia.3 To put this number in context, there were 13.9 million Asian Americans living in the U.S. in 2005. This would mean that approximately 1 in 10 Asian Americans do not have access to legal immigration status. 

In order to solve these problems, Asian Americans need comprehensive immigration reform that will:

• Allow the entire family immigration backlog to come through before undocumented immigrants gain legal status;

• Facilitate timely and full reunification of families, including parents, adult 

children and siblings;

• Provide legal status and a path to permanent residence for undocumented immigrants who work hard, pay taxes, undergo criminal and national security 

checks, and learn English and civics;

90

• Create legal ways for people who want to contribute to our economy to come 

work in the U.S.; and

• Assist more immigrants to learn English and prepare for citizenship.

THE HISTORY OF ASIAN IMMIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Historical Exclusion 

Exactly 125 years after the United States separated countless families and halted 

innumerable dreams with racially biased immigration policy, law makers are again 

considering anti-family measures as the means to reform a broken immigration system. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which prohibited the immigration of Chinese laborers, epitomizes the early record on immigration from Asia. In 1907, antiAsian sentiment culminated in the Gentleman’s Agreement limiting Japanese immigration. Asian immigration was further restricted by the Immigration Act of 1917 

which banned immigration from almost all countries in the Asia-pacific region; the 

Quota Law of 1921 which limited the annual immigration of a given nationality to 

three percent of the number of such persons residing in the United States as of 

1910; and the National Origins Act of 1924, which banned immigration of persons 

who were ineligible for citizenship. A decade later, the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934 

placed a quota of 50 Filipino immigrants per year. 

It has been a generation since the Chinese Exclusion Act and its progeny were 

repealed in 1943. Yet after the repeal, discriminatory quotas were nevertheless set 

using formulas giving special preference to immigration from Europe. Until 1965, 

for example, the German annual quota was almost 26,000 and the Irish almost 

18,000 while the annual quota from China was 105, for Japan was 185, the Philippines was 100 and the Pacific Islands was 100. 

The intensity of the discrimination against immigrants from Asia is reflected in 

the fact that they were ineligible to become naturalized citizens for over 160 years. 

A 1790 law allowed only ‘‘free white persons’’ to become citizens. Even after the law 

was changed to include African Americans, similar legislation to include Asian 

Americans was rejected. The Supreme Court upheld the laws making Asian immigrants ineligible for citizenship. The last of these laws were not repealed until 1952. 

Previous Reforms 

Congress sought to eliminate most of the racial barriers imbedded in the immigration system with the passage of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965. 

Unfortunately the Act did not address the effect of earlier biases. In fact, the 20,000 

per country limit, imposed without any connection to size of originating country or 

demand, resulted in extremely long waiting lists for Asian immigrants. 

The Immigration Act of 1990 also failed to address the tremendous backlogs that 

already existed for countries like Mexico, India, the Philippines, South Korea, and 

China. Instead, the problem was exacerbated with the reduction in number of visas 

available for adult sons and daughters of United States citizens. At the time the 

backlog consisted primarily of children of Filipino veterans who were allowed to naturalize under the Act because of their service to this country in fighting as a part 

of the United States Armed Forces in World War II. Despite this fact, the quota was 

cut in half and other family categories were reduced, causing the backlog to increase 

by close to 70 percent. 

As a result, although Asians have constituted over 30 percent of the country’s immigration for the past two decades, the community still makes up only about 4 percent of the United States population. Most recent numbers indicate that well over 

1.5 million Asian immigrants are still waiting in backlogs for entry visas to reunite 

with their families. Almost half of immigrants waiting to join their loved ones in 

the United States are from Asian countries. Thus any additional restrictions or reduction in the overall numbers, particularly in the family preference categories, will 

have an inordinate impact on Asian American families. 

FAMILY REUNIFICATION AS THE FOUNDATION OF OUR IMMIGRATION SYSTEM

In keeping with American notions of the importance of the family, immigration 

through a family member who is a US citizen or permanent resident is the most 

common way of gaining US residency. Qualifying relationships are grouped into two 

main categories—immediate relatives and other close family members. Currently, 

spouses, unmarried minor children, and parents are considered immediate relatives. 

Other close family members of citizens and permanent residents are also allowed 

to immigrate. These include unmarried adult children of citizens, spouses and unmarried children of permanent residents, married adult children of citizens, and siblings of citizens. Currently, the annual ceiling for family-based immigration is 

91

480,000 individuals per year. This number is divided into immediate relatives of 

U.S. citizens as well as the four different family preferences listed above. There is 

also a cap on how many people are allowed into the United States from any one 

country. A combination of these visa ceilings as well as the per-country cap often 

contributes to long waits for the average immigrant family. 

Benefits of Family-Based Immigration 

Family reunification has rightly been the cornerstone of United States immigration policy. Families are the backbone of our country and their unity promotes the 

stability, health, and productivity of family members contributing to the economic 

and social welfare of the United States. 

Employment-based immigrants are not the only ones who are vital to the economy. Family-based immigrants tend to come in the prime of their working lives. In 

addition, families pool their resources to start and run businesses, purchase homes 

and send children to college. Many immigrant businesses are indeed run by families. 

Family members help to take care of young children so that other family members 

can work. Brothers and sisters support each other’s dreams, help each other find 

jobs and provide support and care for each other’s families. We cannot attract and 

retain the best and the brightest if those coming to share their hard work and talents face long term or permanent separation from close family members. Long term 

separation of families generates stress and is distracting to those in our work force. 

It forces many immigrant workers who are separated from their families to send 

money overseas rather than being able to invest all of it in their local communities. 

America has always recognized that family members play an important role in 

helping immigrants build communities. Siblings as well as parents and their adult 

children often share the same home in immigrant families. Even when they don’t, 

they help teach the newcomers what they need to understand about American values and about the job market. They provide an important safety net, not just for 

the immigrants but also for the U.S. citizen relatives. They take care of one another 

in times of economic, physical or emotional hardships, thus lessening the need for 

reliance on government services or private charities. In addition, having loved ones 

together in the U.S. increases the ability of immigrants to focus on putting down 

permanent roots in their new country. 

Family immigration reflects the strong family values that are at the foundation 

of our nation while also contributing to America’s social and economic well being. 

Any proposal that would eliminate family categories, prohibit immigrants legalizing 

their status from reuniting with their families, or force immigrant workers to maintain lengthy separations from their family violates those values. In addition, the entire backlog of immigrants, who have waited in line for as many as 22 years to join 

their families, must get their visas before immigrants seeking to gain legal status. 

Proposed Reforms 

Although the House of Representatives passed the anti-immigrant H.R. 4437 in 

2005 and the Senate passed a more comprehensive but deeply flawed S. 2611 the 

following year, neither bill became law. On March 22, 2007, Congressmen Luis 

Gutierrez (D-IL) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) introduced the STRIVE (Security Through 

Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy) Act. This comprehensive immigration reform bill contains workable solutions in provisions that would eliminate 

the backlog for family-based immigrants in approximately six years. 

Unlike the STRIVE Act, a proposal created by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and supported by the Bush Administration includes plans that would severely impair the 

ability of U.S. citizens to bring their parents with an arbitrary and unrealistic cap 

on the number of available visas. The proposal would also eliminate all visas for 

siblings and adult children of U.S. citizens. In addition, this proposal arbitrarily 

cuts off the ability of immigrants already waiting in line. 

The details of this plan continue to change, but they carry on a long tradition of 

attacks on family-based immigration that began soon after Asian and Latino immigrants became the major users of the kinship system in the 1980s. 

The concept of a so-called ‘‘merit-based’’ point system for permanent residency has 

also emerged. Proponents of the proposal look to Canada’s point system and argue 

that a similar model will serve America’s economy more effectively than the existing 

family-based immigration system. The experience in Canada has shown that a point 

system results in a mismatch of skills to fit the needs of the economy. 

In fact, Canadian businesses struggle with their point system, because they cannot keep jobs unfilled while visas are being processed. The system works best for 

individuals who are already working legally in Canada on a temporary visa. Highskilled immigrants who are admitted because of their education and work experiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:58 Sep 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\052207\35602.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35602
92

4http://numbersusa.com/PDFs/ChainMigrationchart.pdf 

5http://www12.georgetown.edu/sfs/isim/Event%20Summaries&Speeches/Lowell,%20ProjectionsWorkshop.pdf 

ence have no guarantee of finding a high-skilled job in their field. Low skilled workers do not qualify for visas under the system and foreign credentials are often not 

accepted. This forces many high-skilled and experienced immigrants to take lowskilled jobs in entirely new fields. 

For some Asian immigrants, especially family members of H1-B visa-holders, the 

point system may be beneficial. However, those generally left out of the system will 

include those with poor language skills, those without high school diplomas, older 

persons, those with no work experience in high-skilled jobs, and those with work 

experience in low-skilled or semi-skilled industries. U.S. citizens with family members in countries that do not have strong educational systems, traditions of Englishlanguage education, and recognized certification systems will be unable to reunite 

their entire families. 

False Arguments and False Choices 

Many arguments have been made for changing the current family-based immigration system. Some argue that the waiting periods for visas are too long and encourage undocumented immigration. While the backlogs are truly a problem, the real 

solution is to raise the number of available visas to meet the demand of law-abiding 

immigrants and their families waiting in the United States. Eliminating the family 

immigration categories will only create greater strain on families and leave people 

with no legal means to come to this country. 

Others argue that the family-based immigration system causes ‘‘chain-migration.’’ 

Some anti-immigrant groups even claim that one single immigrant will ultimately 

bring 373 additional immigrants.4 That study was replete with faulty assumptions 

and questionable math. The reality is to the contrary. Researchers have found that, 

on average, an immigrant will bring in 1.2 additional immigrants.5

One of the limitations on the ability of immigrants to bring in family, in addition 

to the strict quota assigned each category, is that our laws require the sponsor of 

a family member to sign an affidavit of support to guarantee they will take care 

of the family member being brought in. Sponsors must also prove they have enough 

income to cover that pledge. This provides a limit on sponsorship and a strong incentive for the sponsors to help ensure the family member they are bring in will 

integrate and be self sufficient. 

Opponents of immigration often claim, mistakenly, that each immigrant can bring 

in extended family members, such as cousin, uncles, and aunts. Under our immigration system today, visas in very controlled numbers are available only for a spouse, 

minor children, parents, adult children, and brothers and sisters. There are no visas 

for aunts, uncles, and cousins. 

Some argue that the family immigration system does not benefit the economy, 

thus should be changed. Proposals which dismantle the family immigration system 

in the name of the U.S. economy do not address the actual needs of American businesses. Americans and foreign workers are demanding more high-skilled and lowskilled visas, but some policy makers choose to distort the issue and offer a point 

system that will leave high-skilled immigrants without jobs in the United States 

and low-skilled workers without opportunities to contribute to our economy. 

Not only are family-based immigrants helpful to the economy, there is no need 

to cut family immigration in order to expand employment immigration. In the late 

1990s, there was very high immigration to the U.S., including more than two million family-based immigrants. The economy easily absorbed all of the employment—

and family-based immigrants—and a record number of undocumented immigrants. 

During the same period, unemployment in the U.S. was at a near-record low. 

The U.S. economy will increasingly need new workers to maintain and grow our 

economy as the baby boomers begin to retire. Immigration—both family—and employment-based—will help to provide much needed labor. While we do need to reform the employment-based immigration system to better fill the needs of our 

changing demographics and economy, such reform need not and should not come at 

the expense of family immigration. Indeed, employment-based and family-based immigration are intertwined. Family-based immigration helps to support and supplement employment-based immigration. 

