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

29–605 PDF 2006

REID-KENNEDY BILL’S AMNESTY: IMPACTS ON

TAXPAYERS, FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND

THE RULE OF LAW

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

AUGUST 24, 2006

Serial No. 109–153

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 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

AUGUST 24, 2006

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..... 1

The Honorable Martin T. Meehan, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Massachusetts, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ................ 6

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Andrew Renzullo, Member of the General Court of the State 

of New Hampshire 

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

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10

Mr. John Young, Co-Chair, Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 83

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 84

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

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

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 89

Mr. John Lewy, American Academy of Pediatrics 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 90

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

Mr. Steven Camarota, Director of Research, Center for Immigration Studies 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 94

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

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ........................................................................................ 4

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Charles F. Bass, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of New Hampshire, with attachment ................... 121

Letter to the House Judiciary Committee from the Honorable Jordan Ulery, 

New Hampshire State Representative ............................................................... 197

Prepared Statement of David Lamarre-Vincent, Executive Director, New 

Hampshire Council of Churches ......................................................................... 199

Prepared Statement of the Rt. Rev. Douglas E. Theuner, VIIth Episcopal 

Bishop of New Hampshire, Member of the Board of Directors of Lutheran 

Social Services of New England .......................................................................... 199

(1)

REID-KENNEDY BILL’S AMNESTY: IMPACTS 

ON TAXPAYERS, FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS 

AND THE RULE OF LAW 

THURSDAY, AUGUST 24, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., at the Hall 

of Representatives, The State House, 107 North Main Street, Concord, New Hampshire, the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. 

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will be in order. A quorum 

for the purpose of taking testimony is present. 

I am Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin, the 

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. With me at the 

present time now are Congressman John Hostettler of Indiana who 

is the Chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Congressman Marty Meehan of Massachusetts. 

I would like to welcome you all to the third field hearing on the 

subject of illegal immigration. The purpose of this series of hearings is to examine the challenges our Nation faces with regard to 

illegal immigration and the impact the Reid-Kennedy bill passed by 

the Senate would have on the problem if it were to become law. 

Today’s hearing will focus on the enormous fiscal costs illegal immigrants pose on American taxpayers as well as the impact of the 

amnesty proposal on the rule of law and the concept of fundamental fairness. The Reid-Kennedy amnesty provides an eventual 

path to citizenship for millions of individuals who broke our laws 

to enter and reside in the United States, much like the mass amnesty provided under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 

1986, also known as Simpson-Mazzoli. 

Based on the lesson learned from the 1986 amnesty, we know 

that the Senate scheme will simply result in the cottage industry 

of fraudulent documentation that will allow individuals to falsely 

claim that they have been in the country long enough to get amnesty. Moreover, granting another amnesty provides would-be illegal immigrants outside our country every incentive to enter illegally in the future knowing that the U.S. is likely to provide them 

amnesty at some time in the future. 

Illegal immigrants already account for billions of dollars of costs 

to hospitals, local schools and the full range of other State, local 

and Federal Government entities. Relying on data compiled by the 

National Research Council and the Center for Immigration Studies, 

2

it is conceivable that over their lifetimes, the 12 million illegal immigrants residing in the U.S. today cost American taxpayers a half 

trillion dollars. 

From a fiscal standpoint, illegal immigrants who are legalized 

will become eligible for a full array of State and Federal entitlements at an enormous cost to the government, especially after they 

become citizens. The Congressional Budget Office 2 days ago released a cost estimate on the Senate bill finding that it will cost 

taxpayers $127 billion over a 10-year period. This includes $48 billion for Social programs such as Social Security, food stamps, Medicaid, tax credits and a host of other benefits. 

And this 10-year estimate does not even begin to capture the 

long term cost of the amnesty. Amnesty immigrants will generally 

have to wait 6 years to get their green card and another 5 years 

to get citizenship. Therefore, the biggest fiscal drain will not occur 

until after the 10-year mark in the CBO estimate when the illegal 

immigrants become eligible for additional social benefits programs. 

The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that illegal immigrant households receiving amnesty under the Senate bill would 

cost taxpayers $29 billion a year. Robert Rector from the Heritage 

Foundation believes that the cost would be even higher once the 

amnesty immigrants bring their parents to the United States, up 

to an additional $50 billion a year. 

Aside from the monetary costs of amnesty, we cannot afford to 

ignore the fact that amnesty is fundamentally unfair to legal immigrants who play by the rules and wait in line. What do we say to 

the millions of individuals who are patiently waiting outside the 

United States for their green cards, some up to 22 years, when we 

grant amnesty to individuals who have lived illegally in the United 

States? It is simply not fair to give preference to those who have 

broken our laws and would encourage future law breaking by rewarding such behavior. 

Some argue that because most illegal immigrants’ primary motivation to come to the United States is to better their economic conditions, that somewhat justifies their disregard for our laws. As a 

Nation founded on the concept of the rule of law, we cannot forsake 

our principles by allowing anyone to place themselves above the 

law, even when they may be appearing to act with noble intentions. 

Today we must ask whether it is fair to legal immigrants in the 

U.S. and U.S. citizens and consistent with our historic tradition for 

respect for the rule of law to grant amnesty once again to millions 

of illegal immigrants? 

I would like to thank the New Hampshire legislature for graciously providing the venue for today’s hearing and look forward to 

the testimony from our panel on these important issues. Before I 

recognize a Member of the minority for opening remarks, I would 

like to remind Members, witnesses and those in the audience that 

this hearing is conducted consistent with all applicable rules of the 

U.S. House of Representatives and of the Judiciary Committee. 

Therefore, I ask witnesses to limit their oral remarks to 5 minutes 

of testimony and will recognize Members for 5 minutes of questions, alternating between the minority and majority Members 

seeking recognition. 

3

Also I have noticed that we have three more people who have 

joined us, Representative Charles Bass who represents this district 

in Congress, Representative William Delahunt from Massachusetts, 

and Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz from the great 

State of Florida, both of whom are Members of the Committee. And 

additionally, because we do have Members of Congress present 

today who do not serve as Members of the Committee on the Judiciary, I would ask unanimous consent that they be permitted to 

participate in today’s hearing. And without objection, it is so ordered. 

I would now like to recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, 

Mr. Meehan, for an opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sensenbrenner follows:]

4

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY


FJS1.eps
5


FJS2.eps
6

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for having this hearing so close to my home in Lowell. It only took me 

about 35 minutes to get here, so it worked out well. 

You know German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck once remarked 

that laws are like sausages, no one should ever see how either is 

made. Well, this is quite an unusual hearing. The House of Representatives has passed an immigration bill. The United States 

Senate has passed an immigration bill. From my perspective, we 

should be rolling up our sleeves and working out the differences between those bills. 

It is interesting because, in the past 10 years since the House 

and Senate was controlled by Republicans, there have been 5.3 million undocumented immigrants who have come to the United 

States. Under President Bush, there have been 2 million more undocumented immigrants that have come to the United States. So 

I think we all see that the signs are clear that there is a growing 

problem and the American people want a solution. Republicans 

have complete control. They have the House. They have the Senate. 

They have the White House. They have the Supreme Court. The 

American people expect leadership on this issue. 

This is not an easy issue. It is a complex issue. The House has 

passed a bill. Ironically enough, the House-passed bill, we haven’t 

had a hearing on the bill that was passed in the House. The American people expect the leadership of both branches to roll up their 

sleeves and find a way to report out a bill. Doing nothing means 

more illegal immigrants coming in over the borders. Doing nothing 

makes the situation worse. 

But it is interesting because if any of you read the Federal publication, ‘‘How Our Laws Are Made,’’ it is a great publication. It says 

that the House has a hearing, then the House has a hearing in the 

Committee, and they vote to pass a bill. And the Senate votes to 

pass a bill. And then when they are finished, page 42 talks about 

a Conference Committee. The Chairman has said that the Senate 

has not filed its paperwork yet for a Conference Committee. We go 

back September 1st. It will be 3 months of inaction on this because 

of the lack of a Conference Committee. 

If you look down at the material, it says the Reid-Kennedy bill’s 

amnesty impact. The ‘‘Reid-Kennedy’’ bill? I don’t know where that 

name came from, but it is simply not accurate. And if you don’t believe that I think it is not accurate, I would point out to your own 

Senator from New Hampshire who made a statement on the floor 

of the United States Senate, Judd Gregg, on the McCain-SpecterBrownback-Graham-Hagel-Martinez-Kennedy immigration bill. 

This is what Senator Gregg said; he said, ‘‘I support Senate Specter 

and Senator Kennedy and Senator McCain’s position. I have come 

to the conclusion that we can secure our borders. But you cannot 

do it with just people and money on the border. There has to be 

a policy in place that creates an atmosphere that lessens the pressure for people to come across the border illegally, and that is what 

this bill attempts to address.’’

Now, the other body sat down. They worked hard. It wasn’t easy. 

But the bill that they came up with was a bipartisan bill. I don’t 

think there is anyone in the United States Senate or anyone in 

America more familiar with what happens in the border than SenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:02 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\FULL\082406\29605.000 HJUD1 PsN: 29605
7

ator John McCain, the distinguished Republican from Arizona, because he lives with it day in and day out on those borders, and he 

worked hard in a bipartisan way to produce a bipartisan bill. What 

we ought to really be doing here is rolling up our sleeves and working out the differences. Not having hearings all across America. 

With all due respect, the time for hearings was when the bills 

were being considered. They had a hearing in San Diego. It had to 

have cost the taxpayers at least $25,000. There are hearings all 

across America. With all due respect, the American people want us 

to go do work, to get a Conference Committee going to work out 

the differences, to look at the data and make this country secure, 

get this country up to date and deal with the people that we need 

to deal with in a reasonable way. 

So, Mr. Chairman, while I love to come to Concord, New Hampshire, it is one of my favorite places, I think we really ought to get 

to work and get that so-called paperwork done and get a conference 

meeting. Three months of inaction, it is inexcusable and indefensible. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. We have five witnesses today. One is New 

Hampshire State Representative Andrew Renzullo from Hillsboro 

District 27, serving Hudson, Litchfield and Pelham. He had sponsored and cosponsored numerous pieces of legislation in the New 

Hampshire House concerning illegal immigration including H.B. 

1137, a bill that would expand the definition of ‘‘illegal trespass’’ 

in New Hampshire. 

Also, Steven Camarota, who serves as director of research at this 

time for the Center for Immigration Studies. In recent years, Dr. 

Camarota has testified before Congress more than any other nongovernment expert on immigration. His articles on the impact of 

immigration have appeared in both academic journals and the popular press. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia in 

public policy analysis and a masters degree in political science from 

the University of Pennsylvania. 

Peter Gadiel is president of the 9/11 Families for a Secure America, an organization he helped found which is comprised of victims 

of families killed in the September 11th terrorist attacks and the 

survivors of those 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 worked since 

early 2002 on the issue of securing U.S. borders against entry by 

terrorists. A graduate of the Case Western School of Law, he is a 

member of the New Hampshire Bar. 

Dr. John Lewy is testifying on behalf of the American Academy 

of Pediatrics, an organization for which he serves as director of 

Federal Affairs. Dr. Lewy is also the former chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at the Health Sciences Center of Tulane 

University, and he resides in Moultonboro, New Hampshire. 

And also here is John Young, who currently serves as the cochair of the Agricultural Coalition for Immigration Reform and is 

chairman of the National Council of Agricultural Employees Immigration Committee. He is a director of the Florida East Coast Travel Service Board which recruits and arranges travel for workers 

coming from Jamaica, Mexico, and other Caribbean islands who 

8

plan to work under both the H2A and H2B foreign worker programs. 

Thank you for agreeing to testify before the Committee today, 

and will each of the witnesses please rise and raise your right hand 

to take the oath? 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Let the record show that all the witnesses 

answered in the affirmative. 

Without objection, all Members’ opening statements can be 

placed in the record at this point. All of your written statements, 

without objection, will be placed in the record during your testimony. 

I would like to ask that each of you confine your oral testimony 

to 5 minutes or so. And we do have timers in front of each of you 

so that when the yellow light goes on, there is a minute left, and 

when the red light goes on, the 5 minutes is up. 

Representative Renzullo, why don’t you be first? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ANDREW RENZULLO, MEMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW 

HAMPSHIRE 

Mr. RENZULLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. 

I am a New Hampshire State Representative. I am retired, have 

a part-time job where a talk with a lot of ordinary folks, working 

men and women. They are upset with illegal immigration, and they 

know the difference between legal and illegal immigration. They 

don’t know what is fashionable or what is PC. But they’re absolutely sure what is fair and what is right and usually know when 

they are being snookered. They don’t want a, ‘‘comprehensive immigration bill.’’ The 1986 bill was a ‘‘comprehensive bill.’’

As Scotty said on a Star Trek episode: ‘‘Fool me once, shame on 

you. Fool me twice, shame on me.’’ Secure the border. We will talk 

about what to do with the millions of illegal aliens already here 

once that is done. 

Let’s look at a few issues and try to relate them to New Hampshire. New Hampshire has a population of 1.3 million. According 

to a 2006 report by the Pew Hispanic Center, there are between 

10,000 and 30,000 unauthorized migrants in New Hampshire. 

Does illegal immigration have any effect on public education in 

New Hampshire? In 2005, New Hampshire spent $2.2 billion on 

public schools. According to a report by the Pew Hispanic Center, 

in 2004, there were 13.9 million people in ‘‘unauthorized families,’’ 

of which 3.1 million are citizen children of illegal aliens and 1.6 

million are children illegally here. 

Using this formula and the 10,000 estimate of illegal residents 

already mentioned, that would equate to 4,350 pupils in New 

Hampshire as a result of illegal immigration. That equates to $46.5 

million per year. Of course, these numbers are estimates and extrapolations, because nobody asks the questions or collects the 

data. All that is required is proof that the child lives within the 

school district. Not good when the primary funding source for public education in New Hampshire is the property tax. 

9

What about medical care? One of the most irritating aspects of 

illegal immigration is the drain on the medical care system. Data 

shows that illegal aliens are twice as likely to use an emergency 

room, the most cost intensive of medical facilities. That is understandable as Federal law requires emergency medical treatment. In 

New Hampshire, the uncompensated care costs was $237.4 million 

in 2004, of which $160 million were not Medicare or Medicaid underpayments. These costs are shifted to everyone else in New 

Hampshire. How much is due to those illegally here? No one 

knows. No one takes the data. In our politically correct society, no 

one even dares ask the question. 

And finally, there is jobs. The Nation’s highest ranking public official says illegal aliens are coming here ‘‘to do the jobs Americans 

won’t do.’’ That’s not quite really accurate. Actually, it is jobs 

Americans won’t do for the wages and working conditions being offered. How can the American worker, especially at the lower end 

of the wage scale, hope to compete with the 10 to 20 million illegal 

aliens willing to work for lower wages and no benefits in an underground economy? 

New Ipswich Chief of Police Garrett Chamberlain relates the 

story of his first encounter with the illegal immigration issue. Hidden in a van stopped for speeding were 10 illegal aliens from Ecuador who were doing roofing in a nearby town. He learned they were 

being paid $180 a day. Not each. All. That’s $2.25 an hour. How 

can an American worker compete with that, and should he or she 

have to? And don’t for a New York minute think that the lower 

labor costs were passed on to the consumer. And if one of the workers fell from the roof and was injured, who do you think would foot 

the medical bills other than the taxpayer? 

The point of the story is that the American worker is on a downward slide to public assistance. Not just agricultural jobs but good 

paying union jobs are being undercut. A recent report put out by 

the Pew Hispanic Center states that in the United States, 27 percent of the dry wall and tile installers, 22 percent of the cement 

masons and finishers, 21 percent of the roofers and 19 percent of 

the brick layers are here illegally. 

