Y 4 

. J 89/1

94 -e

GOVERNMEN r

/ 0 Z -£ >

IL L E G A L A L IE N S M

T Hi _ l_ 1»— . \ y

K A N S A S ST AT E; U N IV E R S IT Y

ru.J] m

rr.j] -0

□

□

-0i-ArA

<

Storage IM ENTS

2S 1975

H E A R IN G S

BE FORE TH E

SU B C O M M IT T E E ON IM M IG R A T IO N , C IT IZ E N S H IP , 

A N D IN T E R N A T IO N A L L A W

OF TH E

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OE REPRESENTATIVES

NIN ETY-F OU RTH CONGRESS 

FIR ST SESSI ON

ON

H.R. 982 an d Re lated Bills

ILL EG AL AL IEN S

FEBRUARY 4, 26, MARCH 5, 12, 13, AND 19, 1975

Serial No. 8

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

ILL E G A L A L IE N S

H E A R I N G S

BE FO RE TH E

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZE NSHIP, 

AND INTERN ATIONA L LAW

OF TH E

COMMITTEE ON TH E JU DICIAR Y 

HOUSE OF RE PR ES EN TA TIVE S

NINETY-FO UR TH CONGRESS 

F IR S T SESS IO N

ON

H.R. 982 and Related Bills

ILLEGAL AL IEN S

FEBR UA RY 4, 26, MARC H 5, 12, 13, AND 19, 1975

Serial No. 8

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

0-769 O

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINT ING OFFICE

WASHING TON : 1975
CO MMITTE E ON TH E JU DIC IA RY

PE T E R W. RO DINO , J r., New Jersey, Chairman

JA CK B RO OK S, Texas

ROBERT W. K AS TE NM EIER , Wisconsin

DO N ED WA RDS, California

WILL IAM L. HU N GA TE, Missouri 

JO HN CO NY ER S, J r., Michigan 

JOSH UA E IL BERG, Pennsylvania 

WAL TE R FLO WE RS, Alabam a 

JAM ES R. MAN N, South Carolina 

PA UL 8. SAR BA NE S, Maryland 

JO HN F. SE IB ER LI NG, Ohio 

GEO RG E E. DA NIELSO N, California 

RO BER T F. DR IN AN , Massachusetts 

BA RB AR A JO RD AN , Texas 

RA Y TH ORN TO N, Arkansas 

EL IZ AB ET H HOLTZMAN, New York 

ED WA RD M EZV INSKY, Iowa 

HE RM AN BA DIL LO, New York 

ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky 

ED WA RD W. P AT TISO N, New York 

CH R IS TO PH ER J. DO DD , Connecticut 

WILLIAM J . H UG HE S, New Jersey 

MA RT IN A. RUSS O, Illinois

EDWA RD HU TC HI NS ON , Michigan 

RO BE RT M cCL ORY, Illinois 

TOM RAILS BA CK, Illinois 

CH AR LE S E. WIGG INS , California 

HAMIL TON FISH , J r., New York 

M. CALDWELL BUTLER , Virginia 

WILLIA M S. CO HE N, Maine 

CAR LOS J. M OO RHEAD, California 

JOHN M. ASHBRO OK , Ohio 

H ENRY J. HY DE , Illinois 

THOM AS N. KI ND NE SS , Ohio

E arl C. D udley, Jr., Oeneral Counsel

Garn er J. Clin e, Sta ff Director

H erb ert F uchs, Counsel

William P. Shattuck, Counsel

H. Christopher Nolde, Counsel

Alan A. Parker, Counsel

James F. Falco, Counsel

Maurice A. Barboza, Counsel

Thomas W. H utchison, Counsel

Arthur P. E ndres, Jr., Counsel

Daniel L. Cohen, Counsel

F ranklin G. Polk, Counsel

T homas E. Mooney, Counsel

Michael W. Blommer, Counsel

Alexander B. Cook, Counsel

Constantine J. Gekas, Counsel

Alan F. Coffe y, Jr., Counsel

Kenn eth N. Kle e, Counsel

S ub co mm itte e on I mmigra tion , Cit iz en sh ip , and I nter nat io nal Law

JOS HUA EIL BERG , Pennsylvania, Chairman

PA UL 8. SARBAN ES, Maryland HA MILTON FISH , Jr., New York

EL IZ ABET H HOLTZMAN, New York WILL IAM S. COH EN , Maine

CH RIS TO PH ER J. D OD D, Connecticut

MAR TIN A. RUSSO, Illinois

Garner J. Clin e, Counsel

Arthur P. E ndres, Jr., Counsel

Janice A. Zarro, Assistant Counsel

Alexa nder B. Cook, Associate Counsel

(II)
C O N T E N T S

Hearings held on— Page Feb rua ry 4, 1975____________________________________________ 1

* Feb rua ry 26, 19 75 .._______ 133

March 5, 1975_______________________________________________ 191

* March 12, 1975............ 239

j March 13, 1975......... 297

March 19, 1975____ 331

* Text of—

H.R . 257________________ 144

H. R. 9 8 2 .. ._____ 3

H.R . 1276__________________________________________________ 333

H.R . 3883________________________________________ _ . 10

H. R. 6732___ 17 Witnesses—

Albert, Alfred G., Deputy Solicitor, Dep artm ent of Labor_________ 112

Bernsen, Sam, General Counsel, Immigration and Naturaliz atio n

Biaggi, Hon. Mario, a Representati ve in Congress from the Sta te of

New York__________ _____ _______ ________ _______________ 133

Prepared sta tem ent_______________________________________ 140

Biemiller, Andrew J., director, AF L-CIO_____ ____ _____ _______ 191

Prepared sta tem ent_______________________________________ 192

Brannick, Richard, president, National Border Patrol Council,

American Federation of Governm ent Emp loyees________________ 369

Carliner, David, American Civil Liberties Union _________________ 282

Prepared sta tem ent_______________________________________ 294

Chapman, Hon. Leonard F., Jr. , Commissioner, Immig ration and

Danielson, Hon. George E., a Representative in Congress from the

State of California_________________________________________ 239

Prepared sta tem ent______________ ____________ ___________ 249

Fierro, Manuel, president, National Congress of Hispanic-American

Citizens___________________________________________________ 315

Pre pared sta tem ent_______________________________________ 328

Greene, James, Deputy Commissioner, Immigration and Na turalization Service.................... 335

Harpold, Michael, legislative represen tative, National Council of 

Imm igration and Naturaliz atio n Service Locals, American Federation of Government Employees................ 369

Prep ared sta tem ent____ ________ 389

Hess, Arthur E., Deputy Commissioner, Social Security Administrat io n_________ 220

Prep ared sta tem ent_______________________________________ 223

Higgins, R. Rev. George G., secreta ry for research, U.S. Catholic

Conference________________________________________________ 279

Hohl, Donald G., associate director, migration and refugee services,

U.S. Catholic Conference___________________________________ 279

Koczak, Stephen, director of research, American Federation of

Gov ernmen t Employees............................... 369

McCarthy, John E., director, U.S. Catholic Conference___________ 279

Meiklejohn, Kenneth A., legislative counsel, AF L-CI O____________ 191

Pellerzi, Lou M., General Counsel, American Federation of Governme nt Employees_________________ ____ _____________________ 369

Ruben stein, \\ alter D., Deputy Assistant Director for Bureau of

Retirem ent and Survivors Ins ura nce____ ______ 220

Ryan, Hon. Leo J., a Representati ve in Congress from the Sta te of

C al ifor ni a. ._____ ______ ____________ _____ _______________ 181

(HI)
IV

Witn esses—Continued

Sadler, Carl, legislative representativ e, American Federation of 

Government Employees_____________________________________

Schubert, Hon. Richard F., Under Secretary of Labor-------------------

Prepared sta tem ent-----------------------------------------------------------

Scott, Edw ard W., Jr., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Deme nt of J ust ice ____________________________________________

Prepar ed sta tem ent--------------------------------- -------------------------

Silberman, Laurence H., Acting Attorney General, Depar tment of

Ju stice___________________________________________________

Pre pared sta tem ent-----------------------------------------------------------

Sisk, Hon. B. F., a Represen tative in Congress from the Sta te of

Californ ia_________________________________________________

Prepar ed sta tem ent------------------------ -------------------- - ------------

Solis, Stephen, migrant specialist, secretariat for the Spanish-speak ­

ing, U.S. Catholic Co nferen ce .-.-------- -------------------------;---------

Tan ton, Dr. John H., chairman, Imm igration Study Committee for

Zero Population Growth____________________________________

Prepar ed sta tem ent______________________________________

White, Hon. Richard C., a Representative in Congress from the 

Sta te of Tex as__________________________________________ _

Williams, David O., Deputy Director, U.S. Emp loymen t Service,

De partm ent of L abor_______________________________________

Additional material—

“B attle Expected on Tigh ter Laws To Curb Illegal Aliens,” by M. A. 

Farber, New York Times, Decem ber 31, 1974-----------------------------

“Carlos Didn’t Last Long in the Promised Land,” by Michael Satchell, 

Washington Star-News, November 17, 1974--------------- ----------------

“ Detention Centers Last U.S. S top for Thousands of Mexican Aliens,” 

by Martin Waldron, New York Times, July 15, 1974--------------------

“H uman Tide Cuts Deeply in America,” by Michael Satchell, Washington Star-News, November 16, 1974---------------------------------------

“Illegal Aliens Targ et of Union Organizers,” by Fra nk Del Olmo, Los 

Angeles Times, Ja nuary 30, 1975______________________________

“Illegal En tra nts Flock to United States— A New Pov erty Class,” 

by Leroy F. Aarons, W ashington Post, February 2, 1975----------------

“Illegal Immigra tion: A Global Pr oblem,” Washington Post, November 

13, 1974_____________________________________________ ____

“Im mig ration Fraud Case Dropped in 1972,” New York Times, 

December 30, 1974________________________________ - — -------

“Life in Paradise Spent on the Run ,” Michael Satchell, Washington 

Star-News, November 17, 1974_______________________________

“Million Illegal Aliens in Metrop olitan Area,” by M. A. Farber, 

New York Times, December 29, 1974------------------------ ---------------

“P atrol Can’t Keep Aliens Out,” Leroy F. Aarons, Wash ington Post, 

Feb rua ry 3, 1975___________________________________________

“R ising Flood of Illegal Aliens,” U.S. News & World R epo rt, Febru ary 

3 1975

“Solution ‘Simple’: Cut Off Job s,” by Michael Satchell, Washington 

Star-News, November 19, 1974_________________________ ______

“Stati stic s on Imm igration,” by Michael Satchell, Washington 

Star-News, November 16, 1974_________________________ _____

“T he Biggest Hole in the Dike,” by Michael Satchell, Wash ington 

Star-News, November 18, 1974______________________________

“Unlawful Aliens Use Costly City Services,” by M. A. Farb er, New 

York Times, December 30, 1974______________________________

“U.S. Illegal Immigration Problem Defies the Numbers Gam e,” by

Lawrence Meyer, Washington Pos t, Feb ruary 2, 1975-------------------

Correspondence—

Hess, Arthu r E., Deputy Commissioner, Social Security Admin istration, lette r d ated March 28, 1975, to Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Citizenship, and Inte rna tional L aw------------------------ ------------------

Page

369

112

114

366

366

25

29

147

156

279

253

277

167

112

94

72

98

63

150

78

74

89

65

83

81

100

70

73

67

90

75

t

i

AP PE ND IX ES

Appendix 1: Additional statem ents—

American Farm Bureau Federation _____________________________ 405

Association of Immigration and Na tionality Lawyers--------------------- 406

237
V

Appendix 1: Additional statem ents— Continued P w

Association of the Bar of the city of New York..................................... 408

Broomfield, Hon. William S., a Representati ve in Congress from the

State of M ichiga n................................................... ............................... 397

Frain, George, secreta ry, Businessmen Affected Severely by the

Yearly Action Plans, In c.................................. - ................................... 414

Harpold, Michael, legislative representativ e, American Federation of

Government Employees.......................................................................... 419

Jamaica National Guild U.S.A................................................................. 421

Kazen, Hon. Abraham, Jr., a Represen tative in Congress from the

State of Texas........................................................................................... 398

Kuszmaul, Fred T., director, National Americanism and Children and

' Youth Division, American Legion....................... ........... ........... ......... 421

Lehman, Hon. William, a Representati ve in Congress from the Sta te

of F lorida................................... ........... ................................................... 399

Los Angeles County Board of S upervis ors.............................................. 414

4 Natio nal Border Patro l Council................... ............................................. 423

“ Restrictions Aren’t the Answer—The Illegals,” by Michael Piore,

associate professor of economics, Massachusetts Insti tute of Techno logy .................... ............... . ................................................................. 424

Roybal, Hon. Edward R., a Repre sen tative in Congress from the

State of Californ ia................................ ........... ............................. ......... 399

Talcott, Hon. Bu rt L., a Representati ve in Congress from the State

of California.......................................... ................................................... 401

The American Legion, Fifty -Sixth Nation al Convention, August 20,

21 ,2 2, 19 74 ._______ __________________________________ ____ 422

Van Deerlin, Hon. Lionel, a Represen tative in Congress from the

State of California............................ ............... ......................... ............. 402

Webber, Clyde M., nat ion al president, American Federation of Governm ent Employees:

March 12, 1975......................................... ................................. ......... 370

July 22, 1 9 7 4 .. ._____________ ___________________________ 373

Wilson, Hon. Bob, a Representati ve in Congress from the Sta te of

California_________________________________________________ 402

Wolff, Hon. Lester L., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York............ ............... ....... ................................................... ..... 404

Tanton, Dr. John H., chairman, Imm igration Stu dy Committee, Zero

Population Growth, lette r dated March 27, 1975, to Hon. Joshua

Eilberg...................... ................................................................................. 267

Appendix 2—

Responses to questions sub mitted to the De par tment of Justice_____ 427

Appendix 3—

Additional comments of the De par tment of Justice on H.R. 982____ 445

Appendix 4—

Responses to questions submitted to the De partm ent of Health, 

t Education, and Welfare ____ _______ __________________ ___ 448

4
*i44
ILLEGAL ALIENS

FE BR UA RY 4, 197 5 «

H ous e of Rep re se nt at iv es ,

Subcomm ittee on I mmigration,

4 Citiz en sh ip, and I nternatio nal L aw

of the Committee on th e J udiciary,

Washingto n, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 

2141, Ravburn House Office Building, Hon. Joshua Eilberg [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Eilberg, Sarbanes, Holtzman, Dodd, 

Russo, Fish, and Cohen.

Also present: Garner J. Cline and Arthur P. Endres, Jr., counsels; 

Janice A. Zarro, assistant counsel; and Alexander B. Cook, associate 

counsel.

Mr. E ilbe rg . This hearing will come to order.

We are here today to receive an update on the facts concerning 

proposed legislation which should have become law over 2 years ago.

This bill H.R. 982, the so-called illegal alien bill, was passed overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives in the 92d and 93d 

Congresses. Had the Senate acted and the President signed this 

measure, it is entirely possible that 1 million Americans would be 

working today instead of collecting unemployment compensation.

No one can argue that the plight of the aliens who come to this 

country illegally is not tragic. In many cases these men and women are 

separated from their families for long periods of time. They are 

forced to live under the worst conditions and as a result of their 

s

precarious status they must accept any form of abuse and mis trea tment their employers choose to hand out.

But, the fact is, they are here because they can or think they can 

get jobs—jobs which should be held by citizens or aliens who are in 

* this country legally. If there were no jobs they would not come here.

There has been a good deal of misinformation circulated concerning 

this legislation. H.R . 982 does not discriminate against ethnic and 

minority groups. I t does not impose penalties on the already victimized 

illegal aliens.

It does not relate to the deportability of aliens and it does not 

require any affirmative action by any employer—it merely requires 

every employer to refrain from knowingly hiring illegal aliens.

At the same time, H.R. 982 does not encourage discrimination 

against aliens; nor does it force the mass deportation of illegal aliens.

It does however, deal with the real culprit, the employer who 

repeatedly and with impunity hires illegal aliens rath er than giving 

the jobs to citizens and legal residents who could demand a living 

wage and decent working conditions.

(1)
2

This bill provides for three steps to be taken against the employer. 

First, there is a warning or citation from the Attorney General. The 

second offense will bring a fine of $500 per alien, and further repetitions can be penalized by a $1,000 fine per alien and/or a year in 

prison for each alien.

So it is clear our purpose is to prosecute the people who provide 

the incentive for aliens to come into this country illegally.

There is no doubt tha t something must be done.

Hearings were held across the country on thi9 subject. More than 

200 witnesses whose testimony fills over 2,000 pages were heard.

The product of these hearings and countless hours of work by the 

members of the subcommittee and the staff is the legislation now 

before us.

H.R. 982 has been criticized for being too strong and for being too 

weak, but no one has put forth a workable alternative which would 

be as fair to the alien and to the employer who unwittingly hires one 

or more illegal aliens.

The fact tha t this legislation presents a workable answer to the 

problem is borne out by the support it has received in the past. In 

the 92d Congress it was passed on a voice vote and in the last Congress by a 297-63 margin. On those two occasions the country was 

in much better shape economically than i t is today.

Now we are on the verge of depression and this measure could help 

to put the Nation back on the road to economic recovery. It would 

eliminate the drain illegal aliens place on our economy by taking jobs, 

collecting welfare and unemployment payments, putting their children in our schools, and using all of the other services which citizens 

and legal residents pay taxes to support. Additionally, illegal aliens 

send millions of dollars back to their native lands annually, a practice 

which further damages our economy.

I do not advocate a ban on immigration, for this country was 

built and its greatness assured by the labor of immigrants. It remains 

essential, however, tha t we have the orderly and fair entry of immigrants into the United States.

Back door immigration has no place in this country. We can best 

serve the interests of lawful residents by a judicious immigration 

policy.

Illegal immigration is a distortion of our heritage, for instead of 

enhancing their opportunities it often brings misery and exploitation 

to the aliens themselves and disadvantages our own lawful residents.

[The bills referred to, H.R. 982, H.R. 3883 and H .R. 6732, follow:]
*3

94th CON GRESS 

1st Session H. R. 982

IN TH E HO US E OF RE PR ES EN TA TI VE S

J anuary 14,1975

Mr. Rodino (for himself and Mr. Eilberg) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the J udiciary

A BILL

To amend the Imm igration and Natio nality Act, and for other 

purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Bepresenta2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act

4 (8 U.S.O. 1255) is amended to read as follows:

5 “Sec. 245. (a) The status of an alien who was inspected

6 and admitted or paroled into the United States may be ad7 justed by the Atto rney General, in his discretion and under

8 such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien law9 fully admitted for permanent residence if (1) the alien makes

10 an application for such adjustment, (2) the alien is eligible

11 to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United

I
4

2

1 States for permanent residence, and (3) an immigrant visa

2 is immediately available to him at the time his application

3 is filed.

4 “ (b) Upon the approval of an application for adjust5 ment made under subsection (a ), the Attorney General shall

6 record the alien’s lawful admission for permanent residence

7 as of the date the order of the Attorney General approving

8 the application for the adjustment of status is made, and the

9 Secretary of State shall reduce by one the number of the

10 preference or nonpreference visas authorized to be issued

11 under section 203 (a) within the class to which the alien is

12 chargeable, or the number of visas authorized to be issued

13 pursuant to the provisions of section 21 (e) of the Act of

14 October 3, 1965, for the fiscal year then current.

15 “ (c) The provisions of this section shall not be applica16 ble to: (1) an alien crewm an; (2) an alien (other than an

17 immediate relative as defined in section 201 ( b ) ) who here18 after continues in or accepts unauthorized employment prior

19 to filing an application for adjustment of statu s; or (3) any

20 alien admitted in transit without visa under section 238 (d ).”

21 Sec. 2. Section 274 of the Immigration and Natio nality

22 Act (8 U.S.C. 1324) is amended by deleting the proviso in

23 paragraph 4 of subsection (a) and by redesignating subsec24 tion (b) as subsection (e) and adding new subsections (b ),

25 (c ), and (d) to read as follows:

4

4
*

*

4

5

3

1 ' “ (b) (1) It shall be unlawful for any employer or any

2 person acting as an agent for such an employer, or any per3 son who for a fee, refers an alien for employment by such an

4 employer, knowingly to employ, continue to employ, or refer

5 for employment any alien in the United States who has not

6 been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent

7 residence, unless the employment of such alien is authorized

8 by the Attorney General: Provided, Tha t an employer, re9 ferrer, or agent shall not be deemed to have violated this sub10 section if he has made a bona fide inquiry whether a person

11 hereafter employed or referred by him is a citizen or an alien,

12 and if an alien, whether he is lawfully admitted to the United

13 States for pe rmanent residence or is authorized by the AttorH ney General to accept employment: Provided, further, That 

15 evidence establishing that the employer, referrer, or agent 

lb has obtained from the person employed or referred by him a 

1

1

 signed statement in writing in conformity with regulations 

1^ which shall be prescribed by the Attorney General that such 

19 person is a citizen of the United States or that such person is 

29 an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or is an

21 alien authorized by the Attorney General to accept employ22 nrent, shall be deemed prima facie proof tha t such employer,

23 agent, or referrer has made a bona fide inquiry as provided in

2 4 this paragraph. The Attorney General of the United States

2 5 shall prepare forms for the use of employers, agents, and re-
6

4

1 ferrers in obtaining such w ritten statements and shall furnish

2 such forms to employers, agents, and referrers upon request.

3 “ (2) If, on evidence or information he deems persua4 sive, the Attorney General concludes that an employer, agent, *

5 or referrer has violated the provisions-of paragraph (1 ), the

6 Attorney General shall serve a citation on the employer,

7 agent, or referrer informing him of such apparent violation.

8 “ (3) If, in a proceeding initiated within two years after

9 the service of such citation, the Attorney General finds that

10 any employer, agent, or referrer upon whom such citation •

11 has been served has thereafter violated the provisions of

12 paragraph (1 ), the Attorney General shall assess a penalty

13 of not more than $500 for each alien in respect to whom

14 any violation of paragraph (1) is found to have occurred.

15 “ (4) A civil penalty shall be assessed by the Attorney

16 General only after the person charged with a violation under

17 paragraph (3) has been given an opportunity for a hearing *

18 and the Attorney General has determined that a violation did

19 occur, and the amount of the penalty which is warranted. A

20 The hearing shall be of record and conducted before an immi21 gration officer designated by the Attorney General, individ22 ually or by regulation and the proceedings shall be conducted

23 in accordance with the requirements of title 5, section 554

24 of the United States Code.

25 “ (5) If the person against whom a civil penalty is as-
a

a

a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

5

sessed fails to pay the penalty within the time prescribed in 

such order, the Attorney General shall file a suit to collect 

the amount in any appropriate district court of the United 

States. In an y such suit or in any other suit seeking to review 

the Attorney General’s determination, the suit shall be determined solely upon the administrative record upon which the 

civil penalty was assessed and the Atto rney General’s findings 

of fact, if supported by substantial evidence on the record 

considered as a whole, shall be conclusive.

“ (c) Any employer or person who has been assessed a 

civil penalty under subsection (b) (3) which has become 

final and thereafter violates subsection (b) (1) shall be guilty 

of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be 

punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by imprisonment 

not exceeding one year, or both, for each alien in respect to 

whom any violation of this subsection occurs.

Sec. 3. The Immigration and Nationality Act is amended 

by inserting immediately after section 274 the following new 

section:

“disc losure of illega l al ien s who are receiving

ASSISTANCE UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT

“Sec. 274A. Any officer or employee of the Departm ent 

of Health, Education, and Welfare shall disclose to the Service the name and most recent address of any alien who such 

officer or employee knows is not lawfully in the U nited States
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

and who is receiving assistance under any State plan under 

title I, X, XI V, XV I, XIX, or part A of title IV of the 

Social Security Act.”