One additional false argument being used against the current family-based immigration system is that the legalization of 10 to 15 million undocumented immigrants 

demands countermeasures to stave off a massive flood of relatives entering the 

United States. As discussed above, the current family-based immigration system already has effective safeguards against such mass migration. In addition, it is in 

93

6Placing Immigrants at Risk: The Impact of Our Laws and Policies on American Families,

Catholic Legal Immigration Network, 2000. 7http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070313-9.html 

America’s interest to make sure that all new legal immigrants have the familial 

support necessary to assimilate into this nation. 

Studies have shown that the long backlogs in the family-based immigration system contribute to the rise in undocumented immigration.6 Allowing the entire backlog to come through in a timely fashion would help solve this situation. Not addressing the backlogs or arbitrarily invalidating the applications of those who have 

played by the rules and waited in line would only exasperate the situation. In addition, eliminating family preference categories or reducing the numbers of available 

visas will force many immigrants to choose between family unity and following the 

law. 

Finally, the days of America as the only land of opportunity are long gone. Immigrants have many choices when it comes to setting down roots and contributing to 

a new nation. Family values do not stop at the Rio Grande, as President George 

Bush repeatedly states, and they help guide individuals around the world in their 

decisions to immigrate to another country.7 America has no other choice, but to keep 

family reunification the cornerstone of its immigration policies. 

CONCLUSION

Family-based immigration benefits the U.S. economy, U.S. citizens, and U.S. communities. We need to make the family immigration system even better to continue 

the American tradition of allowing family reunification to foster the entrepreneurial 

spirit, build stronger communities, and attract the best and brightest the world has 

to offer. 

AAJC cannot support any policy that does not address the entire family immigration backlog in a fair and workable manner or any law that significantly cuts the 

current family immigration categories and family-based visa allocations. Furthermore, legislation that prohibits immigrants legalizing their status from reuniting 

with their families or force immigrant workers to maintain lengthy separations from 

their family is unacceptable. The family members who are waiting in line now and 

those who will want to be reunited with family in the United States in the future 

must not be placed on the negotiating table.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you so much, Ms. Narasaki. 

Mr. O’Dowd? 

TESTIMONY OF NIALL O’DOWD, CHAIRMAN,

IRISH LOBBY FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM 

Mr. O’DOWD. Thank you very much. 

Good afternoon, Madam Chairman. My name is Niall O’Dowd. I 

am the founder of the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform. I am 

founder of Irish America magazine and the Irish Voice newspaper, 

the two largest Irish-American publications. 

On a personal note, I came here from Ireland to San Francisco 

in 1979. I was undocumented for several years before becoming 

legal. Since then, I have built a small business of 21 employees and 

live my version of the American Dream. I will always be grateful 

to this country for that. 

The Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform has over 35,000 members nationwide. It is now the largest Irish group in America. It 

was founded in December of 2005 to address the issues of 50,000 

Irish undocumented in the United States and the future of access 

of Irish citizens to America. 

Since the 1965 immigration act, Ireland, in common with many 

other old seed countries, has essentially been frozen out of immigration to the United States. In 2005, for instance, only 2,000 out 

of 1.1 million green cards went to Irish applicants. 

94

As we have pointed out on the current legislation, the forebears 

of President Ronald Reagan or John F. Kennedy could not come to 

America legally from Ireland now. 

The impact since 1965 has been that many Irish came to the 

United States as tourists and have stayed on, becoming undocumented. 

The lack of access to America now threatens the very existence 

of the Irish-born community in the United States. As both the Los 

Angeles Times and New York Times have reported in the past year, 

our neighborhoods are crumbling, our community organizations are 

aging and losing members and our sporting organizations are in 

dire trouble because of lack of members. 

Without legalizing the Irish here and allowing a future flow of 

Irish immigration to America, I believe we are seeing the inevitable 

passing of one of the great emigrant streams in American history. 

There will always be Irish who want to immigrate legally to 

America, to build on the extraordinary connections of blood, community and family that have been part and parcel of America’s 

past, present and, we hope, future. 

As President Bush has stated, ‘‘Throughout our history, America 

has been greatly blessed by the innumerable contributions of the 

Irish.’’ Unfortunately, the contribution of the Irish-born may be 

about to end. 

The Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform has the support of every 

major Irish organization in the United States and, we believe, a 

large percentage of the 40 million Americans of Irish descent. Our 

national rally days in Washington have attracted over 5,000 supporters from all over the U.S., and this issue has the highest priority in our community. 

We are working closely with other immigrant rights groups on 

this issue through our membership in CIRNOW and other groups, 

who are seeking to influence public policy on this issue. 

We are very grateful to the legislators of both parties in both the 

House and Senate who have taken on very courageously this issue 

of immigration reform. We understand the complexity and the emotional atmosphere of the issue, and we have been deeply encouraged by the willingness of so many legislators to make a determined effort to resolve it. 

With regards to current legislation before the House and Senate, 

we have some specific statements to make. 

We strongly approve of the provisions that legalize the undocumented in the Senate bill, which we believe is a reasoned and humane approach bringing these people into the American mainstream. 

We particularly note the eligibility cut-off date of January of this 

year and the path to a green card and citizenship, which the bill 

allows. We believe the House bill should reflect these provisions. 

We also approve of the merit system for future flows of immigrants, which we believe would be advantageous to us and would 

go some way to address the inequities that intending Irish immigrants currently face. 

We would like to see a merit system introduced as soon as possible, side by side with the family preference system, to give our 

95

community reasonable access to new immigrants. We hope that the 

House bill will also include this provision. 

As regards the family preferences, we believe the current, 

present system is largely unworkable, because of the lengthy processing times, i.e., 14 years for siblings of U.S. citizens. 

On temporary workers, we believe that the notion they should return home for a year between 2-year working assignations is completely unworkable and will create a new class of undocumented 

residents of the U.S., which is exactly the problem the House and 

Senate are trying to fix. We hope the House legislation will deal 

with this issue in a more humane manner. 

Overall, we believe there are very many positive aspects of both 

STRIVE and the Senate bill. As a community, we approve of the 

legalization steps and the merit visa system, but we believe much 

work needs to be done on other outstanding issues. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Dowd follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NIALL O’DOWD

Good afternoon. My name is Niall O’Dowd. I am founder of the Irish Lobby for 

Immigration Reform and founder of Irish America Magazine and Irish Voice Newspaper the two largest Irish American publications. 

The Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform has over 35,000 members nationwide. It 

is now the largest Irish grouping in America. 

It was founded in December 2005 to address the issues of 50,000 Irish undocumented in the United States and the future access of Irish citizens to America. 

Since the 1965 immigration act, Ireland in common with many other old seed 

countries has essentially been frozen out of immigration to the United States. In 

2005, for instance, only 2,000 out of 1.1 million green cards went to Irish applicants. 

As we have pointed out under current legislation, the forbears of President Ronald 

Reagan or John F. Kennedy could not come to America legally. 

The impact since 1965 has been that many Irish come to the United States as 

tourists and stay on, becoming undocumented. 

The lack of access to America now threatens the very existence of the Irish-born 

communities in the United States. As both the Los Angeles Times and New York 

Times has reported in the past year, our neighborhoods are crumbling, our community organizations are aging and losing members, and our sporting organizations are 

in dire trouble because of lack of members. 

Without legalizing the Irish here and allowing a future flow of Irish emigration 

to America I believe we are seeing the inevitable passing of one of the great emigrant streams in American history. 

There will always be Irish who want to emigrate legally to America, to build on 

the extraordinary connections of blood, community and family that have been part 

and parcel of America’s past, present and we hope future. 

As President Bush has stated ‘‘Throughout our history America has been greatly 

blessed by the innumerable contributions of the Irish.’’

Unfortunately the contribution of Irish-born may be about to end. 

The Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform has the support of every major Irish organization in the United States and we believe a large percentage of the 40 million 

Americans of Irish descent. Our national rally days in Washington D.C have always 

attracted over 5,000 supporters from all over the U.S. This issue has the highest 

priority in our community. 

We are working closely with other immigrant rights groups on this issue through 

our membership of CIRNOW and other groups, which are seeking to influence public policy on this issue We are very grateful to the legislators of both parties in both 

the House and Senate who have taken on this issue of immigration reform. We understand the complexity and the emotional atmosphere of the issue and we have 

been deeply encouraged by the willingness of so many legislators to make a determined effort to resolve it. 

With regards to the current legislation before the House and Senate we have very 

specific statements to make. 

96

We strongly approve of the provisions that legalize the undocumented in the Senate bill which we believe is a reasoned and humane approach to bringing these people into the American mainstream. 

We particularly note the eligibility cut off date of January of this year and the 

path to a green card and citizenship, which the bill allows. We believe the House 

bill should reflect these provisions We also approve of the merit system for future 

flows of emigrants which we believe would be advantageous to us and would go 

some way to address the inequity that intending Irish emigrants currently face. We 

would like to see a merit visa system introduced as soon as possible to give our community reasonable access to new immigrants. We hope that the House bill would 

also include this provision As regards the family preferences we believe the present 

system is largely unworkable because of the lengthy processing times—i.e., 14 years 

for siblings of US citizens. 

On temporary workers we believe that the notion that they should return home 

for a year between two year working assignations is completely unworkable and 

would create a new class of undocumented residents of the US, which is exactly the 

problem the House, and Senate are trying to fix. We hope the House legislation will 

deal with this issue in a more humane manner Overall we believe there are many 

very positive aspects of both Strive and the Senate bill. As a community we approve 

of the legalization steps and the merit visa system. We believe much work needs 

to be done on the other outstanding issues.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. O’Dowd. 

Now, Mr. Saleh? 

TESTIMONY OF NOEL J. SALEH, PRESIDENT, ARAB COMMUNITY CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SERVICES (ACCESS) BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

Mr. SALEH. Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, I 

want to thank you for the opportunity to be present here and actually for convening this hearing, because there cannot be any issue 

that is more significant or important right now on the American 

scene than the issue of comprehensive immigration reform. 

As a personal aside, I want to thank Chairman Conyers for exercising his privilege of introducing me. It was an honor to have you 

introduce me, and I thank you for that. 

But I am here as the President of ACCESS, the Arab Community 

Center for Economic and Social Services. I am not here as Noel 

Saleh. ACCESS is a 37-year-old human and social service agency 

located in the Congressman’s district in Detroit, in Dearborn, 

Michigan. 

And we have been around for—we are the largest and the longest-standing Arab-American human and social service organization 

nationwide. 

With that standing comes a duty, and that is something that we 

soon recognized, or recently recognized. And that means that we 

have to become much more proactive and involved in strengthening 

our community, the Arab-American community, and making certain that that community is integrated in the American process. 

One of the items that is very important to us is the issue of advocacy, and the core issue that we are advocating on is comprehensive immigration reform. 

Now, we have heard substantial testimony about the need for 

comprehensive immigration reform and that the core issue being 

the 12 million undocumented individuals present in the United 

States. That is truly a human crisis that needs to be addressed, but 

it is the manifestation of how broken our immigration system is. 

It is not the breaking of the system; it is the manifestation of 

how broken the system is. 

97

It is a system that fails to reflect the needs of the economic society that we are now living in, the change to this new economic 

world order, implementation of treaties such as NAFTA, which 

have devastated the economies in many of our NAFTA trading 

countries in Central and South America, and left these persons in 

need of jobs and left American workers, or American employers, 

asking them to come up. 