In closing, illegal immigration is one of those subliminal gut 

issues. It is not the type of thing that shows up in polls. Ask a New 

Hampshire citizen what is the most important issue facing the 

State, and they will probably say taxes or health care. But with 

God as my witness, I have yet to meet an ordinary person who is 

not upset about the disregard of our border by the millions of people and the lack of enforcement of our laws by our own government. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Renzullo follows:]

10

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANDREW RENZULLO


AR0001.eps
11


AR0002.eps
12


AR0003.eps
13


AR0004.eps
14


AR0005.eps
15


AR0006.eps
16


AR0007.eps
17


AR0008.eps
18


AR0009.eps
19


AR0010.eps
20


AR0011.eps
21


AR0012.eps
22


AR0013.eps
23


AR0014.eps
24


AR0015.eps
25


AR0016.eps
26


AR0017.eps
27


AR0018.eps
28


AR0019.eps
29


AR0020.eps
30


AR0021.eps
31


AR0022.eps
32


AR0023.eps
33


AR0024.eps
34


AR0025.eps
35


AR0026.eps
36


AR0027.eps
37


AR0028.eps
38


AR0029.eps
39


AR0030.eps
40


AR0031.eps
41


AR0032.eps
42


AR0033.eps
43


AR0034.eps
44


AR0035.eps
45


AR0036.eps
46


AR0037.eps
47


AR0038.eps
48


AR0039.eps
49


AR0040.eps
50


AR0041.eps
51


AR0042.eps
52


AR0043.eps
53


AR0044.eps
54


AR0045.eps
55


AR0046.eps
56


AR0047.eps
57


AR0048.eps
58


AR0049.eps
59


AR0050.eps
60


AR0051.eps
61


AR0052.eps
62


AR0053.eps
63


AR0054.eps
64


AR0055.eps
65


AR0056.eps
66


AR0057.eps
67


AR0058.eps
68


AR0059.eps
69


AR0060.eps
70


AR0061.eps
71


AR0062.eps
72


AR0063.eps
73


AR0064.eps
74


AR0065.eps
75


AR0066.eps
76


AR0067.eps
77


AR0068.eps
78


AR0069.eps
79


AR0070.eps
80


AR0071.eps
81


AR0072.eps
82


AR0073.eps
83

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you, Representative Renzullo. 

Mr. Young, why don’t you go next. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN YOUNG, CO-CHAIR, AGRICULTURE 

COALITION FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. I am a fourth generation apple farmer from New England and have been raising apples for 44 years here in New Hampshire. I am also co-chair of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform. And today I am also testifying on behalf of the National Council of Ag Employers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 

and the New England Apple Council. 

The title of today’s hearing should be: ‘‘How will illegal immigrants impact the costs of health care, local education and social 

services without passage of comprehensive immigration reform legislation?’’

Certainly, illegal immigration has negative consequences, yet a 

fair and complete treatment of the issue would consider contributions of immigrants and most importantly the impacts of more 

delay or even failure yet again to enact a truly comprehensive immigration reform bill. 

I say this because for decades I have been closely involved with 

the immigration issue. I am intimately familiar with the existing 

temporary foreign worker programs. I worked on the Immigration 

Reform and Control Act of 1986, and I can tell you that the chief 

failure of that legislation was not the legalization program but 

rather the lack of a long-term solution in the form of expanded 

temporary worker programs. 

I wish to go on record by saying that, year after year, we have 

heard excuse after excuse for congressional inaction. Had we solved 

this problem in a truly comprehensive way in 1986 or in 1994 or 

1996 or in 1998, we would probably not be here today talking about 

numbers like 12 million people, numbers which reach nearly 5 percent of the workforce. And we would not have the daily news reporting outright shortages of farm labor threatening the existence 

of agriculture industries coast to coast, from oranges in Florida to 

tomatoes in California to dairies right here in New England. 

The core elements of a comprehensive approach must be, one, rational border and interior enforcement; two, expanded and improved legal channels for temporary workers to meet the needs of 

the American economy; and, three, a realistic approach for addressing the undocumented. While we may quibble about some of the 

elements of the Senate-passed bill, it is comprehensive in scope, 

and it does address all of these elements. 

Mr. Chairman, since this hearing is looking at the cost of immigrants, I have attached the analysis of the Congressional Budget 

Office’s report on cost prepared by the Essential Worker Coalition, 

and I ask that it be included in the record. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

Mr. YOUNG. As well as the experience of the New England Apple 

Council with the existing H2A and H2B programs as Attachment 

I. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, as well. 

84

Mr. YOUNG. The current guest worker programs have deep flaws 

that limit their use. H2A is bureaucratic, unresponsive, expensive 

and prone to litigation. H2B is hamstrung by an artificially low cap 

in admissions. Neither accommodates employers who need workers 

year round, but instead are restricted to seasonal employment. If 

you are an employer who has year round needs for general labor 

which cannot be successfully filled with U.S. workers, there is no 

program for you. 

Our agricultural economy and much of our service economy is 

fueled by undocumented workers. We need a comprehensive immigration policy which will allow these workers to come forward, undergo background checks and be allowed access to jobs legally. 

They will pay taxes, but more importantly, they will help create 

many jobs upstream and downstream of the production, for services 

and goods which will allow these businesses to expand. In agriculture, as an example, each farm worker job sustains three jobs 

in the surrounding economy. 

We believe the mess which is America’s current immigration system can only be fixed through a comprehensive approach. Comprehensive immigration reform must deal with each aspect of the 

problem. It must provide a workable program for agriculture, such 

as a reformed H2A, it must address the artificially low H2B cap. 

It must create a new temporary worker problem that is accessible 

to the industries that fall through the cracks of the current limited 

program framework. 

Comprehensive reform must also address enforcement. Employers can also be part of this solution. Employers are not opposed to 

an expanded employment eligibility verification system, but it must 

be accurate, responsive, easily accessible and hold the employer 

harmless for any system errors. Most importantly, expanded employer responsibilities in this area must be coupled with—and I say 

coupled with and not implemented in advance of means to an access to a legal workforce. 

Without comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform, without a 

comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform approach, legislative 

efforts will fail and we will continue to suffer the consequences. We 

will again have walked away from the issue and a year from now, 

based on the recently released statistics, there will be 300,000 more 

undocumented aliens here in the United States. The time for action 

is now. I urge the Members of the House to return to Washington 

and work with the Senate to pass a comprehensive bipartisan immigration bill and do it during this session of Congress. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN YOUNG

Mr. Chairman, 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. I’m a fourth generation apple farmer 

from New England, and have been raising apples for 44 years here in New Hampshire. I am also co-chair of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform 

(ACIR). Today I am also testifying on behalf of the National Council of Agricultural 

Employers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the New England Apple Council 

(NEAC). 

The title of today’s hearing is ‘‘The Reid-Kennedy Bills Amnesty; Impacts on Taxpayers, Fundamental Fairness and the Rule of Law’’. In my opinion the fairer question is ‘‘How will illegal immigrants impact the costs of health care, local education, 

and social services WITHOUT passage of comprehensive immigration reform legislaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:02 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\FULL\082406\29605.000 HJUD1 PsN: 29605
85

tion?’’ Certainly illegal immigration has negative consequences. Yet a fair and complete treatment of the issue would consider contributions of immigrants and—most 

importantly—the impacts of more delay or even failure, yet again, to enact a truly 

comprehensive immigration reform bill. 

I say this because for decades I have been closely involved in the immigration 

issue, and am intimately familiar with the existing temporary foreign worker programs. I worked on the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and can tell 

you that the chief failure of that legislation was NOT the legalization program, but 

rather, the lack of a long-term solution in the form of expanded temporary worker 

programs. I have been at the table ever since, seeking reforms to the existing temporary worker programs through the 1990’s up to the present. 

I wish to go on record by saying that year after year, we have heard excuse after 

excuse for Congressional inaction. Had we solved this problem in a truly comprehensive way in 1986, or in 1994, or 1996, 1998, we would probably not be here talking 

about numbers like 12 million people, numbers like nearly 5% of the workforce! 

And, we would not have the daily news reporting outright shortages of farm labor 

threatening the very existence of agricultural industries from coast to coast, from 

oranges in Florida to tomatoes in California to dairies right here in New England. 

The core elements of a comprehensive approach must be (1) rational border and 

interior enforcement; (2) expanded and improved legal channels for temporary workers to meet the needs of the American economy; and, (3) a realistic approach for 

addressing the undocumented. While we may quibble about some of the elements 

of the Senate-passed bill, it is comprehensive in scope. It does address all these elements. 

Along with my testimony, I offer the experience of the New England Apple Council with the existing H2A and H2B programs (see Attachment I). The current programs have deep flaws that limit their use. H2A is bureaucratic, unresponsive, expensive, and prone to litigation. H2B is hamstrung by an artificially low cap on admissions. Neither program accommodates employers who need workers year-round, 

but instead are restricted to seasonal employment. If you are an employer who has 

year-round needs for general labor which cannot be successfully filled with U.S. 

workers, there is no program for you. 

Meanwhile our agricultural economy and much of our service economy is fueled 

by undocumented workers. We need a comprehensive immigration policy which will 

allow these workers to come forward, undergo background checks, and be allowed 

access to jobs legally. They will pay taxes, but more importantly they will help create many jobs upstream and downstream of the production, for services and goods, 

which will allow those businesses to expand. In agriculture, as an example, each 

farmworker job sustains three jobs in the surrounding economy. We are talking 

about sustaining and creating job opportunities for Americans. 

We believe that the mess which is America’s current immigration system can only 

be fixed through a comprehensive approach. Comprehensive immigration reform 

must deal with each aspect of the problem. It must provide a workable program for 

agriculture, such as a reformed H2A. It must address the artificially low H2B cap. 

It must create a new temporary worker program that is accessible to the industries 

that fall through the cracks of the current limited program framework. 

Comprehensive reform must also address enforcement. I believe that every American wants to see a well-managed border. Employers can also be part of the solution. 

Employers are not opposed to an expanded employment eligibility verification system. But it must be accurate, responsive, easily accessible, and it must hold the employer harmless for any system errors. Most importantly, expanded employer responsibilities in this area must be coupled with—not implemented in advance of—

means to access a legal workforce. 

The problem of those who are in this Country without documents must be dealt 

with at the same time that we secure our borders. I like to think of our problem, 

of illegal immigration, as a dam that has been breached. When you have a hole in 

a dam the first thing you do is relieve the pressure. If we provide better legal channels that are in our own economic interest, and we find a way for those here undocumented to become legal, we will have released the pressure. We will then be 

able to go about fixing our dam. A recent study by the National Foundation for 

American Policy documents this by looking at the positive effect the 1950’s-era Bracero program had at reducing illegal immigration. 

Without a comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform approach, legislative efforts will fail and we will continue to suffer the consequences. We will again have 

walked away from the issue. And a year from, now based upon recently released 

statistics, there will be 300,000 more undocumented aliens here in the U.S. The 

time for congressional action is NOW. I urge House Members to return to WashVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:02 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\FULL\082406\29605.000 HJUD1 PsN: 29605
86

ington to work with the Senate to pass a comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform bill. 

In conclusion I want to thank the Committee for allowing me to testify today.

ATTACHMENT I

The New England Apple Council Experience

with the Existing H2A and H2B Temporary Worker Programs 

Submitted by

John Young, Past Executive Director

The New England Apple Council includes growers in all six New England States, 

who raise various agricultural products. Many of our growers, including me, have 

used the H2A program since the early 1960’s. Our members started using Legal foreign workers in 1943. Mr. Chairman it has been almost 11 years since I last testified before this committee. In that time the guest worker program known as H2A 

has become nearly unusable. The approximately 190 members of NEAC have decreased their usage of H2A by 53%. Although employment of H2A workers has decreased, overall employment at our members has remained stable. 

Where have the additional workers come from? Many were referred by the Employment Service without verification of their legal authority to work in the U.S. 

Growers took the Employment Service’s word that all referrals were qualified. Part 

of being qualified is being work authorized. Later growers were notified that many 

workers’ social security numbers did not match the names reported. 

A referral of 125 workers approximately 13 years ago began the New England 

Apple Councils change from a legal (H2A) workforce to a heavily undocumented 

workforce. Growers were not in a position to use the pilot verification system because H2A workers are not included in the Social Security system, and would all 

come back as no-match. Employers were also afraid to use the system for only U.S. 

workers for fear of being charged with discrimination in hiring by the Office of Special Counsel of the U.S. Department of Labor. 

I believe H2A is broken. It is unresponsive, burdensome in paperwork, excessively 

costly, and I as an Association Director can not guarantee workers will be at the 

farm when they are needed. 

The government’s approval process has become less dependable since 9/11. Prior 

to 9/11 we would expect petitions for workers to be approved within two weeks. 

Today many are not back in even a month. For our H2A jobs we are asking to have 

unnamed petitions approved. The background checks of workers are done at the port 

of entry, and there is no function required at Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(USCIS) other than stamping the petition approved. 

We also have employers who use H2B workers. These are seasonal workers in hotels, restaurants, golf courses, landscaping, fisheries and ski areas. This program is 

also broken. An employer must start 120 days before workers are needed. With good 

luck they receive an approval from the Department of Labor 30–60 days before 

need; this is after an attempt to find local U.S. employees to do the job failed. This 

approval must then be sent to USCIS with the regular fees plus an extra $1,000 

for expedited processing. Without premium processing it can take as long as 5 

months for approval. We recently had one that took 5 months and a day, to approve 

an unnamed petition. There are other problems with the H2B program. It is capped 

at 66,000 visas per year. There was a temporary fix to exempt most returning workers from counting against the cap, but it will expire on October 1st. This will leave 

many New Hampshire businesses without workers next spring.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you, Mr. Young. 

The Chair will advise the Members of the audience that the rules 

of the House specifically prohibit expressions in support of or in opposition to any statements that are made by witnesses or by Members of the Committee. And the Chair will enforce that rule. 

This is a legislative hearing that is conducted pursuant to the 

rules of the United States House of Representatives. I know that 

there are strongly held views on both sides of this issue. I think 

it is important that this hearing be conducted according to rules 

because what someone agrees with in 1 minute, someone will disVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:02 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\FULL\082406\29605.000 HJUD1 PsN: 29605
87

agree with when somebody else comes to speak. And the only way 

that we are able to conduct this hearing according to the rules is 

that everybody respects the statements that are made by the witnesses and by the Members of the Committee, whether they happen to agree with those statements or disagree with those statements. 

Mr. Gadiel, the floor is yours. 

TESTIMONY OF PETER GADIEL, PRESIDENT,

9/11 FAMILIES FOR A SECURE AMERICA 

Mr. GADIEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

opportunity to speak today. 

Since independence, one of America’s most treasured ideals has 

been that of equality under law. In practice, we have often failed 

to achieve that ideal, but with the civil rights revolution, the clear 

trend of our 230 years of existence has been a progress toward 

making that goal a reality. 

Now comes the U.S. Senate with S. 2611, a bill that will reverse 

our progressive course by rejecting the concept of equality before 

the law. This would be done in order to create a special class of 

millions and offer them special treatment and privileges that have 

never before in our history been offered to any single citizen let 

alone an immense group of them. 

Who are the people the Senate has selected for special privileges? 

Not combat veterans of our military services; not the elderly people 

who have contributed to our Nation for many decades; not Americans who have made contributions in medicine or science. The elite 

chosen by the Senate are illegal aliens, citizens of other nations 

who, like thieves in the night, sneaked across our borders illegally. 

Aliens who obtained visas to visit our country with the stated 

promise to return home on the expiration of their visas and who, 

by violating that promise, revealed themselves to be liars. The privileged class chosen by the Senate consists entirely of criminals, and 

not even American criminals but criminal aliens. 

S. 2611 would forgive illegals for immigrations crimes, tax evasion, identity fraud, and other crimes and then goes far beyond 

that to grant them one of the greatest gifts our government can bestow: citizenship, a benefit that the law breakers will be able in 

turn to pass on to their descendants. 

Senators object to calling this amnesty, and on this one single 

point, they are correct. A true amnesty would merely restore the 

criminals to the same position they occupied before they committed 

their crimes: the right to apply for immigration like anyone else in 

the world. But S. 2611 goes on and rewards the acts of this specified criminal class. And to conceal the nature of its discriminatory 

and regressive plan, the Senate calls this idea comprehensive or a 

path to legalization. But to everyone else, it is discrimination, a 

violation of fundamental fairness and abandonment of the rule of 

law as we have known it. 

The law breaking illegal aliens will be the beneficiaries of S. 

2611, and it is American citizens who will pay the costs, both financial and social. Tens of thousands of American workers who 

have lost their jobs to illegal aliens who will work for a pittance 

and live 40 and 50 to a house. It is fundamentally unfair to these 

88

Americans who will see their law breaking competitors rewarded 

with citizenship. Fundamentally unfair to make permanent the 

conditions that deprive these American workers the ability to earn 

a living wage. Many Americans have been killed or injured in auto 

accidents or crimes committed by illegals who violate our motor vehicle and criminal laws as readily as they violate our immigration 

laws. And I might add today they show a disregard for even common civil proprieties of this hearing. 

Since every illegal is by definition a person whose true identity 

has never been documented, the perpetrators in many cases just 

disappear, is it not grossly unfair to the American victims and their 

families that illegals who have killed and injured Americans will 

be able simply by adopting a new identity to take advantage of a 

path to citizenship? 

The health care costs of Americans are inflated because hospitals 

are overrun by illegals who utilize their services. Is it not fundamentally unfair to Americans to increase our population by perhaps 60 million who will inevitably increase those costs? 

The open borders lobby relentlessly speaks of the romantic past, 

but the world is not the place it was in 1870 or 1900. Many, many, 

many conditions have changed and the most important one of those 

changes is that our government no longer seems to care who gets 

into our country. Let me provide a personal perspective on that 

point. 