Sec. 4. The first paragraph of section 1546 of title 18 

of the United States Code is amended to read as follows:

“Whoever knowingly forges, counterfeits, alters, or 

falsely makes any immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, permit, 

border crossing card, alien registration receipt card, or other 

document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into 

or as evidence of authorized stay in the United States, or 

utters, uses, attempts to use, possesses, obtains, accepts, or 

receives any such visa, permit, border crossing card, alien 

registration receipt card, or other document prescribed by 

statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay in the United States, knowing it to be forged, counterfeited. altered, or falsely made, or to have been procured 

by means of any false claim or statement, or to have been 

otherwise procured by fraud or unlawfully obtained; or” .

Sec. 5. Nothing contained in this Act, unless otherwise 

specifically provided therein, shall be construed to affect the 

validity of any document or proceeding which shall be valid 

at the time this Act shall take effect, or to affect any prosecution, suit, action, or proceeding, civil or criminal, done or 

existing, at the time this Act shall take effect; but as to all 

such prosecutions, suits, actions, proceedings, statutes, con-

*

i

A
9

7

3 ditions, rights, acts, things, liabilities, obligations, or matters,

2 the statutes or parts of statutes repealed by this Act are,

3 unless otherwise specifically provided therein, hereby con4 tinued in force and effect.

5 Sec. 6. This Act shall become effective on the first day

6 of the first month after expiration of ninety days following

7 the date of its enactment.

11

«

4

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

makes an application for such adjustment, (2) the alien is 

eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the 

United States for perm anent residence, and (3) an immigran t visa is immediately available to him at the time his 

application is filed.

“ (b) Upon the approval of an application for adjustment made under subsection (a ), the Attorne y General 

shall record the alie n’s lawful admission for permanent residence as of the date the order of the Atto rney General approving the application for the adjustment of status is made, 

and the Secretary of State shall reduce by one the number of 

the preference or nonpreference visas authorized to be issued 

under section 20 3( a) within the class to which the alien is 

chargeable, or the number of visas authorized to be issued 

pursuant to the provisions of section 21 (e) of the Act of 

October 3, 1965, for the fiscal y ear then current.

“ (c) The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to: (1) an alien crew man ; (2) an alien (other than an 

immediate relative as defined in section 201 (b) ) who hereafter continues in or accepts unauthorized employment prior 

to filing an application for adjustment of status; or (3) any 

alien admitted in transit without visa under section 238 (d)

Sec. 2. Section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act (8 U.S.C. 1324) is amended by deleting the proviso in 

paragraph 4 of subsection (a) and by redesignating subsec48 -7 89 o • TB • J
12

1

2

3

4

5

G

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

tion (b) as subsection (d) and adding new subsections (b) 

and (c) to read as follows:

“ (b) (1) It shall be unlawful for any employer or any 

person acting as an agent for such an employer, or any per ­

son who for a fee, refers an alien for employment by such an 

employer, knowingly to employ, continue to employ, or refer 

for employment any alien in the United States who has not 

been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent 

residence, unless the employment of such alien is authorized 

by the Attorney General: Provided, That an employer, referrer, or age nt shall not be deemed to have violated this subsection if he has made a bona fide inquiry whether a person 

hereafter employed or referred by him is a citizen or an alien, 

and if an alien, whether lie is lawfully admitted to the United 

States for permanent residence or is authorized by the Attor ­

ney General to accept employment: Provided, further, Tha t 

evidence establishing that the employer, referrer, or agent 

has obtained from the person employed or referred by him a 

signed statement in writing in conformity with regulations 

which shall be prescribed by the Attorney General that such 

person is a citizen of the United States or that such person is 

an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or is an 

alien authorized by the Attorne y General to accept employment, shall be deemed prima facie proof that such employer, 

agent, or referrer has made a bona fide inquiry as provided in

*

«

A
13

*

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1


11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2


21

22

23

24

25

26

4

this para grap h. The Attorney General of the United States 

shall prepare forms for the use of employers, agents, and rcferrers in obtaining such w ritten statements and shall furnish 

such forms to employers, agents, and referrers upon request.

“ (2) If, on evidence or information he deems persuasive, the Attorney General concludes that an employer, agent, 

or rcferrer has violated the provisions of paragraph (1 ), the 

Attorney General shall serve a citation on the employer, 

agent, or referrer informing him of such apparent violation.

“ (3) If, in a proceeding initiated within two years after 

the service of such citation, the Atto rney General finds that 

any employer, agent, or referrer upon whom such citation 

has been served has thereafter violated the provisions of 

paragraph (1 ), the Attorney General shall assess a penalty 

of not more than $500 for each alien in respect to whom 

any violation of paragraph (1) is found to have occurred.

“ (4) A civil penalty shall be assessed by the Attorney 

General only after the person charged with a violation under 

paragraph (3) has been given an opportunity for a hearing 

and the Attorney General has determined that a violation did 

occur, and the amount of the penalty which is warranted. 

The hearing shall be of record and conducted before an immigration officer designated by the Attorney General, individually or by regulation and the proceedings shall be conducted 

in accordance with the requirements of title 5, section 554 

of the United States Code.
14

1 “ (5) If the person against whom a civil penalty is as2 sessed fails to pay the penalty within the time prescribed in

3 such order, the Attorney General shall file a suit to collect

4 the amount in any appropriate district court of the United

5 States. In any such suit or in any other suit seeking to review 

G the Attorney General’s determination, the suit shall be deter7 mined solely upon the administrative record upon which the

8 civil penalty was assessed and the Attorney General’s findings

9 of fact, if supported by substantial evidence on the record

10 considered as a whole, shall be conclusive.

11 “ (c) Any employer or person who has been assessed a

12 civil penalty under subsection (b) (3) which has become

13 final and thereafter violates subsection (b) (1) shall be guilty

14 of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be

15 punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by imprisonment

16 not exceeding one year, or both, for each alien in respect to

17 whom any violation of this subsection occurs.

18 Sec. 3. The Immigration and Nationality A ct is amended

19 by inserting immediately after section 274 the following new

20 section:

21 “disclosure of ill egal al ien s who are rece iving

22 ASSISTANCE UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT

23 “Sec. 274A. Any officer or employee of the Departm ent

24 of Health, Education, and Welfare shall disclose to the Scrv25 ice the name and most recent address of any alien who such
15

4

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

25

0

officer or employee knows is not lawfully in the United States 

and who is receiving assistance under any State plan under 

title I, X, XIV , XV I, XI X, or part A of title IV of the 

Social Security A ct.”

Sec. 4. The first para grap h of section 1546 of title 18 

of the United States Code is amended to read as follows:

“Whoever knowingly forges, counterfeits, alters, or 

falsely makes any immigrant or nonim migra nt visa, permit, 

border crossing card, alien registration receipt card, or other 

document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into 

or as evidence of authorized stay in the United States, or 

utters, uses, attempts to use, possesses, obtains, accepts, or 

receives any such visa, permit, border crossing card, alien 

registration receipt card, or other document prescribed by 

statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay in the United States, knowing it to be forged, counterfeited, altered, or falsely made, or to have been procured 

by means of any false claim or statement, or to have been 

otherwise procured by fraud or unlawfully obtained; or”.

Sec. 5. Nothing contained in this Act, unless otherwise 

specifically provided therein, shall be construed to affect the 

validity of any document or proceeding which shall be valid 

at the time this Act shall take effect, or to affect any prosecution, suit, action, or proceeding, civil or criminal, done or 

existing, at the time this Act shall take effect; but as to all

22
16

7

1 such prosecutions, suits, actions, proceedings, statutes, con2 ditions, rights, acts, things, liabilities, obligations, or matters

3 ditions, rights, acts, things, liabilities, obligations, or matters,

4 the statutes or parts of statutes repealed by this Act are,

5 unless otherwise specifically provided therein, hereby con6 tinued in force and effect.

7 Sec. 6. This Act shall become effective on the first day

8 of the first month after expiration of ninety days following

9 the date of its enactment.

A
15

A

A

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

officer or employee knows is not lawfully in the United States 

and who is receiving assistance under any State plan under 

title I, X, XI V, XVI, XIX, or part A of title IV of the 

Social Security A ct.”

Sec. 4. The first paragraph of section 1546 of title 18 

of the United States Code is amended to read as follows:

“Whoever knowingly forges, counterfeits, alters, or 

falsely makes any immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, permit, 

border crossing card, alien registration receipt card, or other 

document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into 

or as evidence of authorized stay in the United States, or 

utters, uses, attempts to use, possesses, obtains, accepts, or 

receives any such visa, permit, border crossing card, alien 

registration receipt card, or other document prescribed by 

statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay in the United States, knowing it to be forged, counterfeited, altered, or falsely made, or to have been procured 

by means of any false claim or statement, or to have been 

otherwise procured by fraud or unlawfully obtained; or” .

Sec. 5. Nothing contained in this Act, unless otherwise 

specifically provided therein, shall be construed to affect the 

validity of any document or proceeding which shall be valid 

at the time this Act shall take effect, or to affect an y prosecution, suit, action, or proceeding, civil or criminal, done or 

existing, at the time this Act shall take effect; but as to all
18

1

9

3

4

5

(i

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

11

15

1G

17

18

19

20

21

24

25

2

States for permanent residence, and (3) an immigrant visa 

is immediately available to him at the time his application 

is filed.

“ (b) Upon the approval of an application for adjustment made under subsection (a ), the Attorney General shall 

record the alien’s lawful admission for permanent residence 

as of the date the order of the Attorney General approving 

the application for the adjustment of status is made, and the 

Secretary of State shall reduce by one the number of the 

preference or nonpreference visas authorized to be issued 

under section 20 3(a) within the class to which the alien is 

chargeable, or the number of visas authorized to be issued 

pursuant to the provisions of section 21 (e) of the Act of 

October 3, 1965, for the fiscal year then current.

“ (c) The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to: (1) an alien crewm an; (2) an alien (other than an 

immediate relative as defined in section 201 (b) ) who hereafter continues in or accepts unauthorized employment prior 

to filing an application for adjustment of status; or (3) any 

alien admitted in transit without visa under section 238 (d ).”

Sec. 2. Section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act (8 U.S.C. 1324) is amended by deleting the proviso in 

paragraph 4 of subsection (a) and by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (e) and adding new subsections (h ), 

(c ), an d (d) to read as follows:

4

22

23
19

3

1 “ (b) (1) It shall be unlawful for any employer or any

2 person acting as an agent for such nn employer, or any per3 son who for a fee, refers an alien for employment by such an

4 employer, knowingly to employ, continue to employ, or refer

5 for employment any alien in the United States who has not

6 been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent

7 residence, unless the employment of such alien is authorized

8 by the Attorney General: Provided, That an employer, re9 ferrer, or agent shall not be deemed to have violated this sub10 section if he has made a bona fide inquiry whether a person

11 hereafter employed or referred by him is a citizen or an alien,

12 and if an alien, whether he is lawfully admitted to the United

13 States for permanent residence or is authorized by the Attorney General to accept employment: Provided, further, That

1

5

 evidence establishing that the employer, referrer, or agent

16 has obtained from the person employed or referred by him a 

1

1

 signed statement in writing in conformity with regulations 

16 which shall be prescribed by the Attorney General that such

person is a citizen of the United States or that such person is

20 an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or is an

21 alien authorized by the Attorney General to accept employ22 ment, shall be deemed prima facie proof that such employer,

23 agent, or referrer has made a bona fide inquiry as provided in

24 this paragraph. The Attorney General of the United States 

2° shall prepare forms for the use of employers, agents, and re-
20

] fcrrers in obtaining such written statements and shall furnish

2 such forms to employers, agents, and referrers upon request.

3 “ (2) If, on evidence or information he deems persua4 sive, the Attorney General concludes that an employer, agent,

5 or referrer has violated the provisions of paragraph (1 ), the

6 Attorney General shall serve a citation on the employer,

7 agent, or referrer informing him of such apparent violation.

8 “ (3) If, in a proceeding initiated within two years after

9 the service of such citation, the Attorney General finds that

10 any employer, agent, or referrer upon whom such citation

11 has been served has thereafter violated the provisions of

12 paragraph (1 ), the Attorney General shall assess a penalty

13 of not more than $500 for each alien in respect to whom

14 any violation of paragraph (1) is found to have occurred.

15 “ (4) A civil penalty shall be assessed by the Attorney

16 General only after the person charged with a violation under

17 paragraph (3) has been given an opportunity for a hearing

18 and the Attorney General has determined that a violation did

19 occur, and the amount of the penalty which is warranted.

20 The hearing shall be of record and conducted before an immi21 gration officer designated by the Attorney General, individ22 ually or by regulation and the proceedings shall be conducted

23 in accordance with the requirements of title 5, section 554

24 of the United States Code.

25 “ (5) If the person against whom a civil penalty is as-
21

4

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

scsscd fails to pay the penalty within the time prescribed in 

such order, the Attorney General shall file a suit to collect 

the amount in any appropriate district court of the United 

States. In any such suit or in any other suit seeking to review 

the Attorney General’s determination, the suit shall be determined solely upon the administrative record upon which the 

civil penalty was assessed and the Attorney General’s findings 

of fact, if supported by substantial evidence on the record 

considered as a whole, shall be conclusive.

“ (c) Any employer or person who has been assessed a 

civil penalty under subsection (b) (3) which has become 

final and thereafter violates subsection (b) (1) shall be guilty 

of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be 

punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by imprisonment 

not exceeding one year, or both, for each alien in respect to 

whom any violation of this subsection occurs.

Sec. 3. The Immigration and Nationality Act is amended 

by inserting immediately after section 274 the following new 

section:

“ DISCLOSURE OF ILLEGAL ALIENS w n o ARE RECEIVING

ASSISTANCE UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT

“S ec. 274A . Any officer or employee of the Department 

of Ilea lth, Education, and Welfare shall disclose to the Service the name and most recent address of any alien who such 

officer or employee knows is not lawfully in the United States
22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1G

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

and who is receiving assislnnce under any State plan under 

title I, X, XIV , XV I, XI X, or part A of title IV of the 

Social Security Act.”

Sec. 4. The first parag raph of section 1546 of title 18 

of the United States Code is amended to read as follows:

“Whoever knowingly forges, counterfeits, alters, or 

falsely makes any immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, permit, 

border crossing card, alien registration receipt card, or other 

document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into 

or as evidence of authorized stay in the United States, or 

utters, uses, attempts to use, possesses, obtains, accepts, or 

receives any such visa, permit, border crossing card, alien 

registration receipt card, or other document prescribed by 

statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay in the United States, knowing it to be forged, counterfeited, altered, or falsely made, or to have been procured 

by means of any false claim or statement, or to have been 

otherwise procured by fraud or unlawfully obtained; or” .

Sec. 5. Nothing contained in this Act, unless otherwise 

specifically provided therein, shall be construed to affect the 

validity of any document or proceeding which shall be valid 

at the time this Act shall take effect, or to affect any prosecution, suit, action, or proceeding, civil or criminal, done or 

existing, at the time this Act shall take effect; but as to all 

such prosecutions, suits, actions, proceedings, statutes, con-

«
23

7

3 ditions, rights, acts, things, liabilities, obligations, or matters,

2 the statutes or parts of statutes repealed by this Act are,

3 unless otherwise specifically provided therein, hereby con4 tinucd in force and effect.

5 Sec. 6. This Act shall become effective on the first day

6 of the first month after expiration of ninety days following

7 the date of its enactment.

*

4
24

Mr. Eilberg. At this time I will call on Mr. Fish, the ranking 

member on the minority side.

Mr. Fish. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Could I at the outset introduce to you our latest addition to the 

minority side as a member of this subcommittee which you chair, 

Mr. Cohen from the State of Maine?

Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Fish. Mr. Chairman, we meet here today to consider once 

more the problem of the millions of illegal aliens in our country and 

to resolve what to do about their presence here. There have been 

prior occasions as you stated, when this subcommittee met to consider 

this matter and twice bills have been reported out which went on to 

be passed by the House, both in the 92d Congress and the 93d Congress. Today, however, the problem of illegal aliens is much more 

serious than during those prior Congresses.

The number of illegal aliens in our country appears to have increased 

dramatically in recent years, and we have been told tha t many of 

these illegal aliens are employed, often in w’ell paying jobs. This is 

at a time when our country is experiencing unemployment at a rate 

of 7.1 percent of the total work force, the highest unemployment 

figure in almost 14 years.

The Immigration Service has estimated tha t 1 million jobs could 

be created in the near future by the removal of tha t many aliens who 

now hold such jobs. Our economy needs those jobs and it needs them 

now. I understand 2 to 3 million jobs may now be held by illegal 

aliens.

It should be noted tha t these jobs and the presence of illegal aliens 

are not confined to the area adjacent to our southwest border. In 

New York City alone, the Immigration Service has estimated tha t 

106,000 jobs are held by such aliens and could be made available to 

U.S. citizens and legal resident aliens.

H.R. 982 makes it illegal to knowingly hire an illegal alien. Without 

such a law, no penalty reaches an employer for employing persons who, 

by law, cannot work in the United States. The companion effort of 

this Congress must be to adequately fund the Immigration Service 

to pay not only the salaries of agents, but the moving expenses, so 

that those apprehended can be deported.

Mr. Chairman, we are not alone in our concern about this most 

serious problem. It has received the attention recently in several series 

of newspaper articles, in such papers as the Washington Star-News, 

the New York Times, and jus t this week, in the Washington Post. 

[See p. 63.] It was recently the subject of an hour-long documentary 

broadcast by the ABC Television Network, and more importantly, 

it has been the subject of a discussion between President Ford and 

the President of Mexico at their recent meeting. As a result of t hat 

meeting, President Ford established on January 6 of this year the 

Domestic Council Committee on Illegal Aliens which is chaired by the 

Attorney General.

We know our system is not working correctly when the number of 

aliens who are arrested and deported from the United State s annually 

is double the number of aliens who are annually admitted legally. 

Estimates of the illegal alien population in the United States range 

from 4 to 12 million. I commend you and Chairman Rodino for making
25

this issue our first priority during this Congress, and I look forward 

to working with you in trying to resolve this most serious problem for 

our country at this time.

Mr. Eilberg. Before beginning with the testimony, I would like to 

introduce a new member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 

Connecticut, Congressman Christopher Dodd.

And now if we may, I would like to welcome the Acting Attorney 

General of the United States, Mr. Laurence H. Silberman. We are 

happy to have you here, Mr. Silberman, and look forward to your 

testimony.

TESTIMONY OF LAURENCE H. SILBERMAN, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND LEONARD F. CHAPMAN,

JR., COMMISSIONER, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY SAM BERNSEN, GENERAL COUNSEL

Mr. Silberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to introduce on my left Leonard Chapman, Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, who will also 

testify, and Sam Bernsen, INS General Counsel.

I shall be brief. I can summarize my testimony and read only those 

portions which seem to me to go to the heart of the matter before 

this committee.

I would like to also congratulate the chairman of this committee 

for making this issue a first priority. It has been for the last year the 

first priority of the Justice D epartment of all of the programs we have.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to 

appear before you to discuss H .R. 982. H.R. 982 addresses a critical 

national problem—the flood of illegal immigration. The principal 

provision of H.R. 982 aims a t the heart of this problem by prohibiting 

persons from knowingly employing illegal aliens, thus reducing the 

economic incentive for illegal immigration. The Dep artm ent of Justice 

has supported H.R. 982 in the past. We continue to believe tha t 

employment of illegal aliens m ust be prohibited. We believe, however, 

tha t Congress should consider enactm ent of stronger provisions than 

are presently contained in H.R. 982 to assure tha t this prohibition is 

observed and enforced.

Let me make myself quite clear. The Department has always 

taken the position tha t we will support the strongest bill in this area 

that can come out of the Congress, and we of course, defer to the 

legislative expertise of men like yourself, Mr. Chairman, who have 

worked on this problem. Bu t we think tha t with the heightened 

concern now, with the economic problems that we face, tha t both you 

and Mr. Fish referred to, we have a chance of even strengthening 

H.R. 982 now, and we would hope that you would consider that.

Congress has established a policy of controlled immigration. You 

have set an annual limit on immigrating, 394,000 in fiscal year 1974. 

Furthermore, Congress has wisely and humanely established guidelines for admitting immigrants; the reuniting of families and the 

admission of needed workers are the principal purposes to be promoted. 

Total immigration, however, bears no relation to the program you 

have prescribed. Last year the Immigration and N aturalization Serv-
26

ice located 788,000 deportable aliens—twice the number of aliens 

admitted as legal immigrants.

We cannot assess with certainty the number of illegal immigrants 

entering this country each year. As Commissioner Chapman has 

often said, “If we could count them, we could catch them .” In 1973, 

this subcommittee estimated that there were 1 to 2 million illegal 

aliens in the United States. However, the dramatic growth of illegal 

aliens apprehended in each year since 1965 suggests that the number 

of illegal aliens in the United States is rapidly increasing. We now 

estimate, and I emphasize, it is an estimate, tha t the number of illegal 

aliens in this country may be between 4 and 12 million.

As the House Committee on the Judiciary has noted, the primary 

reason for the illegal alien problem is the economic imbalance between 

the United States and the countries from which illegal immigrants 

come, most notably Mexico. As long as jobs are available for those 

who enter this country illegally or for those who enter legally as nonimmigrants and illegally obtain employment, the influx of unauthorized 

immigration will continue. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, this problem 

must be perceived as a question of economic incentives and disincentives. It is my personal view tha t we will only successfully deal with 

this problem when the United States becomes an economic wasteland 

for any illegal immigrant.

As witnesses have testified before this subcommittee in the past, 

the adverse economic impact of the illegal alien is dramatic. Illegally 

employed aliens:

One, take jobs normally filled by American workers; not only agricultural jobs in the Southwest, but high-paying jobs in metropolitan 

areas where the illegal alien is harder to apprehend;

Two, compete, as low-skilled laborers, most directly with unskilled 

ethnic or minority group members, many of whom may be MexicanAmericans or lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens;

Three, depress the wages of American workers;

Four, contribute to the balance-of-payments deficit by sending 

money out of the United States; and

Five, impose costs on the American taxpayer by taking jobs which 

would otherwise be performed by individuals on welfare.

With 7 percent unemployment, the United States can no longer 

conceive of itself as a people of plenty with inexhaustible opportunity 

for all who wish to come here. The congressionally prescribed limits 

on immigration represent recognition of this reality. The question 

today is whether we will take effective measures to enforce those 

limits by prohibiting employment of illegal aliens and raising the 

penalties for those illegal aliens who seek employment here. If we 

do not act effectively, the tide of illegal aliens will abate only when 

we have absorbed so many unauthorized immigrants tha t the United 

States is no longer perceived as economically more inviting than the 

countries from which they come.

This subcommittee has consistently recognized the need to prohibit 

employment of illegal aliens without abetting job discrimination 

against American citizens who resemble aliens. H.R. 982 attempts 

to meet this goal.

Section 2 of H.R . 982 would amend section 274(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to make it to be unlawful for any employer,
27

agent, or person who for a fee refers an alien for employment knowingly to employ, continue to employ, or refer for employment any 

alien who has not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence, 

unless such employment is authorized by the Attorney General.

The new section 274(b)(1) would stipulate that an employer, refer rer, or agent shall not be deemed to have violated the subsection 

if he has made a bona fide inquiry as to whether the applicant is a 

citizen or an alien, and if an alien, whether he is lawfully admitted 

for permanent residence. That section would also provide tha t an 

employer, referrer, or agent can demonstrate prima facie proof of such 

a bona fide inquiry by securing a signed statem ent frcm the person 

employed or referred that such person is a citizen, a permanent resident alien, or an alien authorized by the Attorney General to accept 

employment. The signed statement would be in writing and would have 

to conform with regulations prescribed by the Attorney General.

The three-step penalty structure authorized by the amended 

section 274 would begin with the Attorney General or his agent 

serving a citation informing the offending employer, agent, or referrer 

of an ap parent violation. A second offense within 2 years of the service 

of such a citation would authorize the Attorney General to assess a 

civil penalty of not more than $500 for each alien with respect to 

whom a violation occurs. A violation subsequent to the assessment of 

a civil penalty would expose the offender to a criminal conviction 

with a maximum punishment of $1,000 fine and 1 year imprisonment 

for each violation.

The Department of Justice believes that II.R . 982 can and should 

be strengthened to more effectively (1) prohibit employment of illegal 

aliens, (2) protect American citizens against discrimination proscribed 

by title \ II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and (3) promote enforcement of its provisions.

