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

+ 28–909 PDF 2006

WHETHER THE ATTEMPTED IMPLEMENTATION OF

THE REID-KENNEDY IMMIGRATION BILL WILL

RESULT IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE AND NATIONAL SECURITY NIGHTMARE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 27, 2006

Serial No. 109–130

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

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 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida

PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel-Chief of Staff 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana, Chairman

STEVE KING, Iowa 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

ART ARTHUR, Counsel 

ALLISON BEACH, Counsel 

CINDY BLACKSTON, Professional Staff 

NOLAN RAPPAPORT, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

JULY 27, 2006

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable John N. Hostettler, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Indiana, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border 

Security, and Claims ............................................................................................ 1

WITNESSES 

Mr. Peter Gadiel, President, 9/11 Families for a Secure America 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 4

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 6

Mr. Michael Maxwell, former Director, Office of Security and Investigations, 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 8

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 11

Mr. Michael Cutler, former Examiner, Inspector, and Special Agent, Immigration and Naturalization Service 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 60

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 62

His Excellency Nicholas DiMarzio, Bishop of Brooklyn 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 65

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 66

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims ................................................... 93

Letter from the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative 

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

the Judiciary; the Honorable Henry J. Hyde, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Illinois, and Chairman, Committee on International Relations; and the Honorable Peter T. King, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of New York, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland 

Security to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops ........................................ 95

Report from the United States Government Accountability Office entitled 

‘‘Immigration Benefits: Additional Controls and a Sanctions Strategy Could 

Enhance DHS’ Ability to Control Benefit Fraud,’’ submitted by Michael 

Cutler, Former Executive Examiner, Inspecter, and Special Agent; Immigration and Naturalization Service .................................................................... 97

Article entitled: ‘‘Irish in America Are ‘Under Seige’,’’ by Caitriona Palmer, 

submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims ........................................................ 154

Letter from the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition et al., submitted 

by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Border Security, and Claims ............................................................................... 155

(1)

WHETHER THE ATTEMPTED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REID-KENNEDY IMMIGRATION 

BILL WILL RESULT IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE 

AND NATIONAL SECURITY NIGHTMARE 

THURSDAY, JULY 27, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,

BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:49 p.m., in 

Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John 

Hostettler (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

This is the second in a series of hearings reviewing the Reid-Kennedy immigration bill, S. 2611. 

The United States admits more permanent resident aliens than 

any other country, more than 1.12 million in fiscal year 2005, a 

year in which we also gave refuge and asylum to some 79,000 other 

aliens. 

In December, the House passed a bill that would ensure that our 

generous immigration laws, written by both Republican and Democratic Congresses over 5 decades, would be enforced and not 

abused. 

In the Reid-Kennedy bill, the Senate proposes to replace our current rational immigration process with a scheme to allow an unknown number of additional aliens who came here illegally to stay 

forever. 

Many would have us adopt that bill without public review. I believe, however, that before we consider a new amnesty, we must examine that bill in the light of the lessons that we learned from the 

last amnesty in 1986. 

As part of this assessment, the Subcommittee today will review 

the ability of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to process 

the additional applications required by S. 2611 on the bill’s extremely tight time schedule and the effects of granting those benefits on the national security. 

Immigration adjudications were a mess in 2001 when President 

Bush set 6 months as the goal for processing immigration applications. Congress supported this goal with $500 million in funds and 

furthered that effort in 2002 when it split immigration benefits 

from enforcement, in part, to ensure aliens received the benefits 

they were due. 

2

Those efforts have borne fruit. From a peak of 3.8 million, 

USCIS’s backlog stands at 276,000 cases today. 

Despite these gains, the USCIS ombudsman has found that the 

agency ‘‘has ongoing difficulties in providing timely service.’’ An adjustment applicant must wait more than 1,000 days in Greer and 

naturalization takes more than 900 days in Charleston. 

The ombudsman has cited aliens who have waited years for benefits. This is unacceptable. 

S. 2611 would add an overwhelming burden to USCIS, as it 

struggles to provide timely services. To comprehend this burden, 

consider that in fiscal year 2005 USCIS completed just less than 

7.5 million applications. S. 2611 would add 10 million to 20 million 

more amnesty applications, many with short processing times. 

How could this added burden not detrimentally affect aliens 

waiting to immigrate lawfully? 

Past experience is not encouraging. When the Clinton INS tried 

to process a large number of naturalization applications in time for 

the 1996 election under Citizenship USA, it made serious mistakes, 

naturalizing some 71,000 aliens with FBI rap sheets, 10,800 of 

whom had felony arrests. USCIS would face even greater challenges today. 

Its ability to process the new amnesty applications under S. 2611 

would be impeded, if not hobbled, by fraud. That fraud is best assessed in terms of the 1986 amnesty. Hundreds of thousands of 

aliens are estimated to have fraudulently received amnesty under 

the 1986 law. 

What is worse, terrorists fraudulently abused the 1986 amnesty 

to remain in the United States. One, Mahmud Abu Halima, a leader of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, received amnesty as 

an agricultural worker in the 1986 law, even though he really 

drove a cab. 

Another, Mohammed Salameh, driver of the truck in that attack, 

also applied fraudulently for amnesty. To support his amnesty 

claim, Mir Kasi, who killed two in front of the CIA in 1993, presented leases, employment letters and a letter from a friend in 

Pakistan. The 9/11 Commission staff found that these documents 

were all typed from the same typewriter. 

The drafters of S. 2611 did not make USCIS’s job easier. Confidentiality bars, which hampered INS in investigating fraud in the 

1986 amnesty, are not only replicated in this bill but they are 

raised, further frustrating fraud investigations. 

Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that fraud under S. 2611 

would be more pervasive and sophisticated than in the 1986 amnesty. There are now more illegal aliens and thanks to computers 

they have access to higher quality fraudulent documents. Even the 

most diligent agency would be hard-pressed to combat fraud under 

the scheme in the Senate bill. 

USCIS’s diligence in combating fraud under the crush of millions 

of future amnesty applications is questionable, however. Mike Maxwell, former chief of the Office of Security and Investigations at 

USCIS, who is with us today, has testified that the agency ‘‘is operating an immigration system designed not to aggressively deter or 

detect fraud but, first and foremost, to approve applications.’’

3

Given past terrorist abuse of amnesty, the rubber stamping of 

millions of amnesty applications would pose an unacceptable risk 

to our people and our nation. This risk is heightened by the fact 

that S. 2611 would give valid IDs to aliens who were never 

screened by a consular officer in their home countries and who 

were never inspected at a port of entry. A new name and a new 

ID would allow a terrorist, known by his real name to our Government, to pass through our society undetected. 

We will review these issues with our witnesses today. 

At this time, I would turn to identification of the witness panel. 

Without objection, all Members’ opening statements will be made 

a part of the record. 

Now I will introduce this panel of witnesses. 

Peter Gadiel is a founder of 9/11 Families for a Secure America, 

an organization comprised of families of victims killed in the September 11 terrorist attacks and survivors of the attacks. His 23-

year-old son James, an assistant trader for Cantor Fitzgerald, 

worked on the 103rd floor of the north tower of the World Trade 

Center. 

Mr. Gadiel has volunteered full-time since early 2002 in the 

cause of securing U.S. borders against entry by terrorists. A graduate of Case Western Reserve School of Law, he is a member of the 

New Hampshire bar. 

Mike Maxwell is an independent national security consultant 

with more than 15 years of experience in the law enforcement and 

security arenas. He is the former director of the Office of Security 

and Investigations within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. As director, Mr. Maxwell was responsible for implementing 

and managing a comprehensive security program for USCIS. 

Mr. Maxwell has conducted lectures and training sessions in security planning and management, law enforcement management 

and other fields for Federal agencies, like the FBI, the DEA, ICE 

and the Department of Defense. He holds a Masters degree from 

Cambridge College. 

Michael Cutler is a retired senior special agent with the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s New York district office. He 

received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Brooklyn College of the 

City University of New York in 1971 and that year joined the INS 

as an immigration inspector at JFK Airport. From 1973 until 1974, 

he was assigned as an examiner to the unit responsible for adjudicating petitions filed by United States citizens and lawful permanent resident aliens for their alien spouses. 

In 1975, he became an INS criminal investigator. In this capacity, he rotated through all of the divisions in the New York district’s investigations branch. In 1991, he was made a senior special 

agent and assigned to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement 

Task Force. 

Mr. Cutler has appeared as a witness at congressional hearings 

at the invitation of both Republican and Democratic Members. He 

is currently a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. 

Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio was installed to lead the Roman 

Catholic Church’s Brooklyn diocese in October 2003. He began his 

ministry to migrant communities in 1976 as the refugee resettlement director for the archdiocese of Newark. Then-Father DiMarzio 

4

moved to Washington in 1985 when he was appointed the executive 

director of Migration and Refugee Services for the U.S. Catholic 

Conference. 

He was elevated to the rank of Bishop by Pope John Paul II in 

1996 and thereafter chaired the Migration Committee of the U.S. 

Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Legal Immigration 

Network, Incorporated. In 2000, Bishop DiMarzio was appointed a 

member of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants 

and Itinerant People. 

Gentlemen, if you will please stand and raise your right to take 

the oath. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you very much. You may be seated. 

And let the record show that the witnesses have responded in the 

affirmative. 

Gentlemen, you will notice the set of lights before you. Without 

objection, your entire written testimony will be made a part of the 

record. We ask that if possible you summarize as close within the 

5 minutes for your oral testimony. 

Mr. Gadiel, you are recognized. And could you turn the microphone on there? 

TESTIMONY OF PETER GADIEL, PRESIDENT, 9/11 FAMILIES 

FOR A SECURE AMERICA 

Mr. GADIEL. Sorry. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. 

Mr. GADIEL. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of so many who 

are the victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens, crimes made 

possible because our Government failed to prevent terrorists and 

felons from crossing our nation’s borders. 

As president of 9/11 Families for a Secure America, I and my 

Members agree that S. 2611 would be an administrative and national security nightmare. But words such as ‘‘administrative’’ are 

bloodless, bureaucratic terms that don’t adequately describe the 

devastation amnesty inflicts on Americans. 

Speaking as the bereaved father of a young man killed by terrorists who were allowed into our country only because of the power 

and influence of the open borders lobby that now stands behind S. 

2611, I will speak in plain English. Passing of this amnesty will result in Americans being murdered and subjected to other horrific 

crimes committed by the dangerous illegal aliens who would be 

permitted to legally remain in the United States. 

We know this to be true because such crimes directly resulted 

from the 1986 amnesty. 

This proposed amnesty is much larger and will cause crime on 

a much larger scale, yet that result is easily avoided if the House 

sticks to its guns and defeats S. 2611. 

As you pointed out a few moments ago, the 9/11 Commission 

itself reported how many people involved in terrorist acts—the 

1993 attack on the World Trade Center and the murders outside 

the CIA headquarters—were here thanks to the 1986 amnesty. It 

is interesting to note that the terrorist, Mir, the one who shot the 

people outside the CIA headquarters, had filed a fraudulent claim 

5

and his claim is being litigated on his behalf by Catholic Social 

Services. 

These are only a few of the long list of killers and would-be killers that we know about who were permitted to remain in the U.S. 

thanks to the 1986 amnesty. And we know of them only because 

their crimes and conspiracies made the headlines. We can never 

know how many other illegal aliens received amnesty that later 

went on to commit horrible crimes, and we will never know because 

their ordinary street crimes did not get front page attention. 

Although we know that Americans were murdered and brutalized because of the 1986 amnesty, we don’t know how large that 

number is. But since nearly one-third of Federal inmates are foreign born, we can be certain that the number of victims is quite 

large. 

In the 4.5 years I have given in support of efforts to secure our 

borders, I have heard from hundreds who have been the victims of 

crimes committed by illegals. Without exception, they know that 

these crimes occurred because our Government failed to live up to 

its most basic obligation to its citizens: To protect us from foreign 

attack. 

The 9/11 Commission staff put it in simple terms: ‘‘Terrorists 

cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are 

unable to enter the country.’’ Yet with S. 2611, the Senate pretends 

that 9/11 and thousands of other crimes never happened. 

In 2002, the first time I was invited to speak at a press conference for Members of Congress, I noted that independent polls 

consistently showed that over 70 percent of Americans want drastic 

immigration reform immediately. I said that this majority would 

soon waken to the fact that the big obstacles to secure borders were 

the Congress and President George W. Bush and his predecessor, 

Bill Clinton. I predicted that soon that majority would be fed up, 

turn on these politicians who have blocked the changes needed to 

protect another 9/11. 

Recent changes have shown that that prediction is accurate. In 

the last month, nearly half the States and many cities and towns 

have passed laws to fight illegal immigration and its damaging effects on their economies and society. 

Nevertheless, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, La Raza, ACLU, 

the Catholic Church and the rest of the open borders lobby continue to show that for them the suffering and death endured by 

Americans is nothing but a cost of doing business, a cost of enlarging the membership. To its eternal shame, the Senate continues to 

do the bidding of that lobby and demands that our borders remain 

wide open to illegal aliens and the unknown criminals and terrorists among them. 

Last year, the House forced passage of the Real ID Act over the 

opposition of the open borders lobby in the Senate. Real ID will 

keep future terrorists from obtaining driver’s licenses that were the 

critical tool for the mass murders of 9/11. 

Today, again, for the good of our country, the House must act in 

opposition to the Senate and defeat S. 2611. 

My son, James, was not a statistic; he was a human being 

trapped with hundreds of his co-workers on the top floors of the 

World Trade Center while the building beneath them, forcing them 

6

further and further up till they had no refuge. I love him today as 

much as I ever did. I miss him every second of every day. But I 

am just one of thousands who are forever deprived of the love and 

comfort of someone dear to them because Congress allowed illegal 

aliens to enter and remain in this country. 

And there are many thousands more who, although they have 

survived their attacks, their lives are ruined by violent sexual acts, 

beatings, stabbings and other crimes, causing permanent physical 

and psychological damage. 

How many more parents like me, how many children, siblings, 

husbands, wives of victims of illegal alien crime must you and the 

Congress hear from before you reject once and for all the demands 

of the open borders lobby? 

And, last, a plea to President Bush. Mr. Bush, shortly after 9/

11, you stood on the ruins of the World Trade Center and since my 

son’s remains have never been recovered, that is the only tomb he 

will ever know. Mr. Bush, you said, ‘‘I hear you.’’ Well, Mr. Bush, 

I don’t think you did hear us, and the Senate hasn’t heard us, and 

I think it is time you started to listen to us and enforce the laws 

of the United States and protect us from foreign invaders. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gadiel follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER GADIEL

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

speak on behalf of so many who have been the victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens; crimes that were made possible because our government failed to prevent 

terrorists and felons from crossing our Nation’s borders. I am President of 9/11 Families for a Secure America (9/11FSA), an organization whose membership is comprised of family members of those killed in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 

2001. For obvious reasons our members strongly oppose S2611 because it would facilitate entry of terrorists into our country. 

We fully agree that S. 2611 would be an administrative and national security 

nightmare, but words such as ‘‘administrative’’ and ‘‘national security’’ are bloodless 

bureaucratic terms that fail to adequately describe the devastation amnesty inflicts 

on individual Americans. Speaking as the bereaved father of a young man killed by 

terrorists who were allowed into our country only because of the power and influence of the same Open Borders Lobby that is today promoting S. 2611, I will speak 

in plain English. Passing this amnesty will result in Americans being murdered, 

and subjected to other horrific crimes committed by the dangerous illegal aliens who 

would be permitted to legally remain in the United States. We know this to be true 

because this was the result of the 1986 amnesty. The amnesty proposed in S.2611 

will be far larger than that of 1986, and thus will cause crime on a much larger 

scale. This is a disaster that can easily be avoided if the House sticks to its principles and defeats S.2611. 

In 1986, Senator Edward Kennedy, then-Representative Charles Schumer, and 

other sponsors of amnesty claimed that ‘only’ one million illegal aliens would be eligible for amnesty. In fact, due to fraud in administration, and underestimation of 

the number of illegals in the United States, over three million illegals were actually 

granted amnesty. 