My father was born in Germany in 1906. He was only part Jewish, but that and his family’s anti-Nazi activities were sufficient for 

the Hitler government to target him for death. In 1940, he arrived 

in this country officially classified as a ‘‘stateless person’’ and was 

allowed entry, but his entry as a refugee was conditional. He used 

to tell me that despite his Jewish blood and his work in opposing 

Nazis, before he was entitled to remain in the U.S., the FBI investigated him carefully to make sure he wasn’t a German agent. He 

said they practically looked under my fillings to make sure I wasn’t 

a Germany agent. 

Yet my father was pleased that the FBI examined him so closely. 

I didn’t want German agents in the U.S. anymore than FDR did. 

I wanted to be safe. My father was proud that he passed the test, 

and he felt safe in this country because he knew his government 

was carefully screening every single person who wanted to immigrate to this wonderful country. 

How sadly ironic it is that my son, his grandson, was murdered 

on 9/11 because the government of this country abandoned the 

practice of carefully examining those who wish to come to our country. 

S. 2611—make no doubt—will result in many more millions of 

criminal aliens from all parts of the earth winning the right to stay 

in the United States of America without any effective investigation 

of their possible violent or terrorist backgrounds. And this is the 

worst of all the many crimes against fairness, justice and morality 

S. 2611 will produce: It will make our Nation even more vulnerable 

to attack by hostile foreign powers infiltrating agents into the USA 

as ordinary illegal aliens. 

I implore the Members of this Committee to remember that it 

was negligence on the part of U.S. Government officials that alVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:02 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\FULL\082406\29605.000 HJUD1 PsN: 29605
89

lowed the terrorists of 9/11 and tens of thousands of ordinary street 

criminals to destroy the lives of innocent Americans. S. 2611 would 

perpetuate this madness. Illegal immigration is not a victimless 

crime——

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Dr. Lewy?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 

gentleman be allowed to finish his statement. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

Mr. GADIEL. I appreciate that very much. Amnesty for illegals 

means Americans will die. It is up to the Members of this House 

to save Americans from this assault by a Senate that is deaf to the 

wishes of the vast majority of this country’s citizens. Thank you 

very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gadiel follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER GADIEL

Since Independence, one of American’s most treasured ideals has been that of 

equality under the law. In practice we have often failed to achieve that ideal, but 

the clear trend during two centuries has been of progress toward making the goal 

a reality. Now comes the US Senate with S.2611, a bill which would reverse our 

progressive course by rejecting the concept of equality before the law. This would 

be done in order to create a special class of millions and offer them special treatment and privileges that have never in our history been offered to any single citizen, 

let alone an immense group of them. 

Who are the people the Senate has selected for special privileges? Not combat veterans of our military services; not elderly people who have contributed to our Nation 

for many decades, not Americans who have made unique contributions in the medicine or science. 

The elite chosen by the Senate are illegal aliens. Citizens of other nations who, 

like thieves in the night, sneaked across our borders illegally. Aliens who obtained 

visas to visit our country with the stated promise to return home on the expiration 

of their visas and who, by violating those promises, revealed themselves as liars. 

The privileged class chosen by the Senate consists entirely of criminals. And not 

even American criminals, but criminal aliens. 

S. 2611 would forgive illegals for their immigration crimes, tax evasion, identity 

fraud and other crimes, and then goes far beyond that to grant them one of the 

greatest gifts our government can bestow: citizenship, a benefit that the 

lawbreakers will in turn be able to pass on to their descendants. Senators object 

to calling this ‘‘amnesty,’’ and on this one point they are correct. A true ‘‘amnesty’’ 

would merely restore the criminals to the same position they occupied before they 

committed their crimes: a clean slate and the same right to stand in line with the 

rest of the world to apply for immigration. However, S2611 rewards the criminal 

acts of this chosen class of lawbreakers. To conceal the nature of its discriminatory 

and regressive plan the Senate calls this idea ‘‘a path to legalization,’’ but to everyone else it’s discrimination; a violation of fundamental fairness. 

While lawbreaking aliens will be the beneficiaries of S2611, it is American citizens who will pay all the costs, social and financial. 

Tens of thousands of taxpaying American workers in the building trades, hospitality industry, agriculture, service industry, manufacturing, high tech . . . the full 

spectrum of this country’s private sector have lost their jobs or have been forced to 

take lower wages because of illegal aliens who will work for a pittance and live forty 

and fifty to a house. It is fundamentally unfair to these Americans that their 

lawbreaking competitors will be rewarded with citizenship; fundamentally unfair to 

make permanent the conditions that have deprived these American workers of the 

ability to earn a living wage. 

Illegal aliens, violating our criminal laws and motor vehicle laws with the same 

contempt they show for our immigration laws, have killed or injured many thousands of Americans in street crimes or highway accidents. Since every illegal is by 

definition a person whose true identity has never been documented, the perpetrators 

often just disappear. Is it not grossly unfair to these American victims and their 

families that the illegals who are responsible will be able, simply by adopting a new 

identity, to take advantage of the ‘‘path to citizenship?’’

90

The health care costs of all Americans are inflated because hospitals are overwhelmed with illegals getting ‘‘free’’ health care. Is it not fundamentally unfair to 

Americans to permanently add perhaps 60 million people who will inevitably increase these costs? 

Many Americans who have needed emergency care but have lost access to nearby 

hospitals which have been forced to close by the cost of caring for illegals who abuse 

the ‘‘free’’ care offered by emergency rooms. Is it not fundamentally unfair to Americans that the very same people who caused these denials of service will be rewarded 

with the Senate’s ‘‘path to citizenship?’’

Many Americans of modest means have their entire life earnings invested in their 

homes and many have seen their homes rendered almost worthless because nearby 

houses were converted by absentee owners into dormitories for dozens of illegals. Is 

it not fundamentally unfair to these Americans to reward the illegals (and the landlords) who have robbed them of the work of a lifetime? 

The open borders lobby relentlessly speaks of the romantic past. But the world 

is not the place it was in 1870, 1900. Many, many conditions have changed. Most 

important among those changes is that our government no longer seems to care who 

gets into our country. Let me provide a personal perspective on that point. 

My father was born in Germany in 1906. He was only part Jewish but that and 

his family’s anti-Nazi activities were sufficient for the Hitler government to target 

him for death. In 1940 he arrived in the United States officially classified as a 

‘‘stateless person.’’ However, his status as a refugee was conditional, with permanent status only being granted after a complete investigation. He used to tell me 

that before he was permitted to remain in the US the FBI ‘‘practically looked under 

the fillings in my teeth to make sure that I wasn’t a German agent.’’ Yet, my father 

said he was pleased that the FBI examined him so closely. ‘‘I didn’t want German 

agents in the US anymore than FDR did. I wanted to be safe.’’ My father was proud 

that he passed the test, and felt safe because he knew his government was carefully 

screening every person who wanted to immigrate to this wonderful country. 

How sadly ironic is it that his grandson, my son, was murdered on 9/11/2001 because the government of the United States had abandoned the practice of carefully 

examining those who wish to come to our country, and S.2611 will result in many 

more millions of criminal aliens from all parts of the earth winning the right to stay 

in the USA without any effective investigation of their possible violent or terrorist 

backgrounds. 

And this is the worst all the many crimes against fundamental fairness that 

S.2611 will produce: it will make our Nation even more vulnerable to attack by hostile foreign powers infiltrating agents into the USA as ‘‘ordinary’’ illegal aliens. 

I implore members of this Committee to remember that it was negligence on the 

part of US government officials that allowed the terrorists of 9/11 and tens of thousands of ‘‘ordinary’’ street criminals to destroy the lives of innocent Americans. 

S.2611 will perpetuate this madness. 

Amnesty for illegals means Americans will die. 

It is up to the Members of this House to save Americans from this assault by a 

Senate that is deaf to the wishes of the vast majority of our citizens.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you, Mr. Gadiel. 

Dr. Lewy now. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN LEWY,

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS 

Dr. LEWY. Thank you. I am very pleased to meet with you this 

morning. I am a pediatrician, and I am the immediate past chair 

of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Federal Government affairs. I was the chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at Tulane Medical School from 1978 until my retirement in 

2004, and I now live in Moultonboro, New Hampshire. I would like 

to address the issue of how illegal aliens impact local taxpayers in 

terms of cost and health care. 

The American Academy of Pediatrics is concerned about the children who are the innocent victims of illegal immigration. All children need care in our communities; comprehensive, coordinated 

91

and continuous care in a medical home, meaning in a doctor’s practice, is cost effective and provides the best quality of care. 

Unfortunately, the rules requiring Medicaid recipients to document citizenship and identity will harm the health of the children 

in our country and their communities. Let me elaborate and explain. About one-third of the Nation’s low-income uninsured children live in immigrant families. These children are less likely to 

gain access to health care services. When they become ill, they are 

more likely to use emergency rooms which are far more expensive 

than medical homes. They also delay care far more and more often 

therefore require hospitalization. 

Immigrant children have more depression, more anxiety, more 

linguistic problems, and often were exposed to traumatic events 

such as war and persecution. They are also less likely to be immunized. This increases community risk. An example occurred with 

measles which was largely eliminated in our country by the year 

2000. Last year, a 17-year-old unvaccinated girl from Indiana visited an orphanage in Romania where she picked up the measles 

virus. When she returned home, she attended a church gathering 

where there were 500 people including a number of unvaccinated 

children; 34 people developed the illness and three required hospitalization, one quite severely ill. 

A particular concern is the interpretation of this citizenship identification and documentation requirements. An extreme problem 

can be found in the denial of eligibility for infants born in the 

United States, and therefore citizens, to undocumented mothers 

and in families who can’t find their documentation, and a strong 

example of that is families who lost all documentation in Katrina. 

We would hope that, one, the deemed sponsor rule would be 

changed so that children are not denied access to insurance; secondly, that newborns would be presumed eligible for Medicaid coverage; three, that payment policies would be designed to encourage 

a medical home for all children who reside in the United States; 

and fourth, that State outreach efforts be designed to enroll eligible 

children in the Medicaid or the State child health insurance program. 

In closing, then, I would hope that the Congress keeps in mind 

that all children living in our country need to receive quality care. 

This is the most cost-effective way to provide it in a medical home. 

We must not compromise children’s health while we restructure 

immigration law. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lewy follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN LEWY

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is an organization of 60,000 primary 

care pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists, and pediatric surgical specialists, who are deeply committed to protecting the health of children, adolescents and 

young adults in the United States. Our testimony in today’s Oversight Hearing, 

‘‘The Reid-Kennedy Bill’s Amnesty: Impacts on Taxpayers, Fundamental Fairness 

and the Rule of Law,’’ will focus on children, the innocent victims of illegal immigration. 

Children, whether they are undocumented or not, need care in our communities. 

Most immigrant children’s care should be preventive, but too often, that care is foregone. Comprehensive, coordinated, and continuous health services provided within 

a medical home should be integral to all efforts on behalf of immigrant children. 

Children need and deserve access to care, and communities benefit when they receive it. 

92

Unfortunately, immigrant children often do not receive the care they need because 

of federal, state and local laws limiting payment for their care, or a generalized belief that if children seek care, their families or loved ones may become the target 

of law enforcement. 

AAP believes that barriers to access, such as the recent promulgation of rules by 

the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services requiring Medicaid recipients to 

document citizenship and identification, will harm the health of the children in our 

country and the communities they live in. 

IMMIGRANT CHILDREN

One in every five American children is a member of an immigrant family. About 

one-third of the nation’s low-income, uninsured children live in immigrant families. 

Children of immigrants, often racial or ethnic minorities, experience significant 

health disparities. These disparities arise because of complex and often poorly understood factors, many of which are worsened by the circumstances of their lives. 

Although these children have similar challenges with regard to poverty, housing, 

and food, significant physical, mental, and social health issues may exist that are 

unique to each individual child. 

Children of immigrants are more likely to be uninsured and less likely to gain 

access to health care services than children in native families. Socioeconomic, financial, geographic, linguistic, legal, cultural, and medical barriers often limit these 

families from accessing even basic health care services. Once care is available, communication barriers often result in immigrant children receiving lower-quality services. Many immigrant families also have varied immigration statuses that confer 

different legal rights and affect the extent to which these families are eligible for 

public programs such as SCHIP, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, 

and Medicaid. Thus, the immigration status of children in the same family may differ. As a result, a foreign-born child may be ineligible for insurance coverage, while 

his or her younger, U.S.-born sibling is eligible as a native citizen. 

Each immigrant’s experience is unique and complex but certain overarching 

health issues are common in caring for immigrant families. Immigration imposes 

unique stresses on children and families, including:

• depression, grief, or anxiety associated with migration and acculturation;

• separation from support systems;

• inadequate language skills in a society that is not tolerant of linguistic differences;

• disparities in social, professional, and economic status between the country of 

origin and the United States; and

• traumatic events, such as war or persecution, that may have occurred in their 

native country.

The health of immigrant children not only impacts the child, it impacts the entire 

community. Preventive care commonly provided to children born in the United 

States will often not be available to children of immigrants. Left untreated, the 

health issues caused by this lack of prevention cause immigrant families to seek 

care for their children in emergency settings. Children commonly present with 

worse health status in the emergency room than if they had received preventive 

care. 

Beyond the health status of the child, communities should also care about the 

health of the children who live in them because immigrant children may have diseases that are rarely diagnosed in the United States. Left untreated, these diseases 

may be passed on to the communities in which immigrant children reside. In addition, many foreign-born children have not been immunized adequately or lack documents verifying their immunization status. Dental problems are also common 

among immigrant children. 

The measles vaccine is an example of the importance of prevention for communities. Measles is a highly infectious viral disease that can cause a rash, fever, diarrhea and, in severe cases, pneumonia, encephalitis and even death. Worldwide, it 

infects some 30 million people and causes more than 450,000 deaths a year. In the 

United States, measles was once a common childhood disease, but it had been largely eliminated by 2000. Nevertheless, an outbreak of measles occurred in Indiana last 

year. A 17-year-old unvaccinated girl who visited an orphanage in Romania on a 

church mission picked up the virus there. 

When the girl returned, she attended a gathering of some 500 church members 

that included many other unvaccinated children. By the time the outbreak had run 

its course, 34 people had become ill. Three were hospitalized, including one with 

93

life-threatening complications. Clearly, communities should care about the health of 

those who reside in them. 

FEDERAL AND STATE HEALTH PROGRAMS FOR IMMIGRANTS

One of the most important risk factors for lack of health coverage is a child’s family immigration status. Some children in the United States are ineligible for Medicaid and SCHIP because of immigrant eligibility restrictions. Many others are eligible but not enrolled because their families encounter language barriers to enrollment, are confused about program rules and eligibility status, or are worried about 

repercussions if they use public benefits. 

The vast majority of immigrant children meet the income requirements for eligibility for Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), but 

for various reasons are not enrolled. Medicaid and SCHIP are not available to most 

immigrant children because of eligibility restrictions imposed by various federal 

laws. Two examples include the sponsor deeming rule and the recently promulgated 

citizenship and identification documentation requirements. 

While qualified immigrants can become eligible to receive federal benefits after 

five years of U.S. residency, secondary rules often interfere with their access to benefits, such as the ‘‘sponsor deeming’’ rule. Current law requires that people who immigrate through family ‘‘sponsors’’ may have their sponsors’ income counted in determining eligibility. This rule applies even if the sponsor lives in a separate household and does not actually contribute to the immigrant’s financial support. Sponsor 

deeming has made a majority of low-income immigrants ineligible for benefits, even 

after five years have passed. Moreover, if an immigrant uses certain benefits, including Medicaid and SCHIP, his or her sponsor can be required to repay the government for the value of the benefits used until the immigrant becomes a citizen 

or has had approximately 10 years of employment in the United States. Together, 

these requirements impose significant barriers to securing health coverage, even 

when immigrant children are otherwise eligible. 

Immigrant children who used to qualify based on certifications as to their immigrant status now may not qualify because of changes contained in the Deficit Reduction Act. These changes require that Medicaid applicants, who would otherwise 

qualify, must now also provide documentation such as a passport or original birth 

certificate to verify their citizenship status and identity. While designed to weed out 

fraud and abuse from the system, AAP has already received information that the 

rule has limited access to care for poor children who would otherwise qualify for 

Medicaid. An extreme example of this can be found in new rules denying coverage 

for children born in the United States to undocumented mothers. 