And these 10 million to 12 million who came up to take advantage of that did that with a wink and a nod of our system. They 

have earned a path to legalization. This is not a gift. This is a 

right. They have contributed substantially to our economy and to 

our society. And for that reason, this is a core issue that must be 

addressed. 

It also reflects the failure of the current family-based immigration system. The family-based immigration system is the core of 

our American immigration identity. 

But the system we have now does not address the realistic needs 

of visa availability for family members in order to arrive and meaningfully reunite with their families in the United States. 

Immigrants are what have made this country what it is. Immigrants defined who we are as a nation, and we have been a beacon 

throughout the world, because of how we have fairly treated our 

immigrant population. And to change that now is a dangerous, very 

dangerous trend. 

The immigrant population, documented and legal, are continuing 

to make, as they always have, substantial contributions to our society. And as Congressman Conyers knows, in his district in southwest Detroit, there is a vibrant Mexican-American, Hispanic American community that is growing and developing. It is the sole increased population in the city of Detroit. And the economic growth 

that is taking place in that community is being done without the 

benefit of government programs and intervention. 

We have had a similar experience in the east side of Dearborn, 

where the Arab-American community took a rundown strip and has 

made it economically viable. 

So that this is the contributions that immigrants are making to 

America, and they must continue to need this. And that is why 

families are a critical portion. 

There is one thing—and I want to say it in 15 seconds instead 

of 10—and that is, comprehensive immigration reform must pay attention to our core constitutional values, and that includes due 

process for immigrants here in the United States and a meaningful 

opportunity for those persons who will be applying for a path to legalization to be eligible for it. 

Technical violations of malicious programs such as NSEERS, the 

National Security Entry and Exit Registration System—right now, 

there is no waiver for a technical violation. So, if you failed to do 

your NSEERS registration, you would not be eligible for legalization. 

Comprehensive immigration reform must include the thousands 

of individuals who are here in deportation/removal proceedings, because it would be not meaningful if they were not included. And 

that should also include persons who are here under final orders 

of deportation, but who have no substantial criminal background. 

98

Waivers must be available. We must open up our immigration 

service and laws back to the humane principles that made them 

great in the past. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Saleh follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NOEL J. SALEH

Madam Chair, Members of the Sub-Committee, thank you for convening this important hearing and for inviting me to be with you today. 

As a nation born of immigrants, no topic is more important for your consideration. 

Comprehensive immigration reform is vital for this nation. An effectively reformed immigration system will serve national interests by supporting economic 

growth, social mobility, strong families, labor rights, civil rights, political rights, and 

law and order. 

Clearly, the issue of up to 12 million undocumented persons present in the United 

States has been the focus of much public debate and attention. Equally clear is the 

need to address this issue. In human terms this population is the clearest manifestation of a broken system. It is reflective of the systems failure to respond to the 

labor and economic demands of our nation. Similarly, it manifests the weakness of 

the current system of backlogs in family-based immigration. Any comprehensive immigration package which fails to address this issue in a fair and equitable manner; 

which must include a path to legalization, would be a failure. 

I am confident that other agencies and organizations presenting before this Committee will address this issue in greater depth and detail. I merely want to affirm 

our belief that this issue must be a core component in any legislation. The issue 

of comprehensive immigration reform, however, does not end with a ‘‘path to legalization’’ combined with enhanced border security and employer sanctions. There remains other issues that must be included if we are to truly ‘‘fix’’ a broken system. 

Immigration reform is particularly crucial to the Arab-American community for 

a multitude of reasons. Above all, our community is depending on immigration reform to respect family unification and restore due process rights to our immigration 

system. 

As Americans, we pride ourselves on family values. Our immigration system is 

no different. The United States has a long and rich history of putting families first 

in our immigration system. A comprehensive solution to our broken immigration 

system must maintain this longstanding tradition by continuing to place families 

first and keep families together. 

Arab Americans, like all other Americans, have strong family ties and values. Our 

community, like many others, depends on the strength and unification of the family. 

For over 100 years, our families have been coming to the United States, integrating 

into our new society and with other immigrant populations serving as the building 

blocks for vibrant and stable communities. This pattern continues with our most recent immigrant population. 

Families have also been the backbone and core social unit of our Arab-American 

society. Immigrant families help each other learn English, purchase homes, pursue 

job opportunities, start their own businesses, and contribute to their communities. 

Currently, more than one million minor children and spouses of Legal Permanent 

Residents are currently awaiting reunions with their parent or spouse. The U.S. 

prides itself on welcoming newcomers and protecting families, but immigration policies are keeping these families apart. We must fix our immigration system, by providing families an easier path to unification, rather than ripping families apart. 

Comprehensive immigration reform also means protecting immigrants’ due process rights. This includes restoring judicial review and discretion, upholding the Supreme Court ruling against the indefinite detention of immigrants, and ending unfair, extreme punishments for minor offenses. 

Increasingly strict laws enacted since 1996 are tying the hands of immigration 

judges. Today, if an immigrant faces deportation, a judge has little or no authority 

to review the case himself and decide if deportation is truly warranted. Judges are 

powerless. As a result, many individuals with highly compelling situations, such as 

lawful permanent residents, and individuals who have U.S. citizens as family members; are denied the opportunity to remain in this country. 

Take the story of Mona and Ali (names have been changed to protect identity), 

a couple from Jordan. Mona and Ali came with their son to the U.S. over 17 years 

ago on a tourist visa. Once they were here, Mona’s brother petitioned for Mona and 

her family to become legal permanent residents. 

99

Mona and Ali remained in the U.S. They had three more children. All four of their 

children went to public schools and maintained ‘‘A’’ averages. Mona and Ali were 

very hard workers and very involved in their children’s school activities. They were 

upstanding and productive members of their community. They loved America and 

were working hard to live the American dream. 

After the events of September 11, Ali complied with the NSEERS Call-In registration. Through this registration, however, he was detained on the minor accusation 

of lying on a car title form. He was held in an immigration detention center in New 

Jersey for two years before finally being deported back to Jordan. No judge was able 

to review his situation and rule whether or not this minor crime should have been 

punishable by deportation. 

Mona and Ali’s family have been ripped apart. Mona and her children are still 

living here, as the original petition from her brother was completed, and she is now 

a permanent resident. Their life, however, is not easy without Ali, who was the family bread winner. Before her husband’s deportation, Mona was able to stay home 

to raise their children, take care of household duties and attend her children’s 

school activities. Now, she is forced to find odd jobs and ask her family for financial 

help just to support her children and give them a decent life. Mona and Ali’s children are growing up without a father. Their youngest daughter often wakes up in 

the night crying for her Dad. 

Ali’s case should have been reviewed by a judge. However, current laws do not 

allow for this due process. This crime did not warrant the two years of detention 

that Ali endured, much less being deported from this country. He remains separated 

from his family as there is no ability, no matter how compelling the circumstances, 

to ‘‘forgive’’ his ‘‘unlawful presence.’’ Unfortunately, this story is not unique. Community activists from across the nation are hearing similar stories of individuals 

being deported for very minor offenses and having no ability to be reunited with 

their families in the United States. 

We must stop forcing judges to deport U.S. residents without considering the circumstances. It does not solve the problem of undocumented immigration and it is 

inconsistent with our core American values. 

Judges must be allowed to study the circumstances of each case and decide what 

is best for that situation. Meaningful opportunity to receive a ‘‘waiver’’ for minor 

transgressions should be re-instated to allow for family unification. When our government denies due process to anyone in this country, it threatens the freedom of 

us all. The restoration of judicial and administrative discretion must be included in 

any comprehensive immigration reform bill that is passed in Congress. 

We want to make sure that a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration 

system protects families and restores due process. We want to be sure that any efforts to restore the rule of law fully incorporates the American tradition of respecting and protecting the rights of individuals to fair proceedings, government accountability, including checks and balances, and due process rights. As a nation we are 

at our best when we live up to the ideals of opportunity for all, equal treatment 

under the law, and basic fairness. It is morally unacceptable for a bill to eliminate 

our respected tradition of family-based immigration and to erode due process protections. Legal status without the right to be with family or to have a fair day in court 

goes against the very basic principles of American consciousness and tradition.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you so much, Mr. Saleh. 

Ms. Pulido? 

TESTIMONY OF ROSANNA PULIDO, ILLINOIS SPOKESPERSON, 

‘‘YOU DON’T SPEAK FOR ME’’

Ms. PULIDO. Thank you. 

First of all, I just would like to acknowledge that whoever put 

the sarcastic and mean-spirited comments on my testimony and on 

my seat for me to find it, I found it. Thank you. 

Chairwoman Lofgren and Members of the Subcommittee, thank 

you so much for inviting me here today. 

I am Rosanna Pulido, an active member of You Don’t Speak For 

Me. We are American Hispanics speaking out on illegal immigration, because, contrary to popular belief, a sizable number of 

Latinos oppose the recent marches and strongly object to illegal immigration. 

100

But our voices have been largely muffled by the protests in Chicago and Los Angeles and other cities, by journalists and mass 

media that absolutely refuse to report the story of law-abiding 

American Hispanics. 

Members of You Don’t Speak For Me, American Hispanics 

against illegal immigration, do not want comprehensive immigration reform. But we do want immigration law enforcement. 

Americans have learned that ‘‘comprehensive’’ means unlimited 

amnesty, a greater flow of immigrants into the country and the displacement of American workers. 

Anybody who can sneak into our country gets to stay in. That is 

not sound immigration policy. 

The bill our Senate is proposing is selling out the American 

worker and the rule of law. 

We have witnessed in the past 18 months, hundreds of thousands of Latinos marching across the country in support of immigration reform. Many of these marchers are here illegally. One of 

the objectives of these marches is to give the impression that all 

Latinos want illegal aliens to become citizens. It is simply not true. 

Jose, a legal Mexican immigrant, approached me and said, ‘‘You 

have got to help me. I am here in the United States legally. Look. 

Here are my papers. I cannot get a job. I go to the day labor centers on a daily basis, and they ignore me. And they give the jobs 

to illegal aliens. I cannot get work to support my family.’’

I am aware that there are many of my fellow Hispanics who are 

suffering, and those who followed the rules and respected our laws 

and came to this country the right way. It is for these people that 

I implore you to give them a chance at building their American 

dream they have patiently waited in line for. 

That can be done only by our government enforcing immigration 

laws on the books. 

In Chicago, Illinois, where I live, the city is under siege by illegal 

aliens who drain public services and take jobs away, especially 

from African-Americans and legal immigrants. 

Our city and county officials ignore Federal immigration law and 

want to ignore Congress and make their own laws. They are attempting to make Cook County the first sanctuary county in the 

United States. 

We have seen property taxes in Cook County rise 60 to 90 percent this past year. This rise is directly related to bilingual education and other social services for illegal aliens. 

What illegal immigration has done is force our senior citizens out 

of their homes. They cannot keep up with the rise in property taxes 

on their fixed income. While these seniors look to us to assist them 

in their retirement years, we are letting lawbreakers completely 

drain our tax base—a tax base that should rightfully be going to 

our seniors and our veterans. 

One of those seniors is my 78-year-old father. 

We have recently heard about the injustices at Walter Reed Medical Center. Our wounded veterans in Illinois are the lowest paid 

in the nation. Some live like paupers, while illegal aliens get free 

health care and many other social services. 