The investment firm of Morgan Stanley recently estimated that there are over 20 

million illegals in the United States. Yet, at a recent meeting with DHS officials, 

9/11 FSA Vice-President Bruce DeCell and I were told that Administration statisticians had ‘‘worked the numbers’’ and ‘‘only seven million’’ illegals would apply. That 

is approximately one third the Morgan Stanley estimate, oddly enough, the same 

fraction used by sponsors of the amnesty of 1986. The track record of the promoters 

of the 1986 amnesty in predicting the number of illegals who would be eligible tends 

to confirm what appears to be common knowledge to nearly everyone in the country 

today: the 20 million figure is closer to the mark. 

In 1986, sponsors of amnesty also assured us there would be safeguards to screen 

out those who were a danger to our country. Their failure to honor that promise 

is as clear as their inability to predict eligibility numbers. 

7

The 9/11 Commission itself showed us that the 1986 amnesty resulted in dead 

and injured Americans. It noted that two of the conspirators (Mohammed Salameh 

and Mahmud Abouhalima, aka Mahmud the Red) in the 1993 attack on the World 

Trader Center were illegal aliens permitted to remain in the US because of the 1986 

amnesty. A third plotter (Mohammed Abouhalima, aka Abo Halima) was permitted 

to stay in the US for six years until just before the attack when his application 

under the ’86 amnesty was finally denied. Despite the denial he remained in the 

US to help carry out the plot he had helped plan during the period he was ‘‘legal.’’

Mir Aimal Kansi who shot five people outside CIA headquarters was an illegal 

alien also permitted to remain in the US thanks to the 1986 amnesty law. At the 

time of his 1993 attack his fraudulent claim was still being litigated by Catholic Social Services. 

Former 9/11 Commission staff member, Janice Kephart, has documented a large 

list of foreign terrorists and their methods of entering the United States and embedding themselves here. (Her 2005 paper, Immigration and Terrorism, Moving Beyond 

the 9/11 Staff report on Terrorist Travel is available on the World Wide Web at 

http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/kephart.html) 

Obviously, Ms. Kephart’s list of terrorists and would-be terrorists includes only 

those who have been uncovered by law enforcement. Their involvement in terrorist 

activities resulted in the research which disclosed their grants of amnesty under the 

1986 legislation. The FBI has stated that there are sleeper agents in the United 

States and of course since we do not know who they are we cannot know how many 

of them have been granted full access to our society through amnesty. 

In addition, we can never know many other illegal aliens received amnesty and 

later went on to commit ‘ordinary’ violent street crimes which did not, because of 

the lack of a terrorist connection, result in exposure of their link to the 1986 amnesty. 

We know that Americans were murdered and brutalized because of the 1986 amnesty. Although we don’t know how large that number is, since nearly 1/3 of federal 

inmates are foreign born, we can be certain that the number of victims is very considerable. Because the agencies that will be assigned responsibility for screening applicants will not be able to do meaningful background checks on the 20 million 

illegals who would apply for amnesty under S. 2611, the opportunities for terrorists 

and ‘ordinary’ street criminals, are obvious. 

In the four and a half years I’ve given in support of efforts to secure our borders, 

I have heard from hundreds who have been the victims of crimes committed by 

illegals. Without exception they know these crimes occurred because our government failed to live up to its most basic obligation to its citizens . . . to protect us 

from foreign attack. The 9/11 Commission staff put it in simple terms: ‘‘terrorists 

cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter 

the country.’’ Yet, with S.2611 the Senate pretends that 9/11 and thousands of other 

crimes never happened. 

In 2002, the first time I spoke at a Congressional press conference I noted that 

independent polls consistently show 70% to 90% of Americans want drastic immigration reform immediately and that this majority would soon awaken to the fact 

that the biggest obstacles to secure borders were the Congress and Presidents 

George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. I predicted that soon this majority would be fed 

up and turn on those politicians who have blocked the changes needed to prevent 

another 9/11. Recent events have shown that prediction to be accurate, for in the 

past few months, nearly half the States and many cities and towns have passed 

laws to fight illegal immigration and its damaging effects on their economies and 

society. They have left the Congress in the dust while they act to preserve themselves. 

Among the municipalities that have enacted legislation or policies to discourage 

illegal immigrants from remaining in their jurisdictions are: Suffolk County, N.Y., 

Avon Park, FL, Herndon, VA, Sandwich Mass., Maricopa County, AZ, Butler County, OH, Danbury CT, Lima, OH., Hazleton, PA, 

States that have acted are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, 

Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, 

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, 

Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, 

These actions have taken place despite well funded and coordinated opposition to 

any restrictions on illegal aliens by Catholic Charities, ACLU, LaRaza (the Race), 

Maldef, LULAC, US Chamber of Commerce, agribusiness, the travel industry, etc. 

It must be noted, for example that Catholic Charities, which receives 60% of its 

budget from governmental sources is among the most pervasive of open borders lobbying groups. 9/11 FSA members have encountered Catholic Charities lobbyists acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:41 Oct 26, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\IMMIG\072706\28909.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
8

tive in the following issues in state legislatures: for legislation to grant drivers licenses to illegals, against legislation to make engaging in human trafficking a 

crime; for instate college tuition rates for illegal aliens. 

In addition, the Mexican government, through its forty eight consulates and in 

violation of treaty obligations, lobbies city, county and state law making bodies 

throughout the nation in opposition to any legislation that would impede illegal immigration. 

For these, the constituent members of the Open Borders Lobby, the suffering and 

death endured by Americans as a result of illegal immigration is just a cost of doing 

business. To its eternal shame, the Senate continues to do the bidding of that lobby, 

demanding that our borders remain wide open to illegal aliens and the criminals 

and terrorists among them. S.2611 exemplifies the Senate’s mindless support of that 

destructive policy 

Last year, the House forced passage of the REAL ID Act despite intense opposition from the Open Borders Lobby and the Senate. REAL ID will keep future terrorists from obtaining the drivers licenses that were critical to carrying out the mass 

murders of 9/11. Today again, for the good of our country, the House must act in 

opposition to the Senate and defeat S.2611

My son, James, was not a statistic. He was a human being. I loved him and I 

love him now as much as ever. I miss him every second of every day. There are 

many thousands more like me, who are forever deprived of the love and comfort of 

someone dear to them because Congress allowed illegal aliens to enter and remain 

in this country. And there are many thousands more whose lives are ruined by violent sexual acts, beatings, stabbings and other crimes causing permanent physical 

and psychological devastation. 

How many more parents like me, and children, siblings, husbands and wives of 

victims of illegal alien crime must you in the Congress hear from before you reject 

once and for all the demands of the Open Borders Lobby. 

Shortly after 9/11, Pres. Bush stood on the ruins of the World Trade Center, and 

because none of his remains have ever been found that was the only tomb my son 

will ever know. The President said: ‘‘I hear you.’’ I believe he and the Senate did 

not hear us. I believe it is time he, and they, started.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Gadiel. 

Mr. Maxwell. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL MAXWELL, FORMER DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIONS, UNITED STATES 

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES 

Mr. MAXWELL. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I 

am pleased to be here today to discuss the impact and implementation of S. 2611 by USCIS would have on national security. 

As a former director of the Office of Security and Investigations, 

the only law enforcement component within USCIS, I must point 

out that the basic premise of this hearing and implementation of 

2611 could create an administrative and national security nightmare that is faulty. 

The fact is an administrative and national security nightmare already exists at USCIS under our current immigration policy. 

Asking USCIS to implement a proposal as sweeping as 2611 

without first addressing existing national security vulnerabilities in 

our immigration system would be irresponsible at best and could 

actually facilitate ongoing criminal enterprises. 

I therefore agree with Director Gonzalez who said just this past 

Monday, at a naturalization ceremony in New Jersey, ‘‘If we had 

to institute a guest worker program today, then the system couldn’t 

handle it.’’

I would go one step further, however, and suggest that USCIS 

could never implement 2611 without compromising this nation’s security. The integrity of the underlying immigration system is simply too flawed. 

9

Three overarching issues must, in my professional view, be addressed before any policy reform can be effective. The first is rampant corruption. When I last briefed this Subcommittee, the Office 

of Security and Investigations had a backlog of over 2,000 complaints against USCIS employees. Included among these were national security cases. I had no case management system and a 

grand total of four criminal investigators in the field. 

Today, almost a year later, the backlog is well over 3,000 complaints. New complaints are still coming in at a rate of around 50 

per week. OSI still has a grand total of four criminal investigators 

in the field and no case management system. 

Despite four arrests and two convictions of USCIS employees in 

the past few months alone on charges including soliciting sex for 

citizenship, selling $1 million worth of green cards in a money 

laundering scheme, falsifying immigration documents and embezzlement, USCIS management continues, in writing, to insist that 

sufficient safeguards are built into the system to prevent immigration officers from illegally granting the benefits of their choosing, 

to the person of their choosing, at the time of their choosing, for 

the reason of their choosing. 

The second issue is a prevailing customer service mentality that 

prioritizes reducing backlogs and moving benefits above all else. 

For example, USCIS has created an auto-adjudication system that 

can apparently process applications for work permits from start to 

finish without any employee actually examining the supporting 

documentation for signs of fraud. The system bypasses all but the 

initial IDA, security name check and therefore searches only the 

printed name of the applicant and not any spelling variation or 

aliases—hardly effective. 

With a work permit in hand, an alien can obtain a Social Security number and, even under the Real ID Act, a driver’s license, 

then open a bank account, perhaps obtain a fire arms license, 

board an aircraft, et cetera. 

USCIS personnel, without the knowledge of the USCIS or DHS 

chief information officers, developed a computer system, embedded 

it into the DHS IT backbone, allowing for remote users to manually 

insert immigration files into the USCIS database in such a manner 

so that all security background checks were circumvented and immigration benefits were granted to aliens of their choosing. 

Following an initial report from IT security staff, senior USCIS 

leadership quashed any further investigation, including criminal 

investigation, of the system and took actions to cover up its existence. It should be noted that official USCIS documents revealed 

this program was not a law enforcement program. 

As of March 10, 2006, the USCIS headquarters Asylum Division 

had a backlog of 515 asylum cases involving applicants residing in 

the United States who have provided material support to a terrorist or terrorist organization. Their cases are on hold to give DHS 

time to develop procedures for considering whether the secretary of 

Homeland Security should exercise discretion to grant them a 

waiver of inadmissibility so they can stay permanently in the 

United States despite their terrorist ties. 

The third issue is the ongoing failure to share critical law enforcement information within DHS or between DHS and other 

10

agencies. As of August 2005, some 1,400 immigration applications 

that had generated national security hits on IBIS were sitting in 

limbo at USCIS headquarters because the adjudicators trying to 

process them were unable to obtain the national security information that caused them to be flagged from other agencies. 

As of late September 2005, USCIS had a total backlog of more 

than 41,000 applications with IBIS hits, requiring further investigation. Because USCIS is not a law enforcement, the FBI does 

not permit USCIS personnel to conduct name checks on immigration applicants and as of May 2006, the FBI name check backlog 

had grown to almost 236,000. 

As non law enforcement personnel, USCIS adjudicators are prohibited from routinely running criminal history checks on applicants. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, on June 20, Karl Rove told the National Federation of Independent Business, ‘‘Immigration is turning 

into a big problem. The more you look at it, the more clearer it is 

that every single part of the system is broken.’’

In medical parlance, we must stop the hemorrhage before we can 

treat the underlying condition. The proposed Senate bill and its associated timeline would overwhelm an already overburdened 

USCIS and put this nation at great peril. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. With 

that, I will be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Maxwell follows:]

11

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. MAXWELL


MJMA0001.eps
12


MJMA0002.eps
13


MJMA0003.eps
14


MJMA0004.eps
15


MJMA0005.eps
16


MJMA0006.eps
17


MJMA0007.eps
18


MJMA0008.eps
19


MJMA0009.eps
20


MJMA0010.eps
21


MJMA0011.eps
22


MJMA0012.eps
23


MJMA0013.eps
24


MJMA0014.eps
25


MJMA0015.eps
26


MJMA0016.eps
27


MJMA0017.eps
28


MJMA0018.eps
29


MJMA0019.eps
30


MJMB0001.eps
31


MJMB0002.eps
32


MJMB0003.eps
33


MJMB0004.eps
34


MJMB0005.eps
35


MJMB0006.eps
36


MJMB0007.eps
37


MJMB0008.eps
38


MJMB0009.eps
39


MJMB0010.eps
40


MJMB0011.eps
41


MJMB0012.eps
42


MJMB0013.eps
43


MJMB0014.eps
44


MJMB0015.eps
45


MJMC0003.eps
46


MJMC0004.eps
47


MJMC0005.eps
48


MJMC0006.eps
49


MJMC0007.eps
50


MJMC0008.eps
51


MJMC0009.eps
52


MJMC0010.eps
53


MJMC0011.eps
54


MJMC0012.eps
55


MJMC0013.eps
56


MJMC0014.eps
57


MJMC0015.eps
58


MJMC0016.eps
59


MJMC0017.eps
60

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. 

Mr. Cutler, you are recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL CUTLER, FORMER EXAMINER, INSPECTOR, AND SPECIAL AGENT, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE 

Mr. CUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, Members of 

the Subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen, it is an honor to come before this Subcommittee hearing to offer testimony on an issue that 

is one of the most challenging and important issues our nation 

faces today. 

I commend Chairman Hostettler and Members of this Subcommittee for demonstrating true leadership at a time that our nation is in need of true leadership. 

The principle by which most responsible and sensible people live 

their lives could be summed up by the phrase, ‘‘Safety first.’’ Yet 

this fundamental and common sense approach is clearly lacking 

among all too many of the senators of our nation. They voted for 

a bill that utterly ignores the findings and recommendations of the 

9/11 Commission at a time when our nation is threatened by acts 

of terrorism. 

Nearly every week we read news accounts of suspected terrorists 

being arrested in countries around the world as well as within the 

borders of our own country. We see compelling coverage of bombings of trains in Spain, England and most recently India. One of 

this country’s closest allies, Israel, has been forced to take military 

action to defend itself against terrorism in the Middle East, and yet 

inexplicably there are senators and others, including the president 

of the United States who insist on pushing forward to implement 

the GuestWorker Amnesty Program that would be utterly disastrous for national security. 

USCIS is unable to cope with all of its responsibilities as we 

speak. The GAO issued a report in March of this year that makes 

it clear that USCIS is unable to carry out its vital missions today 

without the added burden that the GuestWorker Amnesty Program 

would undeniably bring to bear against that overworked, underfunded and, in general, inept agency. 

I would recommend a copy of this report be reviewed by the 

Members, not only of this Subcommittee but by all members of our 

Government who favor a GuestWorker Amnesty Program. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Cutler, if I could just interrupt. Without 

objection——

Mr. CUTLER. Sure. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I will submit into the record the March 2006 

report that you reference, ‘‘Immigration Benefits: Additional Controls and a Sanction Strategy Could Enhance DHS’ Ability to Control Benefit Fraud.’’ Thank you. 

[The report follows in the Appendix] 

Mr. CUTLER. That is the report, and I appreciate that you do 

that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sure. 

My fear is that because we are dealing with millions of illegal 

aliens who, in the parlance of the open borders advocates, are unVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:41 Oct 26, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\072706\28909.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
61

documented that means they have no verifiable means of proving 

their true identities. This means that if the program were to be enacted under S. 2611 that it will be a simple matter for illegal 

aliens, including terrorists or criminals, to walk into an immigration office, along with millions of other illegal aliens, and produce 

a false name and then get an official identity document from our 

Government bureaucrats. 

These documents would then enable them to circumvent the various no-fly and terror watch lists. They would be able to use these 

documents as breeder documents, get driver’s licenses, Social Security cards, open bank accounts, even library cards, all the while 

staying under the radar and obscuring and concealing their true 

identity, and all of this at a time when the citizens of our country 

have witnessed an erosion of many of the freedoms that we have 

come to take for granted in the name of national security. 

I have heard the President often state that if our nation allowed 

aliens who simply wanted to work to do so, that law enforcement 

could then focus on the terrorists. I have to respectfully disagree 

with this optimistic but extremely naive assessment. 

Awhile back, Robert Mueller, the director of the FBI, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee about his concerns about 

so-called sleeper agents. As you know, a sleeper agent is a terrorist, 

spy or enemy combatant who one way or another succeeds in gaining entry into the United States to carry out an attack or other 

hostile act against our country. 