According to these new rules, newborns may not be eligible for Medicaid until 

strenuous documentation requirements have been satisfied. Hospital records may 

not be used in most cases to prove that children are citizens, even though the child 

was born in the hospital providing care and are, by definition, citizens. Thus, care 

for some citizen newborns may not be paid for by Medicaid because paperwork documenting their status is not yet available. Pediatricians treating these citizen 

newborns whether they are low-birthweight, have post-partum complications, or 

simply need well-baby care, may not be paid. This result is completely unnecessary 

because the child will eventually qualify for Medicaid benefits as a result of where 

he or she was born. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Lawmakers should be aware of and sensitive to the onerous financial, educational, 

geographic, linguistic, and cultural barriers that interfere with achieving optimal 

health status for immigrant children. This awareness should translate into:

• CMS confirming with states that newborns are presumed eligible for Medicaid coverage. Paperwork should not delay payment for services provided to 

resident newborns.

• The deemed sponsor rule should be changed so that immigrant children are 

not denied access to insurance, and by extension, quality health care.

• The pooling of community resources to address unpaid-for care provided by 

pediatricians to immigrant children. Undocumented children receive care 

from pediatricians. Communities benefit from the provision of this care. Communities should not expect pediatricians alone to provide the resources needed to furnish this care.

• Encouraging payment policies to support the establishment of a medical home 

for all children residing in the United States. Comprehensive, coordinated, 

and continuous health services provided within a medical home should be inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:02 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\FULL\082406\29605.000 HJUD1 PsN: 29605
94

tegral to all efforts on behalf of immigrant children. In addition, the establishment of a medical home should be a ‘‘scorable element’’ for children, as the 

medical home will have the effect of providing care for children away from 

the emergency room in many instances.

• Outreach efforts for children who are potentially eligible for Medicaid and 

SCHIP but not enrolled, simplified enrollment for both programs, and state 

funding for those who are not eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP. The Medicaid 

reciprocity model, which allows Medicaid recipients in one state to qualify for 

services in another state without reestablishing eligibility, is an example of 

a model that enables underserved families to access health benefits more easily.

In closing, the American Academy of Pediatrics seeks to ensure that Congress 

keeps in mind the children we care for as it considers restructuring immigration 

law. Pediatricians and a host of other health professionals provide care to children 

throughout the United States. We must not compromise children’s health in the 

name of reform.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you. 

Mr. Camarota. 

TESTIMONY OF STEVEN CAMAROTA, DIRECTOR OF 

RESEARCH, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES 

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

my name is Steven Camarota from the Center for Immigration 

Studies and I want to thank you for inviting me to testify. 

When it comes to immigrants and public coffers, there is general 

agreement that their fiscal impact depends largely on the education 

level of the immigrant in question. Immigrants who come with a 

lot of education tend to pay much more in taxes than they use in 

services, while those with little education tend, who have low incomes, pay relatively little in taxes and often use a good deal in 

public services. In the case of illegal aliens, services are often received on behalf of their U.S. born children who are currently 

awarded U.S. Citizenship. 

It is critically important to understand that the fiscal drain from 

less educated immigrants is not because they came to America to 

get welfare, nor is it due to an unwillingness to work. Rather, the 

costs simply reflect the fact that there is no single better predictor 

of one’s income, tax payments, or use of public services in modern 

America than one’s education level. And some 60 percent of illegal 

aliens have not completed high school. And another 20 percent 

have only a high school degree. While the most detailed study of 

the fiscal effects of immigration was done by the National Research 

Council, it found that during their lifetime an immigrant who arrives without a high school education will create a net fiscal burden 

of $89,000. This includes all the taxes they will pay and all the 

services they will use. The net drain on taxpayers at all levels of 

government is $89,000. For an immigrant who comes with only a 

high school degree, the net drain is $31,000. However, the study 

found that immigrants who come with more education were a fiscal 

benefit. But the people who will be legalized under 2611 are overwhelmingly people who create large fiscal costs. 

In terms of the impact on taxpayers, the fundamental problem 

with the Senate bill is that it ignores this basic fact. My research 

shows that if we legalized illegals and they began to pay taxes and 

used services like legal immigrants with the same level of education, the net fiscal drain would roughly triple on just the Federal 

95

Government from $10 billion a year to $30 billion a year. That’s 

the difference between what they would pay in taxes and use in 

services. 

This happens because illegals would now be eligible for many 

more social programs, but their low education levels would mean 

their incomes and taxes would still be very modest, even though 

they would be paid on the books. As you know the Senate bill increases legal immigration from roughly 1 million to 2 million a 

year and grants legal status to some 10 million illegal immigrants. 

For the most part, the bill makes no real effort to select new immigrants based on their skills and education, nor is that part of the 

selection criteria for legalization. If you take nothing else away 

from my testimony it is the knowledge that it is not possible to 

avoid the fiscal costs of large-scale, unskilled immigration given the 

realities of the modern American economy and the existence of our 

well-developed welfare state, unless we are prepared to drastically 

cut spending on programs like the Women, Infants and Children 

Nutrition Program, public education, emergency medical care, free 

school lunches, just to name a few. There is simply no desire to do 

that. The kind of programs that illegal aliens use are a permanent 

feature of our society. 

Let me comment briefly specifically on State and local governments. In 2005, one out of every seven persons without health insurance in the United States was an illegal alien. The cost of providing health care to illegals and their U.S. Born children totals 

some $4 billion a year for State and local governments. State and 

local governments spend another $22 billion a year to provide illegal aliens and their U.S. born children with a free education. As 

I said, the very low education level of the vast majority of illegals 

means that even when paid on the books, they can’t pay enough 

to cover the costs they impose even though the vast majority of illegal aliens work, typically full-time. 

There is, if you will, a high cost to cheap labor. Now putting 

aside the impact on taxpayers it should also be remembered that 

all the research shows that the economic gain to Americans from 

immigration is very tiny or minuscule in the words of the Nation’s 

top economists. And the benefits come mainly by driving down the 

wages and benefits of the least educated and poorest Americans 

which itself is very problematic. There is no possibility that the 

economic benefits from unskilled immigration will somehow offset 

the cost to taxpayers. 

We face a simple choice. Either we enforce the law and make illegal alien go home, or we shut up about the fiscal costs. They are 

the only two possibilities when it comes to public coffers. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Camarota follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN A. CAMAROTA

SUMMARY

There is general agreement that the fiscal impact of immigration (legal or illegal) 

depends largely on the education level of the immigrants in question. Immigrants 

with a lot of education pay more in taxes than they use in services, while those with 

little education tend to have low incomes, pay relatively little in taxes and often use 

a good deal in public services. In the case of illegal aliens, the vast majority have 

little education, and this is the key reason they create fiscal costs. Illegal families 

96

1The National Research Council’s 1997 report entitled, The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. A summary of the report’s findings can be found at 

www.cis.org/articles/1999/combinednrc.pdf 2See The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget, Steven 

Camarota. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal.html 3These figures are based on analysis of birth records complied by the National Center for 

Health Statistics. See Births to Immigrations in America, 1970 to 2002, which can be found at 

www.cis.org/articles/2005/back805.html

often receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children. The costs associated with 

illegal immigration are difficult, such as emergency medical care or public education, if illegals are allowed to stay. As a matter of policy, either we enforce the 

law and make the illegals go home or stop complaining about the costs. 

KEY FINDINGS OF RESEARCH: 

• The National Research Council (NRC) 1 estimated that immigrant households 

create a net fiscal burden (taxes paid minus services used) on all levels of government of $20.2 billion annually. 

• The NRC estimated that an immigrant without a high school diploma will 

create a net lifetime burden of $89,000, and an immigrant with only a high 

school education is a negative $31,000. However, an immigrant with education beyond high school is a fiscal benefit of $105,000.

• Estimating the impact of immigrants and their descendants, the NRC found 

that if today’s newcomers do as well as past generations, the average immigrant will be a fiscal drain for his first 22 years after arrival. It takes his 

children another 18 years to pay back this burden.

• The NRC also estimated that the average immigrant plus all his descendants 

over 300 years would create a fiscal benefit, expressed in today’s dollars of 

$80,000. Some immigration advocates have pointed to this 300-year figure, 

but the NRC states it would be ‘‘absurd’’ to do so.

• The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) estimates that in 2002 illegal alien 

households imposed costs of $26 billion on the federal government and paid 

$16 billion in federal taxes, creating an annual net fiscal deficit of $10.4 billion at the federal level, or $2,700 per household.2

• Among the largest federal costs were Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for 

the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, 

WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison/court systems 

($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

• If illegal aliens were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like 

households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, CIS 

estimates the annual net fiscal deficit would increase to $29 billion, or $7,700, 

per household at the federal level.

• The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that state and local governments spend some $4 billion a year to provide health care to illegal aliens and 

their U.S.-born children and $20 to $24 billion to educate children from illegal 

alien households.

• The primary reason illegal aliens create a fiscal deficit is that an estimated 

60 percent lack a high school degree and another 20 percent have no education beyond high school. The fiscal drain is not due to their legal status or 

unwillingness to work.

• Illegal aliens with little education are a significant fiscal drain, but less-educated immigrants who are legal residents are a much larger fiscal problem 

because they are eligible for many more programs.

• Many of the costs associated with illegals aliens are due to their U.S.-born 

children who have American citizenship. Thus, barring illegal aliens themselves from programs will have little impact on costs.

• There are now some 400,000 children born to illegal alien mothers each year 

in the United States, accounting for almost one in ten births in the country. 

Of all births to immigrants 39 percent were to mothers without a high school 

education, and among illegals it was more than 65 percent.3

• The costs associated with providing services to so many low-income children 

is enormous and will continue to grow if the large-scale immigration of lesseducated immigrants (legal and illegal) is allowed to continue.

• Focusing just on Social Security and Medicare, CIS estimates that illegal 

households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of 

97

4See footnote 2 for the source of this information and all information dealing with the fiscal 

costs of illegal immigration on the federal budget. 

$7 billion a year. However, they create a net deficit of $17 billion in the rest 

of the budget, for a total net federal cost of $10 billion.

While there is still much that is not known, we now have some reasonably good 

information about the impact of immigrants on public coffers. As I tried to make 

clear in the summary above, there is a pretty clear consensus that the fiscal impact 

of immigration depends on the education level of the immigrants, not their legal status. Certainly other factors also matter, but the human capital of immigrants, as 

economists like to refer to it, is clearly very important. There is no single better predictor of one’s income, tax payments, or use of public services in modern America 

than one’s education level. The vast majority of immigrants come as adults, and it 

should come as no surprise that the education they bring with them is a key determinant of their fiscal impact. In my own research I have concentrated on the effect 

of illegal aliens on the federal government. For those wanting a more detailed look 

at these questions, my most recent publications are available online at the Center 

for Immigration Studies web site, www.cis.org. 

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND THE FEDERAL BUDGET

A good deal of research has focused on the effect illegals have on taxpayers at 

the state and local level. Much of this work has examined only costs, or only tax 

payments, but not both. In my work I have tried to estimate both, and I have focused on the federal government. Based on a detailed analysis of Census Bureau 

data, my analysis indicates that households headed by illegal aliens imposed more 

than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid $16 billion 

in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal 

household. The largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured 

($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school 

lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal 

aid to schools ($1.4 billion).4 Obviously, the size of the illegal population has grown 

since 2002, so the costs have as well. 

A Complex Fiscal Picture. While the net fiscal drain illegals create for the federal government is significant, I also found that the costs illegal households impose 

on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments 

are only one-fourth that of other households. Many of the costs associated with 

illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship 

at birth. Thus, greater efforts to bar illegals from federal programs will not reduce 

costs because their citizen children can continue to access them. It must also be remembered that the vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they 

create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work. In 

2002, I found that 89 percent of illegal households had at least one person working, 

compared to 78 percent of households headed by legal immigrants and natives. 

Legalization Would Dramatically Grow Costs. One of my most important 

findings with regard to illegal aliens is that if they were given legal status and 

began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants 

with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion. 

Costs increase dramatically because less-educated immigrants with legal status—

what most illegal aliens would become—can access government programs but still 

tend to make very modest tax payments. Of course, I also found that their income 

would rise, as would their tax payments if legalized. I estimate that tax payments 

would increase 77 percent, but costs would rise by 118 percent. 

These costs are considerable and should give anyone who advocates legalizing illegal immigrants serious pause. However, my findings show that many of the preconceived notions about the fiscal impact of illegal households turn out to be inaccurate. In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs tends to be very 

low, while Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than that for other households. Only use of food assistance programs is significantly higher than that of the 

rest of the population. Also, contrary to the perceptions that illegal aliens do not 

pay payroll taxes, we estimate that more than half of illegals work on the books. 

On average, illegal households pay more than $4,200 a year in all forms of federal 

taxes. Unfortunately, they impose costs of $6,950 per household. 

What’s Different About Today’s Immigration. It is worth noting that many 

native-born Americans observe that their ancestors came to America and did not 

place great demands on government services. Perhaps this is true, but the size and 

scope of government was dramatically smaller during the last great wave of immiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:02 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\FULL\082406\29605.000 HJUD1 PsN: 29605
98

5 Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income: Eligibility Rules, Recipient and 

Expenditure Data, FY2002-FY2004, Karen Spar, Coordinator. Congressional Research Service, 

March 27, 2006. 6See The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget, which can 

be found at www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal.html I estimated that slightly less than 2 percent 

of federal expenditures on Medicaid went to persons in illegal households. The above estimate 

assumes that the same percentage holds true at the state and local level. 7The number of uninsured illegals and their children is based on my analysis of the March 

2005 Current Population Survey conducted by the Census Bureau and is consistent with other 

research on topic. 8 In a February 2003 study in Health Affairs, which can be found at http://

www.healthaffairs.org, Hadley and Holahan estimated government expenditures for treating the 

uninsured in 2001. An updated study for the Kaiser Family Foundation, which can be found 

at http://www.kff.org, has estimates for 2004. Our estimated costs for treating illegals does account for the fact that illegals are not eligible to use all of the services provided to the uninsured 

by virtue of their legal status. 

gration. Not just means-tested programs, but expenditures on everything from public schools to roads were only a fraction of what they are today. Thus, the arrival 

of immigrants with little education in the past did not have the negative fiscal implications that it does today. Moreover, the American economy has changed profoundly since the last great wave of immigration, with education now the key determinant of economic success. The costs that unskilled immigrants impose simply reflect the nature of the modern American economy and welfare state. It is very 

doubtful that the fiscal costs can be avoided if our immigration policies remain unchanged. 

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

In my own research I have focused on fiscal costs at the federal level. It should 

also be noted that in the 1997 NRC study, The New Americans, mentioned above 

the estimated lifetime fiscal drain at the state and local level from all immigrants 

(legal and illegal) was negative $25,000. That is, immigrants cost state and local 

government $25,000 more in services than they paid in taxes in the course of their 

lifetime. Some newer data exists to estimate the impact of illegals on state and local 

governments in such areas as health care and public education. The estimates below 

provide some insight into the likely impact of illegal immigration at the state and 

local governments on these two key public services. Below I discuss only the impact 

of illegal immigration. 

Health Care. In 2004, state governments spent $125 billion on Medicaid—health 

insurance coverage for low incomes.5 Based on prior research, some $2.1 billion of 

that money went to persons in illegal-alien households, mostly their U.S.-born children.6 Data from 2005 also indicated that of the 45.8 million uninsured people in 

the country (persons on Medicaid are considered to have insurance), some 7 million—or 15 percent—are illegal aliens or the young U.S.-born children of illegals 

under age 18.7 State and local governments spend some 12 billion on treatment for 

the uninsured.8 Thus, it seems likely that illegals and their children cost state and local governments some $1.8 billion on top of the $2.1 billion spent on Medicaid. In 

total, the best available evidence indicates that illegal immigration costs state and 

local governments some $4 billion a year. The federal government likely spent an 

additional $6 billion on health care for illegals and their children in 2004. 

Public Education. State and local governments spent some $400 billion on public education in 2003. Between 5 and 6 percent of all children in public school are 

themselves illegal aliens or are the U.S.-born children of an illegal alien. Putting 

aside the higher costs associated with educating language minority children, the 

costs of providing education to these children still must come to $20 to $24 billion 

for state and local governments. The federal government also provides funding for 

public education, a significant share of which is specifically targeted at low-income, 

migrant, and limited English students. The Federation for American Immigration 

Reform estimated that the costs of educating illegal-alien children at all levels of 

government, including the federal expenditures, was nearly $12 billion in 2004, and 

when the children born here are counted they estimated the figure at $28 billion. 

POLICY OPTIONS FOR DEALING WITH ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

The negative impact on the federal budget from illegal immigration need not be 

the only or even the primary consideration when deciding what to do about illegal 

immigration. But assuming that the fiscal status quo is unacceptable, there are 

three main changes in policy that might reduce or eliminate the fiscal costs of illegal 

immigration. One set of options is to allow illegal aliens to remain in the country 

but attempt to reduce the costs they impose. A second set of options would be to 

99

grant them legal status as a way of increasing the taxes they pay. A third option 

would be to enforce the law and reduce the size of the illegal population and with 

it the costs of illegal immigration. 