This abuse of our welfare program is a modern-day atrocity. I am 

baffled, because my government, who I trust to enforce the law, no 

101

matter what the ethnicity or national origin of a person is, has 

been looking the other way while America is destroyed. 

Some measures that need to be considered for comprehensive immigration enforcement are putting border security and enforcement 

first. How can we fight a war on terror if our borders are not secure? 

Stop incarcerating our Border Patrol agents when they do their 

job, like Ramos and Compean, and support these agents in their 

job to stop illegal border crossings. Pardoning these two admirable 

Mexican-Americans would be a good start. 

While you think that employee program to verify the eligibility 

of workers they hire might be effective, consider this. The Illinois 

House is passing a bill as we speak to prohibit employers from 

using these very tools to verify eligibility, Illinois House Bill 1744. 

Finally, we do not want amnesty for illegal aliens. I ask you to 

remember that amnesty does not work. It just creates more of the 

criminal activity we want to prevent. 

We know this from past immigration amnesties, especially the 

one granted in 1986. If that amnesty worked as a solution to our 

immigration problem, why then are we here today? 

The definition of amnesty remains the same: to pardon immigration lawbreakers and to reward them with the objective of the 

crime. 

It is not animosity to punish those who break our laws. It is simply justice—a justice law-abiding Americans hunger for. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pulido follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROSANNA PULIDO

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today and to discuss the critical importance of Immigration Law Enforcement. 

I am Rosanna Pulido, an active member of You Don’t Speak For Me. We are 

American Hispanics speaking out on illegal immigration because, contrary to popular belief, a sizable number of Latinos oppose the recent protest marches and 

strongly objects to illegal immigration. 

But our voices have largely been muffled by the protests in Chicago , Los Angeles 

and other cities nationwide and by journalists and the mass media that absolutely 

refuses to report the story of law abiding American Hispanics. Instead, the media 

would rather focus on the Latinos who are breaking our laws and paint them as 

helpless victims. 

Members of You Don’t Speak for Me American Hispanics against illegal immigration do not want comprehensive immigration reform, but we do want immigration 

law enforcement. Americans have learned that ‘‘comprehensive’’ means unlimited 

amnesty, a greater flow of immigrants into the country and the displacement of 

American workers. 

Anybody who can sneak into our country gets to stay in. This is not sound immigration policy. Our open borders are a surrender of the United States to anarchy 

and the bill that the senate purposes is selling out the American public and the rule 

of law. This proposed legislation gives illegal aliens exactly what they want, legal 

status and permission stay in the United States. 

We have witnessed in the past 18 months hundreds of thousands of Latinos 

marching across the country in support of immigration reform. Many of these 

marchers are here illegally. They do not live in the shadows, but flagrantly boast 

about violating our laws in broad daylight. One of the objectives of these marches 

is to give the impression that ALL Latinos want illegal aliens to become citizens. 

It simply is not true! 

Let me tell you about a legal Mexican immigrant named Daniel. Daniel calls me 

on a regular basis. Daniel sees the injustice his fellow legal immigrants are going 

through. He tells me when an American or legal immigrant comes to look for a job 

102

at his place of employment, they never get called for an interview, but if an illegal 

alien comes and fills out an application, they will be working with a couple of days. 

He is beside himself and is seeking justice, who will right these wrongs? 

And Jose, a legal Mexican immigrant who approached me and said, ‘‘You have got 

to help me! I am here in the United States legally. Look here are my papers. I cannot get a job. I go to the day labor center on a daily basis and they ignore me and 

they give all the jobs to illegal aliens. I can’t get work to support my family.’’

I am aware that there are many of my fellow Hispanics like this who are suffering, those who followed the rules and respect our laws and come to this country 

the right way. It is for these people and others like them that I implore you to give 

them a chance at building the American dream they patiently waited for in line. 

That can be done only by our government enforcing immigration laws on the 

books! In Chicago , Illinois where I live, the city is under siege by illegal aliens who 

speak Spanish, use public services and take jobs away from citizens, especially African-Americans, and legal immigrants. 

Our city and county officials ignore federal immigration law and want to ignore 

Congress and make their own laws. They are attempting to make Cook County the 

first sanctuary county in the United States. If this happens, then Cook County will 

be a haven for illegal aliens and other criminal elements. 

We have seen property taxes rise in Cook County by 60 to 90 percent this past 

year. This rise is directly related to bilingual education, free health care and other 

social services for illegal aliens. What illegal immigration has done is force our senior citizens, (yes, those folks who built our country and are known as the greatest 

generation) out of their homes. They cannot keep up with the rising property taxes 

on their fixed incomes. 

While these seniors look to us to assist them in their retirement years, we are 

letting law breakers completely drain tax base, a tax base that should be rightfully 

going to our seniors and our veterans. One of those seniors is my 78 year old father. 

He is bewildered by what is happening to the city he settled in many years ago. 

We have heard recently about the injustices at the Walter Reed Center and the 

poor treatment of our veterans. Well, our wounded veterans in Illinois are the lowest paid in the nation. Some live like paupers, while illegal aliens get free health 

care, education and may other social services. This abuse of our welfare programs 

is a modern day atrocity. 

I am baffled because my government, who I trust to enforce the law no matter 

what the ethnicity or national origin of a person is, has been looking the other way 

while America is destroyed. 

Some measures that need to be considered for Comprehensive Immigration Enforcement are: 

a. Putting Border Security and Enforcement First. How can we fight the War on 

Terror if our borders are not secure? 

b. Stop incarcerating our Border Patrol when they do their job like agents Ramos 

and Campeon and support these agents in their job to stop illegal border crossings! 

Pardoning these two admirable Mexican Americans would be a good start! 

c. While you may think that an Employers program to verify the eligibility of the 

workers they hire might be effective consider this. The Illinois House is passing a 

bill as we speak to prohibit Employers from using these tools to verify eligibility! 

(Illinois House Bill #1744) 

We have 14 million under employed Americans? This bill proposed by the Senate 

displaces more American workers! Whose interests are the senators looking out for? 

Finally, we do not want amnesty for illegal immigrants. I ask you to remember 

that amnesty does not work. It just creates more of the criminal activity we want 

to prevent. We know this from past immigration amnesties, especially the one 

granted in 1986. If that amnesty worked as a solution to our immigration problem, 

why, then, are we here today? The definition of amnesty remains the same: ‘‘to pardon immigration lawbreakers and reward them with the objective of their crime.’’ 

It is not animosity to punish those who break our laws. It is simply justices, a justice law-abiding Americans hunger for.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

Mr. Ting? 

103

TESTIMONY OF JAN TING, PROFESSOR OF LAW,

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY BEASLEY SCHOOL OF LAW 

Mr. TING. Chairman Lofgren, Chairman Conyers, Representative 

Gutierrez, I am honored and grateful for your invitation to join today’s discussion on comprehensive immigration reform. 

My name is Jan Ting. I teach immigration law at Temple University in Philadelphia, and I am a former Assistant Commissioner 

of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. 

And, Chairman Conyers, I am also a native of Michigan. I was 

born in Ann Arbor and grew up in Dearborn Heights and went to 

high school in Dearborn. 

I am also proud to be the son of immigrants. And my family’s immigration story is included in my written testimony. 

While each family’s story is unique, all Americans are either immigrants or the descendents of ancestors who came here from 

somewhere else, and that includes Native Americans. 

All of us who know our family histories respect and admire our 

immigrant ancestors, because we know the immigrant experience 

is never easy. The immigrant story is always a story of hard 

choices and difficulties overcome by persistence and very hard 

work. 

So, our respect and admiration for immigrants, including illegal 

immigrants, should not be the issue. 

The real issue instead, I submit, is whether our respect and admiration for immigrants is so great that we are willing to let everyone in the world who wants to come here do so, as the Wall Street 

Journal editorial board and the Cato Institute, among others, have 

suggested we should. 

The alternative to open borders and open immigration is limited 

immigration, limited to only those immigrants we choose to admit 

and unavailable to all other would-be immigrants. 

Now, as a lawyer, I can argue both sides of that question. But 

if we opt against open borders and in favor of limited immigration, 

as we have in our recent history, there are two more questions we 

must answer. 

First, what do we do with those who are excluded under our law, 

but who come anyway? And second, which immigrants do we 

choose to admit, and which do we exclude? 

If the answer to that first question is, if we give them a break, 

find an excuse for them to stay, then what we really have is an 

open border system, which is fine, if that is what we wanted in the 

first place. 

We have heard a lot of discussion today on the semantics of amnesty. Why does that seem like such an important question? It 

matters, I suggest, because almost everyone will acknowledge the 

overwhelming majority of the American people want a system of 

limited—not unlimited—immigration, and are opposed to amnesty 

for those who enter the U.S. in violation of our immigration laws. 

So, the case for comprehensive immigration reform requires 

somehow distinguishing what is being proposed from amnesty. 

That can be a hard sell. 

The immigrant communities themselves, who have the most at 

stake in this debate, call it amnesty, or ‘amnistı ́a, and that seems 

correct to me. 

104

To me, amnesty is anything that rewards a violation of immigration law by putting illegal aliens in a better position than other 

would-be immigrants, who have respected our laws by remaining 

outside our borders, waiting for their opportunity to immigrate legally. 

The May 17 agreement among U.S. Senate conferees, for example, does this by granting illegal aliens, and only illegal aliens, immediate probationary legal status of indefinite duration as the first 

step on a pathway to citizenship, both of which millions of others 

outside our borders wish they could have, too. 

The plan actually allows the government only 1 day for a security check from the time that the aliens apply for probationary status to when the government is obliged to give them work authorization. 

Those who have violated our laws receive the benefit and can live 

and work in the U.S. openly. Those who have respected our laws 

will not receive the benefit. 

It is false to claim that illegal aliens must go to the back of the 

line for benefits. There may be some delay under the May 17 Senate compromise in granting illegal aliens permanent residence and 

citizenship. But the principal benefit aliens seek is immediate, 

legal residence and work authorization, which will be awarded immediately under the Senate’s version of comprehensive immigration reform. 

As in the case of the 1986 amnesty, temporary residents, such as 

students who have properly maintained and renewed their immigration status, will not qualify for amnesty benefits, while those 

who violated their status by overstaying and illegal entrants will. 

The yellow light is on, so let me jump ahead and say that the 

benchmarks are also not very good. They do not require any prior 

reduction in the number of illegal aliens. 

And finally, as has been mentioned, anyone who has to deal with 

the Federal immigration bureaucracy today understands that the 

bureaucracy is already overwhelmed by its current workload with 

backlogs in everything from visa processing to security screening, 

to naturalization. 

To add millions of applications for amnesty or probationary status, as well as the subsequent adjustments to permanent resident 

and then naturalization, is a formula for disaster. 

The May 17 compromise seems to acknowledge that the fees and 

fines to be paid by applicants will be insufficient to cover those additional costs. 

And let me just close by saying that the payment of back taxes 

hardly negates a finding of amnesty, since those taxes were already 

due and payable in any event. And similarly, requiring payment of 

a fine does not remove the taint of amnesty when that fine is in 

lieu of normally substantial processing fees that are required for 

legal immigration and citizenship. 

I have a lot more to say. It is in my written testimony. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ting follows:]

105

1Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law, Philadelphia. Assistant Commissioner, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1990–1993. B.A., Oberlin College, 1970; 

M.A., University of Hawaii, 1972; J.D., Harvard University, 1975. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAN TING 1

Madame Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am grateful for your invitation to speak today to discuss Comprehensive Immigration Reform with you and 

with the other members of the panel. 