But while awaiting his instructions, however, such individuals do 

whatever they have to do to not call attention to themselves. Many, 

as we have seen, get low-profile [jobs], such as driving an ice cream 

truck, a taxicab, work in a used car lot, or attend school. Often the 

job that they take provides them with mobility to move freely 

among us as they conduct clandestine meetings, surveillance or 

other preparatory functions till the day that they are called into action. 

A few days before a terrorist carries out an attack, he is in fact 

likely to hide in plain sight by going to his job. If our Government 

makes it that much easier for a terrorist to legally get a job under 

an assumed identity, then Al Qaida should give the people in our 

Government who make this possible the MVP award. 

The GuestWorker Amnesty Program will undoubtedly entice 

ever-increasing numbers of illegal aliens to head for our country, 

because this program will convince people throughout the world 

that in the United States not only will you be permitted to break 

the law and get away with it, but that we are actually willing to 

reward you for breaking the law by even providing you with Social 

Security benefits when you commit identity theft and use somebody 

else’s Social Security number, even as law enforcement agencies 

across our country are increasingly turning to asset forfeiture strategies to combat a wide variety of crimes on the city, State and Federal level. 

Moreover, there is no door that could be shut so there is no way 

to keep the millions more illegal aliens from gaining access to our 

country. The confidentiality provisions would also hobble efforts by 

law enforcement officials to make certain that criminal and terVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:41 Oct 26, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\072706\28909.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
62

rorist aliens have their applications properly scrutinized, inviting 

more fraud. 

The avalanche of applications will further erode any effort to restore integrity to the benefit system, meaning that fraud will become even more attractive to criminal and terrorist aliens, furthering encouraging more of them to seek to enter the United 

States, making it easier for them to game the system, and then we 

wind up with a vicious cycle where we have more aliens filing more 

applications, and quality will continue to erode as more applications are filed. 

And, meanwhile, decent people who file applications for benefits 

will be put on the back of this line because the overflowing system 

won’t be able to deal with their applications. That was one of the 

lessons of the 1986 amnesty, in fact. 

Additionally, a meaningful effort needs to be made, not only to 

deny applications where fraud is involved but to prosecute people 

who become involved in fraud and to remove aliens who are identified as being the beneficiaries of fraud applications. Right now they 

file an application with little fear of either criminal charges being 

brought or administrative deportation actions being initiated. 

So if you consider all of this and you realize that the bill of 1986 

is essentially a reworked version that we are looking at now, it 

makes no sense to continue along this path. S. 2611, at a time that 

we are in now, facing terrorism, facing growing problems with narcotics and gang activities in the United States, makes no sense, 

and any kind of amnesty program must not be considered at this 

time. 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cutler follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL W. CUTLER

Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, members of the subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen, it is an honor to come before this subcommittee 

hearing to offer testimony on an issue is that one of the most challenging and important issues our nation faces today. I commend Chairman Hostettler and members of this subcommittee for demonstrating true leadership at a time when our nation is in need of true leadership. 

The principle by which most responsible and sensible people live their lives can 

be summed up by the phrase, ‘‘Safety first.’’ We instill this principle in our children 

as soon as they are old enough to understand the words. Yet, this fundamental and 

commonsense approach is clearly lacking among all too many of the senators of our 

nation. They voted for a bill that utterly ignores the findings and recommendations 

of the 911 Commission at a time when our nation is threatened by acts of terrorism. 

Nearly every week we read news accounts of suspected terrorists being arrested in 

countries around the world as well as within the borders of our own country. We 

see compelling coverage of bombings of trains in Spain, England and India, most 

recently. One of this country’s closest allies, Israel, has been forced to take military 

action to defend itself against terrorism in the Middle East. Yet inexplicably, there 

are senators and others who insist on pushing forward to implement a guest worker 

amnesty program that would be utterly disastrous for national security. 

USCIS, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that 

would be responsible for administering the proposed guest worker amnesty program, 

is unable to cope with all of its responsibilities as we speak. The GAO issued a report in March of this year, makes it clear that USCIS is unable to carry out its vital 

missions today, without the added burden that the guest worker amnesty program 

would undeniably bring to bear against that overworked, under funded and in general, inept agency. The report is entitled, ‘‘Immigration Benefits: Additional Controls 

and a Sanctions Strategy Could Enhance DHS’s Ability to Control Benefit Fraud’’ 

and can be found at the following link:

63

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/gaoimmbenefits31006.pdf

I would recommend that a copy of this report be reviewed by the members of not 

only this subcommittee, but by all members of our government who favor a guest 

worker amnesty program. 

My fear is that because we are dealing with millions of illegal aliens who, in the 

parlance of the open borders advocates, are undocumented, have no verifiable means 

of proving their true identities. This means that if this program were enacted, these 

millions of illegal aliens would be able to go to an immigration office, assume any 

identity they found convenient and receive official identity documents from our government. It would be a simple matter for a terrorist or criminal, to walk into such 

an office, provide a false name to the over-worked bureaucrat at USCIS who will 

probably be given only a minute or two at most to interview each applicant. The 

terrorist would then receive a guest-worker identity document in that new identity 

that would permit him to circumvent the various terrorist watch lists or so called, 

‘‘No fly’’ lists and thereby embed himself in our country and gain access to what 

are supposed to be secure venues. Undoubtedly, these identity documents will become the most valued breeder document enabling the bearer to receive driver’s licenses, credit cards, Social Security numbers and even library cards in a false name, 

completing the process of creating new false identities at grave risk to national security, at a time that the citizens of our country have witnessed an erosion of many 

of the freedoms we have come to take for granted. 

I have heard the President often state that if our nation allowed aliens who simply wanted to work, to do so, that law enforcement could then focus on the terrorists. I have to respectfully disagree with this optimistic but extremely na ́ıve assessment. Awhile back, Robert S. Mueller, the Director of the FBI testified before the 

Senate Intelligence Committee about his concerns about so-called ‘‘sleeper’’ agents. 

As you know, a sleeper agent is a terrorist, spy or enemy combatant, who one way 

or the other succeeds in gaining entry into our country awaiting instructions to 

carry out a terrorist attack or other hostile act against our country. While awaiting 

his instructions, such individuals do whatever they have to do in order to not call 

attention to themselves. Many, as we have seen, get a low-profile job such as driving 

an ice cream truck or a taxi cab, work at a used car lot or attend school. Often the 

job they take provides them with the mobility to move freely among us as they conduct clandestine meetings, surveillance or other preparatory functions for the day 

they are called into action. A few days before a terrorist carries out an attack he 

is, in fact, likely to hide in plain sight by going to his job. 

If our government makes it that much easier for a terrorist to legally get a job 

under an assumed identity, then Al Qaeda should give the people in our government 

who make this possible, the ‘‘MVP Award.’’ When we see commercials on television 

or ads in the newspapers for various goods or services, the ad usually concludes 

with a disclaimer by the provider of that product or service that details the potential 

negative impact that the product may have on the consumer. With all of the highpressure sales pitches we have been bombarded with by members of the United 

States Senate in attempting to sell their bill, S. 2611, they have neglected to provide 

a disclaimer, so I will do it for them. 

If we provide illegal aliens with guest worker amnesty that differentiates how we 

treat aliens based on how long they have been here, it will be virtually impossible 

to make certain that this, along with all of the other provisions, will have integrity, 

just as it will be impossible to make certain that many more illegal aliens don’t run 

our borders, stow away on ships or gain entry through ports of entry, claiming that 

they have been here for the 5 years that would virtually provide them with the 

‘‘keys to the kingdom.’’ There would be no way to force these millions of illegal 

aliens to leave our country because we cannot enforce their departure today. The 

guest worker amnesty program will undoubtedly entice ever increasing numbers of 

illegal aliens to head for our country because this program will convince people 

throughout the world that in the United States, not only will you be permitted to 

break the law and get away with it, we are willing to reward you for breaking the 

law by even providing you with Social Security benefits if you commit identity theft 

and work, or claim to have worked, under someone else’s Social Security number, 

even as law enforcement agencies across our nation are increasingly turning to asset 

forfeiture strategies to combat a wide variety of crimes on the city, state and federal 

level. Moreover, there is no door that can be shut, so there is no way to keep millions of more illegal aliens from gaining access to our country. The confidentiality 

provisions would also hobble efforts by law enforcement officials to make certain 

that criminal and terrorist aliens have their applications properly scrutinized. The 

avalanche of applications will further erode any effort to restore integrity to the benefits system meaning that fraud will become even more attractive to criminal and 

64

terrorist aliens, further encouraging more of them to seek to enter the United States 

and making it easier for them to game the system to enable them to embed themselves within our country and hide in plain sight. As it is, each year the director 

of USCIS and his subordinates promise to reduce the backlog of pending applications for a wide variety of immigration benefits including the granting of resident 

alien status and the conferring of United States citizenship upon aliens. It is common knowledge that there is an inverse proportion between quantity and quality. 

The more work you try to do in a limited period of time, the more that the quality 

of the work you are doing suffers. By having USCIS make the reduction of the backlog of pending applications the priority, more fraud escapes detection. Consequently 

more aliens get away with committing fraud, emboldening still more aliens to file 

more fraudulent applications for benefits, further eroding any efforts at quality control and fraud detection. This creates an ever-increasing backlog and an ever-increasing spiral of fraud. In order to break this dangerous cycle, we need to establish 

a clear priority of combating fraud where those who perpetrate fraud can expect 

that they may well be discovered and prosecuted. Additionally, a meaningful effort 

needs to be made to locate, arrest and deport alien beneficiaries of fraudulent applications. 

Because of the current pressure to move the applications, much of the fraud escapes detection and only a relatively infinitesimal number of aliens are ever prosecuted or deported because they were involved in immigration benefit fraud. A guest 

worker amnesty program that has the potential of dumping millions of more applications into the hopper at USCIS would be absolutely disastrous for any effort at 

combating immigration benefit fraud and restoring even a modicum of integrity to 

the immigration system and would fly in the face of recommendations of the 911 

Commission. 

As all of this is going on, our valiant soldiers are fighting in far off lands to help 

protect our nation against terrorists while some of our politicians at home are seemingly unwilling to secure our nation against the scourge of terrorism in the name 

of free trade and a desire to keep our nation’s borders wide open. They use deceptive 

language to obfuscate the issue and, quite frankly so has the President of the 

United States. I have often heard the President say that he wanted to legalize immigrants. I am, as you know, a former INS special agent. This combination of 

words, ‘‘legalizing immigrants,’’ has confounded me. Language is important and so 

I think it is important to make this point. To offer to make immigrants legal is 

about as meaningful as offering to make water wet. Water is wet and immigrants, 

by legal definition, are already legal. In fact, an immigrant is defined as an alien 

who has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence. An immigrant has a socalled ‘‘green card’’ and is able to travel freely around our country and across our 

nation’s borders. An Immigrant has the right to work at any job he is qualified to 

do. An immigrant has the right to petition the government to have his spouse join 

him in the United States as an immigrant and may also do this for his (her) minor 

children. Indeed, an immigrant is on the path to United States citizenship. How 

much more legal would the President want to make an immigrant? 

I believe that just as the members of the Senate who voted for S. 2611 and other 

pro illegal alien advocates are not likely to provide a disclaimer for their remedy 

to the immigration crisis confronting our nation today, this improper and misleading 

use of the term immigrant falls under the heading of ‘‘deceptive business practices.’’ 

By eliminating the distinction between illegal aliens and immigrants, it becomes a 

simple matter to keep hammering away at the concept that America is the land of 

immigrants and that immigrants have made immeasurable contributions to our nation over the years. I am a strong advocate for the recognition of the contributions 

of immigrants to our nation, indeed, I am the son of an immigrant; however, there 

is a world of difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien. 

There is scant difference between the bill the Senate recently passed and the disastrous Amnesty of 1986, notwithstanding the protestations of the members of the 

Senate who would take issue with my position. But, if they do not want to learn 

the lesson of relatively recent history where the Amnesty of 1986 is concerned, then 

I would recommend that they study much more distant history and study the strategy behind the ‘‘Trojan Horse.’’ Only a fool would permit strangers into his home 

without knowing their true identity or purpose for seeking to enter. Yet, this is precisely what S. 2611 facilitates. In these perilous times, this is not acceptable and 

must not be allowed. 

In support of my concerns about the failings of USCIS I respectfully request that 

a copy of the GAO report I cited previously be attached to this testimony along with 

a press release prepared by USCIS dated June 29, 2006, entitled, ‘‘A Day in the Life 

of USCIS’’ that details the myriad tasks that are performed on a daily basis now, 

before they might have to deal with the onslaught of millions of amnesty applicaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:41 Oct 26, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\IMMIG\072706\28909.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
65

tions that the Senate bill would cause. I have attached a copy of that press release 

to my prepared testimony and believe it provides ample evidence of just how USCIS 

is over-extended, even without the guest worker amnesty program it would be mandated to administer under the provisions of S. 2611. It may be found at the following website:

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/gaoimmbenefits31006.pdf

Simply stated, a guest worker amnesty program would not only attract even more 

illegal aliens into our country enabling terrorists and criminals to more easily blend 

into our country, it would also provide unknown aliens with official identity documents in assumed identities that would enable the terrorists and criminals with an 

easy means of creating new identities they could use to travel freely across our borders, around our nation and gain access to secure venues and embed themselves in 

our country. This would, I fear, create a grave risk to our nation’s security. 

I look forward to your questions.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Cutler. 

Bishop DiMarzio, you are recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF NICHOLAS DiMARZIO, BISHOP OF BROOKLYN 

Bishop DIMARZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members, for 

this opportunity to testify today. 

I have to disagree with one of my former panelists, because I 

don’t think the Catholic Church is part of the open border lobby. 

I do agree with another who said that we already have a nightmare 

here, a security nightmare, because we have an untold number of 

undocumented aliens in this country. That is a grave security problem. 

The Catholic Church has long experience in working with immigrant populations. In our Catholic Legal Immigration Network, we 

have 158 agencies that do offer legal services. They are all BIA accredited. And so we, too, wish to make people legal in this country, 

and we respect the immigration laws, and we also respect the right 

of nations to protect their borders. 

There is no question that we have not done a good of protecting 

our borders, but I would contend that the problem, as well as being 

a border issue, is a labor market issue. The problem is in the labor 

market as much as it is at the border. 

We need to deal with it in a comprehensive way to deal with all 

of the issues so that we can have security. It is obviously our goal, 

and background checks, as we have heard already, are critical. I 

think with the new information technology we have, if we have a 

will to find a way to make background checks better, I am sure we 

can do that. 

We must be sure also to give adequate resources to implement 

the program. In the last amnesty, of which I think I am a survivor, 

I was here in 1986, worked with Congress, was running the Catholic Church’s implementation program, we needed to have perhaps 

a better relationship with the Immigration Service at the time. 

I hope that USCIS in this time, if we are able to bring some program of legalization around, will have a better relationship with us 

called, the qualified designated agencies, which helped the Immigration Service at that time to process all these applications. 

Obviously, fraud is a major concern. The Catholic Church does 

not stand for fraud. We, in our application process, made very effort to make sure that any application process by us was certainly 

legal and had the proper documentation. That is where the qualiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:41 Oct 26, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\072706\28909.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
66

fied entities can be of great assistance to the Immigration Service 

in doing that work. 

I think also, as we look to the—there are certain qualifications 

that we need in a program as we are finding it. In order to deal 

with the security issue, we have to be in a comprehensive approach 

to dealing with all of the factors that influence undocumented immigration. 

I just finished a term as the commissioner for the Global Commission International Migration, a U.N.-inspired body, that will 

bring its report to the United Nations this September. What is 

clear in the many hearings we had around the world that undocumented migration is an international problem. 

But only with international cooperation can we ever hope to resolve this problem. We need to work with the nations from which 

these people come to deal with the issue in an upfront and enlightened manner so that we can stem the flow of unregulated migration, which is good neither for the people nor for the countries from 

which they come or to which they come. We are clear that that is 

our policy. 

I think also we need to look at the opportunities that this presents. This program characterizes that amnesty is probably more 

a legalization program. There are rather onerous burdens that 

have to be passed in order for this to happen. I urge the House to 

work with the Senate to improve the bill so that it is something 

that is comprehensive, something that will aim at security, which 

is a paramount question in our society today so that we can have 

an immigration system that works. 