Let Illegal Stay Illegal, But Cut Costs. Reducing the costs illegals impose 

would probably be the most difficult policy option because illegal households already 

impose only about 46 percent as much in costs on the federal government as other 

households. Moreover, the fact that benefits are often received on behalf of their 

U.S.-citizen children means that it is very difficult to prevent illegal households 

from accessing the programs they do. It seems almost certain that if illegals are allowed to remain in the country, the fiscal deficit will persist. 

The High Cost of Legalization. As discussed above, our research shows that 

granting illegal aliens amnesty would dramatically increase tax revenue. Unfortunately, we also find that costs would increase even more. Costs would rise dramatically because illegals would be able to access many programs that are currently off 

limits to them. Moreover, even if legalized illegal aliens continued to be barred from 

using some means-tested programs, they would still be much more likely to sign 

their U.S.-citizen children up for them because they would lose whatever fear they 

had of the government. We know this because immigrants with legal status, who 

have the same education levels and resulting low incomes as illegal aliens, sign 

their U.S.-citizen children up for programs like Medicaid at higher rates than illegal 

aliens with U.S.-citizen children. In addition, direct costs for programs like the 

Earned Income Tax Credit would also grow dramatically with legalization. Right 

now, illegals need a Social Security number and have to file a tax return to get the 

credit. As a result, relatively few actually get it. We estimate that once legalized, 

payments to illegals under this program would grow more than ten-fold. 

Enforcing the Law. If we are serious about avoiding the fiscal costs of illegal 

immigration, the only real option is to enforce the law and reduce the number of 

illegal aliens in the country. First, this would entail much greater efforts to police 

the nation’s land and sea borders. At present, less than 2,000 agents are on duty 

at any one time on the Mexican and Canadian borders. Second, much greater effort 

must be made to ensure that those allowed into the country on a temporary basis, 

such as tourists and guest workers, are not likely to stay in the country permanently. Third, the centerpiece of any enforcement effort would be to enforce the ban 

on hiring illegal aliens. At present, the law is completely unenforced. Enforcement 

would require using existing databases to ensure that all new hires are authorized 

to work in the United States and levying heavy fines on businesses that knowingly 

employ illegal aliens. 

Policing the border, enforcing the ban on hiring illegal aliens, denying temporary 

visas to those likely to remain permanently, and all the other things necessary to 

reduce illegal immigration will take time and cost money. However, since the cost 

of illegal immigration to the federal government alone is estimated at over $10 billion a year, significant resources could be devoted to enforcement efforts and still 

leave taxpayers with significant net savings. Enforcement not only has the advantage of reducing the costs of illegal immigration, it also is very popular with the 

general public. Nonetheless, policymakers can expect strong opposition from special 

interest groups, especially ethnic advocacy groups and those elements of the business community that do not want to invest in labor-saving devices and techniques 

or pay better salaries, but instead want access to large numbers of cheap, unskilled 

workers. If we choose to continue to not enforce the law or to grant illegals legal 

status, both the public and policymakers have to understand that there will be significant long-term costs for taxpayers. 

CONCLUSION

If you take nothing else away from my testimony, it should be remembered that 

it simply is not possible to fund social programs by bringing in large numbers of 

immigrants with relatively little education. This is central to the debate over illegal 

immigration because 60 percent of illegals are estimated to have not completed high 

school and another 20 have only a high school degree. The fiscal problem created 

by less-educated immigrants exists even though the vast majority of immigrants, including illegals, work and did not come to America to get welfare. The realities of 

the modern American economy coupled with the modern American administrative 

state make large fiscal costs an unavoidable problem of large-scale, less-educated 

immigration. 

This fact does not reflect a moral defect on the part of immigrants. What it does 

mean is that we need an immigration policy that reflects the reality of modern 

America. We may decide to let illegals stay and we may even significantly increase 

the number of less-educated legal immigrants allowed into the country, which is 

100

what the immigration bill recently passed by the Senate would do. But we have to 

at least understand that such a policy will create large unavoidable costs for taxpayers.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you, very much, Mr. Camarota. 

In order for us to have more than one round of questions, the 

Chair intends to enforce the 5-minute rule on Members, including 

himself, pretty strictly and that way we can have a couple of 

rounds of questions and maybe even three rounds of questions before noon. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts Mr. Meehan. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Representative Renzullo, how long have you been 

a State legislator in New Hampshire? 

Mr. RENZULLO. I have been a legislator for 2 years. 

Mr. MEEHAN. In the House? 

Mr. RENZULLO. In the House. Before that, I was in local politics. 

Mr. MEEHAN. And when you pass a bill in the House and the 

Senate passes a bill, does it go to a Conference Committee? 

Mr. RENZULLO. If there is a difference, yes. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Right. And you are aware that the House passed 

a bill and the Senate passed a bill, and we’re awaiting a Conference Committee? 

Mr. RENZULLO. I am aware of that. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Do you know Senator Gregg from New Hampshire? 

Mr. RENZULLO. Yes, I do. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Did you send him a letter as this bill was being 

debated the United States Senate? 

Mr. RENZULLO. I’m not certain if I did or not. I know I have told 

him that the Senate bill was——

Mr. MEEHAN. But you are not certain whether you sent him a 

letter or not? 

Mr. RENZULLO. I probably did. I know I sent—if I didn’t send 

him a letter, I probably called his office. 

Mr. MEEHAN. You mentioned the cost of people going to the 

emergency rooms. You phrased it as illegal aliens that go to the 

emergency rooms in our hospitals. 

Mr. RENZULLO. I did not say—I said the costs, yes, okay. I understand what you are saying, okay. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Right. Do you know how many legal American citizens in the United States don’t have health insurance? 

Mr. RENZULLO. I think it is approximately, if I look at the data, 

45 million. And Mr. Camarota has the data that says 6 or 7 are 

illegal. 

Mr. MEEHAN. It is about 45.8 million Americans who don’t have 

health insurance. And those 46 million Americans that don’t have 

health insurance who are legal citizens are going to emergency 

rooms all across America to get their health insurance. And the 

reason: to get coverage. That’s what is happening now. So this idea 

that we are going to blame our problems in the health care system 

on illegal immigrants, the fact of the matter is, we should be 

ashamed of ourselves as the richest, most powerful country in the 

world that 46 million American citizens don’t have health insurance. It is unconscionable. 

I really believe that what we need to do is provide leadership and 

get this legislation—work out the differences between the Senate 

101

and the House. And I honestly I don’t believe that anyone is fooled 

by this process of having hearings after the bill has passed the 

House and the Senate. The newspapers all across America are 

rightly calling these hearings pointless and calling them a stalling 

technique. 

I don’t understand where advocates for stronger Border Patrol, 

more guards on the border, more and better technology to implement the 9/11 Commission reports that haven’t been implemented, 

I don’t understand why it is better to do nothing than to try to 

work out differences between the House and the Senate. I just 

don’t understand it. 

In Massachusetts, the Boston Herald, a pretty conservative 

newspaper, they say that the House’s unwillingness to get to work 

is the only roadblock to reform. House Bill 4437 was introduced on 

Tuesday, December 6. It passed the House on Friday the 16th. Not 

one hearing. Not one hearing. It is unprecedented to have the 

House pass a bill and the Senate pass a bill and then decide to do 

a road show with hearings all across the country. 

There comes a time when people have to roll up their sleeves and 

go to work. And I might add, I gave the statistics earlier, as the 

Republicans are in control of the House—they are in control of the 

Senate; they are in control of the White House; they are in control 

of the Supreme Court—illegal immigrants are still coming over the 

border in record numbers. The enforcement on the borders under 

this President has been terrible. In fact, this Congress has not even 

funded all of the border security personnel that have been authorized. 

So I don’t know how we get into this, we are going to do nothing 

because we think that doing nothing is better than doing something, because we will have an election in November, and we will 

make it seem that we are for something so tough that we can’t do 

anything. And I think that is wrong. I think the American people 

are calling for reform. They want us to deal with this issue. And 

they want us to deal with it openly and honestly, and what that 

means is rolling up your sleeves and working it out in the Conference Committee. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 

Hostettler. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

At the outset, I think the record should be clarified. In you testimony, Dr. Camarota, your written testimony, you give the figure 

of 45 million uninsured people in the country, but that is not 45 

million citizens of the United States. 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Over 13 million of them are either immigrants 

or the young child of an immigrant parent. About 6.3 million of 

those are illegal aliens. It is from the March 2005 current population survey. Most research suggests that 90 percent of illegal 

aliens respond. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Will the gentleman yield on that point? My figures 

didn’t come from him. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time belongs to the gentleman from 

Indiana. 

102

Mr. HOSTETTLER. So your figures are probably wrong. Given, Dr. 

Camarota, that 15 percent of the uninsured population in America 

are illegal aliens, let me ask you about the growth in that. Relative 

to the total population of illegal aliens and the proportion of American citizens, is the population of uninsured illegal aliens growing 

faster than the population of uninsured American citizens? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Yes, sir, absolutely. Since about 1989, the uninsured population is up roughly 12 million. About 9 million of the 

increase in the last 15 years are new immigrants or the children 

born to immigrants, and half of that or more is illegal aliens. So 

you are looking at around half of the growth in the uninsured in 

the United States being from illegal immigration. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Dr. Camarota, your cost on taxpayers are costs 

that are as a result of direct payment of services for illegal aliens; 

is that correct? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Services that they would use in a broad sense. 

Plus I tried to take into account all the taxes they would pay, too. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. In previous testimony before our Subcommittee, you have remarked that, between 2000 and 2004, foreign born workers added 1.1 million to the number in three job 

classifications, contribution labor, building maintenance and food 

preparation. But in 2004, there were 2 million adult native Americans unemployed in those three job classifications. Is that correct? 

Do you remember that testimony? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. That sounds about right. I can’t say exactly, but 

that sounds about right. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Given the displacement that has taken place 

with regard to American workers in the workplace as a result of 

illegal aliens coming into the labor pool, are there not significant 

indirect costs as a result of displaced Americans who do have access to a much larger array of government programs for government aid as the result of being once against displaced by illegal 

aliens? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Yes, lower wages for natives should result in 

them using more social services as a result of the immigrant competition, and also, those who leave the labor market entirely or become unemployed, there are added social services costs associated 

with that as well. I haven’t calculated those. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. There are significantly higher costs as of result 

of that. We appreciate that. 

An expansion of health benefits as suggested by Dr. Lewy would 

do what to the foreign population of individuals who would consider coming into the country illegally? If we expanded social 

spending programs for illegal aliens and especially the children of 

illegal aliens not born in the United States, what would that do to 

the motivation of foreign populations with regard to their desire to 

enter illegally? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. One would have to expect that, obviously, it is 

a very attractive option in a country like Mexico where it is difficult to access a less developed health care system, coming to the 

United States and at least getting care for your children would 

make it more attractive. How much of an impact we don’t know. 

The other thing it would do is make illegal aliens who often go 

103

home on their own each year more likely to stay. There is a wealth 

of literature that shows that benefits tend to reduce out-migration. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. Mr. 

Young, in your testimony, you use the analogy of a dam and its 

repair and the breach of a dam, a hole being placed on the dam. 

Interestingly, when that takes place, where there is a hole below 

the water line what takes place, according to the Corps of Engineers, is they build what is called a cofferdam. They create a barrier that surrounds the place of the breach, a barrier, a physical 

barrier, pump the area dry to effect the repairs. It has to be dry. 

They can’t have water obviously streaming in. 

This is a very good analogy. I commend you for the analogy. This 

is an analogy that is very apropos to the House passed bill, the 

Sensenbrenner bill that included exactly what you are suggesting. 

And that is the creation of a barrier that would stop the upstream 

flow—or if you use the analogy of the southern border—the upstream flow into the United States. That is what the House is attempting to do is to repair that breach of the dam. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I clearly want to defer to you as 

Chair, and you haven’t posed your questions. If you are extending 

the courtesy to me. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Your turn, Mr. Delahunt. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that will 

not be taken off my time. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I will reset the clock. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you for resetting the clock. 

Mr. Camarota, you have testified before in numbers of hearings. 

You are part of the traveling show at this point in time. 

Mr. CAMAROTA. This is my first traveling hearing that I have attended. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. And I want to be very clear. This is not an ad 

hominem remark, but I am unsure as to the methodology that you 

utilize when you come to your figures. And I am sure it is a goodfaith effort, but I have seen statistics—whether it is Social Security, whether it is the CBO or the OMB statistics, we see them all 

the time in the U.S. Congress, the deficit, for example, that 

bounces around and up and down, and I dare say, to a significant 

degree, it is a guess. 

Back in 1986, much has been talked about in terms of that legislation. The number of illegals was estimated to be 9 million at that 

point in time. And subsequently, we learned after the passage of 

the 1986 act that in fact it was 3 million. So it causes me some 

unease to be relying on statistics that are put forth. 

But be that as it may, as I said, you testified earlier that in the 

aftermath of the passage of the 1986 act, there was a dramatic decline in the number of illegals coming into the country. And yet, 

well, let me quote your testimony: ‘‘But it does appear,’ and I’m 

quoting you, ‘‘that as soon as they realized that that wasn’t going 

to happen, meaning that the law was not going to be enforced, 

there was an upturn.’’ That is your testimony. 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Yeah, I think there is general agreement that 

right after passage——

104

Mr. DELAHUNT. I am asking a specific question. That is your testimony? Without enforcement, without enforcement, no law is 

worth the paper that it is written on. I think we can all agree in 

that. And because of the failures of the executive and Congress at 

the time to enforce the law, there was an exercise, if you will, that 

was a sham. As soon as the word filtered out to the immigrant 

community that, don’t worry, they are talking tough, but they really are not doing anything, there was a resurgence of undocumented 

aliens coming into this country. That’s a statement by me, not a 

question, I’m just looking at your testimony. 

But I’m going to ask—there is a chart to be put up here. Because 

let me suggest that whatever we do—and by the way, I believe, 

with all due respect to New Hampshire—I love New Hampshire, 

you are part of Red Sox Nation, we appreciate that—but we ought 

to be in Washington, D.C., not myself, but at least Chairman Sensenbrenner and the Subcommittee chair working with the conferees 

in the Senate to see if we can iron out this difference and do something. But for those of you that are concerned about this issue, 

please note that President Bush called President Fox earlier this 

month subsequent to our recess to inform President Fox that there 

appeared to be no hope of passage of any legislation this year. 

So now what we have accomplished is a big fat nothing, whether 

it be border security, whether it be comprehensive—whatever you 

want to call it—we are not going to get the job done. And as my 

colleague from Massachusetts mentioned, there is only one party—

there is only one party in our political system today that controls 

the House, controls the Senate, controls the White House, and 

that’s the Republican Majority. 

So we know what this is all about today. This is about securing 

some sort of political advantage. Now, some might suggest that 

they want to pressure Senator Gregg, because it could be the 

Gregg-Frist-McConnell bill, not necessarily the Reid-Kennedy bill. 

But they all support that particular approach comprehensively. 

But I don’t really think it is about that. I think it is about House 

seats and where there are competitive races going on, and that is 

why we are in New Hampshire, and that is why the Democrats in 

this Committee will have a press conference immediately after this 

hearing to describe what we think is happening with this particular issue as far as whether it is real or a sham. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I ask unanimous consent that the general 

have an additional 2 minutes if he would like to keep on going on. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank my dear friend and colleague from Wisconsin for the additional 2 minutes. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Will the gentleman yield for a question? We passed 

the 9/11 act calling for an additional 2,000 Border Patrol agents, 

800 immigration agents and 8,000 beds per year. Have the Republicans funded that? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. No. 

Mr. MEEHAN. They only funded about half of it; isn’t that right? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. We will have more charts and more to say after 

this is over. Because we are here because we knew that we had to 

come. But what I would do is refer to this chart that is just about 

105

ready to fall, just to show a comparison, because we know what the 

Republicans are trying to do. They are trying to say that the Democrats are soft on border enforcement. That is just pure bunk. Okay? 

That is absolute bunk. 

We all know that we have got to strengthen our borders. That’s 

a given. The question is, how do we get there in a thoughtful and 

reasonable way? And we ought to be able to work together to do 

it. They did it in the Senate. You know, Frist did sit down with 

Reid, and Kennedy did sit down with McCain and Senator Gregg. 

Of course, there are disagreements, and nothing is perfect. But this 

chart speaks for itself as far as who is doing what. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has once again 

expired. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. 

Bass. 

Mr. BASS. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. And I want to 

express my gratitude for the invitation to participate in this hearing as a non-Member of the Committee. I want to thank my 

friends, my neighbors from Massachusetts. I am glad to see that 

my friend from Lowell travels farther north than the Manchester 

Regional Airport, which he does many times. And my friend from 

Cape Cod, one of the nicer parts of America. 