I am proud to be the son of immigrants. Both my parents came to the United 

States from China. They were able to enter as temporary students when the Chinese Exclusion Law prohibited their entry as immigrants and precluded their ever 

becoming U.S. citizens through naturalization. Chinese Exclusion was repealed by 

Congress in 1943. My father received his U.S. citizenship in 1945 in France, after 

service in the Battle of the Bulge and the Battle for Germany, as a result of special 

legislation enacted by Congress awarding citizenship to foreign nationals on active 

duty in the armed forces of the United States. 

My mother was a nurse, and my father spent most of his career as a physician 

in the Veterans Administration. As I was growing up, much of my family’s social 

life centered on the small and scattered community of Chinese Americans in southeastern Michigan. Despite the repeal of Chinese Exclusion, immigration from China 

and other Asian nations remained negligible because the national origins quota system sharply limited immigrants from Asia, and in the case of China to 100 immigrants per year. That quota system was repealed by Congress in 1965, and most 

Chinese Americans today trace their ancestry back to immigrants who entered the 

U.S. after 1965. 

That the Chinese American community is composed of immigrants and their descendents is not anything special. Indeed all Americans are either immigrants or 

the descendents of ancestors who came here from somewhere else. And that includes 

Native Americans. 

All of us who know our family histories respect and admire our immigrant ancestors, because we know that the immigrant experience is never easy. The immigrant 

story is always a story of hard choices and difficulties overcome by persistence and 

very hard work. And knowing that, we have to respect all immigrants, including illegal immigrants who have their own hard choices and difficulties to overcome. The 

economist Walter Williams used to teach at Temple University where I recall him 

saying that, ‘‘The poor people of the world may be poor, but they are not stupid. 

They are as capable of doing cost-benefit analysis to decide what’s in their best interest as any of us.’’

So our respect and admiration for immigrants, including illegal immigrants, is not 

at issue, though some would try to poison the debate by saying that it is. The real 

issue instead, I submit, is whether our respect and admiration for immigrants is so 

great that we are willing to let everyone in the world who wants to come here do 

so, as the Wall Street Journal editorial board, and the Cato Institute, among others, 

have suggested that we should. The alternative to open borders and open immigration is limited immigration, limited to only those immigrants we choose to admit, 

and unavailable to all other would-be immigrants. 

As a lawyer, I can argue both sides of that question. But if we opt against open 

borders and in favor of limited immigration, as we have in our recent history, there 

are two more questions we must answer: 1. What do we do with those who are excluded but who come anyway? 2. Which immigrants do we choose to admit, and 

which do we exclude? 

If the answer to the first question is, ‘‘give them a break, give them some kind 

of amnesty so they can stay anyway’’, and especially if we set a pattern of successive 

amnesties, then what we really have is open immigration, where all who want to 

come here are in effect allowed and encouraged to do so. Which is fine if that’s what 

we want. What do we want? And that brings us to ‘‘Comprehensive Immigration Reform’’. 

QUESTION 1: PROBATIONARY STATUS AND THE PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP

Is it or is it not amnesty? Why does that matter so much? It matters because, 

as almost everyone will acknowledge, the overwhelming majority of the American 

people want a system of limited, not unlimited, immigration, and are opposed to 

‘‘amnesty’’ for those who enter the U.S. in violation of our immigration laws. So the 

case for ‘‘comprehensive immigration reform’’ requires somehow distinguishing what 

is being proposed from ‘‘amnesty’’. That can be a hard sell. 

To me, amnesty is anything that rewards violation of U.S. immigration law by 

putting illegal aliens who have done so in a better position than other would-be imVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:58 Sep 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\052207\35602.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35602
106

migrants who have respected our laws by remaining outside our borders waiting for 

their opportunity to immigrate legally. The May 17 agreement among U.S. Senate 

conferees, for example, does this by granting illegal aliens, and only illegal aliens, 

‘‘probationary’’ legal status as the first step on a pathway to citizenship, both of 

which millions of others outside our borders wish they could have, too. Those who 

violated our laws receive the benefit and can live and work in the U.S. openly. 

Those who foolishly respected our laws do not receive the benefit. 

It is false to claim that illegal aliens must ‘‘go to the back of the line’’ for benefits. 

There may be some delay under the May 17 Senate compromise in granting illegal 

aliens permanent residence and citizenship beyond the delay for those qualified 

legal immigrants now waiting in a queue. But the principle benefit aliens seek is 

immediate legal residence and work authorization, which will be awarded under 

‘‘comprehensive immigration reform’’ only to unqualified illegal aliens, not to qualified immigrants waiting in a queue for their chance to enter, or to other would-be 

immigrants outside the U.S. who have not violated our laws. As in the case of the 

1986 Amnesty, temporary residents such as students who have properly maintained 

and renewed their immigration status will not qualify for amnesty benefits, while 

those who violated their status by overstaying, and illegal entrants, will. 

Just as the 1986 Amnesty set off the dramatic increases in illegal immigration 

we have experienced since then, and more than two decades of litigation as disqualified aliens challenged their disqualification for the amnesty in court, the May 17 

amnesty compromise can be expected to attract new and even larger waves of illegal 

immigrants to the U.S., and more decades of litigation. Every amnestied alien has 

relatives, friends, neighbors, and acquaintances who also want to live and work in 

the U.S., and who suddenly know someone legal who can help them after they enter 

the U.S. illegally. Those outside the U.S. have new incentive to enter the U.S. illegally to await the next U.S. amnesty, having seen previous violators of U.S. law rewarded. 

Requiring payment of back taxes due hardly negates a finding of amnesty, since 

those taxes are already due and payable in any event. Similarly, requiring payment 

of a ‘‘fine’’ does not remove the taint of amnesty when that fine is in lieu of the 

normally substantial processing fees that are required for legal immigration and 

citizenship. 

The alleged benchmarks or triggers in the May 17 amnesty agreement do not require any prior reduction in the number of illegal aliens in or entering the United 

States each year, only that additional tax money be spent to hire personnel and attempt to improve border and technical infrastructure. A more meaningful benchmark or trigger would require actual reduction in both the number of illegal aliens 

in the U.S. and those entering the U.S. each year illegally. Without such clear evidence that U.S. immigration law is actually being enforced and the number of illegal 

aliens actually reduced by deportation and voluntary repatriation, consideration of 

amnesty is a mistake. Such actual reduction need not be to zero, and the warning 

that ‘‘we can’t deport all 12 million’’ is a straw man and not a valid argument for 

amnesty. 

Finally, anyone who has had to deal with the federal immigration bureaucracy recently understands that the bureaucracy is already overwhelmed by its current 

workload, with backlogs in everything from visa processing, to security screening, 

to naturalization. To add millions of applications for amnesty, or ‘‘probationary status’’, as well as subsequent adjustment to permanent resident, and then naturalization, is a formula for disaster. How exactly do illegal aliens prove they were in the 

U.S. prior to January 1, 2007? How does the government prove they were not? The 

May 17 compromise seems to acknowledge that the fees and ‘‘fines’’ to be paid by 

applicants will be insufficient to cover additional costs, and that substantial new appropriations will be required. 

QUESTION 2: WHO SHOULD WE ADMIT AND EXCLUDE?

The U.S. is currently admitting historically high numbers of legal immigrants, 

each year admitting more legal permanent residents with a clear path to full citizenship than all the rest of the nations of the world combined. The single largest 

category of immigrant visas has been for family-sponsored immigrants. The balance 

between this category and the second largest category of employment-based immigrants has increasingly tilted towards family-sponsored immigrants, making our 

legal immigration system increasingly nepotistic. Reasons for this include the enormous demand for family-sponsored immigration and the difficulty in qualifying for 

employment-based immigration. The current expansiveness of the family immigration categories also accounts for its increasing demand through an expanding process of chain migration. 

107

The backlogs in all the family-sponsored preference categories have called into 

question whether such categories are too broad, and whether family immigrant 

visas should instead be focused primarily on the nuclear family, consisting of spouse 

and minor children of the citizen or permanent resident sponsor. The May 17 Senate 

compromise moves in this direction, and I generally support the elimination of preferences for adult children and siblings of citizen and resident sponsors, and the 

awarding of points instead for such relationships in the proposed merit-based evaluation system. The May 17 Senate compromise places a cap on the number of visas 

for qualifying parents. I would go further and abolish the category as such, replacing it with points in the merit-based evaluation system as for adult children and 

siblings. 

Given that we will be admitting only a limited number of those who would like 

to immigrate to the U.S., I find it reasonable to focus immigrant visas on reunification of the nuclear family and immigration which is most beneficial to the nation 

as determined by a Canadian-style merit-based evaluation system. The scandal of 

spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents having to wait for visas 

while adult children and siblings and parents are receiving them has always struck 

me as indefensible. Persons who place a high priority on living in close proximity 

to their extended families, including parents, siblings, and adult children, should 

probably not be thinking about leaving their extended family to immigrate elsewhere. The Canadian points system has always seemed easier to administer and 

less burdensome than our system of employment preferences and labor certifications. 

The proposed transitional acceleration of visa processing for adult children and 

siblings already in the queue strikes me as unnecessary and an undesirable increase 

in the overall level of legal immigration which is not merit-based, does not clearly 

benefit the nation as a whole, and may in fact have adverse consequences in increased entitlements and lower wages for American workers than they might otherwise earn. Current backlogs could fairly be processed as scheduled until eliminated 

and the categories abolished. If amnesty recipients are truly required to ‘‘go to the 

back of the line’’ for permanent residence, they would consequently have to wait 

longer, too. 

QUESTION 3: WHAT ABOUT A TEMPORARY WORKER PROGRAM?

The May 17 Senate compromise provides for a huge and complicated new temporary worker program with an initial cap of 400,000 new visas in the first year. 

The hope is that low-skill workers would enter this program instead of entering illegally, and then voluntarily depart the country after two years. I think it’s more likely that this program will be a new pathway for illegal and permanent immigration 

into the U.S. 

I question whether the government ought to be in the business of supplying employers with cheap labor. The alternative might be rising wages and a more secure 

work environment for American workers. Or it might be a process of automation, 

innovation, and creativity if the price of labor seems high, as has occurred in the 

past 

I also think it’s un-American to bring indentured workers to the U.S. to be worked 

and then expelled, without allowing them any stake in the country. This system of 

contract labor has been described as a Saudi Arabian-style work program since such 

practice is widespread in the Middle East. It’s one thing to run such programs for 

college-educated highly skilled workers who can change employers and eventually 

qualify for permanent residence. It’s quite another thing to bring in temporary 

workers because they are unskilled and unable to change employers, and then expel 

them after two years. 

IN CONCLUSION

When I worked at the Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1990 to 1993, 

the consequences of the 1986 Amnesty, and in particular how it would accelerate 

illegal immigration to the U.S., were not yet apparent. I thought of what the INS 

did as at least partially ‘‘smoke and mirrors’’ to convey the impression that we were 

enforcing the law, when our actual capability to do so was limited. As the problem 

of illegal immigration has grown, the inadequacy of our immigration enforcement 

has become more apparent. 

The solution to insufficient enforcement of our immigration laws is, I believe, not 

amnesty, but more enforcement. So I support the enforcement initiatives in the Senate’s May 17 compromise. I also support the re-balancing of legal immigration as 

proposed in the May 17 compromise between family and merit-based categories. But 

I oppose the temporary worker program which will add to the burdens of enforceVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:58 Sep 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\052207\35602.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35602
108

ment. And I oppose the amnesty which, if enacted, will only encourage more illegal 

immigration. 