We need immigrants in our country. It seems our labor market 

needs them, but we have to find a way we can bring them here legally without any of the external problems that have plagued us 

in the past. If the law is broken, we must fix it. And, certainly, 

when we fix it, we must do it in the right way, and I am sure that 

with the expertise of Congress that this can be done. 

So thank you for this opportunity to speak today. 

[The prepared statement of Bishop DiMarzio follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MOST REVEREND NICHOLAS DIMARZIO

I am Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, bishop of Brooklyn, chairman of the Catholic 

Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), and a consultant to the U.S. Conference 

of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Migration. I would like to thank subcommittee Chairman John Hostetler (R-IN) and Ranking Member Sheila Jackson 

Lee (D-TX) for having me today to testify before the subcommittee. 

Today, I would like to concentrate my testimony in the following areas:

• elements necessary to correct inefficiencies which occurred in implementing 

the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)—the last legalization 

program—and to ensure efficient processing of applications for any legalization enacted this year;

• the value of a comprehensive approach to immigration reform as an antidote 

to the immigration crisis we face in our country today, including how such 

an approach is consistent with, and beneficial to, national security goals; and

• elements of H.R. 4437 which we find problematic because they harm legal immigrants, refugees, and asylum-seekers. 

THE ROLE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN IMMIGRATION REFORM

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

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

and refugees who have helped build our nation throughout her history. Many CathoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:41 Oct 26, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\IMMIG\072706\28909.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
67

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. 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, No. 57. 

lic immigration programs were involved in the implementation of IRCA in the 1980s 

and continue to work with immigrants today. In fact, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was a national coordinating agency for the implementation of 

IRCA. We have a strong working relationship with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the 

agency that would be largely responsible for implementing any new legalization and 

temporary worker programs. There are currently 158 Catholic immigration programs throughout the country under the auspices of the U.S. bishops. 

Our experience in working with immigrants throughout the years compels us to 

speak out on the issue of immigration reform, which we believe is a moral issue 

which impacts the human rights and human life of the person. The Church’s work 

in assisting migrants stems from the belief that every person is created in God’s 

image. In the Old Testament, God calls upon his people to care for the alien because 

of their own alien experience; ‘‘So, you, too, must befriend the alien, for you were 

once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt’’ (Deut. 10:17–19). In the New Testament, the image of the migrants is grounded in the life and teachings of Jesus 

Christ. In his own life and work, Jesus identified himself with newcomers and with 

other marginalized persons in a special way; ‘‘I was a stranger and you welcomed 

me’’ (Mt. 25:35). Jesus himself was an itinerant preacher without a home of his own 

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

In modern times, popes over the last hundred years have developed the Church’s 

teaching on migration. Pope Pius XII reaffirmed the Church’s commitment to caring 

for pilgrims, aliens, exiles, and migrants of every kind, affirming that all people 

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

present, the right to migrate.1 Pope John Paul II stated that there is a need to balance the rights of nations to control their borders with basic human rights, including the right to work; ‘‘Interdependence must be transformed into solidarity based 

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

statement, Ecclesia in America, John Paul II reaffirmed the rights of migrants and 

their families and the need for respecting human dignity, ‘‘even in cases of unauthorized migration.’’ 3

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

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

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

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

In the pastoral letter Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope, the 

United States and Mexican bishops point out why we speak on the migration issue; 

‘‘As pastors, we witness the consequences of a failed system every day in the eyes 

of migrants who come to our parish doors in search of assistance. We are shepherds 

to communities, both along the border and in the interior of the nation, which are 

impacted by immigration. Most tragically, we witness the loss of life at points along 

our southern border when migrants, desperate to find employment to support themselves and their families, perish in the desert.’’ 4

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

immigrants and how our nation welcomes newcomers from all lands. The current 

immigration system, which can lead to family separation, suffering, and even death, 

is morally unacceptable and must be reformed. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

As the then Director of the U.S. Catholic Conference’s Migration and Refugee 

Services (MRS), I oversaw the Catholic Church’s participation in programs to assist 

the millions of aliens who applied for immigration benefits under IRCA. Since that 

time, I was appointed a bishop by the Holy Father, where I now head the diocese 

of Brooklyn, one of the largest and most diverse dioceses in the country. 

From my position as a bishop, not only do I minister to a diocese that has within 

it many immigrants, I also serve as Chairman of Board of Directors for the Catholic 

Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), which advises and provides immigration 

services for dioceses all around the country. 

My time with MRS, my experience as a bishop, and the research that the Church 

has conducted over the last several decades lead me to conclude that it is possible 

to establish a program to permit deserving undocumented aliens to apply for earned 

68

legalization without crippling the process of adjudicating other applicants for immigration benefits or jeopardizing our national security. In order to do this, however, 

Congress will have to provide a number of things:

• Adequate Resources

• Proper Planning Before Implementation

• Establishment of a Separate Entity within USCIS to Implement the Bill

• The Use of Qualified Designated Entities

• Rigorous Background Checks

These five elements are a subset of a larger list of necessities that I outline later 

in my testimony. However, because the subject of today’s hearing is the question 

of the adequacy of an already over-burdened USCIS to process applications for legalization, I will set out those factors at this point in my testimony. 

ADEQUATE RESOURCES

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

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA) of 2006 anticipates this by establishing fees that will generate approximately 66 billion dollars of revenue dedicated 

to processing applications for earned adjustment. 

The fee-generated funds, alone, will not be adequate, however. Congress will also 

need to directly appropriate funds to get the program started. And it will need to 

be vigilant to ensure that fee-generated funds are not diverted for other purposes, 

as has often been done in the past 

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

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

funds and yield a less desirable result. Imagine how much it would cost to apprehend, detain, and deport the estimated 12 million aliens who are in the United 

States illegally? The cost of properly implementing an earned adjustment program 

is tiny when compared to the cost of the alternative approach. 

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

through reasonable fees imposed on applicants and with some supplemental funding 

appropriated by Congress. Fees should not be imposed, however, which place the 

program out of the reach of qualified applicants. 

Proper Planning Before Implementation/Reasonable Enactment Period:

Sufficient time should be given between enactment and implementation so that regulations, procedures, and infrastructure are in place. Deportations of prospective applicants who qualify should be suspended between the two dates. However, Congress should mandate an expedited rulemaking process so that the program is not 

delayed significantly. If key issues are not resolved at the program’s outset, inefficiencies and litigation will occur. The application period for the program should last 

at least one year so that all qualified applicants can raise the application fee and 

apply for the program. 

Rigorous Background Checks and Security Clearance Procedures: Given 

the terrorist threat, any program will lack credibility and support if it does not a 

‘‘good moral character’’ requirement and rigorous identity and security clearance 

procedures. Steps must be taken, however, that persons are not denied eligibility 

based on appearance or demeanor, and that sufficient checks and balances are in 

place to ensure that no one who qualifies is unjustly denied from the program. 

Establishment of a Separate Entity within USCIS to implement the bill:

A separate entity, similar to the asylum corps, should be created within USCIS to 

implement legislation; such an entity should be adequately funded through appropriations. A program that attempted to operate through existing systems would 

worsen the backlog and customer service problems that have plagued DHS in the 

past. 

The Use of Qualified Designated Entities: Qualified designated entities 

(QDEs) which are Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)—recognized should be created to assist in implementation of any new program. QDEs play a crucial role in 

public education, outreach, convincing applicants to come forward, preparing strong 

applications, and liaising with the government. 

Mr. Chairman, these elements are crucial to the successful implementation of 

comprehensive immigration reform legislation. Other important elements should 

also be included in any final measure: 

Operational Terms: Operational terms in the bill, such as ‘‘continuous residence,’’ ‘‘known to the government,’’ and other important eligibility criteria should 

69

be specifically defined to avoid delays and to eliminate confusion. The lack of a precise definition of these terms caused many cases to languish in 1986. 

Generous Evidentiary Standards: Evidentiary standards should be based upon 

‘‘preponderance of evidence’’ and should include a wide range of proof, since migrants do not often create a paper trail. This would allow the maximum number 

of persons to participate in the program. 

Broad Humanitarian Waiver: A broad humanitarian waiver of bars to admissibility, such as unlawful presence, fraud, or other minor offenses is necessary. See 

refugee waiver (INA 209c) or NACARA waiver. 

Confidentiality: Applicants for either the legalization program or temporary 

worker program should be extended confidentiality and not be subjected to deportation or arrest if they do not qualify. Such confidentiality should be preserved unless 

criminal issues are raised that are not associated with undocumented status. Without this assurance, it is likely that many persons would not come forward and the 

goals of the program would not be achieved. 

Derivative Benefits: Immediate family members should receive the same benefits under legalization/temporary worker program as the worker. This would keep 

families together and minimize fraudulent applications from family members desperate to remain with their loved one. 

THE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

Mr. Chairman, we believe that the best way to secure our borders and to ensure 

that our immigration laws are just and humane is to enact comprehensive immigration reform legislation. 

Since 1993, when the U.S. Border Patrol initiated a series of enforcement initiatives along our southern border to stem the flow of undocumented migrants, Congress has appropriated and the federal government spent about $25 billion on border enforcement, tripling the number of Border Patrol agents and introducing technology and fencing along the border. During the same period, as Congress has enacted one enforcement-only measure after another, the number of undocumented in 

the country has more than doubled and, tragically, nearly 3,000 migrants have perished in the desert of the United States. It is clear that another approach is necessary. 

Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Catholic bishops believe that any comprehensive immigration reform bill should contain the following elements:

• policies which address the root causes of migration, such as the lack of sustainable development in sending nations;

• a legalization program which gives migrant workers and their families an opportunity to earn legal permanent residency;

• a temporary worker program which protects the labor rights of both U.S. and 

foreign workers;

• reform of our family-based immigration system to reduce waiting times for 

family reunification; and

• restoration of due process protections for immigrants.

As you know, the U.S. Senate passed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act 

(CIRA) of 2006, which contains many of the elements the Catholic Bishops believe 

are necessary to comprehensively reform our flawed immigration system. Although 

it does not contain all the elements the U.S. bishops would like to see in legislation, 

it is the right approach and direction our country should be taking in tackling the 

problem of illegal immigration. In our view, an enforcement-only approach to immigration reform will not address the need for legal avenues for future flows of immigrants to come to the United States to work or join family members, nor would it 

address the plight of 11–12 million undocumented in the nation. We encourage you 

to work with your Senate colleagues to produce a bill which encompasses the elements outlined above. 

I would like to say upfront, Mr. Chairman, that we are wary of recent suggestions 

that the Senate-passed bill’s legalization, temporary worker, or immigrant visa provisions be modified in a way that would delay their implementation or subject them 

to subjective ‘‘triggers.’’ We believe that any bill which Congress enacts should not 

only be comprehensive in nature, but must be implemented in a carefully calibrated 

manner. Indeed, we note that the Senate-passed already contains a number of 

mechanisms designed to ensure proper implementation of the legislation. We firmly 

believe, however, that Congress should not enact into law a scheme that would require further congressional action before implementation of the legalization, temporary worker, or immigrant visa provisions or subject those provisions to ‘‘triggers’’ 

70

that are vulnerable to the vicissitudes of political pressures, rather than objective 

measurements of what is necessary in order to properly implement the legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to concentrate at this point in my testimony on how 

the enactment of comprehensive immigration reform would enhance, not undermine, 

our ability to protect the nation from terrorist threats. The overriding principle 

which supports this view is that by enacting comprehensive immigration reform, we 

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

control who enters it. By enacting a program which provides an earned path to citizenship, for example, a far greater portion of the 11–12 million undocumented persons in the nation likely would emerge ‘‘from the shadows’’ and identify themselves 

to the government. The establishment of additional employment and family-based 

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

those seeking to enter the United States, helping to better ensure that the government knows who is entering the country and for what purpose. The current reality 

is that our government is unaware of the identities of the overwhelming majority 

of the 11–12 million undocumented who are in the United States and unable to 

monitor efficiently those who cross the border illegally. 

Mr. Chairman, I am not alone in this assessment. I would like to submit for the 

record, with your permission, a statement from nine former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials who agree that the best way to secure our borders is 

to enact comprehensive immigration reform legislation. In their letter, they write, 

‘‘. . . enforcement alone will not do the job of securing our borders. Enforcement at 

the border will only be successful in the long-term if it is coupled with a more sensible approach to the 10–12 million illegal aliens in the country today and the many 

more who will attempt to migrate to the United States for economic reasons.’’

In addition, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) recently completed a study on national security and immigration policy. As part of that study, 

CLINIC staff interviewed a wide range of counter-terrorism experts in order to examine what the United States must do to reduce the threat of terrorism and how 

immigration policy and U.S. immigration system fits into an overall security strategy. The study provided several policy recommendations to enhance national security through the U.S. immigration system, including the enactment of comprehensive immigration reform.

• First, in our view and the view of these experts, national security should not 

simply be equated with protection from physical attack. It also entails protecting our economic and political interests; immigration policies should not 

deny us access to the global economy. Policies which attempt to prosecute, 

jail, and deport 7.2 million undocumented workers—five percent of the U.S. 

workforce—do not protect our economic security and weaken us. Policies 

which would separate 10 percent of U.S. families by deporting their undocumented family members undermine our values.

• Second, we should better assess the effectiveness of immigration policies as 

a deterrent to terrorists. Does a certain immigration policy relate to a legitimate national security goal? For example, we do not believe that the summary return of asylum-seekers, the indefinite detention of immigrants, or the 

removal of due process protections necessarily make us safer, but they certainly have the effect of impinging on civil rights and undermining the fairness of our laws.

• Third, our immigration policies should help our relationship with immigration 

communities, not alienate them. The United States should be able to identify 

and run background checks on non-citizens, but is unable to do so if these 

non-citizens feel safer underground. Enabling state and local law enforcement 

to enforce immigration laws also has the effect of alienating major immigrant 

communities and reducing our ability to identify and prosecute smugglers, 

traffickers, and would-be terrorists.

• Fourth, comprehensive immigration reform should make our nation safer, not 

less safe. By bringing 11–12 million undocumented persons ‘‘out of the shadows,’’ we can identify who they are, where they live, and with whom they may 

be affiliated. By creating legal avenues for migration, we are better able to 

control who is coming into the country and for what purpose.

• Finally, we must implement a policy of assimilation of immigrants to make 

us more secure. As we have seen in other nations, such as France and England, the lack of integration policies have led to violence and unrest. We also 

need to assimilate in order to ensure our economic stability, so that new 

workers may advance and develop in their skills.

71

Mr. Chairman, it is clear that national security is not just about keeping those 

who harm us out of our country, but about keeping those who help us in and allowing others who want to help us to enter. Comprehensive immigration reform will 

help us achieve this goal 

THE IMMIGRATION REFORM DEBATE AND H.R. 4437

As you know, in December 2005, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4437, 

the Border Security, Anti-Terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. 

While the U.S. bishops appreciate the need to secure the nation’s borders and believe that passage of a House bill was a necessary first step to begin the immigration debate, the USCCB opposes H.R. 4437 because we believe it is overly punitive, 

too narrowly focused and would cause harm to legal immigrants, asylum-seekers, 

refugees, and the nation. We strongly believe that an enforcement-only approach 

will not solve the problem of illegal immigration, but could exacerbate it by driving 

migrants further underground and into the hands of unscrupulous smugglers. Mr. 

Chairman, with your permission I would like to submit a copy of correspondence opposing the legislation, dated December 14, 2005, to all members of the House of 

Representatives from Most Reverend Gerald R. Barnes, bishop of San Bernardino 

and chairman of the USCCB Committee on Migration. 

Mr. Chairman, let me say that, despite the opposition of the USCCB to H.R. 4437, 

we are not opposed to all aspects of the bill. Steps taken in Title I, for example, 

to increase resources for border security are necessary to ensure security for our 

country. We also appreciate the leadership of the House of Representatives in 

launching the immigration debate, which, although contentious, is necessary for the 

betterment of our communities. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight some of the major provisions of H.R. 4437 

which we find problematic and which we believe would undermine the fairness of 

our immigration laws without necessarily making our nation safer. 