I also want to bring to the Chairman’s attention the fact that 

both my colleague Jeb Bradley and I have spent many enjoyable 

years in this chamber. And the chair right in front of the Chairman 

is a chair that I occupied for 2 years and subsequent to that moved 

back in section 3 for reasons which we will probably not go into detail today. Placement in this chamber is very important, Mr. Chairman. 

I also want to say that my friends from Massachusetts have 

pointed out very eloquently that immigration is not a partisan 

issue. Clearly, there are Republicans and Democrats on both sides 

of this issue, and it is a legitimate debate that deserves to occur 

anywhere in the United States, not just in Washington, D.C. 

And from my perspective, I would like to make six observations 

about the element that I think a comprehensive immigration reform bill needs to contain. First of all, as has been said already, 

we need to have a better effort to secure our borders with additional manpower, technology and resources. We need to allow State 

and local law enforcement officials more latitude in helping Federal 

officers in dealing with illegal immigrants and their disposition. We 

need to provide employers with the resources that they need to 

adequately determine eligibility of potential foreign workers and 

penalize those companies that continue to hire illegal aliens. 

Fourthly, we need to reform the immigration processing system in 

this country to cut down on the long backlogs and waiting periods 

that exist for people who are trying to receive visas and green 

cards. 

I also think that we need to address visa programs to assure that 

this country remains compassionate to those who want to enter 

this country legally. And lastly, I think a comprehensive immigration bill needs to address, as Mr. Young mentioned, the need have 

our legal immigration system adequately reflect the real employVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:02 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\FULL\082406\29605.000 HJUD1 PsN: 29605
106

ment needs in this country. This country was built over a 230-year 

period with access to labor from many, many, many hundreds of 

thousands of people who came to this country legally and built 

America to be the strong Nation that it is today. We need to make 

sure that we continue to make that happen but that people who 

are here are here legally. We know who they are, and they don’t 

provide a national security threat to America. 

And lastly, I would say that the concept of providing legal status 

to somebody who broke the law and is here illegally should not be 

tolerated. There are ways which we can deal with this issue, and 

I, again, have to agree with my friends on the other side of the 

aisle that we will at some point get together and work this issue 

out. But let me just say that it is important for America to participate in this debate. And I have no objection with the idea that we 

have a debate in Concord, New Hampshire, or Concord, California, 

or anywhere else in the United States because it is good for America to participate in this important issue. 

I want to thank the Chairman for allowing me to be here and 

participate. I hope that he will excuse me if I am unable to stay 

for the entire length of the hearing. I welcome him to New Hampshire and welcome him to the oldest capitol building in continuous 

use in the United States here in Concord, New Hampshire. I yield 

back. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you. 

The gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank 

the witnesses for being here and for their interest in this important 

issue. The American people expect Congress to do more than just 

talk about this problem. They want us to get down to the tough 

business of hammering out a compromise between the House and 

Senate bills. They know that we have a border security problem, 

although you would not know it from the actions of the Republicancontrolled Congress. The American people want action. 

The House passed an enforcement-only bill in December, and the 

Senate passed a comprehensive bill in May. And it is time for Congress to start legislating and stop pontificating which is what we 

have been doing here this morning. The Republican leadership of 

this Committee and of the House of Representatives essentially 

want to run out the clock with this election year road show that 

they have been on in congressional districts with vulnerable House 

Members. And what is worse is that they are holding these hearings on the taxpayer’s dime. 

But the American people see through it. Whether they are in 

New Hampshire, where I am a home owner and a seasonal resident, or my home State of Florida, Americans want a solution, not 

election year spin. 

Now how about we start enforcing the immigration laws that are 

already on the books? That would be a solution. I would like to just 

walk the people assembled here through the difference between 

how Democrats handled border security and how Republicans have 

handled it. 

If you look at this chart right here, ‘‘Border Security By the 

Numbers,’’ under the Clinton administration, the average number 

of new Border Patrol agents that were added per year from 1993 

107

to 2000 were 642. Since President Bush has been in office and this 

Congress has been controlled by Republicans, we have added 411. 

If you look at the INS fines, the Immigration and Naturalization 

Service now called CIS, fines for immigration enforcement. That is 

against employers who illegally employ illegal immigrants. There 

were 417 fines against employers in 1999 when President Clinton 

was in office, and in 2004, when President Bush was in office, there 

were only three. So who is for border security, and who is just kidding? 

48 percent fewer completed immigration fraud cases. In 1995, 

when President Clinton was in office, there were 6,455 completed 

immigration fraud cases. Under the Bush administration in 2003, 

there were 1,389. 

Thousands of illegal immigrants have been caught since President Bush has been in office, and they are going free each year. 

Why? Because there are not enough beds at detention facilities to 

house them. Why are there not enough beds? Because this Republican Congress has refused to deliver the resources needed to do 

the job right. Even though the 9/11 Commission recommended and 

the Intelligence Reform Act demanded 8,000 additional beds, this 

Republican Congress has funded only 1,800, a small fraction of 

what it should have. As a result, out of all the undocumented immigrants who are caught and released on their promise to come 

back to court, 70 percent never return. That is no surprise, and it 

is certainly not a solution. 

It is not just beds and detention centers. Republicans have taken 

bad vote after bad vote on border security. We have proposed dozens of amendments to increase the funding for border security, and 

every one has been defeated along party lines. Even though the 9/

11 Commission recommended and the Intelligence Reform Act 

mandated 800 more immigration agents, this Republican Congress 

has so far funded only 350. That is not a solution. And I could go 

on and on about the Republicans’ failure to lead on this issue as 

the party in charge of the House, the Senate and the White House, 

but they have not gotten it done. All they are doing is going around 

the country talking about getting it done. 

So Representative Renzullo, I am also a former State legislator, 

and I am sympathetic to the frustration you must feel with your 

party. Our former late Governor Lawton Chiles actually filed a 

lawsuit against the Federal Government, and that was thrown out 

by a Federal judge, because we do not get the funding that we expect from the Federal Government to deal with our illegal immigration problem. 

You expect the Federal Government to solve Federal problems, 

but when it fails the way Republicans have consistently failed on 

border security, you want to take matters into your own hands, 

which is why you filed a number of pieces of legislation to do that. 

Understandably frustrating. 

So let’s talk about how Congress is going to solve this problem. 

Enforcement always sounds good, but it is not a complete solution. 

Do we need border enforcement? I’m from the State of Florida. 

Trust me, we do. But we need more than that. We need policies 

that will take pressure off the border. We need comprehensive immigration reform. 

108

Mr. Gadiel, I am truly sorry for the loss of your son on September 11th. And you know better than anyone that we must know 

who is in this country if we are to keep our Nation secure. But we 

will never know who is in our country so long as a broken immigration system keeps millions living in the shadows. 

So I’m asking all of you, what do we do with the 12 million folks 

that are currently here, 12 million people who are not terrorists 

but hardworking people who have come to find a better way of life 

for their families? Even Florida’s Governor Jeb Bush, who is no liberal by any definition, believes that the House immigration policy 

ignores reality. When he decided to support legislation allowing illegal immigrants to have driver’s licenses, he said this: We 

shouldn’t allow them to come into our country to begin with, but 

once they are here, what do you do? Do you say that they are lepers to society, That they don’t exist? It seems that a policy that ignores them is a policy of denial. 

That’s the Governor of my home State of Florida. 

What do we do with a haystack of unknown people so large that 

it is impossible for our security agencies to target the few bad apples that want to harm them? We just can’t declare all illegal immigrants to be felons as the House bill does and hope that they will 

deport themselves. It won’t work. This is a complex problem, and 

it is going to take a comprehensive solution. And yes, as we have 

heard here today, it is going to be expensive. But are we really 

going to say that we are not willing to spend over the next 10 years 

one-third of what we already spent in Iraq in the last 3 if we could 

solve a major problem in our homeland that is crucial to our national security? 

Some people say the United States is a Nation of immigrants. 

Other people say the United States is a Nation laws. We do not 

have to choose between the two. We have to understand that it is 

the only way—what we have to understand is that the only way 

to——

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes 

for some questions. 

First of all, let me say that I think we all agree that illegal immigration is one of the major problems facing our country today. I 

was in Congress, alone among the Members of this panel here 

today, in 1986 when the Simpson-Mazzoli bill passed. I voted 

against it because I didn’t think it would work. And we are here 

today talking about a much more complicated issue because Simpson-Mazzoli failed. 

I genuinely believe that the amnesty provisions that are contained in the Senate bill are the Son of Simpson-Mazzoli, and they 

will fail as well. And because there are more people in this country, 

it will be more expensive, and there will be an even greater magnet 

to bring people across the border. 

For the last 20 years, I have said that the key to making any 

immigration reform work is the enforcement of employer sanctions. 

And one of the provisions that is in the House-passed bill sets up 

a mandatory verification of Social Security numbers system to 

make sure that someone who is applying for a job is actually using 

109

their own Social Security number. And if the system shows that 

there is a true match, then the employer would be given protection 

against prosecution. However, if there is no match and somebody 

is using a number that is either made up or obtained through identity theft, then the employer would be prosecuted. And the bill 

raises the fines for hiring illegal aliens significantly. Currently the 

fine is $100 per illegal worker per day for the first offense. My bill 

raises it to $5,000. Because you do not have fines act as a deterrent 

to illegal activity in anything unless the fines are high enough so 

that if somebody gets busted, it really hurts and everyone who is 

thinking about that type of illegal activity will say, ‘‘gee, I don’t 

want to have that happen to me.’’

Now there have been a lot of allegations of why the immigration 

issue is procedurally wrapped around the axelrod. When the Senate passed their bill before Memorial Day, they did not message 

the bill to the House. Conversely, when the House passed its bill 

right before Christmas, there was a message that was sent to the 

Senate. Now, the House can’t send the Senate bill to conference if 

it does not have the message. And furthermore, what the Senators 

did is they added $50 billion in new taxes in their bill. The Constitution is quite plain that tax legislation has to originate in the 

House of Representatives. And if the House should ever receive the 

Senate bill, then the tax writing Ways and Means Committee 

would blue slip the bill and send it back to the Senate, and we 

would be right back where we started from. 

So I am eager to get some type of legislation passed because 

doing nothing, in my opinion, is the worst possible alternative. But 

because of the failure of the Senate on both the Constitutional and 

the process issue, we have been hamstrung on that. And that, I 

sincerely regret. 

I think what is going to have to happen is that we have to work 

on getting a comprehensive bill that is on a clean piece of paper 

rather than trying to untie the Gordian knot because of the Senate’s constitutional and procedural violations. 

Now, having said that, Mr. Young, I have a question for you. The 

House bill requires verification of Social Security numbers under 

the system I have described; new hires within 2 years and existing 

employees in 6. The Senate bill does not require the verification of 

existing employees. 

That concerns me because a current illegal immigrant worker 

would be able to keep their job forever, but much worse is that 

they end up becoming an indentured servant because they would 

not be able to change jobs because a bad Social Security number 

would be caught when they applied for a new job. 

The Chamber of Commerce has been opposed to verifying the 

status of existing employees. Will they change their position on this 

because of the concerns that I have just raised? 

Mr. YOUNG. I don’t think that they will change their position 

about retroactivity. We have to remember that the Senate bill also 

contains adjustment of status of workers. At that time, they will 

have to come forward with new Social Security cards which do 

identify them in order to take advantage of that system. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If I could reclaim my time and ask unanimous consent for an additional minute. It is always cheaper to hire 

110

an illegal immigrant and to pay that illegal immigrant off the 

books than it is to hire a citizen or legal immigrant with some type 

of work authorization. So if we do not enforce the employer sanctions on existing employees strictly and adequately, there will be 

another flood of illegal immigrants that come across the border 

that will take away the jobs of the people who will be newly legalized in the Senate bill. 

Does the Chamber of Commerce want to solve the problem or 

does the Chamber of Commerce want to continue being able to hire 

cheap labor which they pay off the books because the people are 

not legally authorized to work in the United States? 

Mr. YOUNG. Prospectively, business and agriculture is willing to 

verify all their workers, and that will include new people coming 

into this country after the passage of the bill. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Bradley. 

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

the fact that you are willing to come to New Hampshire today to 

hold this hearing. Like my colleague, Charlie, it is great to be back 

in this room where I had the opportunity to spend 12 years and 

to see a lot of friends on both sides of the aisle. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a somewhat unique perspective on this immigration debate that we’re having. My wife of 27 years, Barbara, 

is a legalized citizen. She went through the regular process of applying for citizenship and then becoming an American and several 

years ago proudly did so. So I understand firsthand having gone 

through it the challenges that people will face in order to become 

American citizens, and I also understand the attraction of those 

people who would like to become American citizens. 

However, we also have to recognize that we are a society of immigrants, but we are a Nation that adheres to the fundamental 

rule of law. Our country welcomes immigrants, like my wife Barbara, who go through the proper channels, the legal channels to 

come to this country. But we are that Nation of laws, and affording 

those individuals who came to this country illegally or became illegal after entering this country, affording them an automatic path 

to citizenship in my opinion is not fair for those immigrants who 

patiently wait in line doing everything they are required to do to 

come to this country legally. 

So we should not in my view be creating incentives for people to 

come here illegally, because it rewards that behavior and it encourages it. Mr. Chairman, that is why I support the House bill and 

I support your leadership in making the House bill the House position on this issue, because it enhances our border security. It 

strengthens immigration laws. It promotes policies that enforce 

those laws. We all know that securing our border is essential to the 

safety of all Americans, and it is essential to thwart the possibilities of attacks against our Nation. 

The House bill will end the catch-and-release practice by requiring mandatory detention of all illegal immigrants apprehended at 

U.S. land borders. In addition to other strong provisions, the legislation improves our ability to crack down on illegal smuggling 

rings, strengthens our asylum laws, employs surveillance technology and more people at the border. These are the tools that will 

111

allow us and allow our Border Patrol agencies to better do their 

job. 

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, history tells us that rewarding illegal behavior leads to more illegal behavior. Congress should not be in the 

business of rewarding that illegal behavior with an automatic path 

to citizenship. Illegal immigration weakens our security, burdens 

our social services——

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BRADLEY. And hurts American taxpayers. No, I would yield 

the balance of my time to the Chairman who I thought did an exceptional job last night on national television talking about the 

CBO scoring of the Senate bill and perhaps would want to describe 

it to the Granite Staters who are here today. And once again, Mr. 

Chairman, I thank you for coming to New Hampshire. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I appreciate the gentleman from New 

Hampshire yielding. It certainly is a pleasure being here. 

Let me say that, earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office did score the Senate bill at $127 billion of new expenditures. 

About 40 percent of that is various types of welfare and public assistance benefits that illegal immigrants are currently not entitled 

to receive as well as the earned income tax credit which is actually 

a payment by the Federal Government to certain low-income people 

which has been on the books for a couple of decades. 

By contrast, the House bill was scored by the CBO before it 

passed at $1.9 billion, and much of that was in law enforcement 

enhancements, the fence that is proposed in both bills but a longer 

one in the House bill, as well as the cost of getting the Social Security database up to snuff so that the verification of Social Security 

numbers that I have described can be done as easily and quickly 

as accurately as a merchant swiping any of our credit cards to see 

if they are good when we want to buy something on credit. 

Again, I emphasize the fact that the key to any immigration reform that works is enforcement of employer sanctions, because the 

market will always work since it is cheaper to hire an illegal immigrant than it is to hire a citizen or legal immigrant with a green 

card. 

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming 10 seconds of my time, 

it is important for people here to note that the CBO or the Congressional Budget Office is a nonpartisan office that is charged 

with scoring or estimating the costs of various government initiatives. And given the fact that it is nonpartisan, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle do depend on it for its unbiased 

presentation on those numbers. And I thank the Chairman. Like 

Charlie, I have engagements in another region of the State so I 

have to leave shortly. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank both Members from New Hampshire for coming. 

Mr. Meehan. 

Mr. MEEHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. I thank my colleague from 

Massachusetts, and I wonder if either gentleman from New Hampshire would like to explain to the crowd assembled why they are 

professing support for increased and enhanced border security, yet 

when they had 10 different opportunities in the Congress for addiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:02 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\FULL\082406\29605.000 HJUD1 PsN: 29605
112

tional funding to enhance border security, they voted no on every 

single one of those opportunities. 

Mr. BRADLEY. I think, certainly, in listening to the gentlewoman’s question, if you go back and examine the record, while I 

can’t speak for Congressman Bass, I probably will, both of us have 

voted for enhanced border security on a number of different occasions in the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, House Bill 

4437, and other measures which I would remind the gentlewoman 

have been adopted by significant majorities on a bipartisan basis 

and both sides of the aisle, at least the appropriations bills. And 

I would hope that we can continue to work together on both sides 

of the aisle to enhance our border security. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Reclaiming my time, I just want to 

point out that we have documentation of the 10 instances in which 

both gentlemen from New Hampshire voted against additional 

funding to enhance border security, and we would be happy to provide that and expand on that information after the hearing. I yield 

back to the gentleman from Massachusetts. 

Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the gentlewoman. I am curious, Representative Renzullo, 13 million people, how would we find them? This 

bill says we’re going to criminalize them. Would we round them 

up? Would we put them on to planes? How would we know what 

plane to put them on? How many planes would it take? Or would 

we put them on buses? George Will, the conservative columnist, 

says, if you put them on buses, the buses will be lined up from 

Alaska all the way down to the Mexican border. 

I can’t for the life of me understand why would we demagogue 

on this and pretend that somebody has some kind of a magic way 

to round up 13 million people and get them on buses and put them 

somewhere. Is that—would they be put on planes? 

Mr. RENZULLO. I think what you really are looking to do is enforce the border security——

Mr. MEEHAN. Reclaiming my time, we’re going to do that. But 

what I am saying is, there seems to be a difference of opinion between the Senate and the House as to what you do with 13 million 

people undocumented all across the country. I am just curious how 

much it would cost to round up 13 million people and put them on 

buses. 

Mr. RENZULLO. Enforce the border security, and then we will talk 

about it in a couple of years when you have determined——

Mr. MEEHAN. So we’re going to go a couple of years? We are 

going to go a couple of years with 13 million people across this 

country without documentation, without papers? 

Folks, I lost 32 people in my district on 9/11, and we need to get 

documentation as a national security matter on everyone that is in 

the country. It is not good enough to say we will do it some time 

later on. 13 million people. With all the money that is being spent 

in Washington, to demagogue on this issue, there is not one credible proposal from one Senator or one House Member anywhere 

that says how in the world you would try locate 13 million people 

and remove them from the country. 

It is the worst demagoguery on anything imaginable. Nobody has 

a plan. It is a joke. Unfortunately, our national security requires 

us to get our act together. We still haven’t funded what the 9/11 

113

Commission said to fund. We passed an act in 2004 that said 2,000 

Border Patrol agents, 800 immigration agents, 8,000 beds per year. 

The 9/11 Commission said targeting travel is at least as powerful 

a weapon against terrorists as targeting their money, and the Commission made recommendations. Even after the tragedy of September 11th highlighting the clear need for more border security, 

that figure up there of 411 border agents per year is a disgrace. 

It is an absolute disgrace, and yet we are having hearings and 

demagoguing across the country. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. MEEHAN. I would be glad to yield. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. In terms of border personnel, immigration 

agents, detention centers, with all due respect to the gentleman 

from New Hampshire, what we really need and we have heard this 

term before is more boots on the ground. How about that? More 

boots on the ground. And really, let’s try enforcement rather than 

coming up, giving speeches indulging in some rhetoric and then not 

delivering when it comes time to deliver with the resources. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Reclaiming my time. The other thing is this idea 

that Washington speak, the Senate didn’t file the right thing, so we 

didn’t approve it. My friend from Massachusetts said that the 

President has already called President Fox and said, you know 

what, the Congress is going to do nothing on this. Nothing. Another 

year without border security. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. [Presiding.] Without objection. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Another year letting things go, another year without providing technology to our borders and another year of 13 million people in the country. Nobody knows where they are. But 

know what, what a great election issue. What a great election 

issue. The problem is, when one party controls the House, the Senate and the White House, the gig is up. The American people know 

that one party controls everything. There are some distinguished 

Senators, Republican Senators, 22 or 23 of them, that supported 

the Senate bill. Let’s get to work on that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair 

has left myself, the gentleman from Indiana, in charge of the gavel. 

I will yield myself 5 minutes for purpose of questions. 

I am reminded of the account of the minister who was giving a 

sermon and has questions about his own subject matter when in 

the margin of his sermon it says: Pound pulpit hard, argument 

weak here. I am hearing a lot of that today. 

Mr. Meehan has suggested that we need documentation for these 

individuals that are here. Let me ask you, Mr. Gadiel, you are very 

familiar with the 9/11 Commission’s report with regard to the three 

of the 9/11 hijackers that were in the country illegally as result of 

their visas lapsing, are you not? 

Mr. GADIEL. Yes. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. So with all of the documentation that is being 

suggested by the Senate and by Mr. Meehan and by others, how 

would that have solved the situation that led to the death of your 

son? 

114

Mr. GADIEL. Mohammad Atta was well documented, and yet he 

managed to pull off 9/11, as well as all the others. All but one had 

U.S. identification. I would like to add something. I am no friend 

of President Bush. He failed us miserably on this, absolutely miserably. But when it comes to the 9/11 implementation act, I would 

remind Members of this Committee that it was Democrats like Mr. 

Lieberman as well as Republicans like Mr. McCain who were determined to prevent any document security measures from being included in the 9/11 implementation act as well as the border security measures. This is a bipartisan problem, and certainly the 

President has failed us miserably and failed us continuously and 

refuses to enforce the law, but the record of Mr. Clinton before, although it is far better than Mr. Bush’s in terms of the need, is minuscule as well. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Dr. Camarota, the question today is with regard to busing 13 million illegal aliens back. The simple fact is, if 

we would enforce, especially the employer sanctions provision of 

the immigration act put in place in 1986, wouldn’t there be a significant amount of attrition and hasn’t there been a particular 

study by the Center for Immigration Services that may suggest 

that there may be excess of a million individuals who would actually self deport as a result of not being able to maintain employment in the United States? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Let me run through the numbers briefly because 

I, the Pew, Hispanic, Urban, we all generally agree, 900,000 new 

illegal aliens come in each year. Some people die. A large number 

go home. Some get deported, and some get legal status each year. 

So the illegal population is thought to grow by half a million. The 

secret here is to avoid this canard that either we have to legalize 

all the illegal aliens or we have to deport them all by a week from 

next Tuesday. The bottom line is it took us decades to get into this 

problem. The policy of attrition through enforcement, cutting them 

off from jobs, public benefits, driver’s licenses, no in-State tuition, 

get the cooperation of local law enforcement. Stop IRS and Social 

Security from knowingly accepting bogus Social Security numbers. 

Stop the Treasury Department from knowingly issuing regulations 

that allow illegal aliens to open bank accounts. 

All of these things, coupled with great border enforcement, a better job in consulates overseas, the goal is to increase the roughly 

150,000 that go home early each year, the self deportations. We 

think we can quadruple or triple that number easily and hopefully 

get it up bigger so that we are in a situation each year that the 

population falls by half a million or a million a year rather than 

a situation where it grows by a million a year. If you are saying 

that we have to solve it a week from next Tuesday, there is no solution. 

The other thing is the bureaucratic capacity doesn’t exist to legalize all these folks. That’s one of the dirty little secrets. The Senate bill calls for everybody to come forward and be processed within 

18 months. Nobody who studies immigration thinks that is possible. The only way to do that is to rubber stamp the applications 

which defeats the idea that we know who those folks are. It takes 

time to know who these folks are. The Senate bill doesn’t do that. 

115

If you started enforcing the law, it doesn’t require us to do anything right away. It’s what we have on hand and then we keep 

adding to it, and over time, we fix the problem through attrition 

and through enforcement. Self-deportation is the key. Though we 

obviously are going to having to deport more people as well. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Renzullo, as you understand the legislative 

process, if one body such as the House believes in enforcement and 

the Senate suggests that they are in favor of strong enforcement 

but want an amnesty program, isn’t it reasonable for the two bodies to come together and pass legislation on the parts of the proposed legislation that we agree on? 

Mr. RENZULLO. Absolutely. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. So if we did come together, if the technical and 

constitutional hurdles were overcome, it would not be unreasonable 

for the two bodies to come together and fashion an enforcementonly bill as a result of the compromise that is part of the legislative 

process? 

Mr. RENZULLO. Absolutely. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. [Presiding.] The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to my colleague. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Gadiel, no one is suggesting that you would 

agree with the President’s record on immigration. We all agree he 

has done a terrible job. The problem is that the Republican Congress rubber stamps his budget every year when it comes before 

the Congress. No increases that we should have in Border Patrol 

agents, we don’t have the increase we should have in immigration 

agents, and we don’t have the increase we should have in detention 

beds. The problem is rubber stamping this President is letting him 

get away with whatever he wants to do. I yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think that was the statement. But if the gentleman wishes to respond, and I speak to Mr. Gadiel, you know, I 

read your testimony. I found it particularly moving when you referenced, I think it was your father, maybe it was your grandfather, 

who came to this country. And I think the words were, the FBI just 

about took out his fillings to examine him. And that really struck 

a note with me because of what my friend just said about the need 

for oversight by Congress to ensure that the resources are there 

and that the laws are being implemented. 

All of the sudden, we are just discovering that there is a problem. This is 6 years into the Administration. And beyond that, the 

Republicans have had control of the House since 1994. And guess 

what? They discover it in an election year, and we’re having a 

hearing in New Hampshire. 

I mean, please ask yourself why. My colleague from Florida referenced the fact there has been amendment after amendment that 

would provide funding and support for more boots on the ground, 

people to go out and enforce the border, immigration agents, increased beds in detention centers. And you know what? They will 

say one thing in New Hampshire, but when they go down to Washington, they vote against the funding. Well, enough said. 

116

But getting back to my issue about the FBI, we don’t know what 

the FBI is doing. This Committee, ably led by this Chairman, who 

is not bad on oversight. Okay? Not bad. A B-plus. You know——

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. No. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. At least I passed. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. How many times do you think we have had the 

director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in front of this Committee to tell us what they are doing about terrorism? 

Mr. GADIEL. I have no use for Mr. Mueller. When a group of family members met with the man talking about 9/11——

Mr. DELAHUNT. How many times, Mr. Gadiel, do you think that 

the FBI has come in before into the Judiciary Committee where we 

have jurisdiction to respond to the concerns that you have expressed today to us? 

Mr. GADIEL. I’m sure it is a lot. I am sure it is many times. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. How about zero. That is what we’re dealing with. 

That is what we’re dealing with. We don’t have that kind of consultation and collaboration. And like I said, we are fortunate; most 

chairmen are not as strong as our Chairman. So what we have is 

a Congress that sits there like a bobblehead and lets this crowd get 

away with that. 

Talk about employer sanctions. Three last year. Three in 2004. 

I mean, Clinton had his problems, but he certainly did one heck of 

a better job in terms of enforcement. 

You have got to have enforcement. If you don’t have enforcement—but you have to pay for it, Mr. Renzullo. I bet that you, from 

what I listened to, would have voted for all the authorized Border 

Patrol agents, immigration agents and detention centers. You 

wouldn’t have said something here that was different when you 

went down to Washington and voted a different way. 

Since I’m handing out compliments, one for you, too, Mr. 

Camarota, you know, I read your testimony, and I was surprised 

that you acknowledged that actually it is a net plus in terms of 

illegals paying into the Social Security Trust Fund and the Medicare Trust Fund. So let’s remember, before we get too quick, that 

those illegal immigrants are paying in and kind of helping us with 

that Social Security problem that we are not fixing. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to illuminate the panel and the people assembled as 

to the other differences and stark contrast between the support for 

border enforcement and border security under Democrats versus 

the support for border enforcement and security under Republicans. 

The number of apprehensions at the border has declined by 31 

percent under President Bush. From 1996 to 2000, there were 1.52 

million apprehensions at the border. From 2001 to 2004, there 

were 1.05 million apprehensions. The number of apprehensions inside the country has declined 36 percent under President Bush. 

From 1996 to 2000, there were 40,193 internal apprehensions. 

From 2001 to 2004, there were 25,901. Cutting personnel, the Bush 

administration has cut personnel for worksite enforcement by 63 

117

percent. This is worksite, on-the-job enforcement. You know, the I9 forms that employees, all employees, have to fill out and ensure 

that they are supposed to be in the country and legally here. We 

are talking about the number of agents assigned to worksite immigration enforcement. In 1999, there were 240. In 2003, there were 

90. 

Number of worksite enforcement fines, we have already gone 

over. The number of worksite immigration enforcement arrests 

have fallen drastically under President Bush: 2,849 in 1999; 445 in 

2003. 

Number of immigration fraud cases, we have already gone over 

that. 

So what is unbelievable to us is that there are hearings all across 

this country in which our Republican colleagues—and I agree with 

Mr. Delahunt that our Chairman, compared to most of the Republican Committee Chairmen, has been vigilant about bringing or attempting to bring the Administration’s officials in front of us and 

asking them questions to one degree of success or another. But why 

are we on the road talking about this instead of being in the Conference Committee? 

The only way we are going to resolve this—I think it was Mr. 

Camarota that talked about the 18 months that is a provision in 

the Senate bill that is described as an automatic path to citizenship. There is no one that would define the Senate bill as an automatic path to citizenship. But if you differ with that—I apologize 

if I am pronouncing your name wrong. 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Camarota. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Camarota, if you differ with that, 

isn’t that what the Conference Committee is for? Are we going to 

get those differences between the House bill and the Senate bill 

hammered out here? That is not the way the bill becomes a law 

process works. 

So wouldn’t you think that we belong in Washington or at least 

our conferees belong in Washington? And, Mr. Chairman, with all 

due respect, the people in this room, they don’t understand the 

Senate has not sent us a message, and we haven’t received a message. They just want us to get down, roll our sleeves up and get 

the work done. That is how we’re going to get a law that is truly 

going to make sure that we crack down on illegal immigrants, that 

we make sure that they are not streaming across the border, that 

we make sure that employers are not thumbing their nose at the 

law, and that we make sure that we don’t ignore the fact that there 

are 12 million people here who are not going to just deport themselves once we pass a border-security-only law that makes them all 

felons. It is just unrealistic. 

Mr. Camarota, if you would like to respond to that, don’t you 

think we belong in conference rather than just being on the road 

talking to the world? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. I have to leave that questions to the other Members. I am not an expert. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am not surprised. I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Chair will yield himself 5 minutes for 

the last word. I have served on the Judiciary Committee ever since 

118

I was first elected to Congress in 1978, and the issue of how to deal 

with immigration is complicated. It is emotional. It is vexing. And 

there are never any easy solutions to it. And I think my colleagues 

to my left are kind of expressing the political aspects of the frustration that we have not dealt with this issue. That’s why I drafted 

the legislation that the House passed in December. 

Now, we have heard a lot of complaints from people on both sides 

of the aisle that there has not been enforcement of existing laws. 

And I would be willing to stipulate that presidents, both Democratic and Republican, and congresses, both under Democratic control and Republican control, have really let this issue slip. 

But the point that I think is evident is that unless we handle the 

enforcement questions first, any bill, whether it is the Senate bill 

or somebody else’s bill, that does not address effective enforcement 

is going to fail. And if in the decades ahead there are figures like 

these, which are accurate and which I did give to President Bush 

over 2 months ago, pointing out the problem that we have, the 

market is always going to end up having illegal immigrants come 

across the border because it is cheaper for the employers to hire 

them than other people. 

So really what we have to do, whether it is in terms of an enforcement-only approach and deal with the issue of what to do 

about the 12 million who are here illegally some time in the future, 

or have some kind of a phased in and trigger approach, is that we 

have got to get our act together as a country in terms of enforcing 

it is law. 

Now, what this means is enforcing the law at the border. It 

means enforcing the law against employers. It means giving law 

enforcement officials, particularly those in the 29 border counties 

and four States on the southwest border, additional tools, which my 

bill does and the Senate bill doesn’t, to get more boots on the 

ground and better equipment and better training of the local law 

enforcement officers so that they can supplement the Border Patrol. 

Now, this is more than a human problem and an economic migration problem. It has become a drug control problem, and it has 

become a national security and terrorism problem. For example, 

many of the criminal alien smugglers across the southwest border 

who are called coyotes have become full service criminal enterprises where they are requiring their customers to carry backpacks 

of drugs across the border; 85 percent of the illegal drugs sold on 

the streets of Chicago by gangs were smuggled across the southwest border, and 80 percent of the meth that is consumed in the 

United States comes across the southwest border as well. 

It is also a terrorism problem, and when we had our hearings in 

San Diego, there was testimony to the effect that, in just that small 

sector of the Border Patrol, there were 47 ‘‘persons of interest,’’ who 

were people who were on terrorist watch lists or came from Middle 

Eastern countries far removed from Mexico and Central America 

who were caught by the Border Patrol. And that was in just 1 year 

and just in one segment of the southwestern border. 

And we have also got a northern border problem as well, because 

there are a number of cells of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:02 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\FULL\082406\29605.000 HJUD1 PsN: 29605
119

zations that are operating in Canadian cities that are less than a 

2-hour drive from the United States border. 

So I don’t make any apologies in bringing this issue on to the national agenda, because it is something that had to be dealt with. 