What immigrant communities most want is not to be discriminated against. And 

so I applaud the proposed elimination of the so-called diversity visa lottery contained in the May 17 compromise. In 2004 I testified before this subcommittee 

against the diversity visa lottery because of the way it discriminates against wouldbe immigrants from Mexico, China, India, the Philippines and other high-admission 

states who are barred from participation. The proposed demise of the diversity visa 

lottery is welcome. 

But the 7% per-country cap, which makes qualifying immigrants from those countries wait in longer queues solely because of nationality, remains, only slightly ameliorated in the May 17 compromise up to 10%. The effect on certain immigrant communities of eliminating certain family-immigration preferences, as proposed in the 

May 17 compromise, can be at least partially offset by eliminating the discrimination inherent in the continuation of the per-country cap on legal immigration. I urge 

its complete repeal.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

We will now move to questions from the panel. I will defer to the 

Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers, to begin his questions. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much. 

This is such a big question. We know we will not finish it up in 

the limited format that we have here. But I invite you to stay in 

touch with us. 

To my former Michigander and friend, let me tell you that I find 

part of your presentation to be a straw-man-type argument. If you 

find anybody in the Congress supporting unlimited immigration, I 

would like you to identify them by name, because they are not on 

the Judiciary Committee, I can assure you. 

What we are trying to do—and this panel forms an incredible 

juxtaposition to the first panel. And I propose to reread the testimony of both panels, because there are some strange disjunctions 

and there are some similarities. 

For example, Ms. Bastien, in terms of temporary protective status, and the Haitian reform process that has been completely eliminated, but is in the STRIVE bill, is something that we must compensate for. President Preval was here only last week. And we are 

in the process of developing that, and I would like to do it with you. 

But Attorney Selah, your description at the end—it was more 

oral than in your presentation—about the processes that are so unfair, which I think you draw on your legal, immigration lawyer status, they need so much correcting. It is so hard for us to work a 

balance there. 

And I think I would like to hear you make any recommendations 

to this Subcommittee that will soon be meeting with the full Judiciary Committee, and soon we will be meeting with Senator Kennedy 

and their bill. We have a basketful of hard questions to resolve, 

and we want to make sure. 

I do not think anybody I have heard here in the more than a 

dozen hearings that we have had, describe so briefly but succinctly 

the fact that we have a lot of fairness to bring into our processes. 

Would you comment on that and anything else that is connected 

with it? 

Mr. SALEH. I would actually be glad to submit at a later time, 

and then in the immediate future a more detailed statement on 

those particular issues. 

109

But one of the things that we have learned from our immigration 

past and even from the amnesty of 1986, that, assuming that there 

is going to be amnesty or path to legalization, whatever we want 

to call it, then it needs to be implemented in a fair fashion. 

And since 1996, there has been an increasing retrenchment in 

our immigration laws, making it extremely more difficult for immigrants to remain in the United States, making it much easier for 

immigrants to be in technical violations of their status. 

And this has resulted in many an individual being removed and 

permanently barred from coming back, without a criminal violation, but just technical violations, or being barred for 10 years and 

having no waiver available so that they could come back in advance of those 10 years, no matter how compelling the human circumstances are of an individual case. 

We have removed discretion from the Immigration Service and 

from the immigration judicial corps, so that there cannot be an individual determination on applications, because the law has eviscerated the ability of judges to grant waivers. 

And the zero tolerance policy—or the, you know, that the ICE, 

the legacy INS implemented—has resulted in a de facto situation 

where nobody wants to be the last person to sign off on a discretionary matter, because that person might be the ‘‘next.’’

Mr. CONYERS. We have worked on a lot of issues, but this may 

be the biggest one that we will have to wrestle with for the coming 

months and the rest of the year. And I look forward to your cooperation in that regard. 

Mr. SALEH. It would be my pleasure. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman is, by unanimous consent, granted 

another minute so Ms. Iyer can also——

Ms. IYER. Thank you. I appreciate that, Madam Chair. I just 

wanted to respond to the question about fairness a little bit, as 

well. 

Especially since September 11, we have noticed how immigration 

has become a national security issue. And much of that has taken 

a toll on Arab-American, Muslim, and South Asian immigrants. 

I just wanted to mention a few specific pieces we have been noticing. Arbitrary detentions, special registration, lack of judicial review, closed hearings, lack of access to counsel—these are some of 

the situations that immigrants are facing when it comes to detention and deportation proceedings. 

The second trend that we are seeing is how local law enforcement is collaborating with immigration authorities to enforce immigration laws. And I do not believe that that is off the table in either the House or the Senate. And that has led to fear. People are 

afraid of reporting crimes, seeking services and benefits that they 

are entitled to. 

So, I really want to point out those two trends especially. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Chicago, Mr. Gutierrez, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And thank you to all of the witnesses for staying with us. It is 

almost going to be 6 p.m. It is good to see many of you. I thank 

110

you for all of your comments. I want to simply respond to some of 

you and the comments that you have made. 

Ms. Bastien, I want to tell you that Alcee Hastings and Kendrick 

Meek and Corrine Brown are sponsors of the STRIVE Act, and 

they make it absolutely clear that we need to address the issue of 

people who simply, if they lived another 75 miles to the west of 

Haiti, would arrive here under totally different circumstances. And 

we understand the political nature of our immigration decisions 

that are made here. 

We saw those political decisions being made when, without any 

protest, the Republican Congress, when we introduced the bill for 

Guatemalans and Salvadorians and Nicaraguans, the NACARA 

Act, refused to act and include Haitians, number one, and then 

subsequently gave a blanket amnesty—any Nicaraguan in the 

country that could prove he was here January 1, 1995, you are in. 

I was happy for them, I really was, for their families and for 

them. But if you were Guatemalan or Salvadorian, because you did 

not live in maybe Florida—or at least that was the conclusion we 

reached. 

So, politics has always played a role in our immigration system. 

It has always played a role. 

Politics played a role, as we know, when it came to people from 

China and the Chinese and their exclusion during the 1880’s. They 

were good when we needed someone to build a railroad. They were 

a good work force, and then all of a sudden they weren’t good any 

more. And so we just said, no more. 

During World War II, if you were a child of a serviceman from 

England, the Congress said, fine, let us bring those orphans to 

America. We did not have the same policy if you were being afflicted by genocide and the Holocaust and you were a child of the 

Jewish family that needed to flee the Holocaust. 

So, our immigration system has always chosen winners and losers. 

And I think my point to all of you is that, I know that we are 

going to make sure that we do a fair comprehensive immigration 

bill that is fair to everyone, without politics, without fairness, but 

taking into consideration past injustices, past grievances, and taking the political reality that we live in into consideration. 

And so, Mr. Ellison is on the STRIVE Bill, but I am going to 

make sure—because we spoke about some of the issues that you 

raised—but I am going to make sure that he receives your testimony in full, because I notice that he is not here, so that he and 

I can discuss those issues vis-a-vis the Muslim community, because 

I think it is very, very important that we deal with that issue as 

we move forward. 

Let me just say that, I know that, as a Member of this Judiciary 

Committee and a very proud member of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus, I was delighted to go to Speaker Pelosi last week, 

so that we could reiterate our principles—our principles. And our 

principles are very, very clear. 

We want a legalization process that helps all of those earn their 

legalization, and that it be fair and that it be obtainable, and regardless of what country you came from. 

111

We want to make sure that the cornerstone of our immigration 

system, which is families—husbands, wives, children, grandparents—has been the cornerstone, continues to be the cornerstone 

of our immigration policy. 

And we want to make sure that we take care of these backlogs. 

In 6 years we could take care of the backlogs. There is no reason, 

as Asians point out, that it should take 23, 24 years for a brother 

from the Philippines to come to this country. That is just wrong. 

It denies. 

And lastly, let me just say that there have always been those 

who will come before the American people and say, you are paying 

higher taxes, there is more crime in your neighborhood, you have 

not gotten a good job, because of those darned immigrants. 

They said it about the Irish in the 1850’s. They said it about 

Italian immigrants at the turn of the century. They were wrong 

about them, and they are wrong about those immigrants coming to 

this country here today. 

And I think this Committee is going to make sure that we put 

our immigration policy into a historical context, so that we do not 

repeat the mistakes of the past. 

Thank you all so much for all of your commitment and your hard 

work. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Gutierrez. 

I will turn now to the lady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, 

and to the Chair of the full Committee, to all of the witnesses. 

Allow me to just say that I have probably dreamed what you 

have testified, so please forgive me for not being present in the 

room. But I do want to thank you for what you have offered. 

And I will offer a few comments and will try to squeeze my questions in, because each of you, the moments that I have been able 

to hear, your comments speak directly to the challenge that we 

have to confront. 

And that is a challenge procedurally to reconcile the Senate and 

ultimately the House, and generate a solution for the ages. I frankly believe it would be great to have a living document that actually 

grows with how the nation grows. 

The difficulties of 1996 and 1987 is—the question is, did it grow 

with us as we changed in so many different, wonderful ways? 

And to the last two witnesses, Ms. Pulido, if I am pronouncing 

it correctly, and Mr. Ting, my simple statement is—and I do not 

know if we will ever overcome this hurdle—is that this is not a 

giveaway. However we construct this bill, it will not be a giveaway. 

And I do want to make the point that those who will come under 

this new legislation will be in a separate line. They will not intercede, interact, step in front of, because I know how the playground 

is. You don’t want anybody to get in front of you on the playground 

line. 

And I respect those who have been here, but they will not get 

in front of those who have been here. But they will painfully have 

a process that will allow them to be documented. 

May I quickly turn to Ms. Bastien, if I can. We have Bastiens 

in Texas. Am I getting it correctly? 

112

Ms. BASTIEN. ‘‘Bastien.’’

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Bastien. Thank you. And they have probably 

left off the ‘‘tien,’’ because they are Texasized, but they do spell it 

the same way. 

Let me burden you by causing you to speak for members of the 

Caribbean community who have come to these hallways and said, 

they frankly have been left out. And I know that there are great 

efforts to make sure that we include, for example, Liberians and 

the Caribbean. 

Let me just, in a simple sentence, say how important it is to 

make sure that the legislation is comprehensive and relates to even 

segments of the populational communities that may not be high 

focus in terms of being immigrants. 

A lot of the Caribbean individuals have either been here, or 

seemingly they have sort of integrated. A lot of them are 20-, 30-

year persons who still may be subjected to deportation. 

Ms. BASTIEN. This is a great concern of us, too, advocates who 

have been fighting for years for comprehensive reform to address 

the needs of these immigrants from the Caribbean. Many of them, 

most of the time they are in hiding. They are under the radar, because their voices are hardly heard. 

Many of them are victimized and re-victimized over and over 

again. If they are a victim of crime, they are very afraid, very much 

afraid to come forward. They are suffering, but their voices are 

hardly ever heard. 

And whatever comprehensive reform is adopted, I want to assure 

that the Caribbean people, from Jamaica—people who we often do 

not hear from, because usually they are not invited to forums like 

that. And yet, they are in the country, yet they are contributing. 

They are working, paying taxes. They are contributing to a system 

that most of the time when they need it, they are not able to access. 

So, I think that whatever reform is presented, we have to make 

sure that these people who are here and also contributing and well 

under the radar and do not have a voice, are heard and are included. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Can I quickly go to Ms. Iyer and Ms. Narasaki quickly? 

Does the present structured bill undermine the family reunification issues that we have addressed over a number of years? If you 

both could answer that. 