Criminalization of Undocumented Presence. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Section 

203 of H.R. 4437 would make undocumented presence in the country a criminal offense and a felony, subject to at least one year of jail time. While the authors of 

H.R. 4437 have indicated their willingness to reduce the nature of the offense to 

a misdemeanor rather than a felony, we believe that this provision would unjustly 

and unwisely make undocumented immigrants—especially those who are here presently—criminals and would not serve the best interests of our nation. It is well established that the large majority of immigrants who come to this nation do so to 

work to support themselves and their families. Indeed, over eighty percent of the 

undocumented population in this nation is involved in either a part-time or full-time 

employment. They benefit our nation in terms of the taxes they pay and the work 

they perform. Instead of criminalizing these persons, we should permit those who 

are deserving to earn a legal status so they can come forward and contribute to our 

nation without fear. 

Criminalization of those who ‘‘assist’’ undocumented persons. Section 202 of H.R. 

4437 would expose to felony prosecution anyone who ‘‘assists’’ an undocumented person or provides assistance that permits an undocumented alien to ‘‘remain in the 

United States,’’ knowingly or in reckless disregard to whether a person was in the 

country illegally. In our view, Section 202 goes well beyond the scope of addressing 

alien smuggling and has the great potential to implicate many good Samaritans 

under the broadened definition of smuggling, including church personnel. For example, under Section 202, a church group or priest that provides food aid, shelter, 

emergency medical care or other forms of assistance to an individual could be imprisoned and risk forfeiture of their assets for ‘‘assisting’’ an undocumented person. 

Certainly alien smuggling and trafficking for profit or commercial gain are activities 

that need to be sanctioned. Existing law already provides for harsh penalties for 

such behavior. However, H.R. 4437 goes far beyond increasing penalties for these 

heinous activities. Instead, it would jeopardize millions of Americans—neighbors, 

family members, faith institutions, and others—who live and work with undocumented immigrants. 

Criminalization of Passport or Visa Fraud. Section 213 would make a variety of 

forms of passport, visa, and immigration fraud criminal offenses, making even one 

such instance punishable by more than a year in prison, and, thus, making them 

aggravated felonies that would render persons so convicted inadmissible and ineligible for any immigration benefit. Although no one supports passport or visa fraud, 

distinctions should be made for those who engage in it for nefarious purposes and 

desperate refugees who are fleeing persecution. Often times, refugees must fabricate 

documents to escape persecution because they cannot obtain valid ones from the authorities persecuting them. Not only would this section render legitimate refugees 

72

ineligible for relief because of the means they had to use to escape their persecutors, 

it also would jeopardize battered women and children acting under the direction, 

force, or coercion of a parent, guardian, smuggler, or trafficker. 

Mandatory Detention for Undocumented Aliens Apprehended at or Between Ports 

of Entry. Section 401 would require the mandatory detention of an alien apprehended at a U.S. port of entry or along an international land or maritime border 

of the United States. We are concerned that this provision is so overly broad that 

persons who are in the country legally and vulnerable populations will be harmed, 

such as U.S. citizens without proper documentation, legal permanent residents, asylum-seekers who are not in expedited removal and have a credible fear of persecution, unaccompanied children, and trafficking victims. It also would add additional 

stress to our overly burdened detention system, leading to increased use of local jails 

and the commingling of non-violent offenders with violent ones as well as the separation of families. 

Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws by State and Local Authorities. Sections 220–222 would grant broad authorization to state and local law enforcement 

authorities to enforce federal immigration laws. We reject the premise in these sections that all persons suspected of being undocumented immigrants should be 

rounded up by state and local police agents. State and local law enforcement authorities have many serious concerns on their hands, such as protecting our communities from violent criminals. If these provisions are enacted into law, we fear that 

immigrant communities would no longer trust local police to protect them or to 

share with them important information about crime in their neighborhoods. We also 

are fearful that massive-scale enforcement of civil immigration laws by ill-trained 

state and local police officials will result in inadvertent deprivations of even citizens’ 

and lawful permanent residents’ civil and constitutional rights. 

Expedited Removal. Section 407 would expand and mandate the use of expedited 

removal with respect suspected illegal aliens who are not nationals of Canada, Mexico, or Cuba and who are apprehended within 100 miles of a U.S. international land 

border, within 14 days of entry. We are concerned that bona fide asylum seekers 

would be harmed by this provision, since in many instances Border Patrol agents, 

untrained in the finer details of asylum law, will be making life and death decisions 

for individuals. 

Indefinite Detention of Individuals who cannot be returned to their country. Section 602 would permit the indefinite detention of certain aliens who cannot be removed to their country of nationality. As you know, the U.S. Supreme Court has 

stated that a person can only be held for a period reasonably necessary to effectuate 

removal, and found six months to be reasonable. Holding a person longer than the 

period of their penalty violates basic human rights. 

Creation of 700 miles of Fencing. H.R. 4437 would mandate the construction of 

700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. We do not believe that the erection of such a wall would address the underlying causes of migration and would not 

deter desperate migrants from attempting to enter the nation. It could lead, however, to an increase in smuggling networks and to more dangerous attempts to enter 

the country, increasing the number of migrant deaths. As I explained earlier in my 

testimony, Mr. Chairman, we believe that the adoption of comprehensive immigration reform will help ease the pressure along our southern border. 

Elimination of Diversity Visa Program. Section 1102 would eliminate the Diversity Visa program, created in 1990 to give foreign nationals of nations without a 

high volume of immigrants an opportunity to immigrate to the United States. This 

program has been successful in bringing in a diverse number of individuals who 

have at least a high school education and some job training. Given the new security 

checks for those entering the country, we see no justification for the elimination of 

this program. 

Mr. Chairman, these are some of the provisions in H.R. 4437 which cause us 

grave concern, although they do not represent the totality of our concerns. We hope 

we can work with you and your staff in the days and months ahead to ameliorate 

these provisions and work toward a just comprehensive immigration reform package. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for inviting me to testify before your 

subcommittee today. Our nation stands at an important time in her history, when 

we need to remain vigilant against outside threats without sacrificing values which 

we hold dear—justice, fairness, and opportunity. We must honor and continue our 

history as an open and democratic society which values hard work and the contributions of immigrants. As soon as possible, I ask that you work with your Senate colVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:41 Oct 26, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\IMMIG\072706\28909.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
73

leagues to fashion a comprehensive immigration bill which is just, humane, and provides for the security needs of our country.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Bishop. 

At this time, we will turn to questions from Members of the Subcommittee. 

First of all, Mr. Gadiel, you concluded your statement that we 

must enforce our immigration laws. Is it your understanding, having studied, I am sure very closely, the work of the 9/11 Commission, is it your understanding that if immigration laws that were 

in place prior to September 11, 2001 would have been aggressively 

enforced, that the plan that led to the tragic events of September 

11 could have been derailed? 

Mr. GADIEL. I think there is no doubt of that. The 9/11 Commission report, in great detail, described how the consular officials in 

Saudi Arabia granted visas to people who were clearly ineligible 

and should have had secondary inspection and their applications 

were defective on their face or had missing answers. And every one 

of them is a young, single male from terror-sponsoring nations, and 

not one of them was eligible, not one. 

But the reason the State Department issued these visas was because they are pressured by the open borders lobby to let more people in. The travel industry wants to sell more airline tickets, the 

college industry wants to sell more seats, and the high-tech industry wants more cheap labor. And so there is this enormous pressure, and that is why we don’t enforce their laws. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. 

Supporters of the Senate’s amnesty bill have argued that the bill 

will actually enhance our national security by bringing illegal 

aliens out of the shadow, as they say. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. GADIEL. Well, Mohamed Atta had a driver’s license and he 

was out of the shadows, and I don’t know what good that did us 

on 9/11. And what this does is it allows people who are terrorists 

to, when they get their American citizenship, to adopt a new name, 

which, in effect, wipes them off of the terrorist watch list. They can 

adopt a new name. They go back to their own country they are not 

even known by that name anymore. 

It gives the veneer of legitimacy to anybody no matter how dangerous that person is. If we had given—we almost did give citizenship, in a sense, because of the open access and process in this 

country, but if we had given him citizenship, it would have been 

even more of a privilege for him. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Maxwell, in your testimony, you state that USCIS has ‘‘a 

customer service mentality that invariably trumps national security concerns.’’ You also state that high-ranking immigration officials have termed immigration ‘‘a right rather than a privilege.’’

What effect would these attitudes that are there today have on 

USCIS’s ability to screen applications under S. 2611 for national 

security risks? 

Mr. MAXWELL. This attitude is really a carryover from the INS 

days. It simply transferred from INS into CIS as DHS was created. 

And despite calls from Director Gonzalez that national security is 

the forefront for his agency, once you leave Washington, D.C., the 

pressure of backlog elimination that currently exists within USCIS 

74

simply forces managers in the field to push applications forward at 

the expense of national security. They have to meet the mandate 

of backlog elimination. 

S. 2611 will just continue to put pressure on the managers in the 

field. And so what they will do is they will continue to develop programs in the field despite calls from senior leadership at headquarters so that they can meet the mandate of Congress, and national security will suffer. They will simply cheat the system so 

that they can push benefits through the system. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Cutler, you are a former INS examiner. How difficult would 

it be to verify that an illegal alien has resided in the United States 

for a given period of time, say, 5 years? 

Mr. CUTLER. It would be difficult with the resources that are 

there, because we keep hearing about background checks. A background check is not the same thing as a field investigation. All a 

background check means is you run fingerprints and a name that 

the person put on their application. A proper investigation would 

require agents to go out, knock on doors, show photographs, interview people. It is an arduous task. It might take days per application. 

If you are dealing with millions of applications and you are dealing with a workforce of a couple of thousand agents, the numbers 

don’t add up. It would take many, many years to even begin to get 

a handle on it, and meanwhile with the open borders that we have 

and with the Visa Waiver Program that we have, we are being inundated by aliens on a daily basis and we would be getting inundated with applications. 

In fact, I think in 1986 the original estimate was that there 

would be about a million to a million and a half aliens applying for 

amnesty. When the final numbers were in, I believe the actual 

number of applications that had been approved was more than 3.5 

million. Partially, they may have been undercounting, but I also 

believe that we had aliens who entered the United States after the 

program actually began to give amnesty and people successfully 

claimed to have been here for the requisite number of years in 

order to qualify. 

And I think that with the lack of resources and the much greater 

number of potential applicants today, there is just absolutely no 

way that this system would have even a shred of integrity. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Maxwell, how many contract workers does USCIS currently 

have? 

Mr. MAXWELL. They have approximately 7,500 contractor workers on the books now. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Will USCIS need to hire additional contract 

workers to adjudicate the applications under S. 2611? 

Mr. MAXWELL. They would have to hire more contract workers. 

Just prior to my resignation in February, discussions were they 

would hire between 7,500 and 10,000 additional employees, most of 

that outsourced to contract employees. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. For just——

Mr. MAXWELL. Just to handle what at that point was called the 

Temporary Worker Program. 

75

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Very good. 

What would be the ramifications for national security and public 

safety by allowing contract workers to adjudicate amnesty applications? 

Mr. MAXWELL. Really, the answer to that is a two-pronged answer, and it really raises some grave concerns for national security. 

At the time, I was involved in planning for the Temporary Worker 

Program, as it was called then. There was discussion that the contract employees would not undergo a full background investigation 

and would still be given access to sensitive law enforcement databases to vet the alien applicants, which raised some grave concerns, because at the same time we had just convicted a contract 

employee for accessing those sensitive law enforcement databases 

and releasing sensitive law enforcement information to a criminal 

who was being investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration. 

So without thoroughly vetting those contract employees and giving them access to terrorist watch list, obviously connect the dots, 

we are not sure who we are giving access to these terrorist databases and can they be co-opted by foreign intelligence, by terrorist 

groups, by criminal organizations? Absolutely. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Can they be planted? 

Mr. MAXWELL. Can they be planted? Absolutely. That was one 

concern that we raised, and our recommendation was that all contract employees, all Federal employees undergo a full background 

investigation which would be at great expense, obviously, before 

they be given access to these sensitive law enforcement databases. 

The second part of the equation was hiring this second workforce 

for USCIS to conduct background investigations on the alien applicants, that the background investigation process itself is flawed. 

As the inspector general recently reported, 45,000 aliens from 

high-risk nations, state sponsors of terrorism, have been released 

into the general population since 2001 because the background 

check process itself is flawed. 

We simply cannot verify the backgrounds, the identities, the 

countries of origins of everybody who comes through the system. 

We just don’t know who they are. We are essentially giving these 

people new identities, releasing them into the country even though 

they are coming to us from countries that sponsor terrorism. So it 

really does present a grave national security risk. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson 

Lee, for questions. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman very much. 

In a better day, I would like to be in a conference right now really ironing out, I think, the concerns that have been articulately expressed really over and over again by so many. I do want to acknowledge that we appreciate the witnesses who are here and the 

very diverse testimony that comes forward. 

And I do want to acknowledge and express again the sympathy 

to Mr. Gadiel and also raise a question with you. 

If we are trying to fix what is a broken system, and might I say 

that it is broken both in terms of the legal system and an undocumented system, we have to fix both, along with border security, one 

76

of the elements that has been crucial is to get the men and women 

on the front lines well prepared. 

I believe you had an opportunity to review H.R. 4044 that talked 

about my legislation giving equipment to the Border Patrol, border 

security. Is that a good place to start along with some of the other 

issues that we are discussing and to include the northern border 

where we provide the night goggles, the power boats, the computers, the training, technology for trained Border Patrol agents? 

We know statistically that Border Patrol agents, by the few num- bers that they have now, have stopped about $1.7 million from 

coming across the border. Just imagine if they had the equipment 

and the staffing, training the kind of effective tool they would be. 

Is that an important step for Congress to make and fund to its 

maximum what they need to provide those kinds of resources? 

Mr. GADIEL. Absolutely, without question. I think it is quite obvious and logical that the more people that are on the borders, patrolling the borders and the better equipment they have, the more 

people we will stop. And, certainly, the northern border is not 

something that can be ignored at all. I agree with you 100 percent 

on that. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, I appreciate your support of my legislation, and I look forward to trying to pursue this very point. 

I do want to go to Bishop DiMarzio and thank you so very much, 

because before us we have just recently announced the PenceHutchison bill, and I take to heart Mr. Maxwell’s comments. I 

think it would be an outright outrage to talk about, if you will, contracting out security data. 

But one of the failures of the IRCA, and if you might share why 

we failed at IRCA, because you were actively involved in helping 

or hoping to make it work. We failed in IRCA, [one], because we 

shortchanged the funding, we shortchanged the partnership, we 

didn’t do employer sanctions. But here you are today. 

We are all recognizing that we have 12 million undocumented, 

hardworking, taxpaying individuals who simply want an economic 

opportunity. And the Pence-Hutchison bill that talks about report 

to deport is frivolous and foolish. 

So tell us how we can make IRCA work and how nonprofits who 

understand that we do have a system of laws and a system of immigrants, and we don’t want to violate laws, we want to deal with 

the large humanity that we have and really stop ignoring the challenges before us. And that is, of course, to gain control of the border, to conduct workforce enforcement and certainly not skimp on 

the dollars. 

How can we make this an effective implementation, say, for example, of a conference report that would take a large part from the 

Senate bill? 

Bishop DIMARZIO. I think again from the experience of the last 

time, there were failures, but there were a lot of successes. An 

overwhelming amount of good citizens have been added to this 

country, and I think that is what we have to look at, the success 

that has happened there. 

I think the paradigm has to be changed. I think in the past we 

had an adversarial relationship between the INS and the entities 

that were designated by Congress to assist them. They knew that 

77

they could not do the job by themselves. They need to set up, obviously, USCIS, a separate unit, and they could never add it to the 

present unit. And I think we have got to look at in the past IRCA 

was talked about as kind of a tripod, looking at enforcement, the 

legalization issue and the workplace enforcement, the border enforcement and workforce enforcement. I think those same elements 

still need to be addressed. 

The workforce enforcement, talking about employer sanctions, 

isn’t sufficient, because most employers are on it. They check what 

they are given and it is not adequate. We need to have a secure 

way in which employers can be sure that they are hiring workers 

that are authorized for employment. And that is something that 

needs to go contemporaneously with securing the border, while at 

the same time giving legalization to the people that are already 

here. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And how can nonprofits be helpful in this 

process, short of the component of the Pence bill, which is to contract out Government’s work? But you can be effective in helping 

to make sure this actually works properly. 