I have been called a whole lot of names. I come from the State that 

elected Joe McCarthy to the U.S. Senate twice and some of those 

names, it makes McCarthyism kind of look like a speech at a holy 

name society. 

Be that as it may be, we were elected to make tough decisions, 

and this Chairman is making tough decisions. I want to get another bill passed. I don’t know if procedurally we can get another 

Conference Committee for the reasons that have been described, 

but it is going to be a bill that, if it is done on my watch, that is 

going to be effective and not be the fiasco that we had 20 years ago 

with the Simpson-Mazzoli bill. 

So I would like to thank my colleagues for coming. I would like 

to thank all of you for coming today to hear this testimony. And 

I would like to also thank—I don’t think they call it the great and 

general court up here north of the border as they do in Massachusetts, but whatever the New Hampshire legislature is called, it is 

nice to add just a little more history to this very historic chamber. 

What purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts seek recognition? 

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent—I bumped into Claire Ebel, the Executive Director of the New 

Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, she had some testimony, and I 

ask that we submit it for the record. 

[The information referred to was not available at the time this 

hearing was printed.] 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, it will be submitted. 

There being no further business to come before this Committee, 

without objection, the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(121)

1Pew Hispanic Center. (April 26, 2006). Fact Sheet: Estimates of the Unauthorized Migrant 

Population for States based on the March 2005 CPS. 2Marchocki, Kathryn. (July 24, 2006). Mysteries surround NH’s illegal aliens. Union Leader. 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHARLES F. BASS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, WITH ATTACHMENT

INTRODUCTION

I like to take a moment and welcome Chairman Sensenbrenner and the other 

members of the House Judiciary Committee to the Granite State. I thank you for 

your invitation to attend this field hearing on immigration reform and giving me 

the opportunity to participate. I am pleased to see on the panel of witnesses today—

Representative Andrew Renzullo—who has been taking an active role here in Concord on how the State should deal with its illegal immigration problem. 

In light of the fact that illegal immigration is a more prominent problem in the 

southern states, I am pleased that the Members of the House Judiciary Committee 

recognize that any decision made in Congress will have far-reaching ramifications 

throughout the nation. The estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. can 

be founded in all fifty states and decisions made by myself and my colleagues will 

fiscally impact our citizens. Therefore, I am grateful for this hearing today and how 

any reform will affect my constituents. 

Immigrants have been settling here in our state since 1623 and continued to come 

in large numbers through the 1800s. Many of them came to work in our granite 

quarries. Even though the number of immigrants to New Hampshire has decreased 

since the early 1900s, the 2000 U.S. Census showed that over 54,000 citizens of New 

Hampshire were foreign-born. Even though the majority of immigrants in NH are 

law-abiding legal citizens, there is a growing illegal population working and living 

in our communities 

LAW ENFORCEMENT

Some studies have estimated that between 10,000 to 30,000 illegals are currently 

living in the Granite State.1 Just this last spring, U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) picked up 14 individuals illegals in New Hampshire as part of 

Operation Return to Sender. During 2005 Operation Flash, 15 of the 189 fugitive 

immigrants deported back to their native countries were also located living in New 

Hampshire. In both operations, many of these individuals had criminal records.2

New Ipswich Police Chief W. Garrett Chamberlain and Hudson Police Chief Richard Gendron brought national attention to their departments’ difficulties in the lack 

of authority and resources in detaining illegal aliens that their officers encounter 

during their routine duties. Out of frustration with ICE’s response to their repeated 

requests, both gentleman used the resources available to them and charged several 

individuals illegally present in the United States with criminal trespassing under 

state law. Even though the cases were dismissed by a New Hampshire district 

court, it highlighted the difficulty law enforcement faces regarding illegal immigration in their communities. Our local, county, and state law enforcement officers 

serve on the frontlines of the illegal immigration battlefield—dealing with many illegal aliens that they encounter during their routine duties, but no ability to detain 

these individuals for deportation proceedings—often being told by the federal agencies to release the individuals. 

I have worked on various efforts to urge the Administration and my fellow colleagues to address enforcement issues. Last year, I led an effort to urge the PresiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:02 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\FULL\082406\29605.000 HJUD1 PsN: 29605
122

3December 9, 2005 Letter Addressed to President Bush with 28 U.S. House Members. 

4 Camarota, Steven A. (August 2004). The High Cost of Cheap Labor Illegal Immigration and 

the Federal Budget. Center for Immigration Studies. 5 Based on Data from: Huddle, Donald. (1997) The Net National Costs of Immigration: Fiscal 

Effects of Welfare Restorations to Legal Immigrants. Include in The Estimated Cost of Illegal Immigration from The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). 6 U.S. Census Population (2000). US = 299,482,393; NH = 1,235,786. 

7Federation for American Immigration Reform. (June, 2005). Breaking the Piggy Bank: How 

Illegal Immigration is Sending Schools into the Red 8Federation for American Immigration Reform (April 11, 2006). The Costs to Local Taxpayers 

for Illegal or ‘‘Guest’’ Workers. 9Federation for American Immigration Reform (April 11, 2006). The Costs to Local Taxpayers 

for Illegal or ‘‘Guest’’ Workers. 10Federation for American Immigration Reform (April 11, 2006). The Costs to Local Taxpayers 

for Illegal or ‘‘Guest’’ Workers. 11Federation for American Immigration Reform. (March 2006). Projecting the U.S. Population 

to 2050: Four Immigration Scenarios. 12 Camarota, Steven A. (August 2004). The High Cost of Cheap Labor Illegal Immigration and 

the Federal Budget. 

dent to end ‘‘catch-and-release’’ practices beyond just that in border states—but 

throughout the country.3 Additionally, I have supported legislative measures, such 

as H.R. 4437 and the CLEAR Act, which would ensure that state, county, and local 

law enforcement have the authority, resources, and training to work with federal 

agencies in detaining illegal aliens they encounter during their routine duties. It is 

important to note that 17% of the incarcerated population in our federal prisons are 

criminal aliens and after serving their time are not always deported, but remain in 

this country to commit additional crimes.4

FISCAL BURDEN

In deciding any course of action regarding comprehensive immigration, it is important to know the fiscal impact the decision will have on our citizens—whether 

through increase tax burden, draining of resources, or loss of jobs and wages. It has 

been estimated from earlier studies that illegal immigrants have a net cost on 

American taxpayer of $49.4 billion annually,5 which amounts to New Hampshire citizens paying $202,193,903 yearly in taxes for illegal immigrants.6 It is also rough- ly estimated that the State of New Hampshire spent close to $3.75 million on illegal 

alien students and U.S. born children of illegal aliens 7 and hundred of thousands 

of dollars in medical costs through the New Hampshire Department of Health and 

Humans Services. Overall, the Federation of American Immigration Reform has calculated that the current local cost of illegal immigrants is $11 million annually 

going toward education, emergency medical services, and incarceration.8

If the Senate bill was passed, it is estimated that the cost to county, state, and local governments would amount to $61.5 billion by 2010 and $106.3 billion in 

2020.9 Specifically, New Hampshire would see the burden increasing to $19 million in 2010 and $34 million in 2020.10

Additionally, it is predicted that if the Senate’s guest-worker provision is passed 

that New Hampshire would see a rise in population to 1.85 million by 2050, with 

the increase attributed to 23,116 from receiving amnesty and an additional 24,427 

individuals that were illegal aliens post-2004.11 These increases would have significant impact on the State’s housing, school systems, infrastructure, and employment 

rates. 

Even though there would be increased tax revenue from illegal aliens paying 

taxes, it would not offset the total cost that these households would have on our 

federal, state, and local agencies. The average illegal alien household would pay 

$3,200 (77%) more a year in federal taxes once legalized. However, each household 

would have an average increase cost of $8,200 per household (118%) 12 to our deficit. 

This added cost on our federal, state, and local services would be carried by our citizens. 

REFORMING VISA PROGRAMS

I understand how the topic of illegal immigration is a difficult issue—we are not 

simply talking about numbers but people who have established lives here. This 

country needs to continue to be compassionate, but at the same time it must be remembered that those that would be assisted under the Senate ‘‘amnesty’’ immigration plan are individuals who violated our laws. There are millions of people who 

are either in the U.S. legally or currently trying to attempt to this country by following our laws that would be overlooked by this policy. Instead, the message that 

we would be sending them is that the U.S. cares more about assisting those who 

123

13 New Hampshire Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau. (August 11, 2006). 14 New Hampshire Tourism Policy Coalition. 15Data from: June 2004 Study Commissioned by Santangelo Group. 

break our laws rather than those who have been patient with our system. By allowing those illegally here to have an expedited process—while others in this country 

under other various visas such as H-1B and H-2B are barred—is wrong and not the 

message this government should be sending. 

Nevertheless, I do believe that any comprehensive immigration reform should also 

consider provisions that will reform our visa programs. The availability of foreign 

workers is crucial to many of American industries and business—including those in 

New Hampshire. New Hampshire’s unemployment rate is 3.6 percent, well below 

the national rate of 4.8 percent, and often foreign workers mean the difference to 

Granite State businesses in being able to operate at full capacity.13 These low unemployment rates particularly impact our State’s small seasonal businesses that 

often have difficultly in finding workers that are critical to their business’ needs. 

Here in New Hampshire, tourism industry brings an approximately $9.6 billion into 

the state and is nearly 8% of the gross state products. More than 68,000 granite 

state jobs directly tied to tourism and also 84,000 jobs indirectly.14 Programs, like 

H-2B visa program, provide these and other seasonal industries crucial employees 

to fulfill their job commitments and be able to operate at full capacity during their 

short work season. The H-2B program has been shown to protect small businesses 

and American jobs, preserve competitive wages, while providing the needed avenue 

for foreign workers. That is why I have supported and led efforts in modifying legal 

visa programs. My bill, H.R. 4740, the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act

is one of the bills that would take the right step forward in helping businesses while 

not hurting American workers. 

Additionally, it is important to look to the future and ensure that we have the 

necessary workers that will allow our economy to grow and prosper. One in every 

four scientist and engineers in the United States is foreign born. Half of graduate 

enrollments in American universities for engineering, math, and computer science 

are foreign students. I believe that our country must encourage increase enrollment 

of our young people, but at the same time we must ensure that our immigration 

policies do not create a brain drain on our country. Our visa programs must ensure 

that we keep the best and brightest here in America to bring cutting edge technology to our companies that will in turn create more U.S. jobs. A June 2004 study 

showed that U.S. businesses roughly lost $30 billion over two year period due to 

visa delays.15 Our country can not afford to outsource talented American-educated 

foreigners that will return to their home country and take with them important 

technical advances that will create new businesses. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I like to point out that by supporting the House comprehensive immigration bill that members are not ignoring or belittling the contributions of our 

nation’s immigrants and the role they have played in building this country. Our 

country has been built on the hard work of immigrants who have come to this country for a better life and to embrace the ideals of our nation. The difference of opinion 

is how to deal with illegal aliens that have entered this country and placed the security and welfare of our nation in jeopardy. Additionally, illegal immigration has a 

significant negatively impacting our legal visa program. Once again, I thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for having this field hearing. Additionally, I would like to thank 

the witnesses and the citizens here in the audience that have taken the time out 

of their busy schedules to attend this hearing and have the concerns of New Hampshire heard in this national debate.

124

ATTACHMENT


Bass0001.eps
125


Bass0002.eps
126


Bass0003.eps
127


Bass0004.eps
128


Bass0005.eps
129


Bass0006.eps
130


Bass0007.eps
131


Bass0008.eps
132


Bass0009.eps
133


Bass0010.eps
134


Bass0011.eps
135


Bass0012.eps
136


Bass0013.eps
137


Bass0014.eps
138


Bass0015.eps
139


Bass0016.eps
140


Bass0017.eps
141


Bass0018.eps
142


Bass0019.eps
143


Bass0020.eps
144


Bass0021.eps
145


Bass0022.eps
146


Bass0023.eps
147


Bass0024.eps
148


Bass0025.eps
149


Bass0026.eps
150


Bass0027.eps
151


Bass0028.eps
152


Bass0029.eps
153


Bass0030.eps
154


Bass0031.eps
155


Bass0032.eps
156


Bass0033.eps
157


Bass0034.eps
158


Bass0035.eps
159


Bass0036.eps
160


Bass0037.eps
161


Bass0038.eps
162


Bass0039.eps
163


Bass0040.eps
164


Bass0041.eps
165


Bass0042.eps
166


Bass0043.eps
167


Bass0044.eps
168


Bass0045.eps
169


Bass0046.eps
170


Bass0047.eps
171


Bass0048.eps
172


Bass0049.eps
173


Bass0050.eps
174


Bass0051.eps
175


Bass0052.eps
176


Bass0053.eps
177


Bass0054.eps
178


Bass0055.eps
179


Bass0056.eps
180


Bass0057.eps
181


Bass0058.eps
182


Bass0059.eps
183


Bass0060.eps
184


Bass0061.eps
185


Bass0062.eps
186


Bass0063.eps
187


Bass0064.eps
188


Bass0065.eps
189


Bass0066.eps
190


Bass0067.eps
191


Bass0068.eps
192


Bass0069.eps
193


Bass0070.eps
194


Bass0071.eps
195


Bass0072.eps
196


Bass0073.eps
197

LETTER TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FROM THE HONORABLE JORDAN

ULERY, NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE REPRESENTATIVE


JU1.eps
198


JU2.eps
199

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID LAMARRE-VINCENT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW

HAMPSHIRE COUNCIL OF CHURCHES

The religious leaders of all faiths in this country have spoken eloquently regarding the urgent need for comprehensive immigration reform. The principles that this 

reform should be grounded upon has been enunciated by other speakers here today. 

I would like to take my time to draw attention to the convictions the New Hampshire religious leadership. 

One, the urgent need is for a reasoned consideration of overall U.S. immigration 

policies, not the use of immigration reform by partisan politics. This is an area that 

directly affects the lives of millions of individuals and their families here in the 

United States, both with and without documentation. It affects the lives of millions 

of other individuals and families who wish to participate in the freedoms and opportunities that we take for granted in the U.S. We know this through our direct experience with ethnic faith communities here in New Hampshire from all continents 

of the world. Therefore, we plead for both the House and Senate to set aside partisan politics and focus upon the comprehensive immigration reform opportunity 

that is before you at this very moment. 

Second, we urge Congress to avoid letting this civil discussion slide into a divisive 

and narrow diatribe. This is a time for Congress to demonstrate through their actions that public discussion and legislation resolution of immigration policy can be 

done in a civil manner with respect for all. This extends beyond avoidance of partisan politics but also steering clear of a descent into mean spirited focus upon individual groups of immigrants, both documented and undocumented, as though they, 

the victims of global economic transformation and regional national circumstances, 

are the problem to be solved. 

A civil discourse must avoid ethnic stereotyping and a blame the victims focus. 

All sides in this public discourse should be invited to be heard with courtesy and 

respect that is their right as human beings. Only under these conditions can Congress lead the American people to a higher level of understanding and a resolution 

that fits the needs of all parties, the American economy, other world economies, 

workers and families. This is a rare opportunity for Congress to truly lead for the 

generation to come as we enter the 21st century. 

Finally, this is an issue close to many in New Hampshire, who like myself, are 

second or third generation immigrants from French speaking Canada. As the largest 

ethnic minority in Northern New England, we have our own personal experiences 

of being strangers in a new land. We understand the challenges that immigration 

policy, language barriers, and economic status confronted our parents and grandparents. We bring who we are to this larger debate and urge that Congress seize 

upon this as an opportunity to lift up the highest values of human dignity and 

brotherhood of all. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE RT. REV. DOUGLAS E. THEUNER, VIITH EPISCOPAL

BISHOP OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF LUTHERAN

SOCIAL SERVICES OF NEW ENGLAND

Members of religious organizations in New Hampshire, as elsewhere in the 

United States, are aware of the enormous contribution made to our economic and 

social well being by undocumented aliens who work in our midst, and upon our behalf; particularly as migrant farm workers. 

The religious community seeks for ALL persons, government support in providing 

the following basic human rights:

• uniting families separated by economic and political factors not of their own 

making and providing opportunities for them to prosper in and for the larger 

community;

• assuring ALL persons of the human and workforce rights;

• ending marginalization of ALL people which force them into situations which 

exploit and abuse them;

• providing access to citizenship to those responsible people who have helped 

this nation to prosper.

Millions of undocumented aliens in our midst are a reality generated by their 

needs and those of our economy. They are also a legal anomaly which must be regularized in a positive and constructive way. 

The healthcare, local educational and social service costs of the presence of undocumented aliens is far offset by the contribution they make to our economy. That’s 

why they’re here. That’s why we accept them in our midst. It’s time for Congress 

200

to act in a way that turns that acceptance into welcome, ensuring ALL people of 

the basic rights which we hold dear for ALL people.

Æ