And lastly to Mr. Saleh, your issues on 696 and the court system 

are crucial. If you can just comment further on how dastardly it 

has been to have removed the discretion out of judges and how important it is to have that? 

I will go with Ms. Iyer and Ms. Narasaki first, please. 

Ms. NARASAKI. We are very concerned about the Senate bill that 

is before us. It does not take care of the entire backlog. In fact, it 

has an arbitrary May 2005 cutoff date. And so the 800,000 people 

who have applied since May 2005, their applications will be simply 

thrown away. 

That is despite the fact that the legalization date, which we 

think is a good date, is January 1, 2007. And we are struggling to 

113

understand why those who follow the rules are being disadvantaged in that system. 

The second thing is that there is nothing to help the spouses and 

minor children of legal permanent residents, does not increase the 

number of visas available and does not take care of their over 1 

million-person backlog, which makes the wait 7 to 8 years now. 

And finally, it completely eliminates the category of adult children and brothers and sisters, giving them—brothers and sisters 

get a paltry four points out of a 100-point system, which we think 

certainly devalues their value to the family. 

Some people have told me that maybe only Asians value their 

brothers and sisters and adult children. And I think that would be 

a fairly sad statement, because they tell me, maybe Americans 

think of families differently. 

I do not believe that. I think most Americans truly care about 

and trust and rely on their brothers and sisters and their adult 

children as they get old, as they need to take care of each other. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. By unanimous 

consent, she will have an additional minute from Ms. Iyer and Mr. 

Saleh, quickly. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairwoman for her graciousness. 

Thank you. 

Ms. IYER. Well, very quickly, I do not think I can expand on too 

much more than what Ms. Narasaki mentioned. 

But the one thing that I did want to mention about the Senate 

bill that is of concern is the merit-based point system that has been 

set in place for green cards. It heavily favors employment criteria, 

about 47 out of 100 points, and really does not compensate for family ties, how long you have been in this country. 

And we are concerned that it is going to create, again, a second 

class of people who, if you are poor or you are working class, you 

are not as well educated, again, you are going to find further obstacles and challenges. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Saleh? 

Mr. SALEH. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

Obviously, 1996 is a huge issue that cannot be addressed in 30 

seconds. But basically, what we have seen since 1996 is an increasing stripping, not just of the immigration judges, but also even the 

Federal courts, where now Federal courts are incapable of intervening under the REAL ID Act. 

The Federal district courts have been stripped of jurisdiction to 

review whether there were any constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. That the Federal appellate courts are limited 

in review, strictly on legal questions. They can no longer review the 

decisions of an immigration judge based on abuse of discretion. 

And there was no great deference by the Federal—I mean, there 

was great deference, actually, of the Federal courts to the immigration and the board of immigration appeals. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mr. SALEH. So, these issues were missed and need to be revisited 

and addressed. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I look forward to working with you. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

114

We turn now to Mr. Lungren for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I am 

sorry, but I have been watching this in my office on television, as 

I had to attend to some other things. 

I would just like to ask a question to all the panelists. And that 

is, I was involved in the 1986 provision. I was the Republican floor 

manager. I was one of the authors of employer sanctions. 

But I also got the votes to manage for the legalization program, 

at least on the Republican side. And I thought that that bill was 

going to be a good, balanced bill. The problem is, the legalization 

worked. We never enforced anything after that, and we now have 

a lot more people here than we had then. 

And I think we have an obligation as Members of Congress to ensure that whatever we do does not create the same sort of situation, so that 20 years from now we are talking about 24 million 

people who are here illegally and changing the rules for them. 

So, I think we have to do something with a good number of the 

people who have been here for periods of time. But we used to talk 

about how we would make special provisions for people who had 

gotten roots in the community, because there would be a situation 

of equities. 

And I mentioned this to an unnamed member of the Democratic 

Party on the Committee, and I said, I thought we were talking 

about roots, and I see the bill in the Senate says January 1 of this 

year. He says, well, they are sprouts. [Laughter.] 

I happen to think that is a serious, serious question. So, I would 

ask each one of the panelists. Can you tell me what date should 

be the date that we grant these new provisions, which literally give 

people an ability to stay in this country legally under certain circumstances, that they would not otherwise have, and why you 

would pick that date? 

Or should it be they got in yesterday? They have been here 1 

hour, they have been here 1 day, they have been here 1 month, 

they have been here 1 year? And does it make any difference if 

they have been here 5 years versus whether they got here yesterday? 

And I wish as many of you could answer as possible. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Shall we start with Ms. Bastien and move forward? 

Ms. MUN ̃ OZ. They are all pointing at me, so I am afraid I will——

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, I would really like to hear from all, because 

I have heard the testimony of all, talking about the equities. And 

I heard one of you, Ms. Narasaki, just say that that was a good 

date. 

So, I would like to know what date should it be, and why is it 

a good date? 

Ms. MUN ̃ OZ. I think the most important thing is that the legalization program minimize the size of the undocumented population 

as much as possible. 

If we have 1, 2, 3 million people at the end of this process, still 

living in the country without their papers, we still have a problem 

that this law is trying to address. 

Mr. LUNGREN. What date would it be? 

115

Ms. MUN ̃ OZ. We support the January 1 date of this year for that 

reason, because we think it is likely to be effective. And in many 

cases we are talking about people who have the commitment and 

the drive to walk across the border and risk their lives. 

They may be sprouts, but they have demonstrated some commitment to being here. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, so did the people that got here January 

30th. 

Ms. MUN ̃ OZ. That is true. And you do have to pick a date. And 

we do not think that the date should be—you know, we should not 

be picking a date contemporaneous with the debate, because we do 

not want to be encouraging people to come because we are having 

a legislative debate. But you want to maximize the extent to which 

people living here legally participate. 

Mr. LUNGREN. The Senate bill was introduced last year, was 

passed last year. That obviously was while we were debating it. 

So, that would be after it became clear that at least one of the 

houses thought we ought to have a large legalization program. 

Ms. Bastien? 

Ms. BASTIEN. If I had a choice, I would say that, if the provision 

passes while the immigrant lives in this country, he or she should 

be allow to apply. If I——

Mr. LUNGREN. As long as they are already here. 

Ms. BASTIEN. Exactly. Because no matter when they come here, 

they are contributing, they are working, they are paying taxes. 

They are enriching the lives of people in this country. They are our 

teachers, our farmers, our hospital workers. They are us. They are 

contributing. 

If they are contributing and they are showing that they are contributing, they are to prove by any doubt they are contributing, I 

believe that they should be allowed to address this. That is my position. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you——

Ms. BASTIEN. But I am willing, I am——

Mr. LUNGREN. I wanted your position. 

Ms. Iyer? 

Ms. IYER. Thank you. 

We also agree that there has to be a date that is picked. And I 

want to echo sort of what Ms. Mun ̃ oz was saying about being a little bit wary about picking a date that is very contemporaneous 

with the debate. 

But the January date that has been put forth is one that we feel 

we could support. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Ms. Narasaki? 

Ms. NARASAKI. Well, I already noted that, for the same reason 

that Ms. Murguı ́a supports the January 1 date. 

I do want to say, one of the reasons why I think that the prior 

1988 effort did not work is because it did not fully address family. 

In fact, when it came out of the box, it had a built-in backlog. That 

is one of the reasons why the Filipino community is so backlogged. 

Mr. LUNGREN. So, it was not generous enough. 

Ms. NARASAKI. Right, for understanding the need to have enough 

visas for family. 

116

The second thing was the employer verification system. And we 

believe that there has been a lot of effort over this last year with 

business and labor and immigrant advocates to come up with a system that is going to work. 

And we think that is going to be key to making sure that we do 

not have the same problem again. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. By unanimous 

consent, he has an additional minute. 

Mr. O’DOWD. In the Irish community, that is actually quite an 

issue, because most of our immigrants who are undocumented have 

been here a number of years. 

So, but there was a lot of discussion about it last year on the 

Senate bill. The general sense was, the later the date the better, 

because you did not want to create a two-tier system of Irish immigrants, those who are going to have the amnesty and those who 

were not. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Okay. 

Mr. Saleh? 

Mr. SALEH. I would echo the positions put forth by other members of the panel. 

I am persuaded by the cogency of their argument that the more 

inclusive the provision can be without being an inducement for people that start coming over now, helps address the problem in a 

more meaningful fashion. And then the concept of control of 

undocumenteds is a more handleable issue for the agencies involved. 

Ms. PULIDO. I am a very big fan of Senator Ted Kennedy. And 

I want to quote him from the 1986 amnesty, that after that amnesty in 1986 is passed, we will never have to pass another amnesty bill. So, I think we need to go back to 1986. 

Mr. TING. Congressman, whatever date you set, you are going to 

generate litigation for the United States government. Thanks to 

the 1986 act, we have been in court for 21 years, litigating the 

question of who is entitled to that amnesty and who is not. 

So, whatever date you set, there are going to be people that come 

in afterwards who are going to claim the benefit. And how does an 

illegal alien prove the date of entry? And how does the government 

prove the date of entry to prove that they are not qualified? 

What it gives rise to is unlimited litigation that goes on forever. 

People say, well, they were intimidated by the government. That 

is why they did not get their application in on time. And so, we are 

in court forever. That is part of the problem with amnesty. It leads 

to this endless litigation. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

And I will now not take my full 5 minutes of questions. I would 

like to just note that the Senate bill will be moving on its own pace. 

Clearly, we are watchful of that process, but the House is obviously 

not bound to do whatever the Senate does. 

I would note that one of the interesting issues in the Senate bill 

is that, while there are additional visas for backlogs in the family 

categories that are slated for elimination, it does nothing to reduce 

backlog for those categories that are not slated for reduction, so 

that the spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents, 

who had remained backlogged for a considerable period of time, 

117

whereas, people, if you use the Senate’s rationale, who are arguably less compelling, for example, siblings would have an immediate visa. 

So, I do not know whether that was an oversight, or whether, or 

what. But it seems inexplicable to me. 

I would just like to have one quick question, because I think you 

have all been very clear. And it has been useful to hear your perspectives and to be reminded of the Haitian issue that you did so 

well, the issue relative to South Asians. 

I appreciate that, for a whole variety of Hispanic groups arrived 

at one point of testimony, because obviously, we have limits on how 

many witnesses we can have from the Asian perspective, and on 

and on. 

Mr. Saleh, of course, from—and Ms. Pulido that you came, I appreciate, and Mr. Ting. 

Mr. O’Dowd, though, the one question I had in your testimony. 

You mentioned the concern about the Irish not having a root at 

this point to immigrate. And therefore, although you support family-based immigration, spoke favorably on the merit-based proposal. 

In your mind, is that the point system that you are looking at? 

Mr. O’DOWD. Yes, I mean, just in terms of what we are looking 

for as a community, is a way that we can legally access the United 

States. We cannot do it on the family reunification. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I see. But if I may, one of the interesting ramifications on this merit system that has come out—and as many people 

know, I represent Silicon Valley, which is kind of ground central 

for high technology—is that although I think it is intended to be 

supportive of higher educated individuals, it actually does not work 

for the high technology industry, because, if you are a Google, I 

mean, it is Dr. Smith that you want. It is not somebody, anybody 

with a Ph.D. It is a specific person with the patent portfolio that 

you have identified. And having an employment base tied with the 

high skill set, I think actually is something we are going to want 

to take a good look at. 

I will just say at this point that I appreciate your sticking with 

us for this long time. 