Bishop DIMARZIO. I think there is a network across the country 

of nonprofits that are looking to assist people, assist the Government, assist the country in making sure that the legalization process is legal and that it is expeditiously carried out. So I think the 

network is available. 

I think we are a self-correcting system in our country; we can improve things. If we see that something is wrong, that is our greatest asset. We have been able to change and to improve, and think 

what we have learned from the past, and there has been several 

analyses. We can make sure that those problems don’t reoccur and 

that we design a system that is even more effective. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa for 5 minutes for 

questions. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank the witnesses as well, and I appreciate your 

continued involvement in this issue. 

To sit here and listen, one of the things that occurs to me, and 

I think I direct my first question to Mr. Maxwell, is that the concept of processing millions of people through a background check 

or background test and the first foundation of that would be, what 

information, what identification documents would they bring to the 

table for that background check? 

And let’s presume that since the majority are from Mexico, let’s 

just talk specifically of Mexicans as a standard, do you know what 

percentage of Mexican citizens have a legitimate document that 

identifies who they are? What percentage gets birth certificates at 

birth and that tracks them through life, for example? 

Mr. MAXWELL. I don’t know specifically, sir, what percentage 

have legitimate documents. I do know, however, that the Castorena 

cartel in Mexico is the largest organized crime family dealing specifically in counterfeit documents in Mexico, operates in 50 cities in 

the United States. It is a $300 million a year counterfeit document 

trade here in the United States. They can produce counterfeit docuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:41 Oct 26, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\072706\28909.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
78

ments with embedded biometrics, documents that can fool law enforcement upon visual inspection. 

Mr. KING. So if you were going to verify, you would have to go 

back and verify at the place of birth. 

Mr. MAXWELL. Absolutely. 

Mr. KING. And that is the only way that one could actually do 

that legitimately. 

Mr. MAXWELL. Absolutely. 

Mr. KING. And that concurs with a constituent I have when I 

asked him that question, and he is from Mexico and a good legal 

resident and a good business person in my district, his answer was, 

‘‘I don’t know what the percentage is but I can buy whatever I 

want—driver’s license, birth certificate—easily purchasable on the 

market. 

I see Mr. Cutler leaning ahead. 

Do you care to comment, Mr. Cutler? 

Mr. CUTLER. Yes. Thank you, Congressman King. Good to see 

you. 

You know, even the way our process has worked has been very 

disturbing to me. I recall that for years when the old INS would 

replace lost alien cards, because of the crush of time, the idea of 

moving it quickly, we were replacing our own alien cards without 

reviewing the immigration file. And then you would get a hold of 

the file and you would see where that person had gotten 8 or 9 or 

10 cards, and when you saw the photographs, they were all obviously of different people. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

And let me, again, direct a question back to Mr. Maxwell first, 

and that is just slightly off topic, but if there were Ellis Island centers established through legislation that is proposed in this Congress and that would be in various countries around the world, in 

fact any country around the world but the closest proximity, again, 

would be Mexico, as a former employee of USCIS, how could a private company possibly conduct background checks faster than 

USCIS? How would they pass and lap USCIS in their efforts to do 

so within a week turnaround for 10 million or 12 million? 

Mr. MAXWELL. Well, Congressman King, based on my knowledge 

of the Castorena family, I would have grave concerns about operating or establishing an Ellis Island center privately owned in Mexico and thinking that it would be operated by anybody but that 

family in Mexico and thinking that you are going to get legitimate 

documents coming into the United States. I don’t think it is going 

to happen. 

Mr. KING. Even aside from that, which is a profound and legitimate point, aside from that, can you imagine a legitimate company 

being able to do background checks faster than or in cooperation 

with CIS as accelerating the process that currently exists with 

USCIS? 

Mr. MAXWELL. In tandem with USCIS? I don’t believe they could. 

Mr. KING. And wouldn’t they have to rely upon USCIS in order 

to have a legitimate background check? 

Mr. MAXWELL. Absolutely. 

Mr. KING. And so they are already limited by Government in a 

private sector there would just be injected into the middle of this 

79

would just be another layer of bureaucracy still limited by the bureaucracy that would be over the top of it. 

Mr. MAXWELL. If there is going to be some level of integrity in 

the system, there is always going to have to be a Government 

check somewhere along the line to ensure that the information the 

Government is getting is accurate. 

Mr. KING. Not the hirings of law breakers. 

Mr. MAXWELL. Correct. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

And then I would turn to Bishop DiMarzio, and I appreciate your 

testimony, Bishop, sincerely, and the level and the tone that you 

bring to this and the commitment that you have made. 

I just have a series of questions, and I know I will run out of 

time before we get this explored as far as I would like, but does 

the Church draw a distinction between legal and illegal with regard to the migrants that you referenced in your testimony? 

Bishop DIMARZIO. Obviously, the distinction is there, that we 

don’t say persons are illegal but their status may be illegal, and we 

do make the distinction. Obviously, when we speak about it and 

what we have said right along, our testimony has been longstanding, that there obviously are people who break the law. 

Mr. KING. And I would yield my time back after thanking the 

witnesses, but I would be one who would support a second round, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The gentleman is instructed there will be a second round of questions. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas out of order, 

without objection, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman very much. 

And I think we have in this Committee attempted to find common ground, but I would be remiss if I did not express the frustration I have in holding these hearings when we have two legislative 

initiatives, one vote on by the House, which you may agree or disagree with, and one voted on by the Senate. Regular order requires 

that we, right now, be in conference trying to resolve this matter 

for the American people. 

Mr. Maxwell, you have shared with us a litany of issues, and we 

had great interest in the issues that you offered to us. In fact, my 

commitment to you is that we are going to fix some of these insurmountable mountains that you have indicated. We don’t need corruption. We don’t need to have a system that is broken. We need 

to fix it so that people who are impacted negatively can, in essence, 

have the right route to go. And I don’t think that you are here 

speaking about us not fixing the system. You want it to be fixed. 

And so I, again, say that we are here, we haven’t gained control 

of the border, we haven’t done a good job of workforce enforcement, 

and the Republicans have missed any number of opportunities to 

fund the dollars. I mean, look at the 9/11 Commission report, D’s 

and F’s in terms of the work that we are supposed to do. 

I am going to put into the record a statement, I am not sure of 

the date, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent. It is from the 

Irish Echo, ‘‘Irish and America Under Siege.’’ And I will read this 

quote: ‘‘If the Irish antecedents of Andrew Jackson, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan are trying to enter the United States 

80

today, they would have to do so illegally.’’ And so I would ask 

unanimous consent to put this in the record. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The reason why I do so is because I want the 

question of immigration to be the face of America. Every single person has an immigrant background except for our Native Americans. And so rather than throwing darts, we need to be trying to 

fix this broken system. 

Mr. Maxwell, just if you would just briefly say, would more funding and more oversight help in some of the issues that you would 

raised with USCIS? 

Mr. MAXWELL. I think it would help, ma’am, but also I think 

there needs to be a paradigm shift. The workforce is horribly demoralized. There needs to be a shift in management, a shift in 

leadership. There needs to be accountability. We recognize the immigration system itself is flawed. There is no integrity in the immigration system. It needs to be changed. So let’s change it. Let’s get 

to the business at hand and just get it done. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let’s get it done. Let’s give you what your 

rules are and what you are supposed to enforce, how you are supposed to enforce it and the tools to do it. 

Mr. MAXWELL. Absolutely. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And let management know that those who are 

working need to be rewarded, need to know what the ifs, ands and 

don’ts are, they need to know the yeses and the noes; is that correct? 

Mr. MAXWELL. Absolutely. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And that is what reform is all about. 

Mr. Cutler, you worked—and let me thank you for your leadership and your service. 

Mr. CUTLER. Thank you. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. One of the issues is fraudulent documents. We 

have got legislation making its way, trying to fix this whole issue 

of getting rid of these fraudulent documents. As you well, I have 

legislation to set up a task force. How much of an element is that 

and us getting to work on dealing with the massive fraudulent documents? 

Mr. CUTLER. Well, I thank you for your leadership as well, and 

I think it is a very important issue. The only question that sticks 

in my mind is what resources would the Administration allocate, 

because that always seems to be the problem. I have been here for 

hearings where we have discussed where the Congress would authorize hiring many more people for both the Border Patrol and 

ICE and the Administration was willing to hire. 

But it is also a matter of providing the training for the field 

agents. Right now they are not getting training in the identification 

of fraudulent documents at ICE. They are still not getting the foreign language training so that they can do meaningful field investigations and interviews. And these issues have been going on for 

years now. 

And we also need to go after the fraud schemes as well as the 

fraud documents, and I believe your task force addressed that also. 

Because no matter what we do on the border, if we don’t have integrity to the immigration benefits program, it is kind of like securVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:41 Oct 26, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\072706\28909.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
81

ing your house with good strong locks and then handing out the 

keys to anybody who walks by. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Absolutely. Absolutely. 

Mr. CUTLER. So this is very important, and I do appreciate what 

you are trying to accomplish with that. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. More resources, more focus and more training. 

Bishop DiMarzio, if you would just—you were very good in at 

least saying to us that we don’t have to be failures in this process, 

do we? And the immigrants that you meet, undocumented maybe, 

I don’t know your range of those who you come in contact with, if 

we just separate the fact that we have got to secure our borders 

and we are all in the war on terror, we are not ignoring that, the 

immigrants that you meet, the immigrants that may come through 

the Catholic diocese all over America, the economic immigrants, 

what are they wanting and how can we fix their particular situation? 

Bishop DIMARZIO. I think most immigrants, if you ask them, 

they come because they want a better life for themselves and their 

children, and that is clearly the motivation that lets them leave 

their home countries. 

If the situation in many of these countries were better, they 

would opt to stay. No one particularly wants to be a migrant. Necessity dictates that this happen. I think, again, in a comprehensive approach, we would look to some of the sending countries and 

try to work with them to see if we can do something that will deter 

some of the migrants coming, especially those who come obviously 

in an undocumented manner. 

Irregular migration is a worldwide problem. It is not only a 

north-south problem, it is a south-south problem, in many places 

in Africa, we had a hearing there in South Africa, and we see that 

even in Africa there is a large migration of people. 

The issue comes down to you have to have international cooperation. You need to work in that way. I think the success of most people that come here is clear. Migrants come with the idea they want 

to succeed, they want to work, they want to make a better life, and 

the vast majority do so. I think we have got to look at that issue 

as part of the heritage of our country and at the same time not ignore the security issue, which is overwhelming today. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I close by simply saying, if I 

have gotten anything from all four of the witnesses, all of them, it 

is that we need to roll up our sleeves, we need to get to work, we 

need to provide the kind of funding, targeting, training and most 

of all we need not spend our time on additional hearings that 

would thwart us getting into a conference and doing the heavy lifting that American people require. 

I thank the gentlemen, I thank the Chairman. I yield back, and 

I ask unanimous consent for my statement to be placed in the 

record. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows in the Appendix] 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Bishop DiMarzio, we are discussing S. 2611. 

Can you tell me if the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops officially 

82

supports S. 2611 or any of the Committees, say, the Committee on 

Migration? 

Bishop DIMARZIO. I think we have had some support of various 

elements. I don’t think we have given a blanket support for the 

whole bill, but there are certain things that we would agree with. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Could you elaborate on some of those provisions? 

Bishop DIMARZIO. Right now, I think I would not be able to do 

that off the top of my head. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Could you offer that for the record at a later 

time? 

Bishop DIMARZIO. Sure, we will. We could do that. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Gadiel, it has been argued that the legalization provisions in 

S. 2611 did not constitute an amnesty. How do you respond to that 

argument? 

Mr. GADIEL. Well, in a way, I agree. It is not an amnesty; it is 

something more. An amnesty is you commit a crime, amnesty 

means that you are restored to your civil rights as they were before 

you committed the crime. This one amounts to saying that—it is 

comparable to saying, ‘‘You rob a bank, you stay clean for a couple 

of years, and we will give you $1 million at the end.’’ In this case, 

the $1 million is the citizenship. 

What we are saying to people is, you have broken the law, pay 

few bucks in taxes, don’t get in trouble for a couple of years and 

then you get the big prize, which is what they wanted originally. 

So this is not amnesty. This is something far, far, far beyond amnesty. I can’t find a word for it. ‘‘Earned legalization’’ is a good way 

of concealing that it is something other than amnesty. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Cutler, as a former special agent, how difficult would it be—

you referred to undocumented aliens, and there is a lot of discussion about undocumented aliens. 

Mr. CUTLER. Right. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. How difficult would it be for an illegal alien to 

obtain documents that showed he had worked or resided in the 

United States for a given period of time? 

Mr. CUTLER. Well, it would be very, very simple. It is a cottage 

industry. There are document vendors everywhere willing to sell 

you identity documents claiming you are anybody or anything you 

want to be. 

But I also want to quickly take this opportunity to make a point 

that I think is important. We are indeed a nation of immigrants. 

My background is one of immigrants. My mother came here fleeing 

the oppression of Eastern Europe. My grandma died in the Holocaust; I am named for her. So when we talk about illegal aliens we 

are not talking about immigrants. 

We have to get back to the language. Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act talks about the terms. If we don’t have a 

clear understanding of what we are dealing with, it becomes hard 

or impossible to have a meaningful conversation. 

An alien is a term that has fallen from disuse, but an alien is 

not a pejorative. The term, ‘‘alien,’’ by law, is defined as any person 

who is not a citizen or a national of the United States. And I think 

83

we need to make a clear distinction between someone who is here 

as an immigrant, meaning they have been lawfully admitted, and 

someone who is here as an illegal alien. 

And when people hear, ‘‘Well, we want to do things for immigrants,’’ well, that is right, because these are folks who have been 

lawfully admitted. To want to legalize an immigrant is like offering 

to make water wet. An immigrant already is legal. 

So we need to draw a clear distinction, and I think so much of 

the discussion has to been to obfuscate the distinction between 

what it is to be an alien who has been lawfully admitted and an 

alien who either entered the United States through a port of entry 

and then violated the terms of their admission, committed a crime 

and so forth, or an alien who ran the border and snuck in in the 

dead of night. 

So documentation, going to your question, is very simple to come 

by, but I think we really need to remain focused, if you would forgive me for the suggestion, on having clear nomenclature so that 

we all understand precisely what we are trying to achieve and 

what we are really talking about. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Very good. Very good. I appreciate that. 

And in fact, today, many of the individuals who are referred to 

as undocumented aliens are not undocumented. Don’t they have 

documents? 

Mr. CUTLER. Yes. Many of them have in fact entered the United 

States, in fact I recently testified at a different Subcommittee hearing about the fact that 40 percent of the illegal alien population is 

believed to have in fact entered the United States through ports of 

entry, and it is important to make the point that the 19 terrorists 

who attacked our nation on September 11, 2001 all entered our 

country through ports of entry. They were not undocumented. They 

were aliens who either got visas through fraud or otherwise entered the country by gaming the system, and they have become 

very adept at gaming the system. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And even individuals who came into the country illegally, in many cases, are documented. They are fraudulent 

documents. 

Mr. CUTLER. Oh, absolutely. They are fraudulent, these documents, and they do it for two reasons. And this is, again, why we 

have got to be careful. You know, the road to Hell is paved with 

good intentions. Yes, many of the people who come here are economic refugees, and I think what the bishop said is right, we do 

need to go after the sending countries and perhaps tell countries 

like Mexico, ‘‘If you want a trade agreement, clean your own house. 

Provide a situation where your most valuable export aren’t your 

own people.’’ And I think that is very important. It is important for 

the well being of these folks and for America’s security. 

But among these people, it is almost like a Trojan Horse, and I 

refer to that in my testimony, is that we are letting people that we 

don’t know who they are. We are not letting them in, the come in 

in the dead of night in some cases, and they are here to do harm 

to us. And these are the sleepers that I spoke about. 

And when someone is working at a job and you don’t know what 

they are up to, whether they are driving taxis and so forth, they 

are hiding in plain sight. And every time you will see where a terVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:41 Oct 26, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\072706\28909.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
84

rorist suspect is arrested, it is rare to see where it says that they 

were unemployed. They always have a job listed after their names. 