The Department recommends that in the future each employer, 

agent, or referrer be required to take affirmative steps to determine 

whether each applicant for employment is an American citizen or an 

alien entitled to work. As witnesses have testified before, what 

troubles us, Mr. Chairman, is under the present provision of the bill 

an illegal alien is only required to certify tha t he is a legal alien, and 

if he is already inclined to violate an American law to get here illegally, 

we are concerned that his signing of a statement tha t he is a legal 

alien will really provide very little deterrent.

Under our approach the Department would promulgate regulations 

setting forth the steps an employer must take to ascertain if an 

individual is entitled to work; inspection of a birth certificate or 

appropriate INS document could be required. An employer of an 

alien not authorized to woik would be held liable if he failed to make 

the required inquiry. These provisions would be ccnsistent with 

existing social security regulations which require tha t an applicant 

for a social security card prove that he is a citizen or tha t he has 

permission from INS to be employed.

Adoption of the Department’s recommendation would improve 

II.R . 982 in several ways. First, it would increase the detection of 

illegal aliens. II.R . 982, as now drafted, does not require an employer 

to take affirmative action to ascertain whether an applicant is an 

American citizen or an alien illegally peim itted to work; therefor0

many illegal aliens are likely to continue to go undetected.

49 -7 69 — 75------ 3
2S

In addition, the recommended approach would assure equal tre atmen t for all Americans. 1 do not think there is any committee of the Congress that is more concerned about that than this committee. Under II.R . 982 as presently drafted, an American citizen with a foreign surname or foreign accent might be required to execute an affidavit regarding his citizenship in order to get a job, while other Americans might not be asked for a similar statement. If the D epart­ ment’s recommendation is adopted, all Americans would be subject 

to the same inquiries in seeking employment. <<

More important, the Dep artm ent’s proposal would remove the possibility tha t II.R . 982 will operate to encourage some employers to discriminate against Americans who resemble aliens. H R . 982 as now drafted recognizes that the risk of hiring an illegal alien may encourage some employers to “play it safe” bv hiring only people who clearly appear to be American citizens; thus H.R. 982 may encourage, unwittingly of course, violations of title A l l of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination against American citizens on the basis of national origin. The provision now in H .R. 982 immunizing an employer who makes a bona fide inquiry, usually by obtaining a signed statement, may reduce, but not eliminate, the risk that the statute will abet discrimination against American citizens on the basis of national origin. The Departm ent’s proposal, however, would require steps to be taken to establish that all applicants are eligible to work. It would eliminate the possibility that an employer will reject American citizens who resemble aliens in order to avoid 

taking steps to determine their eligibility to work. The Department’s proposal would also make H.R . 982 more enforceable by establishing clear guidelines for employers and objective 

tests to determine compliance with the law. The D epartment supports the three-step penalty structure proposed in H.R . 982. This penalty structure would provide fair and effective sanctions against employers, agents, or referrers who violate this act. May I parenthetically mention that when the Department originally testified on this legislation some 3 or 4 years ago, the Department’s position was that it would be wiser to have a stiffer criminal penalty for the first violation. If you really think about t hat, and I know you < 

have, the civil penalty, in our judgment, is more effective. A criminal penalty carries with it all sorts of procedural steps, and often, at least in the first instance, it would be less effective in deterring this than a swift civil penalty which would carry with it less of the procedural ► 

burden than a criminal process and, of course, for the repeated violator 

the criminal process is available. The Department also believes tha t H.R . 982 should include pro­ visions which increase the sanctions against an alien who illegally finds employment in the United States. The Department is prepared to work with the subcommittee to develop disincentives to influence the illegal alien. Such disincentives could include, and now I am being 

suggestive only: One, authorization of summary seizure and forfeiture of vehicles used for smuggling illegal aliens, a provision which was included in H.R . 982 as reported by the House Judiciary Committee last year; Two, administrative imposition of a substantial civil penalty against illegal aliens who accept employment; such a penalty would be partic-
ularly effective with regard to tlie many illegal aliens who hold high 

paying jobs on a permanent basis; and

Three, prohibition of payments of Federal funds to illegal aliens. 

The Department of Justice continues to support section 1 of H .R. 

9S2. B ut tha t goes on to other more technical amendments which I 

will defer to Mr. Bernsen and Mr. Chapman in the event tha t you 

should have questions on it.

I think tha t would conclude the thrust of our testimony and what 

I regard as the crucial provisions of this bill. If you have any questions, Mr. Chairm an, I shall be delighted to atte mpt to answer them.

Mr. E ilberg. Mr. Silberman, according to the schedule we had 

planned to have Mr. Chapman testify separately. Do I understand 

tha t his statement is included within yours?

Mr. Silberman. He has a separate statement. We could submit 

it for the record as well as the balance of my statement, and we will 

both be available to answer questions.

Mr. Eilberg. All right. Your statement and Commissioner Chapman’s statem ent then will be included in the record without objection.

[The prepared statements of Acting Attorney General Silberman 

and Commissioner Chapman follow:]

Statement of L aurence H. Silberman, Acting Attorney General

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you to discuss H.R. 982. H .R. 982 addresses a critical national problem— the flood of illegal immigration. The principal provision of H.R. 982 aims at the heart of this problem by prohibiting persons from knowingly employing illegal aliens, thus reducing th e economic incentive for illegal immigration. The l)ep art- inent of Justice has supported H.R. 982 in the past. We continue to believe th at employment of illegal aliens must be prohibited. We believe, however, that Congress must enact stron ger provisions than are presently contained in H.R. 982 

to assure th at this prohibition is observed an d enforced. Congress has established a policy of controlled immigration. You have set an annual limit on immigration, 394,000 in fiscal year 1974. Furthermore, Congress has wisely and humanely established guidelines for admitting immigrants; the reuniting of families and the admission of needed workers are the principal purposes to be promoted. Total immigration, however, bears no relation to the program you have prescribed. Last year the Immigration and Naturalization Service located 788,000 deportable aliens—twice the number of aliens admitted as legal 

immigrants. We cannot assess with certainty the number of illegal immigrants entering this country each year. As Commissioner Chapman has often said, “If we could count them, we could catch them.” In 1973, this Subcommittee estimated that there were one to two million illegal aliens in the United States. However, the dramatic growth of illegal aliens apprehended in each year since 1965 suggests that the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. is rapidly increasing. We now believe tha t the number of illegal aliens in this country may be between four and twelve million. As the House Committee on the Judiciary has noted, the primary reason for the illegal alien problem is the economic imbalance between the U.S. and the countries from which illegal immigrants come, most notably Mexico. As long as jobs are available for those who enter this country illegally or for those who enter legally as non-immigrants and illegally obtain employment, the influx of unauthorized 

immigration will continue. As witnesses have testified before this Subcommittee in the past, the adverse economic impact of the illegal alien is dramatic. Illegally employed aliens: (1) Take jobs normally filled by American workers; not only agricultural jobs in the Southwest, but high paying jobs in metropolitan areas where the illegal 

alien is harder to apprehend; (2) Compete, as low skilled laborers, most directly with unskilled ethnic or minority group members, many of whom may be Mexican-Americans or lawfully 

admitted permanent resident aliens;

(3) Depress the wages of American workers;
(4) Contr ib ute t o th e Ba lan ce o f P ay m en ts de fic it by s en di ng m on ey out of th e 

U nited S ta te s; an d (5) Im po se co sts on th e American ta xpayer by ta kin g j ob s which wou ld o th erwise be pe rfor m ed by in di vi du al s on we lfare. W ith 7% un em pl oy m en t, th e U nited S ta te s can no long er co nc eive of its elf as a pe op le of pl en ty with in ex hau st ib le opport unit y fo r all who wish to come he re. The Con gres sion ally p re sc rib ed lim its on im m ig ra tion r ep re se nt reco gn iti on o f this re al ity. T he qu es tio n to day is w het her we will ta ke effecti ve m ea su re s to en force th os e lim its by pr oh ib itin g em pl oym en t of ille gal aliens an d ra is in g th e pe na ltie s for th os e ille gal aliens who seek em pl oy m en t he re. If we do n o t act effectively, th e tide of ille gal ali ens will ab ate on ly wh en we ha ve ab so rb ed so m an y u n ­ au th or iz ed im m ig ra nt s th a t th e U .S . is no long er pe rc eive d as ec on om ically 

mor e in vitin g th an th e co un trie s from wh ich th ey com e. Thi s Sub co m m itte e ha s co nsi st entl y rec og nize d th e ne ed to pro hib it em pl oy ­ m en t of ille gal aliens, w ith out abett in g jo b di sc rim in at io n ag ain st Ame ric an citiz en s wh o res em ble ali en s. II .I I. 982 att em p ts to m ee t th is goal.

Se ction 2 of I I .It . 982 wou ld am en d Se cti on 274(b) of th e Im m ig ra tion an d 

N ati onali tv Act to mak e it to b e un law fu l for a ny e mploy er, ag en t, or pe rson wh o for a fee r efers an a lien for e m pl oy m en t kn ow ingly to employ , co nt in ue to e mploy , or re fe r fo r em pl oy m en t any alien wh o ha s not be en law fu lly adm it te d for per­ m an en t resid en ce , un les s s uc h em pl oy m en t is a uth or iz ed b y th e A ttorn ey Ge fteral. The ne w se ction 27 4(b) (1) wou ld st ip ula te th a t an em pl oy er , re fe rrer , or ag en t sh all n o t be de em ed to ha ve vio la te d th e su bs ec tio n if he ha s m ad e a bona fid e

in quir e a s to w he th er the a pplica nt is a c iti ze n or a n ali en , and if an ali en , w he th er he is law fu lly adm it te d for perm anent resid en ce . T h a t se ct ion wou ld also pr ov id e 

th a t an em pl oy er, re fe rre r, or agent ca n dem onst ra te pr im a fa ci e proo f o f su ch a 

bona fide in quir y by se cu ring a sign ed st ate m ent from th e pe rs on em pl oy ed or re fe rred th a t su ch pe rson is a citiz en , a perm anent re si den t alien, or an ali en auth ori ze d bv the A ttor ne y G en er al to ac ce pt e m pl oy m en t. The sig ne d st ate m en t wo uld be in w riting and wo uld hav e to co nfor m w ith re gu la tion s pr es cr ib ed by 

th e A ttorn ey Gen eral. T he th re e- st ep pen al ty str u c tu re auth ori ze d by th e am en ded se ction 274 wo uld be gi n w ith th e A ttor ney G en er al or his ag ent se rv in g a cit ati on in fo rm in g th e offend ing em ploy er, ag en t, or re fe rrer of an appare nt vi ol at io n. A seco nd offens e w ithi n tw o ye ars of th e se rv ice of su ch a citat io n wou ld au th or iz e th e A ttorn ey Gen er al to ass ess a civ il penalt y of not mor e th an $500 fo r ea ch ali en w ith r es pe ct to w hom a vi ol atio n oc cu rs. A v iola tion s ub se quen t to t he a ss es sm en t of a civil pe nal ty wo uld expo se th e offend er to a crim in al c onv ic tion w ith a m ax i­ m um punis hm en t of $10 00 fine and on e yea r im priso nm en t fo r ea ch vi ol atio n. The D ep ar tm en t of Ju st ic e be lie ve s th a t II. 11. 982 can an d shou ld be st re ng th en ed to mo re effecti ve ly (1) pr ohi bi t em pl oy m en t of illegal aliens , (2) pro te ct Am eri can citize ns ag ai nst disc rim in at io n pr os cribed by T itle V II of th e Civ il R ig ht s Act of 1964 an d (3) pro m ot e en fo rc em en t of its prov isions . Ti e D ep ar tm en t reco mmen ds th a t in th e fu tu re eac h em pl oy er, ag en t or refe rrer be re qui re d to ta ke af firm ativ e st ep s to de te rm in e w het he r ea ch ap pl ic an t for em ph y in en t is an Am eri can citize n or an ali en en titled to work. U nd er th is appre ac h th e D ep ar tm en t wo uld pro m ul ga te re gu latio ns se tt in g fo rt h th e step s an em pl oy er m us t ta ke to as ce rt ai n if an indi vi du al is e nti tl ed to wor k; insp ec tio n of a bir th ce rtificate or appro pri at e IN S d oc um en t could be r eq ui re d. An em ploy er of an alie n no t au thor ized to work wo uld be he ld lia ble if he faile d to mak e th e 

re qui re d in qu ir y. Th ese pr ov isions wo uld be co ns iste nt w ith ex istin g Soc ial Sec ur ity regu la tio ns wh ich re qu ire th a t an ap pl ic an t for a Social Sec ur ity ca rd prov e th a t he is a cit ize n or th at he ha s pe rm iss ion fro m IN S to be em ploy ed . Ado pt io n of th e D ep ar tm en t's re co m m en da tion wo uld im pr ov e II .I I. 982 in seve ral wav s. Fi rs t, it wo uld increa se th e de tect io n of ille gal ali en s. II .I I. 982 as now dra ft ed doe s no t requ ire an em pl oy er to ta ke affirm ativ e ac tion to as ce rtai n w he th er an ap plican t is an American citiz en or a n ali en leg all y perm it te d to work; th er ef cr e, m an y illegal ali ens ar e lik ely to co nt in ue to go undet ec te d. In ad ditio n, th e reco m men de d ap pro ac h wo uld as su re eq ua l tr eatm en t for all American s. Und er If .I I. 982 as pre se ntly dr af te d, an American citiz en w ith a for eig n su rn am e or foreign ac ce nt m ig ht be re qu ired to ex ec ut e an affida vi t re ­ ga rd in g his cit izen sh ip in or de r to ge t a job, wh ile oth er American s mig ht no t be as ke d fo r a sim ila r st ate m ent. If th e D ep art m ent’s r ec om m en da tion is ad op te d, all American s wo uld be su bj ec t to th e sa m e inqu iri es in se ek in g em pl oy m en t. M or e im port ant, th e D ep art m en t’s pr op os al wo uld rem ov e th e po ss ib ility th a t II .11. 982 will op er at e to e nc ou ra ge s om e em ploy ers to di sc rim in at e ag ai ns t Am eri-
31

ca ns wh o re se mble a lie ns. II .R . 982 as now d ra ft ed re co gn izes th at th e ris k of hiring an illegal alien may en co ur ag e so me em pl oy er s to “ pl ay it sa fe ,” by hi ring on ly pe op le who clea rly appear to be American ci tize ns ; th u s H .R . 982 m ay en co ur ag e vi ol atio ns of Title V II of th e Civil Rig ht s Act of 1964, wh ich pr ohib its di sc rim ina­ tion ag ai ns t Ame ric an ci tize ns on th e basis of national origin. The prov isi on now 

in H .R . 982 im mun izing an em pl oy er who m ak es a bona fid e in qu iry, us ua lly by 

obta in in g a sig ned st ate m ent, m ay red uc e, b u t n o t elim in at e, th e ris k th at th e sta tu te will ab et di sc rim in at io n ag ai ns t American citiz en s on the* basis of nat io nal origin. The D epart m ent’s pr op os al, ho wev er, wou ld re qu ire st ep s to be ta ke n to es ta bl is h th a t all ap pl ic an ts a re e lig ible to w ork. It wo uld el im in at e th e po ss ibili ty th a t an em pl oy er will re je ct American citiz en s wh o re se m ble aliens in or de r to 

av oi d ta kin g step s to det er m in e th eir elig ibili ty to wo rk.

w The D ep art m en t’s pr op os al wou ld als o m ak e H .R . 982 m or e en fo rc ea ble by es ta blish in g clea r gu idelines fo r em pl oy er s and obje cti ve te sts to de te rm in e 

co m pl ia nc e w ith th e law . T he D epart m ent su pport s th e th re e-s te p p en alt y st ru ctu re pr op os ed in H .R . 982. Thi s penalt y str u ctu re wo uld pro vid e fa ir and effecti ve sa nc tion s

« ag ai nst em pl oy ers, ag en ts or re fe rrer s wh o vio la te th is Ac t. T he D epart m ent als o be lie ve s th a t H .R . 982 sh ou ld in cl ud e pr ov isions which in cr ea se th e sa nc tion s again st an ali en wh o ill eg ally fin ds em pl oy m en t in th e U nited Sta te s. The D epart m ent is pre pa re d to work w ith the* Sub co m m itte e to de ve lop disinc en tiv es to in flue nc e th e illegal alien. Su ch di sinc en tive s co uld 

in cl ud e: (1) A ut ho ri za tion of su m m ary seizure and fo rf ei tu re of ve hicles us ed fo r sm ug gl in g ille gal ali en s, a pr ov is io n wh ich wa s in cl ud ed in H .R . 982 as re port ed 

by th e Hou se Ju dic ia ry C om m itte e la st yea r; (2) A dm in is tr at iv e im po si tion of a su bst anti al civil p en alt y ag ai ns t ille gal aliens wh o ac ce pt em pl oy m en t ; su ch a penalt y wou ld be part ic ula rl y effecti ve w ith re ga rd to th e m an y ill eg al alie ns who ho ld hi gh payin g jo bs on a per m anent 

ba si s; an d (3) Pro hi bi tion of paym ents of Fed er al fu nds to ill eg al aliens . Thi s D epart m ent of Ju sti ce co nt in ue s to su pport se ct io n 1 of H .R . 9S2. I t wou ld m ak e se ve ra l am endm ents to se ction 245 of th e Act wh ich pre se nt ly au ­ th or iz es an Eas te rn H em is ph er e non-i m m ig ra nt to ad ju st his sta tu s to th a t of a pe rm an en t re si de nt alien w ithout le av in g t h e U nited S ta te s to se cu re an im m ig ra nt visa. The lang ua ge of ex is ting su bs ec tio n (a) re la ti ng to th e in el ig ib ility of ali en crew men wo uld be tr ansf err ed to su bs ec tio n (c) which list s th e oth er disq ua lif i­ ca tion s. Su bs ec tio n (a) wou ld be a m en de d to e st ab lish el ig ib ility fo r an im m ig ra nt visa a t th e tim e th e ap pli cati on is filed ra th e r th an a t th e tim e it is ap pro ved . The D epart m ent ag rees t h a t th e a ppl ic an t sh ou ld not be p en al iz ed f or a dm in is tr ati ve de la ys not a tt ri b u ta b le to him . Se ctio n 1 of th e bi ll wou ld m ak e th re e am en dm en ts to su bs ec tion 24 5(c). Fir st , aliens wh o ar e n o t de fine d as im m edia te re la tives an d wh o ac ce pt unauth ori zed em pl oy m en t pri or to filin g an applica tion wou ld be ineligible fo r an ad ju stm en t of st atu s. T he D epart m ent su pport s th is a tt e m p t to lim it u n ­ auth ori zed em pl oy m en t by nonim m ig ra nts . T he se co nd ch an ge in su bs ec tio n (c) 

w wou ld di sq ua lify from a d ju stm e n t ali en s ad m it te d in tr an sit w ithout visa . A ltho ug h a D ep ar tm en ta l re gu la tion pr es cr ib in g s uc h in el ig ib ility ha s be en uph el d 

in th e S ec on d Circu it, M ak. v. IN S ., 435 F. 2d 728 (19 70), th e D epart m ent fa vo rs

le gi sl at iv e re co gn iti on of th is di sq ua lifica tion . The th ir d m aj or ch an ge to su bs ec tio n 245 (c) wo uld re st or e adju st m ent of 

« st atu s elig ibili ty to W es te rn Hem isph ere aliens. T he pre se nt di sq ua lif ication, en ac te d in 1965, ha s cr ea te d m any ha rd sh ip s an d lead s to un ne ce ss ar y ex pe nse by re qu irin g th e ali en to re tu rn to his co un try of origin to apply for an im m ig ra nt visa from a co ns ul ar office. T he num be r of W es tern H em is ph er e ali en s gra nte d adju st m ent wo uld be ch ar ge d ag ai nst th e W es te rn H em isph er e nu m er ical lim ita ti o n by su bs ec tio n 24 5(b). The D ep ar tm en t co nt in ue s to su ppo rt Se cti on 3 of th e bill which wo uld requ ire officer s an d em ploy ee s of th e D ep ar tm en t of H ea lth , Edu ca tion an d Welf are to dis clo se to IN S th e na m e an d m os t rece nt ad dr es s of an y alien not lawfully in th e U ni te d St at es wh o is re ce iv in g we lfare be ne fit s. How ev er, as we poin te d out in 1973, we kn ow of no pre se nt pr oc ed ur e unde r wh ich H E W em ploy ee s ca n de te rm in e w he th er a welf are re ci pie nt is lawfully in th e U nited Sta te s. Since th e ne ed fo r de ny ing socia l se curi ty ca rd s to ille gal ali en s, and th e id en tif icat io n of su ch ali en s th ro ug h socia l se curi ty reco rds, is a m a tt e r of wide- sp re ad pu blic co nc er n, th e D ep art m ent su pport s eff orts in th is dire ctio n. T he Se rvi ce ha s co n-
32

tinu ed to work with the Social Security Administration to impleme nt section 137 

of the Social Security Amendments of 1972; P.L. 92-603, 86 Stat. 1329, which 

requires, inter alia, th at social security accou nt applicants sub mit evidence of 

the ir citizenship or alien status.

The Department also supports section 4 of H.R . 982 which would impose 

criminal penalties for falsifying certain immigration documents, or for use of 

such falsified documents. The amendmen t would expand the present language 

to make it applicable to any “b order crossing card, alien registration receipt 

card, or other document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or as 

evidence of authorized stay in the United States.” This amendment is necessitated 

by the restrictive reading of the present sta tute announced in United States v. 

Campos-Serrano, 404 U.S. 293 (1971).

The Departme nt also supports sections 5 and 6 of the bill which provide a 

savings provision and prescribe a delayed effective date.

The Department of Justice believes th at our laws must be both humane and 

enforceable. At first glance some of the recomm endations we have made today 

may app ear harsh. We are a nation of immigrants; but we must remember th at 

we are a natio n of legal immigrants. You, the Congress, have determined th at 

immigration must be lim ited. We believe the limits you have established must be 

enforced. H.R . 982 as now d rafted attempts to move in the right direction. However, the Department believes th at the recomm endations it has made must be 

ado pted if H .R. 982 is to effectively assist us in moving toward our common goal.

Statement by Leonard F. Chapman, J r., Commissioner, I mmigration and

Naturalization Service

Chairman Eilberg, members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure to appear 

here tod ay to present the views of th e Immigration Service on H.R . 982—legislation th at we consider to be extremely im portant.

This subcommittee, I know, is well aware of the serious problem th at illegal 

immigration poses to our nation and to our economy. Through hearings that 

began in 1971, you have heard reams of testimony abo ut the impact of illegal 

aliens on jobs, on welfare, on taxes, and on public facilities such as schools and 

hospitals. The problem was serious four years ago when you began looking into 

it, it was worse in 1972, when this legislation was introduced for th e first time, and 

it has grown significantly since then, as lack of controls has allowed literally 

millions of persons to pour across our borders almost unimpeded and take jobs.

Last year the Immigration Service appre hended nearly 800,000 illegal aliens— 

equal to the entire population of the District of Columbia. Though this was 10 

times the number we apprehended just a decade ago, it was prob ably no more 

than one o ut of three or four who entered the coun try illegally—or entered legally 

as a stud ent or visitor, then simply found a job and stayed here illegally.

We really don’t know how many illegal aliens there are in this country. The 

estimates range from four million to 12 million; the actual num ber is probably 

somewhere in between—perhaps abo ut eight million or so. But the lack of an 

absolute number does not challenge the existence of a problem of great magnitude. 

We know how many we apprehend ed, we know how many visas were issued last 

year, and we know approxim ately how many vistors failed to depart the country 

when their visas expired. And it is painfully evident to our inve stigators and Border 

Patrol Agents th at they are catching only a small percenta ge of the violators 

because of the lim itatio ns of funds and personnel.

Most aliens enter the United States illegally from Mexico, although there are 

great numbers who come from Central and South America, the Caribbean, Asia, 

the Fa r East and even Europe. Many e nter with tem por ary visas, find a job, are 

quickly absorbed into the ethnic population in the larger cities and simply disapp ear from view. Our records fail to account for the departure of 10 percent of 

the more tha n 6 million foreign visitors each year. Allowing for imperfections in 

the system, we believe th at five percent are actually overstays, who have rem ained 

here to work and live.