Although we do not have every Member here, as Mr. Lungren 

has mentioned, this has been televised. And one of the upsides of 

being so long is that no one else is on TV but us. [Laughter.] 

And so, everyone is watching you. And we appreciate your testimony. 

This is the 12th hearing that we have had. We will have just a 

few more. 

I would like to note that, under the rules, the minority is entitled 

to separate hearings using some procedures. And accordingly, at 

their request, we will have a minority hearing tomorrow at 5:30 in 

room 226——

Mr. LUNGREN. That is 5:30 p.m. 

Ms. LOFGREN. [continuing]. Yes, 5:30 p.m., because we have full 

Committee. [Laughter.] 

Well, that is sooner than we are today. 

We have full Committee prior to that. And we will also have a 

hearing Thursday morning at 9:00, where we will hear perspectives 

from members of the labor movement. 

118

I would like also to note that, by unanimous consent, we are 

amending a statement made by Reverend Corte ́s on page three, 

paragraph six, line four. 

We are admitting to the permanent record the American Jewish 

Committee letter, a letter from evangelical leaders with six pages 

of signatures, a letter from the Congressional Black Caucus, a Center for Trade Policy Study, and statements from the Muslim community referenced earlier by Mr. Ellison, and a statement for the 

record of the Conveners of the Latino Congreso.

[An insertion entitled ‘‘Muslim Americans: Middle Class and 

Mostly Mainstream,’’ by the PewResearchCenter, May 22, 2007, is 

not reprinted in this hearing but is available on the Internet at 

http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf and is also 

on file with the Subcommittee.] 

Ms. LOFGREN. AND IF THERE IS NOTHING FURTHER, WE WILL ADJOURN THIS HEARING WITH THANKS. 

[Whereupon, at 6:31 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(119)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL

LAW

I would like to welcome the Immigration Subcommittee Members, our witnesses, 

and members of the public to the Subcommittee’s twelfth hearing on comprehensive 

immigration reform. 

Our series of hearings on comprehensive immigration reform began at Ellis Island, where we examined the need for comprehensive immigration reform to secure 

our borders, to address economic and demographic concerns, and there we reviewed 

our nation’s rich immigrant history. We have studied immigration reform from 1986 

and 1996 in an effort to avoid the mistakes of the past. We’ve considered the problems with and proposed solutions for our current employment and worksite 

verification system. In light of the recent Senate immigration agreement to eliminate family priorities in immigration and replace those priorities with a completely 

new and untested point system, we studied the contributions of family immigrants 

to America and various immigration point systems used around the world. We have 

explored the costs of immigration on our states and localities. And just last week, 

we had two hearings to explore the importance of immigrant integration and the 

future of undocumented immigrant students in the United States. 

Today we turn our attention to perspectives on comprehensive immigration reform 

from the faith based and immigrant communities. 

Among the most heavily invested groups in the ongoing discussion over immigration reform are the faith-based and immigrant advocacy organizations that represent the vast majority of individuals who will be directly affected by such reform. 

This hearing is meant to explore their positions and viewpoints, especially in light 

of recent action in the Senate yielding an immigration agreement being debated in 

the Senate this week. 

I look forward to hearing the voices of the faithful and the voices of community 

leaders that represent current and future immigrants. Thank you for being here 

with us today to provide your perspectives. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE

fJOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE

JUDICIARY

Before making any big decision, it is always critical to hear from the persons who 

will be impacted the most. 

We have had a series of hearings in the last few weeks that has seen some of 

the most brilliant academic minds—from history and sociology departments, from 

law schools, and even from a few think tanks. We have all learned about immigration at a depth that is unprecedented for a Congressional process. 

Last week, we met some of the students who would be impacted by what we do 

here in the House. I think we can all agree, that hearing was one of the most moving hearings we have had on the immigration issues. These students serve as our 

conscience, and it is with them in our minds that we will work toward a controlled, 

orderly, and fair immigration system. 

Today, we will again hear from the consciences of our communities. Leaders from 

the religious community will discuss how, in their view, immigration is a moral 

120

issue; how a compassionate immigration system flows directly from the teachings 

of the great religions. 

And, representatives from immigrant communities will discuss how they will be 

impacted by what happens in Congress. We have representatives with us from Caribbean, South Asian, Latino, Asian, and Arab communities. These communities have 

brought immeasurable value to this Nation. In the Detroit area, the African-American community and the Arab-American community are stalwarts of the daily life 

of Southeastern Michigan, and I am glad to see leaders from both communities 

could join us for today’s hearing. 

At the end of the day, this process makes us look at some of our core values as 

a country: Do we want to build a Nation that treats immigrants compassionately? 

Do we want to be in a system that values their worth? Do we want to lose their 

talents? Can we afford to? As one of the academic witnesses said of the students 

we met, would we rather support them in America, or would we rather compete 

against a Costa Rica, Zaire, or Vietnam to which they had been removed? 

Whether out of humaneness, or out of competitiveness, there are many reasons 

to engage in comprehensive immigration reform. 

PREPARED

The time to act is now. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE

fSHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

Today we continue these series of hearings dealing with comprehensive immigration reform. This subcommittee previously dealt with the shortfalls of the 1986 and 

1996 immigration reforms, the difficulties employers face with employment 

verification and ways to improve the employment verification system. On Tuesday 

May 1, 2007 we explored the point system that the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand utilize, and on May 3, 2007 the focus of the discussion was 

on the U.S. economy, U.S. workers and immigration reform. Last week we took a 

look at another controversial aspect of the immigration debate, family based immigration. Today we continue the vital task of eliminating the myths and seeking the 

truth. Last Wednesday’s hearing dealt with probably the most crucial aspect underlying the immigration debate, an immigrant’s ability to integrate, and assimilate 

into American society. Last Thursday we tackled another pressing topic, the practical issue of the impact of immigration on States and Localities. Last Friday we 

discussed the issue of the ‘‘Future of Undocumented Immigrant Students.’’

One of the things that we the Members of Congress tend to forget is that we work 

for the American people. We do the American people’s business here on Capital Hill. 

Any type of legislation that we pass here in the halls of Congress will affect the 

people we represent financially, and emotionally. Therefore, we need to listen to the 

American people when we consider comprehensive immigration reform. 

I thank the Chairwoman, my colleague from California Zoe Lofgren for these series of insightful hearings starting on Ellis Island. Her approach which has been 

a thoughtful one, and an approach I encourage fellow Chairs of various Committees 

and Subcommittees to follow has been to bring in the players, and the stakeholders 

that would be affected by comprehensive immigration reform. 

One theme that I have reiterated is the need to debunk the myths, and seek the 

truth. That is why we brought in the Vice President of the Swift Meat Packing Co. 

to discuss the flaws in the Basic Pilot Program and with employment verification 

in general. This is why we examined the impact of illegal immigration on the national economy, on wages, and on States and Localities. This is why we took a gutwrenching look last Friday at the plight of undocumented immigrant students. This 

is why members of the tech industry, construction industry, service industry, and 

agricultural industry have all spoken out against a point system. 

Perhaps some of our constituents are misguided by the lies and misperceptions 

that permeate this discussion about comprehensive immigration reform but we must 

be the leaders that our constituents elected us to be. 

Today we will look at the perspectives of faith based organizations and immigrant 

organizations as they are at the front lines of this ordeal. The majority of faith 

based organizations in our country would agree that the Government should provide 

a path for hardworking undocumented individuals to earn permanent residency in 

this country. However, many faith based organizations would take issue with the 

elimination of a family based system, and a system that bars workers from a path 

towards legalization. 

121

The following faith based organizations have stated the following. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says that ‘‘immigration legislation should permit the 

prompt reunification of families and open a path toward the legalization of undocumented workers currently in the United States.’’ The USCCB also states that they 

have ‘‘a responsibility to be concerned about uniting families and to support an immigration reform that respects the dignity of the workers.’’ I believe that Cardinal 

Mahoney put it best when he stated that we are willing to accept to their cheap 

labor but, ‘‘we look the other way when they are exploited in the workplace, die in 

the desert or are arrested for providing nanny and cleaning services at desirable addresses. When convenient politically, we scapegoat the immigrant without acknowledging our complicity. Our immigration laws perpetuate this reality.’’

The Hispanic Evangelicals (Esperanza USA) has the following to say about Comprehensive Immigration Reform. First that it is the ‘‘Christian responsibility to care 

for those that live among us today.’’ Second, ‘‘we should provide comprehensive reform that provides a legal and dignified way to be part of our country,’’ and finally 

‘‘it is unchristian to criminalize acts of mercy and compassion.’’

I find it odd that these faith based organizations seem to take a different approach towards immigration than some of my colleagues on the other side of the 

aisle, who trumpet themselves as men and women of faith, who are in turn guided 

by principles of faith, who now have seem to abandoned those principles because 

it is not convenient. The hypocrisy appalls me. 

My legislation, the Save America Immigration Act maintains a strong immigration policy based on family unification, an American value that is the bedrock of our 

nation. Save would establish a Board of Visa Appeals for family based visas. Save 

recognizes that culturally there are different definitions of family. My legislation 

would allow for children who are born out of wedlock to a United States citizen father to acquire citizenship. Save would also allow aunts, uncles, or grandparents to 

adopt orphaned or abandoned children of deceased relatives. Likewise by increasing 

the allocation of family based visas, and streamlining the application process Save 

is clearly committed to the common goal of uniting and strengthening the family 

core. 

It should come as no surprise that Immigrant organizations share the same sentiments as the members of the faith based communities. They also see the benefits 

of unifying the family, and creating a path to legalization that will end worker exploitation, deportation, and persecution. I look forward to the testimony of today’s 

witnesses.

122

LETTER FROM RICHARD T. FOLTIN, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR AND COUNSEL, AMERICAN

JEWISH COMMITTEE, TO THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, CHAIRWOMAN, AND THE

HONORABLE STEVE KING, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW


AJCLet.eps
123

LETTER FROM THE CHRISTIAN REFORMED CHURCH IN NORTH AMERICA, ET AL. TO

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AND MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS


5-1.eps
124


5-2.eps
125


5-3.eps
126


5-4.eps
127


5-5.eps
128


5-6.eps
129

CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES ON IMMIGRATION

REFORM


6.eps
130

‘‘THE FISCAL IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION REFORM: THE REAL STORY,’’ BY DANIEL GRISWOLD, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR TRADE POLICY STUDIES, CATO INSTITUTE, MAY 21, 

2007


7-1.eps
131


7-2.eps
132


7-3.eps
133


7-4.eps
134

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CONVENERS OF THE LATINO CONGRESO


9-1.eps
135


9-2.eps
136


9-3.eps
137


9-4.eps
138


9-5.eps
139


9-6.eps
140

LETTER FROM ERIC M. GUTIE ́ RREZ, LEGISLATIVE STAFF ATTORNEY, MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND (MALDEF), TO THE HONORABLE ZOE

LOFGREN, CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW


10-1.eps
141


10-2.eps
142


10-3.eps
143

REVISED PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAREN K. NARASAKI, PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, ASIAN AMERICAN JUSTICE CENTER


11-1.eps
144


11-2.eps
145


11-3.eps
146


11-4.eps
147


11-5.eps
148


11-6.eps
149


11-7.eps
150


11-8.eps
151


11-9.eps
152


11-10.eps
153


11-11.eps
154


11-12.eps
155


11-13.eps
156


11-14.eps
157


11-15.eps
158


11-16.eps
159

Æ


11-17.eps