And they have identity documents. And they are either getting real 

documents by concealing their true identities and applying for 

‘‘lost’’ driver’s license, lost passports, lost whatever, or they are getting counterfeit documents. Those are the two basic types of documents. 

That is why the lynchpin that holds immigration enforcement together are these documents, which is why this is one of the critical 

areas of vulnerability, and it is still not being addressed. 

And listening to Mr. Maxwell’s testimony, coupled with my own 

experience, it makes it very difficult to sleep at night. Peter is a 

good friend. I wish I didn’t know him, because I know him because 

of the loss of his son on 9/11. And my neighbors, many of them lost 

family. 

What we are trying to do, Mr. Chairman, is to prevent another 

9/11. We live in a perilous world, as you well know, and our concern is that, for whatever reason, when you look at 2611, it is almost as though there was no 9/11 Commission report. The whole 

point, I thought, to the Commission and their report was so that 

the legislators of our country and the president of our country 

could take the advice and the findings of that commission that was 

convened specifically to find where the loopholes were and then do 

something about it. 

And when I read 2611, it is almost as though there had been no 

9/11 Commission report. I recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the whole focus was on the economics of immigration, but nothing was done to discuss the 9/11 Commission 

findings. I was the only witness who raised the issue, and nobody 

wanted to discuss that component of that problem. 

So if we don’t address the security issues, nothing else we do 

matters. And that is why I am pleased to be here today, and that 

is why I am very happy with your leadership, because I think it 

is critical for Congress and for that American people to understand 

that the Senate bill almost utterly ignores the fact that there even 

was a 9/11 Commission. It is incredible to me. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Cutler. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California for 5 minutes for questions. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would 

like to register a concern that we are proceeding with these hearings in a most unusual way. 

We have two bills that have been passed, one on the House side 

and one on the Senate side, that should be in conference and we 

should be seriously working in conference to resolve the differences 

and to make changes and come up with a realistic immigration reform bill. 

And there are those who would say that these hearings that are 

being held here and the ones that will be held all during the month 

of August are somewhat political and that it simply is an attempt 

to get those people who are opposed to any immigration reform in 

a sensible way all stirred up in order to maybe pass one version 

of the bill rather than working out the differences in the bill. 

85

However, I decided to come back to the hearing and I have decided, perhaps, to even participate in some that will be held during 

the recess, particularly in the San Diego area. Because I do think, 

as it has been alluded to today, that we owe it to America to work 

hard at this and to do our very, very best to do the right thing 

about immigration reform. 

And so I have come today to ask a simple question that I have 

been asking over and over again. We have 11 million to 13 million 

undocumented immigrants, illegal immigrants, no matter how you 

try and define, as was attempted just a moment ago, what is the 

correct language to use. 

I do not use illegal alien. I have found it to be unacceptable and 

disliked by many legal immigrants, just as the word, ‘‘refugee,’’ 

that was applied to many people after Katrina was used, and they 

objected to that definition of who they were. And I just kind of respect how people generally feel about what they are called. And so 

I shall refer to them as undocumented workers or illegal immigrants. 

Now, I would ask those who are here today, Mr. Gadiel and perhaps Mr. Cutler, the House bill that you said is being discussed 

here does not talk about what you do with 11 million to 13 million 

illegal immigrants or undocumented workers. What would you do? 

They are here. 

The Senate bill talked about a path to legalization, recognizing 

that if you have not been here for 2 years or more, that perhaps 

you should be returned. You should be returned. If you have been 

here 2 to 5 years, then you have to pay taxes, you [have] to learn 

English, you have to do all these things, you have to get in line. 

They talk about, they give us a way by which to deal with the fact 

that they are here, 11 million to 13 million. What would you do 

with them? 

Mr. GADIEL. My answer is attrition. Deprive people of the rights 

that they do not deserve. Deprive people of the ability to get jobs, 

deprive people of the ability to finance mortgages, deprive them of 

Government-backed mortgages, make sure they are not voting, 

make sure that they are not obtaining any benefits like in-State 

tuition, driver’s licenses. Mike has a wonderful analogy. He said, 

nobody would break into an amusement park if they couldn’t get 

on the rides. Well, once they are in the amusement park, if you 

shut down the rides, people will leave because they have no benefits. 

Ms. WATERS. I am going to interrupt you, not because I want to 

be disrespectful to you but I just want to pinpoint a few things. Undocumented worker, illegal immigrant, in the country for 20 years, 

own a house, two children, they are legal, the undocumented 

grandmother not legal; she doesn’t know any other place. This is 

home, 20, 30 years. What do you do with her? 

Mr. GADIEL. I repeat: attrition, attrition, attrition. It is not a 

matter of a luxury that we can offer to people from around the 

world to be here illegally. The 9/11 terrorists were able to function 

in this country because they had an ocean in which they could operate in plain sight. 

86

Ms. WATERS. No, no, no, no. I go along with that. I do. And, look, 

I want this country to be secure, and I want us to have good immigration reform. 

What do you do with the 20-, 30-year illegal immigrant here who 

has no other place to go? They don’t know anything about any 

place in Mexico or any place else. They have two children and a 

grandchild. What do you do with them? 

Mr. GADIEL. Let me point out that when a person comes here 

from a foreign land, they know nothing about this country. 

Ms. WATERS. What do you do—excuse me, reclaiming my time. 

Do you have any better——

Mr. CUTLER. I do. 

Ms. WATERS. Yes. 

Mr. CUTLER. Thank you, Congresswoman Waters. Look, there 

are two things here. Number one, when we talk about someone 

who has been here for 2 years or less, there is no illegal alien who 

is going to walk into an immigration office and admit to being here 

less than 2 years. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. Well, let’s take that off the table. 

Mr. CUTLER. All right. But let me——

Ms. WATERS. Reclaiming my time, let’s take that one off the 

table. Answer my question about this 20-to 30-year-old——

Mr. CUTLER. There is a provision where an alien who can show 

hardship, who can make the case that you are making can apply 

for suspension of deportation or the equivalent, revocation of removal. But the bottom line is, that is a small percentage. The bulk 

of the people we are talking about aren’t what you are describing. 

The majority, in my experience, as an agent, are people that have 

been here for 3 or 4 years and——

Ms. WATERS. Yes, but you don’t have any—you don’t have that 

documentation here with you. You cannot tell me——

Mr. CUTLER. But my point is——

Ms. WATERS. That you know how many people have been here 

30, 20, 15, 10 years——

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. WATERS. Unanimous consent for him to try and answer the 

question. 

Mr. CUTLER. I will do it in 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Is the hypothetical situation that the 

gentlelady suggests covered by current law, and is that individual——

Mr. CUTLER. There are legal remedies for someone that is here 

for 30 years, but the problem is really identifying how long they 

are here. We have heard so much today about how easy it is to falsify data as to who you are as well as how long you have been here. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And that individual is subject to deportation 

today under the immigration laws today. 

Mr. CUTLER. Yes. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you very much. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, 

for questions. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I was more than happy 

to just be a spectator and listen to this. I come from San Diego, 

have 2 secondary checkpoints in my district, and so I think more 

87

than most districts I see every day the good and the bad that 

comes from legal and illegal immigration. 

I want to just make a couple of quick points. One, I guess, is that 

I was in San Diego in 1986, and between 1986 and 1989, basically, 

we had a huge amnesty. So if you were here for 30 years, my arithmetic says that is 1976, and so those who were here for 30 years 

or 25 years were already eligible in the last go-round. 

But I do think there was a point made, and I think Mr.—I am 

going to get your name right—Gadiel? 

Mr. GADIEL. Gadiel. 

Mr. ISSA. I think you, sort of, made it, and I think it is a very 

important point that we get on the record. People who come to the 

United States from Mexico, because Mexico is not really good at—

or Guatemala—teaching English at a primary level, they generally 

come with very little knowledge of the United States. They generally come basically and start from square one. 

So the argument that people who have been here for a substantial period of time are somehow alienated because they are going 

to be strangers in a strange land, isn’t that the definition of what 

every immigrant deals with. 

Mr. GADIEL. Yes, that is the definition, plus the fact that since 

so many illegal aliens today are not assimilating, they retain the 

culture and language of their home country so that the ability to 

re-assimilate in their home countries is going to be, in most cases, 

a simple matter. 

Mr. ISSA. And I have the greatest respect for the gentlelady from 

California. She and I serve a State that sees every day very similar 

problems. But I do kind of have one odd difference with her—not 

odd by I think predictable—that the difference between the House 

version and the Senate version is not a difference between Republicans and Democrats, it is a difference between the vision of two 

bodies that if I read it correctly is irreconcilable unless one body 

makes major concessions that are presently, publicly unwilling to 

make. 

Then with all due respect to the gentlelady from California, going 

out and holding a series of field hearings, having Members of the 

House reach out to the public and be reached out to by the public 

couldn’t be [more] appropriate. And, again, I don’t think we defined 

partisan as the difference between the House and the Senate. And 

these field hearings, including from this Committee and Subcommittee, I guess I have a hard time understanding, they may be 

bicameral if there is a term for that. 

John McCain has led the charge for a very different vision than 

Darrell Issa, and I think that finding a way to come together, 

which I support, is going to require making sure we have the pulse 

of America. 

Is there anyone that sees somehow that I am wrong, that you 

just have to dot an I between the House vision and the Senate vision, both of which are bipartisan? 

Mr. GADIEL. I think you are right. They are irreconcilable. They 

are two entirely different philosophies. One is to reward illegal behavior, and the other is to—and put our country at risk and the 

other is to punish illegal behavior and preserve our security. 

88

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. And I will limit time because I know time 

is short. 

I appreciate the opportunity to, sort of, clear up a couple of 

areas, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa for purposes of a 

second round of questions. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Kind of, in a way, picking up where I left off in the previous 

round, I direct my question to Bishop DiMarzio, and that is we 

have existing laws today, and I would ask, do the American 

bishops, and I believe you are here to testify on behalf of American 

bishops, do they support enforcement of existing law? 

Bishop DIMARZIO. Yes, we do. 

Mr. KING. And then that includes the deportation that is part of 

the existing law for violation of immigration laws? 

Bishop DIMARZIO. Obviously, when the law can be enforced, we 

would say, ‘‘Enforce it.’’ But I think what we are dealing with here 

is an issue that we can enforce the deportation of 10 million to 12 

million people. I don’t think it is practical. I think when we look 

at a law that is broken, that is not effective, it is time to change 

it. 

Mr. KING. Bishop, that is a judgment call, and we have heard 

testimony here on more of the attrition effect. I don’t think there 

is anybody on this panel, I don’t know of anybody in this Congress 

that has advocated that we round up 12 million people and deport 

them, although we often hear that as the rebuttal as to why we 

can’t enforce our existing laws. 

So we could go down this path of enforcing a law wherever people come in contact with the law and be deported back to their 

home country, and the Church is consistent with—supports that 

then, I understand. 

Bishop DIMARZIO. That is true. We also have programs in the 

countries in which they come and are supported by the bishops in 

those countries to help these deportees to find a new life in those 

countries so that we see that that is a reality and we are working 

with that. 

Mr. KING. And that is something I very much support and appreciate that. 

Then with regard to the labor supply in this country and the 

statement that we need immigrants and we can bring them here 

legally, that is a judgment call, I think, that the American people 

are in the process of debating right now. 

But if there are 12 million illegals in America and the testimony 

this Committee has received is that perhaps out of that 12 million, 

7 million that are working. And of those 7 million, they represent 

about 5 percent of the workforce, 5 percent of about 140 million 

workers in America, doing about 2.2 percent of the productivity because they are generally the lower-educated. 

So if that all stopped and if it couldn’t stop and wouldn’t stop all 

at once under anybody’s scenario, but it would be a gradual transition, we have in this country 77.5 million non-working Americans. 

And of those, there are at least 61.1 million that are in a prime 

working age, between 20 and 65, another 9.3 million between the 

89

ages of 16 and 19 that aren’t in the workforce in any way whatsoever that are missing and they are unskilled. And they are missing 

their opportunities to get into this economy. 

So I raise this because I think that there is a lot yet to be 

learned about whether America needs a lot of unskilled labor or 

not, given that we have got so many people that are not working 

in America. 

But I would like to take this discussion a little bit further and 

that is the last published population of Mexico was 104 million and 

46 percent want to come to the United States. And the people that 

would come to the United States would be first the young men but 

the people that were young, the younger they are, I guess, from an 

age of maturity standpoint, from there on they are more likely to 

come because they have more to gain and less to lose. 

And so if 46 percent want to come to the United States and the 

more than come here the more that are likely to follow, then it is 

an easy scenario to see where Mexico could perhaps not be 104 million but maybe 52 million or 50 million or less in a matter of a generation. And then that great vacuum that is created there, who is 

there to rebuild Mexico and what kind of disservice would the 

United States be doing to this nation of Mexico if we opened our 

borders in that fashion? 

I would point out something our founding fathers put right in the 

Declaration of Independence: ‘‘Prudence, indeed, will dictate that 

governments long established should not be changed for light and 

transient causes. And, accordingly, all experience hath shown that 

mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than 

to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.’’

Those forms to which the Mexican people have become accustomed will never change as long as the United States of America 

is a relief valve for the human suffering south of us. And I would 

submit that we are doing a grave disservice to the Government and 

the people south of our border if we are going to believe that we 

are the relief valve for all human suffering that might want to 

come to the United States. 

And the point that I would make at the conclusion of this is that 

the question that never gets asked, I will say seldom gets asked 

and never answered is, is there such a thing as too much immigration, legal and illegal, and if so, how much? 

And I would submit that to Bishop DiMarzio, please. 

Bishop DIMARZIO. You don’t ask easy questions, do you? Obviously, population is another whole question. Are there ever too 

many people of the world? We haven’t got there yet. 

One of the great economists that recently died, Julian Simon 

said, ‘‘The ultimate resource is people. People create other resources.’’ Again, everything has to be limited. I think from the 

Catholic Church’s point of view, we talk about the common good, 

and we have to have our laws that deal with immigration and population, that deal with the common good. 

Again, one of the issues you brought up is the labor market. We 

don’t have control over the labor market in the United States. We 

don’t understand it very well. We have got various views of what 

the labor market is and displacement that is caused by undocuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:41 Oct 26, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\072706\28909.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
90

mented workers or documented aliens. We have no consensus. We 

have on both sides of the issue great disagreement. Now, that is 

part of the problem we are having, to come to some kind of a decision with Congress. You have got conflicting information, and I 

think some of the information is correct and some of it is incorrect, 

if you want my opinion. But you need to look at that very carefully. 

I think a restrictionist point of view, just because we fear people 

coming to this country, that is the only basis of it, obviously can’t 

be held on any tenable way. 

Mr. KING. And I thank the Bishop. And I would just point out 

that Congress does have to answer that question. 

I appreciate your testimony and all of your testimony, and I 

would yield back to the Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman. 

The questions of the Subcommittee being completed, I want to 

thank members of the panel, witnesses that have appeared today, 

your contribution to the record. 

Gentleman from Texas want questions? 

Mr. GOHMERT. If I could ask a few. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Oh, I am sorry. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I am sorry. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. No, no. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Gohmert, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My friend from Iowa has pointed out some interesting things and 

asked some interesting questions, and he doesn’t ask easy questions, but I would like to go one past a point he made about 46 percent people in Mexico being interested in coming to the United 

States and go through that. 

You know, those of you that have been to Mexico, you are familiar with it, you deal with people, Mexican nationals in this country, 

you know they have some really smart people. I would submit that 

the United States citizenry, on the average, is not smarter than 

those in Mexico, that, on the average, we do not have harder working people than those in Mexico. Mexico has incredible, vast resources. 

So the question I come to, what over the U.S. history and the 

Mexican history has caused the United States and Mexico to come 

to the point that nearly half of their people want to leave and come 

here? Anybody got any insights into that? Because if we can answer that question, then we could really get to the heart of dealing 

with this issue, I would think. 

Bishop DIMARZIO. I think you are living in a globalized world, 

and when our neighbors to the south have a different economy, different opportunities, you just have to look at your TV sets, they 

don’t have to go too far. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. But that begs the question: What has 

caused that different economy? 