Th at amounts to 300,000 per year, which may not seem like a large number. 

However, their impact weighs more heavily than the numbers would suggest. 

Many are students, or well-educated and skilled persons who obtain good paying 

jobs. One example of this type of illegal alien is an East Ind ian n ational whom we 

apprehen ded in Houston on Janu ary 22. He held a masters degree in electrical 

engineering from Stanford University, had left the country after earning his
33

de gr ee , th en re tu rn ed as a vis itor in 1970. He had he ld va riou s jo bs sin ce th en , and wh en ap pr eh en de d he wa s em pl oy ed a t Tex as In st ru m ents as a pro duct 

de ve lo pm en t e ng inee r e ar nin g o ve r $ 17,000 pe r y ea r. A Fr en ch ba ker wh om we ap pre hen ded he re in W as hi ng to n in Jan u ary is anoth er good ex am pl e. Il is sp ec ia lty all ow ed him to ear n $8 an ho ur , which 

am ounts to ov er $1,40 0 per m on th . We ap pr eh en d m an y in sim ilar situ at io ns . T he num ber of ov er st ay s an d oth er illegal ali ens wh o ar e em pl oy ed at ab ov e av er ag e pay is su bst anti al. An d th e job * th ey ar e ho lding, of te n w ithout pa yi ng adequate ta x on th eir inc om e, co uld an d 

sh ou ld be oc cu pied by an American or a leg al re side nt ali en. I ha ve br ou gh t docum enta ry ev iden ce of m an y si m ilar ex am ples w ith me . F or th e sa ke of tim e, I will not go in to ea ch of th es e in de tail, al th ough I wo uld lik e to bri efl y m en tion so m e othe rs. In M aine , we re ce ntly foun d a co m pu te r te ch ni ci an e ar ni ng $ 900 a m onth an d a sa le sm an m ak in g $30,0 00 a yea r; i n Bos ton we fo un d a ch em ist ea rn in g $ 6 an ho ur a nd a welde r e ar nin g $ 10 an h our; in Pro vi ­ de nc e we foun d tw o pain te rs ea rn in g $8.65 an ho ur ; in Ne w York we fo un d a plu m be r mak in g $12 an ho ur , an d last m onth he re in W as hi ng to n we ap pre hen ded 

a fo re m an working on co nst ru ct io n of th e M et ro m ak in g $8.44 an ho ur.

As yo u can see, th e j ob s we ar e ta lk in g a bout ar e go od pay in g jo bs , wh ich th o u ­ sa nd s of Ame ric an and leg al re side nt s ar e seek ing. The y ar e no t, as th e old st er eo ­ ty p e sugg ests, simpl y jo bs as field ha nd s to ilin g in th e h o t su n for a do lla r a day 

pi ck in g to m at oe s or co tton . In th re e m on th s la st fal l, our Ch ica go dis tric t in ve st ig at ors ap pr eh en de d 2,067 illegal aliens, of who m 1,913, or 93 pe rc en t, we re em pl oy ed . Of th os e working , 1,325, or 70 pe rc en t, we re ea rn in g $2.50 to $4.50 per hour; 148 were ea rn in g $4 .50 to $6.50 pe r ho ur and 61 were ea rn in g ov er $6.50 per ho ur. No jo b site is be yo nd th e re ac h of an ille gal ali en. In m id -J an uar y we ar re st ed tw o illegal Gr eeks, one wh o ha d re m aine d aft er his m er chant ship ca lle d a t th e port , an d th e othe r, his bro th er, was an over st ay visito r. T hey we re wor king on a pr oj ec t, re pa in ting th e S ta tu e of Lib er ty an d ea rn in g $9.71 pe r ho ur. The att ra cti on of obta in in g a jo b an d ea rn in g m on ey is so gr ea t th a t no ris k is to o lar ge, an d seem ingly no pr ic e is too hig h to ga in en tr y in to th e U ni te d Sta te s. Fe es pa id to sm ug glers to slip an alien fro m th e bo rd er in to cit ies su ch as Ch ica go , New ark, Phi la de lp hi a or W as hi ng to n ra ng e fro m $200 to $70 0 pe r alien. Las t fiscal yea r we ap pre hen ded 8,0 00 su ch sm ug glers in th e ac t of br in gi ng in 83,00 0 aliens. T he num ber of sm ug gled ali en s do ub le d from th e pr ev ious ye ar , wh ile sm ug gle rs ap pr eh en ded increa sed 27 pe rc en t. This is a n in di ca tio n, of course, th a t larg er v ehicles ca rr yin g bigg er loa ds of th is hu m an ca rg o are be ing em pl oy ed . 

In th e past de ca de th e num ber of ali ens bro ught in by th e av er ag e sm ug gler ha s 

incr ea se d fro m ju st th re e to m or e th an 10. Im m ig ra tion fr au d co nt in ue s ra m pant. Las t yea r our lim ited force, in ve st ig at ed ne ar ly 17,000 frau d cas es, tr ip le th e num be r of 10 ye ar s ag o. The use of counte r­ fe it, al te re d an d fr au dule ntl y ob ta in ed do cu m en ts is incr ea sing at an al ar m in g ra te , esp ecial ly in th e Sou th w es t Re gio n. Las t yea r we det ec te d 8,4 00 fr au du le nt bo rd er c ros sin g ca rd s in th a t ar ea , ne ar ly f ou r tim es th e num ber w e foun d in 1967. Sha m mar ria ge to ga in sta tu s unde r th e im m ig ra tion law s is anoth er co mm on fr audule nt pr ac tic e, which ha s grow n well be yo nd our ca pab ility to co nt ro l it. So me 80 pe rc en t of th e in ve st ig at io ns in th e Sou th w es t bord er reg ion in vo lv ed su ch marria ge s, an d in so me ar ea s up to 95 per ce nt of our in ve st ig at iv e eff ort is 

de vote d to look ing in to th es e cas es. Organ ize d m ar riag e rin gs ar e un co ve re d re gu la rly, w it h aliens pay in g $1,00 0 to $1,50 0 to m ar riag e ar ra nge rs . In W as hi ng to n th is p ast fall we ex po sed an o pe ra tion in which one U.S . citiz en had m ar ried 15 Afri ca ns fo r th e pu rp os e of fa ci lita ting 

th eir presen ce in th e countr y. Ill eg al ali ens h av e im pac t upon o ur n at io n well bey on d th e e m pl oy m en t m ar ket. In 1973 th e Califor ni a S ta te Socia l Welf are Boa rd est im ate d th e co st of welf are pay m en ts to illegal ali en s to b e a t leas t $100 mi llion a yea r. We fr eq uen tly d isco ve r oth er wa ys in wh ich illegal aliens dr ai n ou r ec on om y th ro ugh th e use of pu bl ic 

fu nd s, to wh ich th ey ar e not en titled . We cu rr en tly ha ve under deport at io n proc ee ding s in th e st ate of \\ ash in gt on an ali en wh o cla im s to be a citiz en of G ua te m al a. T his m an was bu ild in g an d had ne ar ly co mpl eted a ho m e, which wa s fe de ra lly fin an ce d und er a lo w -int er es t 

lo an ob ta in ed th ro ug h a self- he lp pr og ram. I be lie ve a su bst anti al port io n of th e n ati o n ’s mor e th an $3 bil lio n ba la nc e of 

paym ents deficit, co uld be el im in at ed if th e m on ey earn ed he re an d se nt out of 

th e co untr y by ille gal aliens co ul d be hal te d.
34

The loss to the country of unpaid taxes is undoubtedly substantial. We have 

been working with the Internal Revenue Service, and are continuing discussions 

with that service to determine how we can best work together to recover some of 

this money. As an indication of how much may be involved, this past year we 

cooperated with IRS in a pilot program with these results. Over a three month 

period we referred to IR S 1,700 illegal aliens whom we had apprehended. From 

this relatively small sample, taxes assessed were a quarter of a million dollars; 

the amount actually collected was $168,000.

In the first 10 days of January our Dallas office apprehended 87 illegal aliens.

This group was fraudulently claiming a total of 429 dependents for tax withholding purposes. One 18-year-old boy was claiming a total of 18 dependents on 

the W-4 form.

The influence of illegal aliens touches nearly every element of our society and •

our economy. Over the past several years these have been brought to the attention 

of the committee, so I won’t dwell on this aspect. However, I do want to emphasize 

that the problem, which has been studied and discussed for the past several years, 

is continuing to worsen daily.

I believe there are three alternative courses of action in the face of this growing *

flood.

One, we can continue to do wha t we have been doing. That is, as a nation, 

to stand by, almost helplessly, and watch the flood grow into a torrent. The 

Immigration Service can continue with its small force to apprehend the relatively 

few illegals it can handle, and either transport them back to their own countries 

and await their return, or turn them loose with a letter that tells them they must go 

home. In the latter case, we have been having to do that with increasing frequency, as funds have not been available to detain or to transport the aliens.

However, if the situation is allowed to continue unchecked there is no question 

but what many more will come. Populations in Mexico, the Dominican Republic, 

Colombia and other Latin American countries will double by 1990. Labor forces 

are growing even more rapidly. Mexic o’s labor force, which totaled 16 million 

in 1970, will be 28 million bv 1985 and 40 million by 1995.

The push-pull forces of limited opportunity in their own countries and the 

magnet of economic well being in the United States are driving these people 

northward. Without an effective deterrent that will continue for the foreseeable 

future.

The second alternative is to build a massive Immigration Service to deal with 

the problem. I suppose that with an army of Border Patrolmen and several 

thousand more investigators working in the cities, we might keep out most of the 

illegals, and eventually sift through the millions of persons in this country and find 

all those who don’t belong here. But that is obviously not only impractical, it is 

abhorrent to the American conscience. We are not a police state and no one in the 

Immigration Service advocates such tactics.

Tha t leaves a third alternative: to turn off the magnet tha t attracts these 

millions of persons to our country. That magnet, of course, is jobs. Employment of 

illegal aliens must be prohibited. II. R. 982 represents a real step in the right direction. I have, on many occasions, as the Committee knows, strongly supported the 

need for a national policy prohibiting such employment. I believe it is mandatory if *

we are to make any substantial progress in solving this severe national problem.

In addition, careful study should be given to any ways of strengthening the bill, 

such as those proposed b y Mr. Silberman, in order to assure th at the prohibition 

it would establish is observed and enforced. j

We have seen some evidence tha t such legislation will work. When such a law 

was in effect for a brief time in California, thousands of illegal aliens began leaving 

the state, some heading north to Oregon and Washington, others returning to 

Mexico. Our Immigration officers reported that many came in to our offices and 

asked to be returned to their own countries, because they believed they could no 

longer obtain employment. Employers also contacted us seeking advice and 

assistance.

We have had laws on the Federal books for many years tha t call for harsh 

penalties for illegally entering the United States. They have proven to be an ineffective deterrent to illegal entry. With the numbers that we apprehend— 800,000 

last year— it is obviously impractical to prosecute. Our laws call for, and illegal 

aliens do receive, all due process, which can stretch out for weeks, months or even 

years. Most of those we apprehend agree to voluntarily return to their homeland, 

thereby avoiding prosecution or lengthy formal deportation proceedings. And 

many come back to this country within days or even hours.
35

Though the illegal alien is himself in volation of the law , we shou ld not lose 

sight of the fa ct that great numbers are the v ictims of wrong doing m ore than the y 

are the perp etrators. Living in the coun try illegally, they are outs ide the protection of our law s and subject to unfair, unjus t and immoral treatm ent . Th e laws 

which have been aimed at the alien, are in some cases used to keep him in virtua l 

bond age, while he works off the paym ent to a smuggler or the fraudulent marriage 

arranger.

Ve t the emplo yer, who is the beneficiary of an employee who will work long 

hours at less than the stand ard wage, is beyo nd the reach of the law.

This to me seems to be a large void in our Immigration law, and one which thousands of employers are using to advanta ge to the detriment of our cou ntry and 

our econom y.

Some persons hav e voice d the opinion tha t passage of II.R . 982 would result in 

discrimination against all brown-skinned persons, and especially persons of Mexican-Ame rican ancestry. However, if II. It. 982 as now drafted, is enacted we will 

issue re gula tion th at will encourage and make it expedient for the e mployer to inquire 

of everyone as to citizenship or alien status— not jus t those who appear to be 

foreign born. And if the modifications recomm ended by Mr. Silberman are adopted 

the employe r will inquire of everyone as a matter of law. Ev er y job app lica nt will be 

treated equ ally , and the law will create no incentive for an emp loye r to discrim inate.

Further, anyo ne attemptin g to use the law for discrimin atory pra ctic es will be 

sub jec t to prosecution under the Civil Rig hts Act of 1964.

And finally, if the modifications to II.R . 982 recommended by Mr. Silberman 

are adop ted, an emplo yer will inquire of everyone as a mat ter of law rath er than 

regu latio n— not jus t those who appear to be foreign born. Ev er y job applicant 

will be trea ted equ ally and the law will create no incentiv e for an emp loye r to 

discrimin ate.

I also believe that passage of effe ctiv e legislation will aid Mexican- Am eric an 

and other minorities in this cou ntry , by helping them to overcome one of the 

major sources of competition for ava ilable jobs— the illegal alien. I believe all 

American and legal resident labor will benefit from this bill becoming law, but I 

believe th at minorities will benefit more than anyone else.

Mr. Chairman, members of this subcomm ittee, I believe legislation is the only 

answ er to the problem of illegal immigration to this country . Not onl y will it fill a 

void in our immigration law and disco urage illegal entry of addition al persons, it 

will enable the Immigration Service to impr ove its current enforcem ent. Passage 

of effe ctiv e legislation would allow our officers to concentrate their efforts on 

assistin g the va st majority of emp loyers who would observe the law and acting 

again st the relativ ely small number who would violate it. This would obvious ly 

be a better use of manpower, and more productive, than pursuing millions of 

illegal aliens.

I would be remiss if I did not point out tha t in order for the Imm igra tion Service 

to enforce a new law will require additional funds and personnel. As I have 

pointed out in t he past, we are c urr ently inunda ted in nearly every area of responsibility . And to imply that we can assum e more respo nsibility witho ut increases in 

resources— both personnel and money — is to be less than honest wit h this 

committee.

I am confident tha t with the add itio nal resources and the passage of effective 

legislation the Immigration Service can quickly make ava ilab le at least one 

million desirable jobs for Americans and legal resident aliens. I believe that without such legislation the problem of illegal immigration is insoluble. I also fear that 

we cannot delay much longer withou t seriously thre aten ing the future of our 

eco nom y and our count ry.

Th an k you for giving me the opportu nit y to present this statem ent. I will now 

be pleased to answer your questions.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Silberman, the press and the public as well 

continue to press us regarding the numbers of illegal aliens in this 

country. And you and Commissioner Chapman use the figures cf 4 to 

12 million. Would you care to elaborate on that first? How do you 

arrive at those figures?

Mr. Silberman. Well, as I indicated it is an estimate, and I told 

General Chapman when we came down here if you asked th at question 

1 was going to defer to him. Commissioner.
36

Mr. Chapman. Thank von. Mr. Chairman. I have often said tha t 

we do not know how many illegal aliens there are here. We do make 

estimates, and they are based on the experience of our investigators, 

our Border Patrol agents in the field, and upon data that we do know 

to be accurate. For instance, we know we apprehended about 800,000 

illegal aliens the last fiscal year. We know there were more than 

6 million visitors to the United States last year and between 5 and 10 

percent are not shown to have departed. And we also know that our 

Border Patrol is able to answer on the average about one-half of the *

sensor alarms tha t they get tha t are set up along the border.

In addition, we have thousands of leads from the public, both 

letters and phone calls, as to the presence of illegal aliens to which 

we cannot follow up because of lack of money and manpower. Our *

investigators are aware of the presence of concentrations of illegal 

aliens in various areas. So our estimates are based on those factors, 

and we do estimate that there is at least 4 or 5 million and perhaps 

as many as 10 or 12 million illegal aliens in the country at this time.

I would like to draw attention also to the fact that I believe we are 

seeing only the beginning of the tide of illegal aliens entering this 

country. I believe that if the situation is allowed to continue unchecked 

tha t there is no question but that many more will come. The population in Mexico, the Dominican Republic. Colombia, and other Latin 

American countries will double by 1990. The labor forces are growing 

even more rapidly. Mexico’s labor force totaled 16 million in 1970 

and will be 28 million by 1985 and 40 million by 1995. It is interesting 

to note that about 45 percent of the people in Mexico today are less 

than 15 years old. And that is typical of many of the Latin American 

countries.

Mr. Eilbekg. Commissioner, for the benefit of the members of the 

subcommittee perhaps who have not read your statem ent, and for 

those in the room, it may be appropriate for you to, if you will, summarize your statement at this point, and then I think it would be 

more effective for us to ask questions and ask you gentlemen to 

respond. You do not have to read the statement word for word, but 

just so we have the basic thru st of your statement.

Mr. Chapman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, of course, will be « 

happy to do so.

And it is a pleasure to appeal' here today to present the views of 

the service that I represent on II.R. 982, legislation that we believe 

to be extremely important. *

The subcommittee is, of course, aware of and has heard a great 

amount of testimony through hearings that began in 1971 on the 

impact of illegal aliens on jobs, welfare, taxes, public facilities such 

as schools and hospitals. The problem was serious 4 years ago when 

you first began to look into it, and we are certain that it has grown 

significantly since.

Last year we did apprehend about 800,000 illegal aliens. That is 

equal to the entire population of the District of Columbia. Although 

it was 10 times more than we apprehended just 10 years ago, we 

probably located only 1 out of 3 or 4 at the most of those who entered 

illegally, or entered legally as tourists, or students, and then found a 

job and went to work.
37

As I have said, we really do not know the totals that are here, but 

we know', we are certain, it is a substantial number.

Most aliens enter the United States illegally from Mexico, but 

great numbers come from Central and South America, the Caribbean, 

Asia, the Far E ast, and Europe. Many e nter with tourist visas, temporary visas and simply never leave. Our records fail to account for 

the departure for a bout 10 percent of the more than 6 million foreign 

visitors tha t enter each year, and allowing for imperfections in our 

system, and there are some there, we think that 5 percent is a realistic figure of the overstay. This amounts to about 300,000 a year 

which ma} not seem like a large number, but is it significant because 

these people are educated, skilled, and they obtain the good paying 

jobs. I include in my statement a number of examples of those w’e have 

arrested in high paying jobs, and I am prepared to furnish for the 

record a number of other anecdotes of that kind. The jobs we are 

talking about here are good paying jobs which thousands of Americans 

and legal residents are seeking. They are not, as the stereotype suggests, simply jobs as field hands toiling in the hot sun for a dollar or 

two a day. That may have been true a number of years ago. It is 

not true today.

The a ttraction of obtaining a job and earning money is so great tha t 

no risk is too large, and apparently no price is too high to get into the 

United States. Fees paid to smugglers range from $200 to $700 per 

alien. Last year we apprehended over 8,000 smugglers in the act of 

smuggling over 83,000 aliens. That is an increase in smugglers of about 

27 percent over the previous year.

Immigration fraud continues rampant as a means of getting into 

the country illegally. Fraudulent marriages, fake birth certificates, 

fraudulent border crossing cards, organized marriage rings are at 

work, and we uncover them regularly.

Just this past fall we located one U.S. citizen who had married 15 

Africans for the purpose of facilitating entry into the country.

These aliens have an impact on our Nation well beyond the employment market as has been said so many times. In my statement 

there are a number of examples of impact on welfare payments, the 

balance of payments abroad, the loss to the country of unpaid taxes 

and the influence of illegal aliens touching every element of our 

society. These have been brought many times to the attention of the 

committee, so I will not dwell on this aspect. I ju st want to emphasize 

tha t the situation is worsening daily.

I think there are three possible general courses of action. The first, 

of course, would be to continue what we have been doing; tha t is, as 

a nation, to stand by and allow the flood to continue, and watch the 

flood grow into a torrent. We could continue to apprehend the numbers that we can with our limited resources, and the number we are 

able to remove with our limited resources.

The second alternative would be to build a massive immigration 

service. I suppose if w’e had an army of border patrolmen and thousands 

of investigators, w’e probably could keep out most of the illegals and 

sift through the 215 million or so Americans to find the few million 

illegals, but I do not think that is a practical solution. And I think it is 

abhorrent to our ethics in this country as well.
38

So th at leaves a third alternative, which we advocate, and t hat is to 

turn off the magnet that draws the people here, tha t attracts the 

millions of people to our country, and tha t magnet, of course, is the 

job, the opportunity to get a job. I believe that employment of illegal 

aliens must be prohibited. I have on many occasions, as the committee 

knows, strongly supported the need for a national policy prohibiting 

such employment, and 1 believe it is mandatory if we are to make any 

substantial progress in solving this severe national problem.

I also believe careful stu dy should be given to any ways of strengthening the bill such as those proposed by Mr. Silberman in order to 

assure the prohibition it would establish is observed and can be 

enforced.

And in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe that legislation is the 

only answer to the problem of illegal aliens, and illegal immigration 

into this country. Not only will it fill a void in our immigration law 

and discourage illegal entry of additional persons, but it will enable 

us to improve the current enforcement. Passage of effective legislation would allow officers to concentrate their efforts in assisting 

the vast majority of employers who would obey the law' voluntarily, 

and acting against the relatively small number who would violate 

it. This would obviously be a better use of manpower and more 

productive than what we are doing now, which is pursuing millions 

of illegal aliens.

I would be remiss, however, if I did not point out that in order 

for the Immigration Service to enforce the new law, it will require 

additional funds and personnel. As I pointed out in the past, we 

are currently inundated and overwhelmed in nearly every area we 

are responsible for now, and we can do no more. And to fail to say 

so would be less than honest with the committee.

1 also am confident that with the additional resources and the 

passage of effective legislation we can make available quickly at 

least a million desirable jobs for unemployed Americans and legal 

residents.

On the other hand, I believe without good legislation the problem 

of the illegal immigration is currently insoluble, and I do not think 

we can delay much longer without seriously threatening the future 

of our economy and our country.

Mr. Chairman, I will be most happy to attempt to answer any 

questions you may have.

Mr. Eilbekg. Thank you, Commissioner Chapman.

For the benefit of the members of the subcommittee, the chairman 

proposes to operate by the 5-minute rule so tha t each member will 

be given approximately 5 minutes, and then we will continue with 

that as long as we can. And at the conclusion of these hearings if 

there are any questions that remain I would hope, Mr. Silberman, 

that we may submit any questions, additional questions to you for 

response in writing.

And with that I will just s tar t the questioning.

On page 3 of your prepared statem ent you referred to raising the 

penalties for those illegal aliens who seek employment here. There 

is, of course, at present a criminal penalty for one who illegally enters 

the country. How has that been working?

Mr. Silberman. Not well. It is not, as a practical matter, as much 

of a disincentive to the illegal alien as we wish it would be. For one
thing, if we really prosecute them all, it would clog our courts terribly, 

so our own resources are limited in dealing with it. That is to say, 

our prosecutorial resources. Secondly, even a conviction, and indeed a short prison term, is not as much as a disincentive to many illegal aliens as it might be for a 

legal alien or an American citizen.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Silberman, perhaps when you say raising the penalties you do not mean raising the penalty, you mean changing the penalties. That is the meaning tha t I read into your language.

Mr. Silberman. Yes. I am looking particularly at economic disincentives. In other words, if an illegal alien comes here, works, as General Chapman has described to me just the other day, two people who were working on construction jobs, and who had bank accounts 

in excess of $10,000 from wages earned as illegal aliens, if fines were 

imposed, civil fines perhaps, and we can work with the committee on developing that, it would touch directly the economic incentive by creating a counterbalancing economic disincentive. You see, as it stands now the illegal alien can come here, earn a great deal of money, perhaps a tremendous amount of money compared to what his economic position would be in the country he came from, and the 

worst t hat happens to him is he is sent back.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Silberman, I think that we are somewhat familiar with the general situation since this subcommittee has been working with the question for some 6 years. Therefore, in the interest of saving time, and I know you want to cooperate as much as you can, I think there is little need to repeat the obvious. So if you will kind 

of limit your answers, I would appreciate it very much.

Now, the thing that concerns me is that having worked on this question for at least 6 years I find tha t the bulk of illegal aliens are employed in relatively low wages. Now, I do not argue with the fact or point tha t some go through the economic ladder and obtain good jobs. But can you tell us, give us some idea or any idea of how high up in the economic scale some of these illegal aliens go, and what are 

the numbers in proportion to the total number of illegal aliens in the 

country?

Mr. Silberman. We cannot give you any really accurate figure which would divide up the income ranges of illegal aliens because we do not know enough about them. As we admitted at the start, it is sort of an impossible kind of analytical problem, although one we are working on in the new Cabinet Committee. But, it is very difficult because it is also hard to get a fix on them. We do know, we have anecdotes, for instance, and General Chapman informed me just several weeks ago tha t we apprehended and deported somebody who had been working as a foreman on the Metro construction project as an 

illegal alien.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Silberman, I do not doubt your sincerity, T just- question whether this is going to do the job. The criminal penalty is not practical and you are suggesting a civil penalty, and I suggest 

to you tha t-----

Mr. Silberman. Combined.

Mr. Eilberg. That based upon this subcommittee's experience so far tha t civil penalties would reach a very small number or percentage of illegals in this country, or those presently employed, and this sub­ committee would have to be convinced that the civil penalty would
40

be useful. And you admit and we agree with you that there is no basis 

determining how the civil penalty would work, what effect it would 

have as a deterrent.

Mr. Silberman. Oh, yes there is because we both agree tha t the 

civil penalty against the employer in the first instance is a more efficient method of enforcement than the criminal process and combined 

with the criminal process, I see no reason why that cannot be combined with a criminal penalty, giving the Government an option, so 

to speak, against the illegal alien. Even the ones who are working in 

low-paid jobs will often save a great deal of money. And if there is a 

tine that can be levied, you reach tha t economic incentive.

Mr. Eilberg. J will be glad to work with your people on developing a civil-fine system, but this member for the present does not have 

the slightest idea how we could effectively do that and reach the large 

numbers of illegals that we believe to be employed. And I would like 

to go to the next question and then give the other members a chance 

to question you.

You would place affirmative duties on the employer, such as the 

inspection of a birth certificate, or an appropriate INS document. 

Mr. Silberman, I am wondering how practical tha t approach is. Do 

you have any idea how many employers there are in this country?

Mr. Silberman. I used to have tha t figure at my fingertips when 

1 was Under Secretary of Labor. It was 46,000. Do you have that?

Mr. C hapman. Xo, sir.

Mr. Silberman. I think it is 4.6 million. I can certainly get that 

to you.

Air. Eilberg. We would like to have the number of employers 

if you will submit it for the record.

[The information referred to follows:]

According to the most recent information available from the Department of 

Commerce, there were 3,246,831 employers in the United States in 1972. A 

breakdown by category of these employers follows:

Agricultural services__________________________________________ 31, 250

Mining_____________________________________________________ 16, 239

Construction________________________________________________ 302, 638

Manufacturin g______________________________________________ 243, 765

Tra nsporta tion and public utilities_______________________________ 105, 230

Wholesale___________________________________________________ 219,001

Retail______________________________________________________ 956, 920

Finance, insurance, and real estate______________________________ 295, 702

Services____________________________________________________ 972, 025

Unclassified_________________________________________________ 104,061

To tal..................... ......... . ............. ........................... ......... ............. 3,24 6,83 1

Labor Department estimates present a figure of 4.5 million employers in the 

United States.

Mr. Silberman. You know, it is a troubling problem. The Government has imposed an awful lot of burdens on employers to effectuate 

Government policies in the last 30 or 40 years. While some may be an 

overextension of the demand on them. I am not sure this particular 

one would be so difficult. Remember, I am proposing th at we consider 

imposing this affirmative duty prospectively for new employees. Now 

many employers, particularly large employers, get an awful lot of 

information about prospective applicants, and 1 do not see tha t it 

would be too much of a burden to ask them to get one little bit more
41

of information; that is to say, whether the applicant is either a legal 

alien or an American citizen.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Silberman, you suggest tha t this operate 

prospectively. Do I understand tha t you would do nothing about the 

illegal aliens in the country who are already employed?

Mr. Silberman. No. After all, H .R. 982 purports to deal with the 

employer who knowingly keeps illegal aliens on his payroll, and it is 

the continuing obligation. B ut I am talking about the special affirmative duty. I would apply that prospectively.

Mr. Eilberg. All right, let us take a small employer in the State

* of Wvoining who has a problem of harvesting a crop which is ripe. 

And i am just picking anv State a t random, and someone appears, and 

he was born in South Carolina. Do you seriously suggest that that 

employer, perhaps a small employer, small farmer, should just politely

* tell this gentleman I cann ot hire you because I have to wait until 

you get a birth certificate from South Carolina or tha t he go to the 

nearest district office of the Immigration Service, which may be 1,000 

miles away. Should this farmer just do nothing while his crop deteriorates? Do you seriously suggest that, Mr. Silberman? I find this very 

hard to understand.

Mr. Silberman. I am very serious, and I have two responses. First 

of all, your bill deals with the affirmative obligation but it suggests 

tha t it can be satisfied simply by a piece of paper. The piece of 

paper-----

Mr. Eilberg. Tha t is not so, Mr. Silberman. A prima facie case is 

established by that piece of paper, but you would still have the power 

to rebut that evidence by showing th at the employer hired an illegal 

alien with actual knowledge of the alien’s status.

Mr. Silberman. In any event you do approach the affirmative 

obligation, you require tha t small farmer in Washington to ask for 

the piece of paper. I am just asking tha t he ask for a different piece of 

paper, and one that is more reliable.

The second point I would make with respect to that is this: I 

believe t hat if such a scheme were put into effect, Ameiicans, particularly ones who travel around, would carry with them, like their 

social security card, some indicia of their citizenship or legal alien 

status.

» Well you know, these are hard choices we have to make. Eith er

we are going to deal with the problem as effectively as we can or we 

are not. And it is going to be at a price paid.

Mr. Eilberg. Are you suggesting, Mr. Silberman, that every

* American or every permanent resident alien carry some such document 

around with him? Is that what you are now suggesting?

Mr. Silberman. No. If he wants to look for a job, I think we could 

probably in this country, given the threa t we are faced with, ask that 

individual to carry some indicia of his legal status in this country.

Mr. Eilberg. Suppose this fellow from South Carolina is unable 

to get a birth certificate and was born in this country, then you would 

preclude his being hired?

Mr. Silberman. No. I think that we ought to consider a provision 

to expedite that process. We would have an obligation-----

Mr. Eilberg. How would you do that? You (to not say how you 

would do it in your statement.
42

M r. Silb erm an. No. Par t of the reason is that I wa nt to work with 

this comm itte e in dev eloping this, bu t 1 wa nt to imp ress upon you 

ou r views th at I think we can tak e stronger step s. If you wa nt a full 

scale legislative p roposal put before you, we can do th at .

Mr. E ilb erg. M r. Silber man, th at is e xactly what the su bco mm ittee 

wa nts. We have been working with all kin ds of pro grams over the 

years , and you come in with a re com menda tion that is en tirely differen t 

Irom y ou r predecessors, and you come in, as fa r as I am concerned, with 

a pu rel y general stat em en t th at has very little specific in it. We wa nt 

some specifics.

Mr. Silberm an. Well first of all, my response is th at the general 

princi ple could be ena cted in legislation leav ing re gulation s to the Ju stice De pa rtm en t to flesh ou t. Secondly, 1 do n ot think i t is as difficult 

a problem as you suggest.

Mr. E ilb erg. Mr. Fish.

Mr. Fish. Th ank you , M r. Chairma n.

Mr. Silb erm an, I am glad th at you support the basic str uc ture of 

II .R . 982, and as T un de rstand it, you really hav e two suggestio ns th at 

you think would imp rove the legislation, one directed at the emp loye r 

and one at the illegal alien.

Mr. Silberm an. Yes.

Mr. F is h. My disp osition is to be very symp athe tic with wh at the 

chair ma n said in his opening r emarks, th at this in no way is legislation 

designe d to be punitive ag ains t the illegal aliens. T hat is, we hav e 

othe r laws to reach th at pro blem, and oth er efforts which this committee and the Congress can underta ke. Bu t I am symp ath eti c to 

wha t y ou are sugg estin g th at we p ut a g rea ter b urd en on the employer 

to asc ert ain t hat th e person he is offering a job to is he re for permanent 

residence, legally ad mitted in the United State s, or a bor n American 

citizen . And I do no t min d pu tti ng him to this effo rt except that I 

have he ard of aliens coming to this co un try who for a price could 

purch ase a social sec uri ty card, and I expect to tak e thi s up w ith you, 

M r. Ch air ma n, fair ly soon because this ju st came to my attenti on . 

And it seems to me this ju st really defeats the purpo se and give s 

an othe r dimension to our pro blem.

J wonder if social security is the answ er. I t would be wonderful 

if every body carried a social security card, and it wou ld me et yo ur 

ini tial prob lem.

Mr. Silberm an. I think t h at is a legit im ate and im po rtan t q uestion . 

After all, I believe under rece nt am endm ent s, HEW is supposed to 

issue a social sec uri ty card only to a legal alien or to an American 

citizen. And it ma y well be th at the be st way to dea l wi th th at is as 

an enf orc em ent of th at obligation, bec ause eve ryo ne has to have a 

social s ecurity nu mb er in this co un try to g et emp loyed, and , therefor e, 

a social sec urity card or access to it. I do no t me an to be rigid about 

it. Th ere are s everal way s we could deal with this.

We have nev er reg ard ed it as a bu rden inap prop ria te with our 

way ol life to require peo ple to have a social sec urity nu mber and 

card. Th ere are ways to ma ke such a card noncounte rfe itable , there 

are ways to mak e, to develop, a proce ss in conju nctio n wi th the 

Social Security Ad ministratio n and the Im migr ati on Serv ice to make 

it a more reliable indic ia of citizen ship or legal sta tus.

Mr. E ilb erg. W ould the gentlem an yield for ju st a mo me nt?
43

Mr. Fish. Certainly.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Silberman, we are familiar with the social 

security regulations, as 1 am sure your office is, and our latest information is that that system is not working very well. I wish tha t 

you would look into tha t and give us your appraisal if you would 

as to how that law is working out, because it is our understanding 

that it has not been very effective.

Mr. Silberman. It has not been effective. I agree with you, Mr. 

Chairman, but I think it is part of the, as Congressman Fish men-

* tioned, it is part of what we ought to look at to try to figure out what 

woidd be effective, and least obtrusive to Americans.

[The following additional information was su bm itte d:]

Since the basic purpose of the Social Security regulations is to ensure th at

* Social Security cards would no t be issued to illegal aliens, we believe th at our 

joint program has been successful. As of Jan uary 10, 1975, a total of 39,554 

applications for such cards were referred by the Social Security Administration 

to the Immigration and Naturaliz atio n Service. After record checks were completed, 2,564 applications were returned to SSA marked “Employm ent Autho rized” and 25,831 (90 percent) were returned marked “E mployment Not 

Authorized”. The balance are awaiting record checks. Also, when manpower 

becomes available, the applications where employment is not authorized will 

be referred to our field offices for investigation of the presumably illegal alien 

applica nts.

Mr. Fish. On the other side here, the sanctions against the alien, 

you mentioned developing disincentives, and one of them is summary 

seizure and forfeiture of vehicles used for smuggling illegal aliens. W e 

are not talking here about the likelihood of a vehicle belonging to an 

illegal alien?

Mr. Silberman. No, usually the smuggler.

Mr. Fish. Somebody profiting on the smuggling of illegal aliens into 

this country?

Mr. Silberman. That is right. We use seizure and forfeiture provisions in the drug enforcement laws.

Mr. Fish. I certainly hope tha t you go after those fellows separate 

and apart from any legislation tha t is yet to get on our books. You 

mentioned prohibition of payments of Federal funds to illegal aliens. 

Could you elaborate on that? What Federal funds?

Mr. Silberman. The whole range of income transfer programs and

* the most obvious is the one tha t we have just been discussing, social 

security. But there are all sorts of welfare payments, unemployment 

insurance payments and other payment programs which the Congress 

could consider as p art of a broad package to make this country not 

an economic incentive to an illegal alien.

Mr. Fish. Well, I certainly would like to find out more about what 

Federal funds are being paid to people tha t can be identified as illegal 

aliens.

Mr. Silberman. For example, we know that in California a lot of 

welfare payments, which are partly funded through Federal funds, 

are going to illegal aliens.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Silberman, you are aware, are you not, tha t 

relief payments are being paid to illegal aliens, and illegal aliens are 

getting all kinds of benefits? Would precluding Federal welfare benefits to illegal aliens raise any serious constitutional questions?

Mr. Silberman. I do not think there is a constitutional question 

with respect to illegal aliens. There is a constitutional question with 

respect to legal aliens, not illegal.

49-7 69— 75------ 4
44

Mr. Eilberg. All right. I will accept that. But there are some ambiguities insofar ns the law is concerned.

Mr. Silberman. I am not sure there are ambiguities with lespect 

to the Federal Government prohibiting Federal transfer payments to 

illegal aliens. I do not see a constitutional problem.

Air. Eilberg. Would you supply the subcommittee with a summary of any legal questions or problems there are with regard to this?

Air. Silberman. I shall be delighted, Air. Chairman.

[The information referred to follows:]

T he Su pr em e C ou rt ha s hel d th a t di st in ct io ns be tw ee n citiz en s an d ali en s ar e a

in here ntl y su sp ec t under th e E qual Pro te ct io n Claus e of th e F ourt eenth Amen dm ent. Gra ham v . Richard son, 403 U. S. 365 (19 71). In ho ld in g th a t ce rtai n be ne fit s 

or lic en ses m ad e av ai la bl e to ci tize ns m ust als o be m ad e av ai la ble to ali en s, ho wev er , th e C ourt ha s focu sed on aliens who ar e law fu lly w ithi n th e U nited S ta te s.

Cf. In re Gr iffi ths , 413 U.S. 717 (19 73 ). »

W hile th e Su pr em e C our t ha s fo un d th a t ce rt ai n alie ns la w fu lly w ith in th e 

U n it ed Sta te s ar e enti tl ed to cert ain be ne fit s co nf er re d on citiz en s, it ha s also 

affir med th e pl en ar y po wer of Con gress to det er m in e, in th e fir st in st an ce , wh o 

will be a dm it te d to t he U nited S ta te s.

The po wer of co ng res s to ex clud e ali en s alt oget her from th e U nited Sta te s, or 

to p re sc ribe th e te rm s and con di tion s up on w hich th ey m ay co me i nt o th is countr y, 

and to ha ve i ts de clar ed po lic y in th a t re gar d e nf or ce d ex clus ively th ro ugh e xe cu ­

ti ve officers, w itho ut ju di ci al inte rv enti on, is s ett le d by our p re vi ou s adju dic at io ns .

Lem M oo n S in g v. Un ite d S tat es, 158 U. S. 538 a t 547 (18 95).

T he co ng ressiona l su pre m ac y in th is ar ea ha s be en reaf fir med in Klein di en st v.

Man de l, 408 U.S. 753 (1972).

On ce in thi s c ou nt ry , aliens w ho h ave ente re d illeg ally are enti tl ed to a m in im um 

of pr oc ed ur al du e process, b u t we ar e not aw ar e of an y de cision su gg es tin g th a t 

it wou ld be a de ni al of eq ual pro te ct io n to de ny th em gove rn m en t be ne fit s.

In de ed , we ha ve no doubt th a t a be ne fit sta tu te dis ting ui sh in g be tw ee n th ose 

wh o ar e in th is countr y lega lly and th os e wh o ha ve ente re d illegall y wou ld be 

uph el d as a va lid legi slativ e dis tinct io n. Co ng res s ha s no ob liga tion to pro vi de 

be ne fits from ta x reve nu es to th os e it ha s elec ted to bar from ad miss ion to th e 

co u n tr y in t he exe rcise of it s ple nar y po wer ov er im m ig ra tion .

A ltho ug h no t const it uti onally enti tl ed to fede ra l be ne fit s, illegal ali en s m ay be 

en ti tl ed to part ic ula r be ne fits by sta tu te . The ba sic social se cu ri ty be ne fit pro ­

vision s su gg es t th a t ill eg al al ie ns ar e en ti tl ed to old age in su ra nce unt il s uc h tim e 

as th ey a re d ep or te d. U nde r th e p ro vi sion s of 42 U .S .C . 40 2(n) m onth ly p ay m en ts 

are pro hib it ed “ for an y m onth occ ur ring (i) aft er th e m onth in which th e Se creta ry is no tified b y t h e A ttorn ey G en er al th a t [an ali en] ha s be en * * * de ported , 

and (ii) be fore t he m onth in w hi ch s uc h in di vid ual is th ere aft er lawfu lly adm it te d 

to th e U nit ed S ta te s fo r p erm anent re side nc e. ’’ Th is ra th e r clea rly in di ca te s 

th a t paym ents m ay be m ad e up u n ti l th e ali en is dep ort ed eit her for ille gal en tr y 

or fo r so me oth er re as on . E ligi bility of in su re d in di vi dua ls under med ic ar e is «

gov er ne d by th is sa m e la ng uag e. 42 U.S .C . 42 6( a).

In contr ast , th e pr ov isions ex te ndin g m ed ic ar e to th ose wh o ha ve not c ontr ib ­

ute d su fficiently to th e so cial se curi ty sy st em to qu al ify fo r re gu la r be ne fit s 

li m it eligi bi lity to c iti ze ns a nd “ aliens la w fu lly adm it te d fo r p er m anent re side nc e. ’’

42 U .S .C . 426a, 428. Thu s, Con gres s di d not co ns is te nt ly apply a lawful r es iden ce ♦

re quir em ent to socia l se cu ri ty be ne fits. R ath er, it di st in gui sh ed be tw ee n th os e 

be ne fits th a t we re co nd itio ne d up on contr ib utions to th e sy st em and th os e th a t 

were not. In th e first ca te go ry , ill eg al aliens as well as th ose law fu lly ad m it te d 

m ay p art ic ip ate sin ce th ey hav e contr ib ute d to th e pro gra m ; in th e seco nd th ey 

m ay not.

A num ber of fede ra l welf are sta tu te s p ro vi de ben ef its t hro ugh fe de ra l gra nts t o 

th e S ta te s. S ta te s ar e re quir ed to su bm it pl an s m ee ting ba sic fe de ra l st andard s.

The p ro gr am s fo r th e disa bled , 42 U.S .C . 13 52 (b)(2), blin d, 42 U .S .C . 12 02 (b)(2), 

and ge ne ra l m ed ical as si st an ce , 42 U .S .C . 13 96 a(b) (4), am on g ot he rs , pro hib it 

S ta te s from im po sing ci tize ns hi p re quir em en ts which ex clud e any citiz en of th e 

U nit ed S ta te s. The Su pr em e C ourt ha s in te rp re te d s uc h pr ov isio ns as pr ohib itin g 

dis cr im in at io n be tw ee n ci tize ns an d re si den t aliens as well as be tw ee n nati ve 

bor n an d natu ra lize d citiz en s. Graham v. Richardson , su pr a. T he C ourt, ho wev er, 

ha s n o t disc us sed th e ques tion w heth er illegal aliens ar e en ti tl ed to th e sa m e
45

benefits. It is at least ar gu ab le th at on th e basis of th e “c iti ze ns hip” requ ire men t of the st atu te cited ab ov e Sta te pla ns cou ld be requ ire d to lim it eli gib ility to tho se who are in th e co un try law fully, even un de r the Graham in te rp re tation .

Mr. F ish. Thank yon. General, if I could ask you just three specific brief questions. One is what can we do about the problem of Federal Government of the United States being a willing employer of illegal 

aliens?

Mr. Chapman*. We have apprehended and have knowledge of illegal aliens being employed through contractors, labor contractors

< and other kinds of contractors on projects of various kinds and, of course, I can provide a number of antecdotes. Mr. Silberman mentioned one, the foreman in the Metro. Another example is provided by two illegal Greeks we arrested a week or two

< ago that were working on a Federal contract making $9 an hour on 

a repainting project.

Mr. Fish. Please let me interrupt. I have no criticism whatsoever of the job that the Service is doing in apprehending illegal aliens with the limited personnel and money you have, but it seems to me tha t you should not have to apprehend illegal aliens who are working for contractors working for the Federal Government. That should be something that in our own family, we could check before it got to that 

point in terms of the contract itself.

Mr. Silberman*. You mean by a Presidential executive order which would impose some obligation? Well I think we really approach tha t when we deal with the private employer through your bill. I do not see that you would want to impose any greater obligation on an 

employer who gets some funds.

Mr. Fish. I find it rather an irony tha t the Federal Government would be paying taxp ayers’ money to a contractor who is hiring people who are illegally working in this country. Briefly another question here. Could you tell me of the million illegal aliens holding jobs in the United States to whom you have referred is that an estimate on your part, or are these a million individuals that you have identified?

Mr. Chapman. It is an estimate on the part of my district directors, 

and Border Patrol sector chiefs, each for his area.

Mr. Fish. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chapman. It is a compilation.

Mr. F ish. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Sarbanes.

» Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Silberman, I am interested in making sure I understand exactly how what you are sketching out would function, both with respect to the additional provisions you are going to impose on the employer and on the aliens. How would you anticipate tha t the provision that you have sketched out on page 5, I guess where the Department would promulgate regulations, what is it you would have every employer do in the United States with respect to any applicant? I take it it would be every employer with respect to every 

applicant for a job, is th at correct?

Mr. Silberman. That is right. I would require-----

Mr. Sarbanes. So tha t is a total application or coverage by the 

provision you are suggesting?
46

Mr. Silberman. Yes, as indeed your bill is.

Mr. Sarbanes. Now, what would you suggest be done?

Mr. Silbekman. Tha t he simply bo required, instead of in effect 

getting a statement from the applicant he is not an illegal alien, that 

he actually look to some indicia and that can be worked out in consultation with the committee and by regulation, some reliable indicia 

tha t the individual is an American citizen or a legal alien.

Mr. Sarbanes. You would impose that requirement with respect 

to every employee?

Mr. Silbekman. T would impose it upon all new applicants which w

would work itself through the system. The only reason I wouldn’t 

apply it across the board is tha t it just seems to me it would be an 

awesome burden if you applied it to all existing employees. You 

M ould require every employer to go through a process with employees »

who may have been employed for 20 years. I think in terms of the 

cost-benefit analysis, tha t goes too far. I am reaching for an appropriate compromise tha t will be effective, but which will not impose 

too great a burden, so I would impose it with respect to all new applicants after the date of the passage of the act.

Mr. Sarbanes. What would the regulation provide for?

Mr. Silberman. It would require the employer, when he hires the 

employee, as well as getting the Social Security number and other 

data to simply get some indicia of legal status in this country.

Mr. Sarbanes. What would tha t be?

Mr. Silbekman. It could be a birth certificate, it could be some 

document from the Immigration Service for those who were not born 

in this country or it could be a number of things.

Mr. Sarbanes. What else?

Mr. Silbekman. What else?

Mr. Sarbanes. I want to get as clear a picture as I can here this 

morning of what it is you are projecting in terms of this proposal.

Mr. Silbekman. A citizenship document or a certificate which is 

issued by INS, I gather, or a U.S. passport. I am not-----

Mr. Sarbanes. Now, wait. This requirement is not limited to those 

who deal with INS; it applies to every applicant for a job in the 

United States? Is tha t right?

Mr. Silberman. Of course. w Mr. Sarbanes. So, in other words, every applicant would, at a 

minimum under this proposal, have to produce a birt h certificate?

Mr. Silberman. No, because if you wTere an alien legally admitted 

in this country, you would not have a birth certificate. A ou would «.

have to have some other document.

Mr. Sarbanes. Let us set the alien category to one side for a 

moment and take the millions of others who go looking for jobs. What 

would they have to produce under the regulation tha t you propose?