Bishop DIMARZIO. Well, it is an inequality between the economic 

development of nations, underdevelopment in certain countries and 

superdevelopment in others, so that the equalization of this is a 

macro issue. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But the expression has been used over the years, 

‘‘Capital is a coward.’’ Money flows into places where it is at least 

91

risk. So why has the capital not gone to Mexico to develop that 

country where half of America wants to go to Mexico? What has 

made the difference? Why has that economy flourished here and 

not flourished there? That is what I would like to get to the heart 

of. 

Bishop DIMARZIO. Obviously, capital also wants to be safe, and 

if they don’t feel that they are secure, if there is an unstable government or government that has taken advantage of the investment of capital, that is a problem. But, again, the trade agreements that we are trying to negotiate, have negotiated with many 

of these Latin American countries do hold some hope if we recognize that it is not only good——

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, but that is talking about where do we go 

from here. I would like to get to the heart, if anybody else has an 

answer. 

Mr. GADIEL. Perhaps it is the corruption that is so endemic in 

Mexico and the fact that perhaps property is not secure and that 

there is an oligarchy that—and I can’t give you any deep thing, but 

I know the country is highly corrupt and there is an oligarchy, and 

that is not conducive to a middle class. And then, naturally, it is 

going to cause people to want to come to this country. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, sir? 

Mr. CUTLER. Yes. I think Peter is on the right path. I think it 

is a matter of much of the GNP is enjoyed by a very small percent 

of the Mexican economic elite so that wages are depressed, working 

and living conditions are horrific for anybody except for those at 

the very top of the economic food chain in Mexico. Whereas, in the 

United States I think there are greater opportunities for a much 

broader spectrum of our citizens. 

And I think that because of that, there are greater economic opportunities in the United States, better standard of living in the 

United States, as compared with what Mexico is experiencing. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Maxwell, do you have any comment? 

Mr. MAXWELL. Yes. There is one important point here is they can 

come here and do it simply, under the radar and send money back, 

and that is a very important piece of the puzzle. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, but that doesn’t answer my question, why 

they can come here and make more money than they can, why they 

don’t have a thriving economy in Mexico. And I hated to cut the 

Bishop off but I really want to get to this because I think it is at 

the heart of all of this we are discussing. If we can figure out and 

point our finger to why they are not as successful or more so in 

Mexico, then we get to the heart of the problem, then we deal with 

why people want to come here instead of stay in their own beautiful, wonderful country. 

And my time is running out, so I would just propose this to you: 

It has been mentioned that perhaps there is a great deal of corruption and oligarchy. The GNP is enjoyed by a very small number of 

people. I would submit to you that that means that they are not 

a nation of laws. They don’t follow the law. It is dictated by whomever happens to be in charge. 

And that, apparently, from what some of you have said, the difference is, in this country, for most of our history, we have done 

a far better job of following the law and applying it across the 

92

board and even though there is unfairness, we do a better job of 

applying it across the board and enforcing it than Mexico has. 

And so how ironic that we would be asked to ignore our law, the 

very thing that has made us more successful, potentially, than 

Mexico, and we are being asked to ignore our law, which would 

make us like the country 46 percent apparently want to leave. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman. 

Once again, I want to thank the members of the panel for your 

testimony and your contribution to the record. It has been highly 

valuable. 

All Members will have 5 legislative days to make additions to the 

record. 

We have noticed the markup of two private immigration bills and 

a private claims resolution. Currently, we do not have a working 

quorum of six Members, so, therefore, without objection, the Chair 

will recess the Subcommittee, subject to the call of the Chair later 

this afternoon when we are able to get a working quorum. 

We are recessed. 

[Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.] 

(93)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

At the hearing today, we will hear testimony on whether implementation of the 

Senate’s Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, S. 2611, would result in 

an administrative and national security nightmare. We also will hear testimony on 

the possibility that criminals and terrorists will be able to slip through the security 

clearances and that they will create new identities for themselves that will be recognized by the U.S. government. 

We have had extensive experience with legalization programs. We have implemented seven of them in the last 20 years. This includes the Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA), the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief 

Act (NACARA), the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (HRIFA), and the 

Legal Immigration and Family Equity Act (LIFE Act). The experience with IRCA, 

however, is the only one that has involved millions of applications. 

In implementing the IRCA legalization programs, INS worked closely with other 

federal agencies; leased additional office space at 109 locations; hired and trained 

approximately 2,000 additional employees, including a large number of retired 

former federal employees; and obtained assistance from volunteer agencies. 

IRCA specified that application fees would have to be high enough to cover program expenses. In addition to the filing fee, applicants were required to pay for 

services performed in connection with the application, such as fingerprints, photographs, and medical examinations. 

INS permitted applicants to file their applications with community organizations, 

which were called ‘‘Qualified Designated Entities’’ (QDEs), instead of applying directly to INS. Approximately 980 QDEs participated in the program. 

INS was able to process 3 million applications. This included 1.7 million people 

in the regular legalization program and another 1.3 million in the program for special agricultural workers. 

The primary issue with regard to S. 2611 is whether U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ( USCIS) would be able to process millions of additional benefits 

applications. Emilio Gonzalez, the director of USCIS, has acknowledged that if 

USCIS had to institute a guest-worker program today, the system could not handle 

it. He went on to explain, however, that USCIS is undergoing a complete overhaul, 

which includes everything from upgrading immigration facilities to computerizing 

the paper files that currently must be mailed across the country when an applicant 

changes addresses. USCIS expects to be able to handle the increased case load if 

S. 2611 is enacted. 

INS was able to process 3 million applications 20 years ago, and we have two advantages now that INS did not have in 1986. First, we have the benefit of experience with seven large legalization programs, including IRCA. Second, technology 

has improved dramatically in the last 20 years. When the IRCA legalization applications were being processed, information was still being disseminated in mailings 

and by telephone, and computer capability was primitive compared to what computers can do today. 

The second issue is whether terrorists and criminals would be able to slip through 

the background checks that would be performed as part of that application process. 

This is not a situation in which we are trying to prevent terrorists and criminals 

from entering the United States. The undocumented immigrants who would be able 

to apply for legalization under S. 2611 are already in the United States. Moreover, 

legalization applicants would receive the same security checks that are performed 

on other aliens who are seeking residence in the United States. If the security 

94

checks are inadequate, they are inadequate for all applicants, not just legalization 

applicants. 

Another issue is whether terrorists and criminals would be able to use fraudulent 

documents to create new identities. We are much better at dealing with document 

fraud now than we were 20 years ago when the IRCA applications were processed. 

It also is worth noting that the 9/11 terrorists used their own identities when they 

entered the United States as nonimmigrant visitors. They did not need false identities to enter or to remain in the United States. We cannot deal with terrorists unless we know who they are, which is an intelligence issue, not an immigration issue.

95

LETTER FROM THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE

JUDICIARY; THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS; AND THE HONORABLE PETER T. KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY TO THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS


bishop0001.eps
96


bishop0002.eps
97

REPORT FROM THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE ENTITLED

‘‘IMMIGRATION BENEFITS: ADDITIONAL CONTROLS AND A SANCTIONS STRATEGY

COULD ENHANCE DHS’ ABILITY TO CONTROL BENEFIT FRAUD,’’ SUBMITTED BY MICHAEL CUTLER, FORMER EXECUTIVE EXAMINER, INSPECTER, AND SPECIAL AGENT; 

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE


gao0001.eps
98


gao0002.eps
99


gao0003.eps
100


gao0004.eps
101


gao0005.eps
102


gao0006.eps
103


gao0007.eps
104


gao0008.eps
105


gao0009.eps
106


gao0010.eps
107


gao0011.eps
108


gao0012.eps
109


gao0013.eps
110


gao0014.eps
111


gao0015.eps
112


gao0016.eps
113


gao0017.eps
114


gao0018.eps
115


gao0019.eps
116


gao0020.eps
117


gao0021.eps
118


gao0022.eps
119


gao0023.eps
120


gao0024.eps
121


gao0025.eps
122


gao0026.eps
123


gao0027.eps
124


gao0028.eps
125


gao0029.eps
126


gao0030.eps
127


gao0031.eps
128


gao0032.eps
129


gao0033.eps
130


gao0034.eps
131


gao0035.eps
132


gao0036.eps
133


gao0037.eps
134


gao0038.eps
135


gao0039.eps
136


gao0040.eps
137


gao0041.eps
138


gao0042.eps
139


gao0043.eps
140


gao0044.eps
141


gao0045.eps
142


gao0046.eps
143


gao0047.eps
144


gao0048.eps
145


gao0049.eps
146


gao0050.eps
147


gao0051.eps
148


gao0052.eps
149


gao0053.eps
150


gao0054.eps
151


gao0055.eps
152


gao0056.eps
153


gao0057.eps
154

ARTICLE ENTITLED: ‘‘IRISH IN AMERICA ARE ‘UNDER SEIGE’,’’ BY CAITRIONA PALMER, SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CON- GRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IM- MIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

IRISH IN AMERICA ARE ‘UNDER SIEGE’

BY CAITRIONA PALMER

WASHINGTON D.C.—Irish immigration activists warned U.S. lawmakers last 

week that the future of the Irish community in America is at risk if comprehensive 

immigration reform is not passed. 

‘‘The facts are clear to us,’’ said Niall O’Dowd, chairman of the Irish Lobby for 

Immigration Reform. ‘‘Without immigration reform, the Irish-born community in the 

United States will no longer exist and one of the greatest contributors to the success 

of this nation will be no more.’’

Speaking as a witness before the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee hearing on 

immigration, O’Dowd said that the Irish undocumented community in the U.S. was 

‘‘under siege’’ and that America would be the ‘‘big loser’’ should Irish immigrants 

have to return home. 

‘‘Our neighborhoods are disappearing, our community organizations are in steep 

decline. Our sporting and cultural organizations are deeply affected by the lack of 

legal emigration,’’ he said. 

‘‘The sad reality is that there is simply no way for the overwhelming majority of 

Irish people to come to the United States legally at present.’’

Testifying before a sparsely attended committee that included Democratic Senator 

Ted Kennedy, an avid supporter of the ILIR, O’Dowd told the hearing that current 

immigration law would have prevented Kennedy’s ancestors from entering the country. 

‘‘If the Irish antecedents of Andrew Jackson, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan 

were trying to enter the United States today they would have to do so illegally,’’ 

he said. 

Praising the ILIR for their efforts, Kennedy said that prior immigration reform 

in the U.S. had unintentionally penalized the Irish. 

‘‘The way that the legislation was developed worked in a very dramatic and significant way against the Irish,’’ Kennedy said. 

The hearing was the first opportunity for the ILIR, a New York-based grassroots 

organization that has dramatically raised the profile of the undocumented Irish 

community in the U.S., to provide a formal presentation to senior U.S. lawmakers 

about the effects that living in the shadows has had on the community. 

‘‘Their driver’s licenses will not be renewed which means mothers cannot drive 

their children to school. The day-to-day struggle of living illegally in America has 

taken a heavy personal toll on them. I submit that they deserve better,’’ O’Dowd 

said. 

Under the glare of bright lights and against the whirr of digital cameras, O’Dowd 

sat at a long rectangular table in front of the imposing horseshoe-shaped committee 

table. A large clock with bright red numbers kept track of the five-minute speaking 

time allotted to each witness. 

Scattered behind O’Dowd in the packed committee room on Capitol Hill were dozens of supporters, many of whom were undocumented, wearing the now-familiar 

green and white ‘‘Legalize the Irish’’ t-shirts. 

They listened as other witnesses including Commerce Secretary Carlos Guitierrez, 

a native of Cuba and a naturalized citizen, testified that immigration was to the 

key to America’s future economic health. 

‘‘I have lost many things in my life—my wallet, my keys,’’ Guitierrez told the committee. ‘‘But I have never lost my passport. It is my most prized possession.’’

Sitting in the back row of the room listening intently to the testimony was Bruce 

Decell, whose 28-year-old son-in-law, Mark Petrocelli, died in the north tower of the 

World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. Wearing a photograph of his son-in-law on 

the lapel of his suit and holding a large framed photo of the twin towers, Decell 

had come to Washington D.C. to protest comprehensive immigration reform. 

‘‘If they’re going to amnesty in millions more illegal aliens, Americans are going 

to die. And I’m against it,’’ he said, offering a view held by many opponents of the 

Senate-backed bill. 

One expert told the committee that illegal immigration jeopardized U.S. national 

security and that terrorists could exploit what he called a lax legal framework. 

‘‘When the United States provides an alien with resident alien status or when we 

naturalize an alien, we are providing him with the ‘keys to the kingdom,’ ’’ said Michael W. Cutler, a fellow with the Center for Immigration Studies. 

155

But Steve McSweeney, a 32-year-old undocumented contractor from Ireland, said 

that he and other undocumented Irish had labored for years in America and that 

they were only asking for legal status. 

‘‘I believe I’ve given my fair share to America,’’ said McSweeney, who has lived 

illegally in the U.S. for nine years. 

‘‘I was one of the first respondents to Ground Zero. I spent nearly two weeks in 

hospital afterwards where I had a serious arm operation because I cut my arm back 

there,’’ he said. 

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was the latest in a series of hearings 

called by the House of Representatives and Senate amid fierce debate over how to 

address illegal immigration. 

At stake is an immigration bill agreed by the U.S. Senate and backed by President George W. Bush that would provide a path to citizenship for the more than 

11 million illegal immigrants currently living in the U.S. Senate lawmakers are 

under intense pressure to reach a compromise between this bill and a competing 

House bill that stresses strict border security. 

this article available at: http://www.irishecho.com/search/

searchstory.cfm?id=18030&issueid=477

(c) 2006 Irish Echo Newspaper Corp. 

LETTER FROM THE ESSENTIAL WORKER IMMIGRATION COALITION ET AL., SUBMITTED

BY THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

July 27, 2006

Rep. John Hostettler, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims 

House Committee on Judiciary 

Washington, DC 20510

Re: Submission for the Record—Hearing July 27, Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Border Security and Claims: ‘‘Whether Attempted Implementation of the Senate Immigration Bill Will Result in an Administrative and National Security Nightmare’’

Dear Chairman Hostettler:

The undersigned broad coalition of organizations writes to echo its support and 

commitment to comprehensive immigration reform. Collectively we call on Congressional leaders to focus on the substance of the issue and on the economic and national security needs of our nation. As evidenced by the calls to action made by the 

American people, business and labor communities, unions, religious organizations, 

immigrant rights groups and others, the time to act and repair our broken immigration system is now and the way to do it is comprehensive in nature. Republicans 

and Democrats from both Chambers of Congress should work together towards a 

practical compromise that is responsive to our country’s needs. Moreover, we urge 

leaders to remain committed to finding a procedural path that will result in a piece 

of legislation that addresses the real issues and realities.

We recognize that the House and Senate approach this debate from different perspectives and come to the table with two very different pieces of legislation. Undeniably, negotiations during a conference committee will be difficult. However, it is imperative that this process continue to move forward and not be derailed by partisanship or politics. The undersigned groups remain committed to the comprehensive reform principles below and stand ready to work with Members of Congress to address 

these issues:

• Improve national security through smart and targeted enforcement, combined 

with workable and realistic immigration reform measures that would create 

disincentives for illegal immigration;

• The implementation of an efficient, practical and accurate employee 

verification system. This system should be rolled out in a reasonable manner 

so as not overly burden employers or employees either financially or functionally;

• A future guest worker program that will help to meet the employment needs 

of our economyμ when U.S. workers are not available and ensures appropriate workplace and wage protections while providing these contributing 

members of society the opportunity to earn legalization and citizenship; and

156

• A path to earned legalization and citizenship for undocumented workers who 

meet qualifying criteria. This program should include also a fix to the employment and family based immigrant visa process and numerical limitations.

The opportunity before us is a unique one. We must all work together to reform 

our immigration policies so that we can enhance our security, protect our economy, 

and continue our heritage as a country of immigrants. The alternative, to do nothing 

or worse, to do more harm, is not and should not be an option. We urge you to work 

with leadership towards a solution that Congress and the American people can be 

proud of.

Sincerely,

Essential Worker Immigration Coalition 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

National Restaurant Association 

American Immigration Lawyers Association 

National Immigration Forum 

Tamar Jacoby, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute 

National Council of La Raza 

Asian American Justice Center 

Service Employees International Union 

New American Opportunity Campaign 

American Nursery and Landscape Association 

Esperanza USA 

Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform 

Coalition for Immigration Security

Æ