Mr. Silberman. A birth certificate, or indeed, if the social security 

program worked properly, all they would have to do is have a social 

security card since that in turn is supposed to be dependent on legal 

status. Congress has passed a law on that already.

Mr. Sarbanes. Now, with respect to the additional penalties you 

would impose on the alien, would you sketch those out? They are set 

forth on page 8, as I understand it; particularly points 2 and 3.
47

Mr. Silbermax. Yes. I would consider and I would ask you to 

consider the prospect of civil penalties that would be imposed on an illegal alien which could be collected, indeed, it the illegal alien had sufficient money to satisfy that. We do tha t with respect to taxing aliens and in a sense the illegal alien, when he comes here and deprives Americans of work, and develops a pool of money, and many of them do, this Government indeed legitimately, morally, has a claim against 

that.

Mr. Sarbanes. N ow I take it point 2 suggests that this action could 

be taken without any recourse at any point to the judicial system, is 

that correct?

Mr. Silbermax. Oh, I doubt that. I do not mean to suggest th at at 

all. But 1 think a streamlined process could be developed under the 

Constitution.

Mr. Sarbanes. The use of the phrase administrative imposition of 

substantial civil penalties is only applicable at the first stage of the process, and you anticipate that at some point there would be some 

recourse to the judicial system, or is that not the case?

Mr. Silbermax. No, that is of course true, that there would always 

have to be some recourse to the judicial process. We do this, do we not in the drug area where we impose administrative sanction and seizures of cars and so forth, and there is review. I will turn to my General 

Counsel.

Mr. Berxsex. T am not familiar with the drug area, but we do pro­ vide for judicial review of immigration orders in exclusion proceedings and deportation proceedings. A fine is imposed under the immigration 

laws on carriers, subject to judicial review.

Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. Silberman, in responding earlier to the chairman 

in your discussion of these provisions you prefaced an answer with the phrase, “given the threat we are faced with.” And then you went on to discuss something. 1 was not quite clear in my mind as to what tha t 

threat was th at you were referring to.

Mr. Silbermax. The threat is of massive illegal immigration into 

the United States.

Mr. Sarbanes. You did not connect that to the unemployment 

situation in particular?

Mr. Silbermax. Of course I connect it, as my statem ent made 

quite clear.

Mr. Sarbanes. Why do you do that? I am interested in the question 

why it would not be a problem regardless of whether there is high unemployment or low unemployment?

Mr. Silbermax. I agree with you, and indeed I am glad you asked 

tha t question. There are three parts to that. The first part is the direct impact on employment, and at a time of high unemployment tha t is obviously exacerbated. The second point is that, after all, the Congress passed immigration laws which set the policy in the United States, with respect to demographic factors, the amount of growth we can accept into the country, a growth now through immigration. I do not mean to suggest that Congress went beyond that. And finally, 1 think of great importance, but a matter tha t has not realh been focused on, the fact that this law is violated in as widespread a fashion as it is tends in my judgment to breed disrespect for law generally.
48

Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is running out. I 

want to ask General Chapman just one question if I might, and it 

has to do with these figures that we constantly see used with respect 

to the dimensions of this problem. I am interested in just how you 

put those figures together. You indicated, I take it, tha t they are 

based on estimates which you receive from your people in the field. 

Well, what are those estimates based on? 1 mean, are there any rational or scientific principles governing the making of these estimates 

so that one can at least identify the analytical framework or structure 

on the basis of which these figures are put together; or are the figures 

simply one result of intuition, or subjective estimates, or whatever 

else you might wish on the part of your field people, tha t really have 

no tie to any rational standard?

Mr. Chapman. The estimates as to the total number of illegal 

aliens here are based on the factors I have mentioned. That is, we 

know how many we apprehended, we know how many sensor alarms 

we are unable to answer, we know approximately how many tourists 

and students have failed to go home at the time tha t their visas 

expired.

Mr. Sarbanes. But the total of those figures are a lot smaller than 

the other numbers that are being bandied around in the discussion of 

this question, are they not?

Mr. Chapman. Xo, sir, Those estimates derive directly from those 

factors. Now, with respect to the numbers that are working, each district director, based on his knowledge of his area of responsibility, 

knows how many he has arrested that were at work; he knows known 

concentrations of illegal aliens. He has thousands of tips and leads 

from the general public, from concerned citizens as to the location of 

illegal aliens, and he compiles these factors and makes his estimates 

as to the number that are in his .area and the number that are working. 

And that is where the million job estimate came from.

There is, however, no scientific census that can be taken.

Mr. Sarbanes. Well, Mr. Chairman, could we ask the general to 

furnish to the subcommittee the framework on the basis of which 

these estimates are made so th at we will have a clearer idea of how soft 

or hard these estimates are in terms of being related to some scientific 

factors. The figures tha t are being thrown around range all over the 

lot, and either we ought to make them more precise or refrain from 

using them, or make it very clear exactly what we are doing when we 

use them.

Mr. Eilberg. Commissioner, can you do that?

Mr. Silberman. We will, Mr. Sarbanes. If I may respond to that, I 

think the third of the alternatives is the one—we will provide you with 

the information, of course—but the third alternative is the one that I 

would choose, and that is to make clear that these are estimates. We 

do not know, nor do I believe there is any way th at we could actually 

know, how many illegal aliens are in the country.

[The information referred to follows:]

The Service does not have precise da ta on how many illegal aliens are here. 

Estimates are based on the experience of Investigators and Border Patrol agents 

in the field, a nd up on other data known to be accurate.

For instance, the Service apprehended nearly 800,000 illegal aliens last fiscal 

year. There were more than six million visitors to the United States last year,.
49

and between five and 10 percent are no t shown to have'- d eparted. The Border Patrol is able to answer on average abou t half of the sensor alarm s th at are set 

off along the border. In addition, there are thousands of leads from the public—both letters and phone calls—as to the presence of illegal aliens, which cannot be followed up on because of lack of money and manpower. And Service investig ators are aware of the presence of concentrations of illegals in various areas and places of employment. Because of the lack of precise data, the Service has underway a design stu dy for obtaining a true picture of the illegal alien population, and 0M B has approved the 

funding of the full scale study in F Y 1976.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Silberman, this entire legislation is of particular importance to me, because in my State we do have, as a border State, a number of problems with immigration and customs. And last year there was quite a controversy that was stirred by the Office of Management and Budget when they sought to reorganize the Immigration Service and Customs Service by having them combine their efforts in a costefficiency move. You may or may not be familiar with that.

Mr. Silberman. Intimately, sir.

Mr. Cohen. In addition to that, there seems to be a situation where 

there is a reduction in personnel through attrition, the slots are simply not filled, but they are transferred to the Southwest, which reduces the amount of personnel in the northern part of this country, and particu­ larly my State. I notice that the Government Operations Committee is recommending that you hire at least another 2,200 people, and they recommended an additional $34 million for the appropriation. Do you feel tha t would be sufficient to hire the personnel and equipment 

necessary?

Mr. Silberman. Well, you have noted, doubtlessly, Congressman 

Cohen, that in the new budget there is a provision for a substantial increase for the Immigration Service. I must say that I was dread­ fully disappointed last year when our appropriation was cut beyond what we requested by the Appropriations Committee, and any support tha t we can get from this committee to gain greater numbers of border patrolmen when we go over to the Appropriations Committee would 

be gratefully received.

Mr. Coiien. I would like to follow up on a line of questioning I 

think by the Chairman in terms of the narrowness of the civil penalty that you seek to either enhance or increase, as it would limit the group of people that would be affected. And I happen to agree with the Chairman. I think we are talking about a very limited group. But it seems to me if we are talking about people who have $10,000 in a savings account, if Congress were to pass such a law, those people are bright enough to simply send their checks or their savings back to whatever country they came from and thereby render themselves judgment proof, so 1 question whether that would be particularly 

effective.

Mr. Silberman. I have thought about that and we have thought 

about that, and you are right, some would. But by the same token, many w ould not because many would plan to remain here permanently. And those who plan to remain here permanently want their savings 

with them.
50

Mr. Eilberg. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Cohen. 1 yield to the Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. I would say to Mr. Silberman that after having 

spent a great deal of time in the Rio Grande and after having interviewed so many detainees, hundreds of detainees, very few of them 

expressed any desire to remain in the United States. They come to 

the United States simply to make money and go home. And 1 might 

say also th at the naturalization figures for permanent resident aliens 

who are natives of Mexico indicate a very small number remain, to 

become citizens of the United States. So I question the accuracy of 

the last statement tha t Mr. Silberman made.

Mr. Silberman. Well I think as General Chapman pointed out 

earlier, a few years ago that might have been more true than it is 

today. Many of the illegal aliens here appear to us to have every 

intention to remain here permanently, as long as they are not apprehended, and their risk of apprehension is relatively small. Beyond 

that, even if they are apprehended, the potential cost of the apprehension does not serve to deter them from remaining here and earning 

money. Perhaps General Chapman should elaborate on that. The 

problem is not limited to the Southwest Border problem, Mr. 

Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Cohen has the floor.

Mr. Cohen. I would like to ask a few more questions and perhaps 

we could elaborate a bit later.

T was interested in Congressman Sarbanes’ question concerning the 

exact procedure you envision for employers to follow. As I understand, 

you would require every person in the future who seeks employment 

to produce a birth certificate, tha t does not mean just members of 

minority groups, but every person?

Mr. Silberman. That is right, a birth certificate or other indicia. 

One of the things that troubles me about H.R. 982, is the principal 

criticism which has been made, and it is a troubling criticism, that 

as it will work it will discriminate against those who are ostensibly 

of other nationality backgrounds.

Mr. Cohen. But let us assume a Spanish-speaking person in 

New York were to apply for employment. Simply because he speaks 

Spanish, would not warrant the employer to conclude that, indeed, 

he is an alien as opposed to a resident, he could still insist upon some 

sort of standard other than a birth certificate? Now, I have a birth 

certificate here which designates my city and State of Maine as my 

place of birth and so forth. 1 think tha t would be a very easy document 

to duplicate, and I wonder in terms of the practicality of the thought 

as to how you are going to standardize a birth certificate or something 

not connected with the alien status? How would you do that?

Mr. Silberman. Well, for one thing we could go back to Congressman Fish ’s suggestion. We could put the stress on the social security 

card, and after all, Congress has already said a social security card 

should not be issued to an illegal alien. We could focus our attention 

back to that more workable system, and, indeed, the technology exists 

to make social security cards that are noncounterfeitable.

Mr. Cohen. Has the Justice Department been doing anything 

in the way of establishing a liaison with the Social Security 

Administration?
51

Mr. Silb erma n. Tha t is the reason th at we recom mended the 

Cabin et com mittee, a rec om me ndation which the Pre sident accep ted 

in Janu ary, and we inten d to move ahead on th at as qu ick ly as 

possible.

Mr. Coh ex. Pe rh ap s in yo ur opinion , if we effectively enforce the 

social security laws which are cu rren tly on the hooks, th at would 

elim inate a need to go thr ough a process which I seriously qu estio n 

the validity of, the wo rka bility of.

One final questio n if I mig ht, Mr. Ch air man , and th at con cerns the 

notion of seizing pro perty .

Mr. Silb erma x. Let me say, Mr. Cohen , if th at is t rue there ou gh t 

to be some kind of cross-reference in yo ur legislation to the Social 

Sec urity Ad ministrat ion ind ica ting th at th at is the metho d th at you 

int end to use to enforce it ra th er th an a doc ument signed by the 

illegal alien which say s he is a legal alien.

Mr. Coh ex. On the que stion o f seizing vehicles, you recall last 

year this pro vision was str uc k from the Judiciary Co m m itt ee ’s 

con sideration , and I mu st say 1 have a con siderable question in my 

own mind th at we adh ere to the ancient philosop hy th at an asset 

itself is culpab le, an inhere nt evil. 1 can un de rst an d the forfeiture of 

contr aband arti cles, or o f those article s which are designe d specifically 

to commit a pa rti cu lar typ e of crim e. Bu t it seem s to me we get into 

area s such as I might lend my c ar to a person, who in tu rn might use 

th at car to con vey someone across the border, and then sudd en ly 1 

am deprived of m y car, at least until the whole admi nistr ative process 

is com pleted. I th in k this is an unneces sar y bur den , an en cumb ran ce 

upon my own libe rties, so I have serious que stio ns abo ut th at . 1 

would ask you , would you be in a p osition to a cce pt a recom me ndation 

or legislatio n which confined itse lf to vehicles which are designe d 

specifically to in some way enh ance the op po rtu nity to convey people 

across borders ?

Mr. Silb erma x. T am trou bled abo ut the que stio n you raise, and 

there would have to be some proced ure to in effect imm uniz e C ong ressman Cohen if he lends his car to X, who in turn lends it to Y.

Mr. Coh ex. I am not being facetio us ab ou t it.

Mr. Silb erm ax. And I am not either . It is trou blin g.

Mr. C oh ex. W ha t about Her tz or Avis or some othe r rental 

agency?

Mr. Silb erma x. Th at is rig ht. We would have to wor k on th at . I 

thi nk it can be w orke d out, and 1 think that is an in terest ing sug gestion 

you make, th at yo u would focus o nly on vehicles p art icu lar ly designed 

to tra ns po rt aliens.

Mr. C oh ex. That is all I hav e, Mr. Ch air ma n.

Mr. E ilbe rg . M s. H oltzm an?

Ms. H oltzman. T ha nk you, Mr. Ch air man.

J am con cern ed about the prob lem th at Mr. Silb erm an raised of 

possible dis crimination in IL K. 982. In my congressional distr ict I 

hav e people who are recent im mi grants from eas tern Europ e and who 

spe ak Eng lish wi th an accent. I have peop le who have recentl y 

immigra ted from the West Ind ies, and in fact people who have 

immigra ted from all pa rts of the w orld . M an y came here 40 years ago 

and still spe ak Englis h with an accent. I am ter rib ly concern ed th at 

thes e people, some of whom are na turaliz ed U.S. citiz ens and some of
whom are lawful residents, would be put to an intolerable burden 

under this legislation. Moreover, it is not their fault tha t these illegal 

aliens are here.

Mr. Silberman. I agree.

Ms. Holtzman. I am curious about what the Justice Department 

and the Immigration Service are doing right now with respect to the 

enforcement of our laws, in particular with respect to the issuance of 

tourist visas to persons who actually intend to live in the United 

States. Why can’t that process be improved?

Mr. Silberman. What is it specifically that troubles you about that 

process, Ms. Holtzman?

Ms. II oltzman. Well, I think you cited the figure that there were 

6 million tourists who came to the United States and only 5 million 

who left. Wha t are you doing to prevent that from happening in the 

next year? What do you do to improve your procedures?

Mr. Silberman. That is, of course, one of the reasons why we have 

this Cabinet Committee which, of course, it is obvious tha t greater 

coordination among departments is necessary. But let me defer to 

General Chapman, and the State Department is involved in this also 

to a great extent.

Mr. Chapman. Visas are issued by the State Department, Ms. 

Holtzman.

Ms. H oltzman. I know that. But I think something could be done 

to improve the process. This is not the first year tha t we have had 

more people come to the United States than leave it.

Mr. Chapman. Our country invites and welcomes tourists from 

every country in the world, and foreign students as well under certain circumstances. And of the millions of tourists who enter the country 

each year, at least 90 percent are bona fide tourists who come, stay 

their allotted time and return. There are 5 or 10 percent who do not, 

however. And they are the ones th at concern us. 1 might go on to say with respect to a previous question that-----

Ms. Holtzman. Well, I would really like an answer to this question about what can be (lone to improve the screening process. Is there 

anything we can learn from the mistakes that we have made in terms 

of screening potential tourists who come to this countrv? I mean, for 

you to say that we are going to enact a bill that is going to require 

('very American to carry a nationality card for the first time in our 

history without at the same time saying we have done everything in 

our power to enforce the laws and enforce them properly puzzles me, 

frankly, because I can see, even under the approach you propose, that an employer might be very nervous about hiring somebody who speaks 

English with an accent, even though he has a social security card or 

whatever kind of card you want, and that an employer will say, “Well, 

I will hire somebody who speaks English without an accent.’’

Mr. Silberman. Xo. I think we can protect against that. Your bill 

seeks to protect against that.

Ms. Holtzman. I understand, but I would like to know what you 

people are doing to improve your enforcement procedures, whether it 

involves the State Department, our southwest border guards, or the 

like? The Immigration Service was the subject of a number of allegations with respect to the southwest border a while ago.

Mr. Silberman. Ms. Holtzman, I think we are trying to do the 

best we can with limited resources and with an overwhelming problem
53

that we are faced with. Our honest belief is that without legislation which increases the disincentives th at we will really not have a chance.

Mr. Eilberg. Would the gentlelady yield for just a question?

Ms. Holtzman. Yes, I will be delighted to yield to the Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Attorney General, you have repeatedly referred to the Domestic Council Committee on Illegal Aliens appointed by the President. 1 would like to know what it has done, and I am a little bit concerned, particularly in view of the fact tha t your service may 

be ending shortly.

Mr. Silbermax*. Yes, t ha t is fair.

Mr. Eilberg. And what has happened with this Presidential 

Cabinet Committee?

Mr. Silbermax. It has only been set up in the last month, and it contemplates a meeting in the very near future. But 1 confess to you, Mr. Chairman, with the turnover in the Justice Department-----

Mr. Eilberg. Nothing has been done really.

Mr. Silbermax. Wait a minute. Yes. An agenda has been prepared and sent out, and a meeting is scheduled. Bu t I would very much hope that Ed Levy would be confirmed in time to chair tha t first meeting.

Mr. E ilberg. And is it expected tha t there will be recommendations 

coming out of th at Presidential Committee?

Mr. Silbermax. We are going to try to work on some of the prob­ lems which this committee has focused on. I do not mean to suggest for a moment tha t I would recommend tha t this committee hold up working on the legislation, which is very much needed, and I cannot contemplate that anything that we would think of, beyond that which we have said today, would be important to this committee’s 

consideration.

Mr. Eilberg. Thank you, Ms. Holtzman.

Ms. Holtzman. Perhaps you can provide for the record some in­ formation about what efforts either you, Mr. Attorney General, or you, Mr. Commissioner, are taking with respect to improving the screening process and improving any followup procedures with respect to the issuance of tourist visas to people who are not bona fide tour­ ists? If there is a problem in tha t area, I am sure it could stand some correction, and I am surprised that I do not hear any concrete answers 

as to what you are doing about it.

Second-----

Mr. Silbermax. I am not sure 1 understand what your criticism is.

Ms. H oltzman. I want to know why only 5 million tourists returned to their home countries, and why there was this error in judgment 

in the initial issuance of a million visas.

Mr. Silbermax. You assume a fact not in evidence, that there was 

an error in judgment.

Ms. H oltzman. I am just taking the figures that were given to me.

Mr. Chapman. I can only say tha t those are judgments made by the American consuls abroad with respect to each applicant for a visa to enter this country as a tourist. I happen to know that they are very conscientious about it, and they work very hard at it, but it is a question of determining in advance the intention of the appli­ cant. If the applicant says I want to go to the United States and stay 6 weeks, and see all of the great sights, and I have $1,000 in my pocket to pay my way, and the consul believes him, then the visa is issued. If his intention is otherwise, it is difficult to determine.
54

[The following additional information was submitted:]

T he pr og ra m s listed below are in di ca tive of th e do se liaiso n th at I& NS m ainl 

ta in s w ith Vis a Issu ing Officers.

I& NS fu rn ishe s to th e Visa Issu in g C on su la r Officer in fo rm at io n re gar din g aldo cu m en te d aliens wh o ha ve been refu se d ad mission to th e U ni te d S ta te s. Thi s 

assists him sh ou ld th e s am e ap pl ic an t apply in th e fu tu re .

I& NS fu rn ishe s in fo rm at io n to th e S ta te D ep ar tm en t re ga rd in g aliens who 

ha ve be en dep ort ed on crim inal, im mor al, narc otic or s ub ve rsive gr ou nd s.

I& NS ch ecks its reco rd s at th e re ques t of co ns ul ar officers wh ere ap pl ic an ts 

we re pr ev io us ly in th e U nite d Sta te s.

In adju dic at in g fo r ad miss ion of re la tive s, I& NS fu rn ishe s to th e appro pri ate 

co ns ul ar officer po ssible gr ou nd s of in ad m is si bility of th e be ne fic iar y.

The re is a pr op os al to pr ov id e th a t all ap pli cants fo r ad mission to Puert o Rico 

or th e Virgi n Is la nd s fro m the West In di es (ex cept fro m th e B ritish Virgi n Island s) 

m us t be in po ssessio n of visas. Pre se ntly th ey ar e ex em pt ed from noni m m ig ra nt 

visas.

C ur re nt ly , on ly no ni m m ig ra nt over st ay re co rd s re la ting to : (1) Ir on C urtai n 

na tiona ls ; (2) Pa ro le es ; (3) Secti on 21 2( d) (3 ) w aive r cases; an d, (4) Bon d cas es 

are be ing fo rw ar de d to field offices fo r in ves tiga tion unde r a low pri ority pen di ng 

th e rece ipt o f ad di tiona l in ves tiga tive m an po w er . The efforts of th e in ves tigat iv e 

m an po wer av ai la bl e to loca te all ty pes of ille gal ali en s is be ing co nce ntr at ed on 

lo ca ting ille gal aliens oc cu py ing high payin g jo bs th a t wou ld be m os t att ra cti v e 

th e U.S. citiz en s an d law ful per m an en t re si den ts . When ad di tion al in ve st ig at iv e 

m an po w er is pr ov id ed fo r th is pu rp os e, th e Se rvice will th en fo rw ar d all non im ­

m ig ra nt ov er st ay reco rd s to field offices fo r in ve st ig at io n.

Ms. Holtzmax. I un de rst an d wliat th at process invo lves, and 

obviously som ebo dy is mak ing a jud gm ent. But there is some error 

that is being made, and maybe it is an unint entio nal erro r. I am not 

saying tha t the re is any crim inal ac tivi ty going on in the consula tes, 

but I wa nt to know wh eth er this process can be imp roved. And what 1 

un derst and from yo ur testimony here is t ha t you are saying, “Well, we 

can not do an ything abou t making it bet te r.” I just find that a l ittle bit 

hard to believe.

Mr. Silb erma x. I am not so sure there is n oth ing that can be done, 

and it is one of the thin gs that the C abine t com mittee sh ould focus on. 

But there is an inh ere nt problem. Short of giving a lie d etector tes t to 

somebody who wa nts to come to this country on a tou rist visa, 1 cannot give you an y way in which th at jud gm ent at the time someone 

applies for a tourist visa can be mad e without a subjective ap praisal of 

the intenti on of the individ ual, which is n ecessarily imprecise.

Mr. Eilbe rg . Mr. Dodd.

Mr. Doon. Yes. First of all, I wan t to than k both of you gen tlem en. 

I am a new member, and if 1 ask quest ion s that may hav e been asked 

before, I hope 1 will not be borin g to my fellow c ommittee m embers, or 

people who hav e followed these h earings throu ghout. But I am curious, 

and I would like to know very briefly if you could tell me e xac tly what 

the proced ure is in app rehend ing an illegal alien tod ay? Ilo w do you 

determine who is an illegal alien? Th ere hav e been several article s 

wr itten about patrols that have gone into the crop fields of Texas or 

Califo rnia. What is the procedure at th at point?

Mr. Silb erma x. Let me defe r to the opera ting head .

Mr. ( 'u armax. Wh eth er in t he fields or in urb an area s, our investig ator s and our borde r patrolmen op erate mainly on the basis of intelligence leads, on tips and suggestion s or knowledge as to where illegal 

aliens are working or known to concentra te. Our officers have au ­

th or ity to inq uir e as to the citizensh ip of any one whom they hav e 

su bstan tia l reas on to believe may not be a legal alien or an American
55

citizen. If the inquiry produces the answer that I am an American 

citizen, that is it, or if he says I am an American citizen, then that ends the interrogation by that officer. And if he says I am a legal alien, then he must produce his alien identification card or authority to be here.

Mr. Dodd. So the investigation ends at the point the person makes 

the s tatement that I am an American citizen?

Mr. Chapman. Unless the officer has a solid reason to believe tha t 

that may not be a correct statement.

Mr. Dodd. All right. Then what happens?

Mr. C hapman. He is entitled to interrogate if he has solid evidence 

to support him in doing so.

Mr. Dodd. What sort of documentation is required at that initial 

point of investigation, presuming that the officer does not believe the 

statement tha t “I am an American citizen?”

Mr. Chapman. If he has solid evidence to support it, yes; he is 

entitled to dig further, of course. If he is, in fact, an American citizen, 

there is no requirement of documentation. It only requires the assertion that he is so. I might go on to point out that our capability to apprehend and 

remove is only a fraction of the total number tha t we know of and 

could apprehend and remove if we had the capability.

Mr. Dodd. Maybe I am missing something. I presume that the 

statement, “I am an American citizen,” is enough unless the officer 

has reason to believe that the person is not telling the truth.

Mr. C hapman. That is correct.

Mr. Dodd. And at that point what evidence, what does he use, 

what documents, a driv er’s license, a social security card, or whatever? 

What are they looking for? What do they ask for?

Mr. C hapman. Sam, do you want to answer that?

Mr. Bernsen. The officer would ask for identification possibly, or 

the officer might simply be satisfied to drop the inquiry at that point and simply make a separate investigation with regard to the person’s 

citizenship if he had reason to believe that this person falsely claimed 

U.S. citizenship.

Mr. Dodd. I wonder if you have any figures, and again I guess, 

General Chapman, I would be addressing my remarks to you, of how many false arrests have been made, say last year, of alleged 

illegal aliens?

Air. Chapman. Who turned out to be citizens?

Mr. Dodd. Do you have any figures on that?

Mr. Chapman. Last year?

Mr. Dodd. Just say last year, or over a period of 2 to 5 years.

Mr. C hapman. I think the answer is zero.

Mr. Dodd. There were no false arrests?

Mr. Chapman. I will have to verify that for the record, but I 

believe that is correct.

Mr. Bernsen. I am told that there were two within the last fewyears.

Mr. Chapman. A total of two over several years. Last year I am 

pretty confident that there were none.

Mr. Dodd. I would like to get into one other area, and again I hope 

T am not being ignorant with this, but what we have talked about, 

the two-pronged effect aimed at the employee and the employer,
what sort of an arrangement at all do we have with, say, Mexico? 

Is it illegal in Mexico to leave Mexico without a visa, and when we 

send back a person, what happens in Mexico or what happens in the 

Dominican Republic or any other nation that we have treaties with?

Mr. Bernsen. Well, we are not experts on the laws of foreign countries. Various countries have various exit requirements, and we are 

not familiar with them. We know that we have no difficulty returning 

illegal Mexican aliens to Mexico. We have worked out an arrangement 

with the Mexican Government, and they accept the illegal Mexicans 

back without any problem.

Mr. Dodd. Do you know what happens at tha t point in Mexico to 

the returnee?

Mr. Bernsen. As far as I know, the returnee is not subject to any 

criminal penalties under the Mexican laws.

Mr. Silberman. Not subject to any sanctions a t all.

Mr. Dodd. Any sanctions at all?

Mr. Silberman. Not tha t we know of.

Mr. Dodd. Earlier, in recent remarks, and I do not know whether 

it was by Mr. Silberman, or Mr. Chapman, or maybe the chairman 

made the remarks tha t really there are not tha t great a number of 

returnees, particularly in the southwest area, or are there?

Mr. Silberman. Oh, yes. Yes. There are a great number. What 

was the number last year?

Mr. C hapman. Nearly 700,000. Six hundred and some odd thousand 

tha t we apprehended in the border areas and returned.

Mr. Dodd. The .300,000 that were apprehended, more than twothirds were returnees?

Mr. Chapman. Yes.

Mr. Dodd. Is anything being done at all on the international scene 

to try and work out some kind of a relation or relationship or whatever 

with Mexico?

Mr. Silberman. Congressman Dodd, tha t has been a very difficult, 

tricky problem tha t the Government of the United States has been 

dealing with for a number of years, with respect to the Government 

of Mexico, and perhaps other governments. I cannot say that it 

would be likely tha t the Government of Mexico would be agreeable 

to imposing a sanction on its citizens who leave and come into the 

United States unlawfully.

Mr. Dodd. I have just one last question, Mr. Chairman. I have 

many more, but I will save your time.

I am a resident of eastern Connecticut, and just recently there were 

two illegal aliens apprehended at the U.S. Submarine Base where our 

nuclear powerfieet is harbored. These people were actually employees 

of a subcontractor on the base itself. Is there no existing system 

wherein a person who is particularly involved or employed in a 

security risk area, where the contractor or subcontractor would 

require basic security checks which would include an immigration 

check?

Mr. Silberman. Weil, there are basic security checks required of 

Government subcontractors engaged in defense work.

Mr. Dodd. Well then, how did this happen?

Mr. Silberman. I am not familiar with that incident. I cannot
57

Mr. D odd. But it is required tha t an immigration cheek be done on 

contractors?

Mr. Silbermax. No, a security check. A security check.

Mr. Dodd. Does tha t include an immigration check?

Mr. Silbermax. Normally if we run a security check on someone 

and, in fact, he or she is an illegal alien, it will turn up.

Mr. Dodd. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. It is my pleasure to introduce next a new Member of the Congress and our colleague from Illinois, Congressman M artin 

Russo. Mr. Russo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In looking over Mr. Chapman’s report, it is upsetting to me that in 3 months last fall the Chicago District investigator apprehended some 2,000 illegal aliens, 93 percent of which were employed. I would like tcfknow what type of procedure the Chicago office or the D epartmen t of Justice is working on to make detection more rapid?

Mr. C hapman. Well Mr. Russo, we are working to the maximum of our capabilities now. It is very limited. Both the number of in­ vestigators that we have in Chicago as well as elsewhere is limited, and the amount of money that we have to detain and deport those tha t we do apprehend is limited. Pursuant to a directive tha t I put out just at the beginning of this year, we concentrate our limited capability on those that are working at good jobs, tha t we think an unemployed American would be very happy to have, so tha t we are 

selective through necessity. Mr. Russo. Has the problem been money over the years? I notice in the report since 1965 the number has steadily increased in great numbers, and it seems to me something should have been done since 1965 to now to cut down on this. If it has been a money problem and staff problem, it is something tha t should have been handled over the years instead of at a crisis stage now where we really see the problem because we have high unemployment now, and the welfare roles are swelling, revenues to the Government are down, you know, and has 

something been going on since 1965?

Mr. Silbermax. Well Mr. Russo, this committee has been working on the problem for at least 4 or 5 years in conjunction with the Justice Department, and by and large this committee and the Justice Depart­ ment have seen very much eye to eye. We do not agree on every specific point, but we have certainly agreed tha t it is a long-range problem for the countrv, and we have been doing all that we can to get a bill through the Congress. And it is surely not the fault of this 

committee.

Mr. C hapman. Then the other half of the problem is the dramatic increases in the number of illegal aliens. We apprehended 12 or 13 years ago 20 some thousand total for the year. Last year it was *800,000, and last year we apprehended only a fraction of those tha t 

are here. Mr. Russo. On the fraud matters, are we doing something to make our documents counterfeit proof, or how far along have we come on 

that?

Mr. Chapman. In conjunction with the visa office and the passport office we have completed the design and are ready for the final test on a new alien documentation system for all. Of course, passports are
58

for U.S. citizens, and visas are for aliens, and the alien identification 

card is for the permanent resident anti for the various border crossers. 

It is an excellent system, it is fully counterfeit proof, it is imposter 

proof, it is tamper proof, and it is machine readable. And there is 

included in the President’s budget which was submitted to the Congress yesterday the first year’s funding to implement that new card.

Mr. Russo. Can that card in some way he used in the procedure 

tha t the Justice Department is talking about, of having some kind 

of an indicia?

Mr. Chapman. Yes, sir. It would he the indicia for an alien. A 

permanent resident is now required by law to carry an alien identification card, and he does so. There are some 5 or 6 million of them out 

now. Those old cards would be replaced by this new card, and the 

new card would be issued to the new immigrants entering the country.

Mr. Russo. I do not have any further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. E ilberg. Mr. Silberman, I would like to go back to something 

that has been alluded to a couple of times, but I am still not clear on 

this. The Department recommends that prospectively, when anyone 

applies for a job, the employer should take an affirmative step to 

obtain a birth certificate, INS document, or some other document. 

Now, what about those already employed throughout the country? 

Would those already employed have to provide some proof of their 

entitlement to work in this country?

Mr. Silbermax. Well, how do you feel about that, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Eilberg. Well, I think that would present a very chaotic 

situation.

Mr. Silbermax. I guess 1 would agree with you, and that is why I 

limited it to new' employment.

Mr. Eilberg. You limit it to new' employees-----

Mr. Silbermax. New employment.

Mr. Eilberg. In limiting it to new employment, it seems to me 

tha t you have totally ignored those illegal aliens w'ho are presently 

employed.

Mr. Silbermax. No, I would not ignore them. I would apply the 

same provisions of your bill.

Mr. Eilberg. But you just said a moment ago that anyone who is 

presently employed would not be checked on, as I understood your 

answer.

Mr. Silbermax. No, No. 1 think that the conditions of your bill 

would apply to people presently employed.

Mr. Eilberg. So you are saying, if 1 understand, that there would 

be a different technique, a different measure of proof for those presently 

employed. But for those who might be employed in the future, affirmative steps would be required?

Mr. Silbermax. That is right. My theory, our theory is that over 

time our procedure would prospectively be very effective as people 

move to new jobs. Certainly over time we would deal with the problem. 

I am balancing the wrench that would exist if you applied that to all 

existing employment.

Mr. Eilberg. The problem is, of course, now. We are also concerned 

w ith those illegal aliens currently holding jobs.

Mr. Silbermax. Oh, but of course the problem is now. But my 

suggestion is that the provision in your bill is not as effective as it
59

might be. T am asking that it at least be for new employment toughened 

up. I am striking the balance slightly differently than you are.

Mr. Eilberg. Would you support a provision which would grant 

some relief to illegal aliens who have resided in the United States for 

some period of time?

Mr. Silberman. What do you have in mind?

Mr. Eilberg. Well, I am talking about amnesty and how long an 

illegal alien would be here before you would grant him any rights, if 

at all? . *

Mr. Silberman. That is a very troubling question. I will confess 

tha t we have spent a lot of time thinking about that. There are some 

people who—there is an amnesty provision in present legislation which 

I think has a grandfather date of 1948. There are some who suggest 

that tha t should be brought forward. I am troubled about that. l am 

troubled about that because of our credibility in enforcing the law, 

and I am troubled tha t people in the future will think there will be 

another grandfather date somewhere further down the line, and thus 

our efforts will be undercut.

On the other hand, I recognize the difficulty if we passed a bill that 

was tremendously effective of deporting an individual who had spent 

20 years in this country, raised children who are American citizens 

because they were born here, and insisting that that individual, male 

or female, would have to go back. I think probably my druthers on 

that would be to have some flexible system which would build on the 

present immigration system whereby some panel or board could make 

equitable determinations rather than to have an arbitrary grandfather 

clause.

Mr. Eilberg. As a m atter of fact, do we no t have a suspension of 

deportation situation now for aliens who are here for 7 years?

Mr. Silberman. Yes, we do, or more.

Mr. Eilberg. Or more.

Mr. S ilberman. Yes, we do have such a procedure.

Mr. E ilberg. So there would be that.

Mr. Silberman. Tha t would be available. That is what I meant 

wdien I said build on tha t procedure.

Mr. Eilberg. Now, regarding the smuggling of aliens, we hear a 

great deal about the increase in the smuggling of illegal aliens. Tha t 

is currently a felony with a penalty of a fine of $2,000 or 5 years or 

both. Are stronger penalties required, or is the problem one of effectively prosecuting those who smuggle illegal aliens?

Mr. Silberman. I think it is more of an enforcement problem, a 

detection and prosecution kind of problem, rather than the size of the 

penalties, although as you note, 1 add the summary seizure of vehicles 

used for smuggling, which I think is an incremental addition which 

•we could make.

Do you have anything to add to that, Sam?

Mr. Bernsen. No. I think our problem has been tha t we cannot 

prosecute all of the smugglers wre find now. The courts are just jammed 

with cases.

Mr. Eilberg. Well, how do you go about selecting? That is my 

next question. Apparently you are uneven in your prosecution of 

smugglers, and complaints have been made tha t you do not prosecute 

sufficiently.

49—4 69— 75 " 5
60

Mr. Silberman. Well, if the Congress should give us more judges 

as the President requested in his omnibus judge bill, which has been 

pending before this Congress lo these many years, tha t might be a 

first step.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Silberman, I understand what you are saying, 

but how do you determine which ones you are going to prosecute and 

which ones you do not prosecute?

Mr. Silberman. Prosecution is handled by the U.S. attorneys, as 

I am sure you are aware of, Mr. Chairman. And I am sure the priorities 

in various areas of the country depend on the number of cases that « 

they have and on the number of other cases. But I would be the first 

to admit the U.S. attorneys are desperately overworked, and they do 

not have sufficient judges to bring the cases to in the first place. "

Mr. Eilberg. The Immigration Service has freqeuntlv been criti- •- 

cized for maintaining an ineffective alien documentation system.

What are you doing to correct this?

Mr. Chapman. Are you speaking, sir, of the alien documentation 

methods?

Mr. Eilberg. Yes.

Mr. Chapman. We have designed, as I remarked a moment ago, a 

new alien documentation system which I think embodies the very 

latest of techniques and is, in fact, as I mentioned, both counterfeit 

proof, imposter proof, and tamper proof. And the money to implement 

tha t new card, as well as the new visa, and the new passport, which 

will use the same principles, is contained in the President’s budget 

for 1976. We are very hopeful we get tha t money.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Silberman, I am also concerned with that part 

of your statement which suggests tha t your approach provides better 

protection against discrimination. I would yield to no one in my 

feeling that I am for equal rights for everyone in this country. And 

at the same time I feel tha t title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations are specifically designed to prevent employment discrimination based on national 

origin. And I do not understand how you would suggest that under 

the legislation tha t appears before us that there would be the possibility 

of more discrimination under I I.R . 982 than under the approach tha t 

you are expressing. «

Mr. Silberman. All right. Let me put it to you directly. I am afraid 

tha t under your bill, and I know it is not intended to do this, but I am 

afraid under your bill there will be a greater obligation placed upon the 

American citizen or legal alien w ho appears to be alien than there will ♦

be upon the American citizen or legal alien who does not appear to be 

an alien. T hat is to say, employers will be encouraged to disregard the 

letter which the applicant would provide indicating his legal status if, 

in fact, tha t individual does not appear to be a traditional American 

citizen. Therefore, it is my concern th at the obligation be placed on all.

Mr. Eilberg. In that case, is it not true a complaint could be filed 

which would be handled by your office or the Commission?

Mr. Silberman. The EEOC. We do not have any jurisdiction under 

title VII any more. Yes, of course it would. But I am concerned how it 

would work in practice, and I think that is something we have to be 

very worried and troubled about.
61

Mr. E ilberg. And I might say, Mr. Silberman, that I am trou bled 

with your plan because it connotes to me the existence of an intern al 

American passport system.

Mr. Silberman. No, I don’t think so.

Mr. E ilberg. Something tha t might approach that which occurs in. 

Iron Curtain countries.

Mr. Silberman. No. No. No.

Mr. E ilberg. I do not think tha t citizens should be obligated to be? 

carrying identification papers with them as they travel around tin?

* country.

Mr. Silberman. Well, Mr. Chairman, the Congress has alread y 

required tha t of the social security cards.

Mr. Eilberg. Bu t Mr. Silberman, again I ask you, how effective?

* tha t law is, sir?

Mr. Silberman. You certainly would not suggest, Mr. Chairman,, 

it is justifiable because I have imposed an obligation but it is ineffective?

Mr. Eilberg. I am suggesting tha t the idea in the social securitylegislation is good, but apparently there have been problems. It is c lear 

to the staff of this committee, and this member of this committee th at 

the system suggested has not been working. We have got to look at ifand perhaps change it or find some other way.

Mr. Silberman. I agree, and my suggestion—and I think we could 

come together on this—is to cross-reference this bill and the obligationswe are imposing with the obligations you have already; you, the Congress, have already imposed on the social security card. I am n ot suggesting internal passports.

Mr. Eilberg. Finally, Mr. Silberman, it is apparent from thiscolloquy at least, that you have had very little contact with the Sot ted! 

Security Administration, because I do not sense or feel th at you ha ve 

been working with them. And why has there not been greater cooperation between the Immigration Service and the Social Sec urity 

Administration?

Mr. Silberman. Well, I think there has been cooperation.

Mr. Chapman. Yes, sir. There has been a considerable amount of 

cooperation, and it has greatly improved both with HEW , Social

* Security, and IRS on all our parts.

Mr. Eilberg. Now Mr. Chapman, for at least 2 years or more we? 

have been trying to get information on IRS cooperation with you im 

terms of this kind of information being supplied on the W-4 fornix

* Now, what is the status of t hat discussion?

Mr. Chapman. The situation that you refer to has changed, Mr - 

Chairman, and there is now very close cooperation both nat ion ally 

and locally. I might run through some of the measures tha t have beei» 

taken. The criteria for an IRS interview with the aliens tha t we have* 

apprehended has also changed as the result of several tests tha t have’ 

been run. During one 3-month period 1 referred I believe some 1,700) 

aliens to IRS, and they assessed about a quarter of a million in taxes,, 

and actually collected about $168,000.

The criteria, the new criteria tha t they were using, was based om 

possession of $50 or more by the alien at the time that we arrested him ,

Mr. Eilberg. Commissioner, 1 am asking the question regarding
62

the illegal alien, the subje ct we are talkin g ab ou t, wha t coo peratio n 

are you ge tting from IR S in the are a of i den tifi cation of illegal aliens, 

and my quest ion specifically is when we las t discussed thi s m at te r in 

hea rings, an d we h ave done it at s everal hearings before n ot only you, 

sir, bu t with your p redecessor as well, and discussions were underway 

between the Internal Reven ue Service and IN S so th at the W -4 form 

would be amend ed to include q uestions on citizen ship an d alien s tatus. 

Now, wha t has hap pen ed to th at idea. Do you know, sir?

Mr. Ber ns en . The In tern al Re venue Service has declined to amend 

th e W -4 form to include quest ion s ab ou t alien st at us or citiz enship. 

Th ey feel it would t ake legisla tion to authorize the m to includ e such a 

que stio n on their form, and th at is where the m at te r essent ially rests.

Mr. E ilb er g. So the re is no coo per ation in thi s are a at this point, 

and it is th eir opinion that legisla tion is necessary ?

Mr. Silb erma n. I t is no t a quest ion of coo peratio n, bu t a question 

of legal au thor ity , as I un de rstand Sa m’s response.

Mr. Eilbe rg . Com missioner, did you wish to proceed furth er? I 

did no t me an to cu t you off.

Mr. C hapm an. I was going to refe r to the coo peration between 

social se curity and ourselves w ith re spect to the recor d checks on those 

who apply for a num ber. Th ere has been some progres s on th at since 

the Social Security Ad ministratio n imple me nted the reg ula tion th at 

Congress pas sed no t too long ago last sum mer. Th ey referred a numbor 

of cases to us th at had no t been show n or pro ved to be U.S. citizens 

or legal aliens. We searched ou r reco rds, and we in effect have denied 

ab ou t 90 or 95 per cent of them , and confirme d 5 to 10 perce nt, so 

th at the re is considerable c ooper ation, and some conside rable prog ress 

in th at area.

Mr. E ilberg. T ha nk you.

Mr. Fis h?

Mr. Fish. Tha nk you, Mr. Ch air ma n.

Mr. Atto rney General, cou ld I ask you in su pp ort of y ou r economic 

ana lysis of the reason wThy the re h as been thi s large ex pan sion of aliens 

illeg ally try ing to enter the United State s, to supply this com mittee 

with cu rre nt unem plo ym ent figures in Mexico, in o ther Lat in American 

countries th at a re a source of la rge num bers of e ntries, and in Canada, 

an d in West ern Eu rope an na tio ns th at co ntrib ute to this supply?

Mr. Silberm an. I migh t ad d for Mexico I think the figure is either 

40 perce nt une mployed or underem plo yed .

[The following addit ion al inf orma tio n was subm itted :]

Most of the countries in Latin America, including Mexico, do not publish official 

and comprehensive une mploymen t da ta on a regular basis. We have, however, 

been able to obtain some estimates of unemployment developed by the World 

Bank missions for Latin American countries. The following is a listin g of these 

estim ates: Unmplo ym ent

Country: (percent)

Mexico_____________________________________________________ 1 15

Dominican Republic__________________________________________ 17+

El Salv ador_________________________________________________ 20+

Guatemala__________________________________________________ 15+

Colombia____________________________________________________ 8-10

Ecuad or____________________________________________________ 7

Pe ru____________________________________________ 

* Plus extensive underemployment.
63

Nationals of Gre at Britain and Ital y represen t the largest num ber of apprehensions from Western Europe. The Burea u of Labor Statistics estimates unemployment in Great Britain a t 3 perce nt and in Ita ly a t 3.1 perce nt. According tothe New York Times International Economic Survey, published Jan uary 26, 

1975, this represe nts a 30 per cen t increase in une mploymen t for Britain. The 

survey furthe r reports th at 10 perce nt of Ital ians work outside Ita ly because of 

lack of work in Italy. With increasing u nemployme nt in the employing European 

countries, the rep atriation of these workers could have dra stic effects for Italy.

The Canadian Statistical Review rep ort s an unemploymen t rate for Canada, 

in December 1974, of 6.1 percent (seasonally adjuste d).

Mr. Fish. Could I ask unanimous consent th at a t the close of today’s 

hearings there be inserted in the record the newspaper articles on the 

problem of illegal aliens th at have appeared in the last few weeks that 

I alluded to in my opening remarks?

Mr. Eilberg. Without objection, they will be admitted in the 

record.

[The articles referred to follow:]

[From the Washington Star-News, Nov. 16, 1974]

H uma n T id e C uts D eep ly in Ame rica

(By Michael Satchell)

The golden door of immigration to America has nearly closed. The invitation 

to the tired, the poor and the wretched refuse of the world, has been withdrawn. 

The welcome m at th at greeted waves of immigrants for more than a cen tury has 

been pulled. The Statue of Liberty stands mute.

But they still are pouring in. In gre ate r numbers tha n ever before, millions of 

illegal aliens sneak across the bord er each year, drawn by dreams of a bette r life 

and dollars to buy it.

The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) estim ates th at about 

one in 26 persons now in the United Sta tes is here illegally, roughly eight million 

people in a na tion of 210 million. Legal imm igrants numb er about 400,000 annually.

By contrast, close to 800,000 illegals were caught and booted ou t of America 

in fiscal 1974, about one in three or four of those who entered illegally without 

papers or who simply overstayed the ir visitor’s visa.

General Leonard F. Chapman, Jr., close to completing his freshman year as 

INS commissioner, warns th at the country is experiencing the greatest unsanctioned immigration in its histo ry and chafes at public and official indifference.

“We have on our hands right now a serious natio nal problem * * * that the 

INS is wholly unable to cope w ith.” Chap man told a House subcommittee recently, 

“ Unless ade qua te resources and legislation are forthcoming almost immediately, 

the flood of illegal entries will become a torre nt.”

The presence of abo ut eight million people, most of them poorly educated 

Latins from Mexico and Central America, who have no legal—and, some argue, 

moral—right to be here, raises worrisome questions abo ut the illegals’ effect on 

the future quality of life in the Un ited States.

Can a nation th at is sliding inexorably into a recession, is battling inflation 

and rising unem ployment, and is faced with shortages of energy, clean water and 

air and possibly even food, afford to take in millions of extra residents, especially 

when in this country, zero pop ulation g row th is close?

Illegals hold jobs th at could be filled by citizens. They invaria bly pay little 

or no taxes. They send enormous amounts of money o ut of the country, aggrava ting the balance of paym ents problem .

Yet they use public services, including free or subsidized medical care. Their 

children are educated at public schools, and they often get onto the welfare or, 

unemployment rolls.

The Washington metropolitan area has between 35,000 and 50,000 aliens, 

with a large Latin population in the Columbia Road area and people from other

E

art s of the world scattered throughout the District and the suburbs. Illegals 

ere work in a variety of service industries and are heav ily employed by restaurants and ta xi companies.

No agency, public or private, has ye t und erta ken a comprehensive review of 

what illegals cost the cou ntry each year, bu t here are some random examples.
64

The IN S recently completed an employmen t survey and estimated th at one 

m illion jobs in heavy and light industry, agricultu re and services could be opened 

tip for unemployed citizens with imp roved enforcement programs. Washington 

P.C . could gain 11,500 jobs, New York, 106,000; Los Angeles, 135,000, and Chicag o, 79,500.

The survey shows clearly th at the old “wetback” problem th at plagued the 

ru ra l areas of the Southwest border stat es is now a full-fledged nationwide urb an 

problem because the illegals have drifted nor th away from stoop labor and into 

abetter pay ing c ity jobs.

The AFL-C IO, which has thrown its weight behind tougher legislation aimed a t 

ha lti ng the flow of illegals, estimates the annual wage loss to U.S. workers at more 

th an $10 billion and fumes because illegals undermine union strength by working <

/o r below-scale salaries. Yet the gia nt labor organization concedes th at not only 

ar e many of the illegals perform ing useful tasks within society and the economy, 

they have become absolutely essential.

Most illegals mail sums of largely untaxed money home to sup port their families. If eight million mailed home the nominal sum of $250 a year, this would add *

mp t o $2 billion. Many illegals work in agriculture or service industries for small 

com panies or individuals who simply don’t bother to deduct taxes or insurance.

Those on larger company payrolls claim six or seven depen dents, thu s avoiding 

most income tax. Few if any file ann ual tax returns.

Th e Los Angeles County board of supervisors recently sued the federal governme nt to recover the $7 million it lost last year in providing free or subsidized 

medical care to aliens. Two San Diego hospitals reported spending $1.9 million 

last year between them on treating illegals.

Unauth orized aliens are und enia bly having an adverse effect on the American 

economy, bu t they also benefit it. They take menial, low-paying jobs th at other 

Americans often shun—m igrant farm work, unskilled construction work, dishwashing and busboy labor, domestic work, and dirty, dangerous jobs in indu stry.

Once here, they present few problems in the community. The vast majority 

ar e law-ab iding people who w ant n othing more tha n a job and salary. Those who 

take a sym path etic view toward illegals—and there aren’t very many—feel th at 

alien s don ’t sponge as heavily off the welfare, unem ployment or cha rity rolls as 

many critics believe, because they are afraid of co ntac t w ith officialdom.

In fact, this fear of officialdom and their constan t fugitive existence from the 

"im migration man” leaves the illegals as vulnerable as shorn lambs, exploited and 

ripp ed off by employers and others, such as unscrupulous lawyers and “immigratio n spec ialists,” who prey on them .

Said A1 Piliod, INS’s associate commissioner for enforcement: “T hey’re bled 

by all kinds of people. Landlords overcharge them, knowing they ’re illegals. 

Employers pay them low wages, make them work overtime withou t pay never 

, le t them tak e vacations.

“In Chicago and Gary, Ind., where a lo t of them work in small assembly p lants 

I or other industries,” Piiiod said, “we’ve heard of m any cases where illegals have 

been maimed by electric hammers and saws. The employers simply give them two 

weeks’ wages and send them on the ir way.” v

INS investigators describe other abuses. There are employers who find themselves owing accumulated salaries to illegals and then simply call the local imI mig ration office to report their own workers, get them picked up, and thus avoiding paying them. It is not against the law to hire illegal aliens, alth ough pending 

legislation aims to change that. ♦

Illegal farm workers still labor under atrocious conditions in the Southwest, 

working long hours for minimal wages. Close to San Clemente, Calif, with the 

pan oply of Southern California wealth in tantalizing view, illegals literally are 

living in the fields they work.

They exist at little more tha n subsistance level, eatin g poor food and living 

without sanitation in packing-crate lean-to ’s clustered toge ther on the edges of 

razor-trim cultivate d fields where they work from dawn to dusk for a few dollars.

Those who come n orth have it better, bu t not much. For lean-to ’s, sub stitute 

a room in a villa demiserias probably shared with three or four others. For fields, 

make it small factories, construction sites, restaurants, or even expensive homes.

Many illegals are women who find work as domestics and learn th at the wealthy 

sub urb an m atron who hires them can be equally as exploitive as a ny oth er unscrupulous employer.

Any community with a large num ber of illegal aliens att racts crooked lawyers 

and “im migration specialists” who charge exorbitant fees for routine immigration 

help.
65

A typical case:

Goziam Atto h of Washington, a Nigerian stu dent who married an American 

girl and needed only to fill out a simple form at th e local INS office to petition for 

-a change in status from stu de nt to perman ent resident, thu s allowing him to 

remain in this country.

An alien “co nsultant” in sub urb an Maryland persuade d him, Attoh said, th at 

he would have a very difficult time getting his sta tus changed, bu t with their 

help, it might be arranged. Attoh paid the company $490, and they dutifully 

helped him fill out a form th at he could have done in a few minutes at the local 

immigration office.

Bu t Attoh, in a sense, is very lucky. Because he married an American woman, 

he now’ has something th at m oney can ’t buy, somethin g coveted by eight million 

people already here and uncounted millions overseas—sta tus as a legal immigrant 

to the United States.

[From the Washington Star-News, Nov. 17, 1974]

L if e in P a r a d is e Sp e n t on t h e R un

(By Michael Satchell)

The pale green car glides onto Columbia Road NW, sho rtly before dawn, its 

driver and passenger scanning the sidewalks, slowing down at bus stops, peering 

into shop doorways, looking for sha bby clothes, brown skins and furtive eyes.

Watching them, perfectly aware of their mission, are the quarry, emerging 

from crowded apartm ents, waiting in bus queues with brow n lunch bags, avoiding 

direct eye con tact with the car and its occupants, try ing desp erately to appear 

nonchalant, to look as if they belong.

The car suddenly stops, two men leap out, a figure flees and a footrace begins. 

Two minutes later a young man is under arre st. Eig ht hours later he’s in the 

D.C. jail. Three days later, carrying a small brown bag with all his worldly 

goods, he’s stepp ing off a jetliner in Costa Rica, in Ecua dor, in Ethiopia, in 

Nigeria or wherever.

One more illegal imm igrant to the United State s, one of the estimated eight 

million who now call America home, has been deported.

It is a process repeated daily in virtually every big city in the country and 

along the Southw estern border sta tes as the vas tly outnum bered Immigration 

and Naturaliza tion Service pi ts its 3,800 investigators, inspectors a nd naturalizers 

against e ight million hidden fugitives.

It is no contest.

“To pu t it mildly, it ’s terribly frustrating, very disheartening and mostly 

hopeless,” bemoans Ha rry Heard, an investigator with the INS field office in 

Washington.

“For every one we pick up,” he said, “it seems like there are 10 more coming 

into the city and 100 more alre ady here. But, you ju st go out and do your best 

and hope th at somebody out th ere or up on the Hill knows wh at’s happening and 

what we’re try ing to do.”

The Washington area has betw’een 35,000 and 50,000 illegals, David Drum ­

mond, the local INS chief, estimates. Unlike other major urb an areas, it has a 

hodgepodge of peoples.

New York, for example, has mostly Latin Americans among its million illegals 

and they melt easily into the Pue rto Rican and Latino barrios. New England 

att racts Portuguese. Half of Chicago’s estim ated 500,000 illegals are Polish 

nationals. The West Coast cities hav e a preponderance of Mexicans and Central 

Americans as illegals.

But cosmopolitan Washington has them all, and a lew more besides. The 

Latins are clustered in the Columbia Road and Mount Pleasant areas, Nigerians 

•on upper 14th Street NW; Koreans in Arlington; Ethiopians, Greeks, Italians, 

Iraqis, Britons, everywhere.

It is not against the law to hire illegals, although bills before Congress would 

change that.

In Washington, illegals work in a host of service industries. They drive cabs, 

work as busboys and waiters, hotel chambermaids and porters, domestics and 

construction laborers.

Investigato rs have picked them up typing in Capitol Hill offices, laboring as 

stewards at the Ft. Myer officers club, preparing food at the Kennedy Center,
66

wearing hardhats on Metro construction sites, checking baggage at National 

Airport, parking cars at downtown lots.

Much to the embarrassment of the Immigration Service, four were arrested 

while working as janitors in the INS headquarters here. But nobody at INS 

laughed when a stu dy last month concluded tha t better enforcement, meaning 

more investigators to pick up illegals, could release one million jobs held by aliens 

nationwide to the growing ranks of unemployed Americans.

A popular INS joke, probably with more truth than humor, is that if every 

illegal in Washington was caught and deported, half the city’s restaurants would 

be forced to close and half the cabs would stop running.

“ I’ m almost afraid to go out to dinner,” Gen. Leonard F. Chapman Jr., INS 

commissioner, said. “ I’m a law enforcement officer and I’d be surrounded by 

illegal aliens.”

In early October, this reporter took a Virginia cab from his North Arlington 

home to National Airport, bound for California to report on illegal aliens along the 

Mexican border. The cab driver, who spoke broken English, had no idea how to 

find National Airport from Arlington Boulevard, had to be directed right to the 

terminal building, and had difficulty figuring out the change when it came time to 

pay the fare.

“ Are you an illegal?” he was asked.

“ Don’t understand,” he muttered.

Unlike the Southwest border states that harbor practically all “ wetbacks,” 

those who have slipped into the country without papers, Northern cities also have 

a share of illegals who come here on tourist or student visas and then remain after 

their visas expire. The tourists simply scrape up the plane fare, get their visa and 

disappear from official view as soon as they reach American soil. Students from the 

Third World countries tend to come with every intention of returning but learn to 

like the American lifestyle and decide to stay on.

INS officers grumble that consular officials abroad are far too lax in handing out 

tourist visas. The American officials shudder at the mention of the American 

Bicentennial celebration two years hence. In June 1973, President Nixon issued a 

“ Bicentennial Invitation to the World,” and consular officials were urged to 

encourage travel to the United States.

“ The y’ll all head for here,” groaned an IN S official.

Picking up illegals once they are established in the community is a sometimes 

ticklish, occasionally distasteful task, and INS methods have been criticized by 

several rights groups, particularly the American Civil Liberties Union.

The New York AC LU has filed suit to try to force INS into halting its so called 

“street sweeps”— the practice of stopping likely looking suspects on the street 

and asking for identification, simply because they may be shabbily dressed, 

ethnic appearing and walking in an area where illegals are known to live.

INS argues that this is an effective w ay to catch illegals, although investigators 

sometimes find that even the most tactful approach in asking a man’s birthplace 

and identify can backfire. Recently, the IN S’s Heard and a rookie investigator 

named Harry Montv ille were cruising the Columbia Road area and Heard, who 

prides himself on being able to call a man’s nationality nine times out of ten 

simply on visual appearance, told Montville to get out and check a young man 

on the street.

“ He’s probably a Persian,” Heard said confidently.

Montville stepped out and ve ry politely asked the man for some identification.

“ What the hell is this?” the man asked. “ You can’t do anything to me. I 

haven’t done anything. I’ll complain to the Justice Department. I’ll sue you. 

I ’ll . . . ”

Montville, much chagrined, jumped back into the car.

“ Persian, eh?” he said. “ How about hostile U.S.C .?”

A U.S.C. is a U.S . citizen.

The occasionally distasteful part occurs when a father or mother, picked up 

on the street or at work, refuses to reveal the home address to protect the spouse 

and children. He or she is deported and it may be weeks, months before the person 

can return to the country. Meanwhile, the family members are left wondering 

whether a parent has been caught and deported, has come to harm, or simply 

deserted them.

The other method of catching illegals is to check places where they are regularly 

employed or follow up on tips. A number of Washington restaurants regularly 

hire aliens as busboys or kitchen workers, and investigators know they can go to 

a given restaurant on any day and be assured of picking up four or five illegals.
When the immigration men hit a res tau ran t—never during the luncheon or 

din ner rush, by tac it agreement with res tau ran t managers—there is always a 

mad scramble for exits or hiding places. “T hey ’ll go out of second floor windows like birds,” investigator Joe lteissig said . “The y'll dive into the meat coolers, the bathroom , the boiler room. They’ll throw off th eir uniforms and sit dowh at a table like they ’re eating. They’ll split 

like r abbit s.” Once arre sted, an alien can elect to leave the country vol untarily if he has the funds and gets official approval. Investig ators have the optio n of keeping 

the person in custody and formally deporting him, which usually is done if the 

alien appears unlikely to go home on his own. Those given voluntary depar ture are not liable for criminal penalties if they 

re-enter the United States and are cau ght again. Aliens formally deported can be 

prosecuted if they retu rn and are caught. There is a sense of futility apparent among investigators. The y are so understaffed and funds run so short th at the y find themselves going out each day, picking up a handful of illegals, and then driving by others walking the streets. Processing a deportee requires a lot of paperw ork, and the alien is allowed to 

go home escorted if he wishes and gathe r his things. Inv estigators who display remarkable tolerance and sometimes affection for those the y chase usually try to make sure an alien receives any back wages or benefits before he is p ut on the 

plane. The dis tric t office has 17 investigato rs responsible for the city, Virginia and 

parts of No rth Carolina. Here, as elsewhere, investigators will no longer bother to drive a long distance to bring back one or two illegals who may have been picked up by auth orities in 

dow nstate Virginia, unless the aliens have committed crimes. The rationale is: Why bother spending half a day driving, plus gasoline, when the officer knows 

he can drive a few blocks from the downtown office and be assured of picking up 

up six or eight in an hour. Given the arithmetic of alien-chasing, most illegals simply lie low and watch ou t for the tell-ta le green INS c ar as it makes its morning sweep. The odds on not 

getting c aught are overwhelmingly in their favor. “ Getting picked up by the imm igration man,” Heard said, “is like getting hit 

by lightning. The odds are about equal.” Tomorrow: The thin green line: sto pping aliens crossing the border.

[From the Washington Star-NewS, Nov. 18, 1974]

T h e B ig g e st H o le in t h e D ik e

(By Michael Satchell)

San Ysidro, Calif.—The first wave gathers at dusk. Along a short strip of 

bord er sep arating suburban San Diego and downtown Tiju ana, Mex., groups of raggedly dressed men and women begin forming by the jagged holes in t he 12-foot 

cyclone fence that divides Them from Us. The hum an tide, which has receded during the daylight hours, has turned. When darkness falls the first waves will crash through the fence and disperse like breakers on a beach, to be followed by more and more in the same relentless cycle. On this night, as on any, between 1,000 and 1,500 campesinos will pour across 

this five-mile stretch of border, some carrying clothing and a little money, most 

with noth ing bu t dust in their pockets. Three or four hundred will quickly be caug ht within sight of the border. In a couple of hours the y will have been processed, driven back to the border checkpoint crossing and released. But many will be back in the United States before the bus th at deported them has return ed the two miles to the U.S. Border Patrol 

hea dqu arte rs to pick up the next load.

It is a futile, almost ludicrous exercise. To fly along the border at dusk watchin g the hordes gather or to view them snaking along well worn trails in the eerie green light of a night vision scope, is 

startling. This is the Border Patro l’s Chula Vista sector, the biggest hole in the porous 

dike th at passes for a controlled and guarded U.S.-Mexican border. The bord er is 1,945 miles long and Chula Vista covers the first 66 miles inland 

from the Pacific Ocean. Across this str etc h comes abo ut one-third of the “wetbacks,” illegally entering the U.S.
68

This year, if the current arre st rate continues, abo ut 200,000 illegals will be 

cap ture d in the Chula Vista sector—about one in four of those who cross this 

section of the border. Most of the 800,000 aliens will choose routes th at funnel 

directly out of Tijuana, crossing in an 18-mile section from the ocean to Otay 

Mountain .

On paper, it should seem easy to stop most of them, bu t consider:

The Immigration and Naturaliza tion Service has been understaffed for years 

in trying to stanc h the ever increasing flow of illegals into the country. Today, the 

Chula Vista sector has fewer Border Patrol officers than it had thre e years ago.

Over the last 10 years, while patrol streng th in Chula Vista has increased 20 

perce nt, the number of illegals cap tured has zoomed 2,000 percent, from 4,377 

in 1963 to 156,886 last year.

On an average night, the 18-mile st rip of border across from Tijuan a will have 

only 16 patrolmen in the field during an eight-hour shift and some nights will be 

down to 10 or 12. The usual practice is to station the men along the five-mile 

stretch bearing the heaviest traffic, and leave the other 13 miles unguarded.

The second principal line of defense along the border consists of highway 

checkpoints in the Chula Vista secto r at San Clemente on Interstate 5 and at 

Temecula on U.S. 395. But recent California court decisions have severely 

restricted the Border Patrol’s powers to check cars for smuggled aliens, and 

recently the Temecula checkpoints was forced to close due to an adverse court 

decision.

Most of the U.S.-Mexican border is open land, altho ugh close to population 

centers. The U.S. has erected fences th at in some places are 12 feet high and topped 

with concertina barbed wire.

The fences are virtually useless. Smugglers cut holes in the wire with clippers 

and sometimes drive cars or trucks throug h. An electrified fence might be a more 

effective deterre nt, bu t a sensitive Mexican government complains even about 

the barbed wire, stressing th at Mexico is a friendly neighbor.

“The border patrol is a very thin green line,” complained Richard Batchelor, 

deput y chief p atrol officer at Chula Vista. “The problem is just too big. There a re 

too many coming through the wire. Hell, we’re not functioning as policemen or 

law enforcement officers. We’re jus t picking up bodies and shipping th em back.”

The old hands like Batchelor in the Border Patrol recall almost wistfully the 

old methods of dealing with aliens, especially “Operation Wetbac k” that the 

Imm igration Service conducted in 1954-55.

It was a tough program aimed at discouraging illegals from returning, and it 

worked like this. An alien, afte r being picked up, would be held in jail until anFB I check could be run. If he was a retu rnee or had comm itted any crimes, he 

was prosecuted. If not, he was given a slow ride to Brownsville, Tex., held in jail 

for a week or two, then loaded aboard a steam er opera ted by a Mexican shipowner who wasn’t concerned with the physical comfort of his passengers.

After a long, slow and uncomfortable voyage, the alien was turned loose in 

Vera Cruz deep in southeast Mexico, and a long way from the American borderToday, given the sheer number of aliens involved and the adven t of cheap, speedy 

bus travel within Mexico, such a program isn’t feasible.

The Mexican government’s cooperation has been lukewarm at best, knowledgeable sources say, because the flood of poorly educated and underemployed 

workers into the U.S. is a safety valve for a country whose population is expected 

to triple in the next 20 years.

The problem was discussed by Presidents Ford and E cheveria recently when they 

me t at the bord er to discuss the recent Mexican oil discovery. The Mexican government is anxious to get a form of the old Bracero program ins titu ted in which 

controlled numbers of Mexicans were allowed into the U.S. to work as fieldhands.

This idea has several stumbling blocks, though. Mechanization has sharply cu t 

into the need for stoop labor, and union organizers, particularly Cesar Chavez, 

see th e flood of Mexican nationals into the fields as some sort of farm owners plot 

inspired bv the government to under cut union strength.

The AFL-C IO has also expressed concern at the massive impact illegal aliens 

are having on jobs, wage losses and other economic consequences th at affect 

American workers already hard hit by rising unemployment and inflation.

With Mexican authorities unwilling to tigh ten up on their side of the border, 

it becomes a problem of catching the intruders once they cross the line.

One method is by the sensors, which are Vietnam war surplus devices planted 

in the major foot trails to detect movement. When the sensor is activated, the 

operato r sees a black ink mark on a graph and can then dispatch an officer tocheck the p articu lar trail.
69

At Chula Vista, foot traffic along the trails gets so heavy at night that thereare n’t enough officers to check out all the warnings. Said Gary Iteece, a sensor 

operator:

“At night, the graphs are solid black. And the hills are solid brown.”

Viewed from the air, the dun-colored hills east of Tijuana on the U.S. side 

are an amazing sight. Scores up on scores of narrow trails worn into th e scrub over 

the years by thousands of aliens twist and tur n and intertwine, forming a gia nt 

mosaic as intricate as a piece of Belgian lace.

Along them during the day, bu t mostly at night, come th e illegals who are wise 

to the Border Patrol’s rules a nd regulations and know how’ to play th e “wetba ck” 

game to win. For example, a group of m aybe a dozen will form up and make th e 

run across.

If the y ru n into a patrolm an, a couple will “sacrifice” themselves and be cau ght. 

The ir companions will sc atte r, aware th at a Border Patrolman is not allowed to 

use his gun unless his life is thre atened .

Those who get by simply head for the Intern ational Border crossing and pick 

up a cab or bus, or thu mb a ride no rth to San Diego or beyond. The one or two 

cau ght by the patrolman are simply retu rned over the border and make ano ther 

crossing attempt before dawn.

Most of the aliens, in fac t, h ave no choice bu t to make a nother try. They usually 

have trav eled long distances to reac h Tijuana, and even if the y wish to return 

to the Mexican interior, there is little ehance of earning the fare in the Tijuan a 

area. So the y are forced to cross the border again and to look for work—if it is 

only to finance the ir r etu rn home.

An interesting trend is the smuggling of aliens. This traffic in hum an flesh has 

turned in to a highly profitable business. Smugglers t ake small risk of being caugh t 

and even less of being prosecuted due to clogged courts, harried prosecutors and 

adverse cou rt decisions.

One of the biggest stumbling blocks to prosecuting alien smugglers was a recent 

federal court ruling th at all of the smuggled aliens involved in a case had to be 

held and be available as witnesses.

Said Robin Clack, who runs the Border Patrol from the Immigration and 

Natura liza tion Service’s Washington hea dqu arte rs: “On smuggling cases we'd 

keep four or five aliens to testify and send the others back. Now, we have to keep 

30 or 40, and it becomes impossible because there ju st isn’t jail space available 

to hold them .

“Plus the aliens,” he continued, “a re very, very re luc tan t to testify against t he 

smuggler, which means the prosecutors are reluctan t to try the cases. And when 

they do and win, the courts let th em off lightly. The courts will jum p on narcotics 

traffickers, bu t not those who deal in aliens.”

The smuggling is big business. Ju st how profitable can be gauged by the action 

las t November of Arcela Robles, a woman w ith permanen t resident status in the 

U.S. and the ringleader of a smuggling ring believed to be tran spo rtin g about 1,500 

aliens a month across the border and charging each one $225.

She was charged with smuggling aliens and posted a $175,000 ca sh bond, which 

she immediately forfeited by skipping across the border.

Said Robert Hodge, head of t he Border Patro l’s anti-smuggling unit in (’hula 

Vista: “ We’ve always had a certain amoun t of smuggling, bu t noth ing on th e 

scale or sophistication we see today. I t used to be truck drivers—Sunday smugglers—• 

bringing a few “ wets” in for $25 a time.

“ Now,” he said, “ there are abo ut 40 highly organized smuggling rings in Tijua na 

alone, with an average price of $250 a head to get them across the border and to 

Los Angeles. The bigger ones even will get people from Central or South American 

and tak e them all the way to Chicago or New York for $1,000 or thereab outs.

“ The y have representatives in each city ,” he explained, “ who often guarantee 

them jobs on arrival, and the usua l practice is to collect the fees lat er when the 

alien is ea rning money. They rare ly have the money to pay in advanc e.”

The aliens, who initially make conta ct with smuggling ring represen tatives in 

Tijuan a bars or stre et corners, are first taken thro ugh the wire by border-wise 

teen-aged guides, 13 or 14-year-old Mexican boys who themselves have sometimes 

been caug ht half a dozen times by the Border Patrol.

Once over, the aliens are picked up and driven to drop houses close to the San 

Clemente or Temecula check points. When the check points are opened up—in 

cases of b ad weather, fog, smog or hea vy traffic—the smugglers simply load up 

the ir human cargo and drive no rth unhindered.

Although the Immigration Service doesn’t keep hard statistics on such incidents, the ir files are packed with stories of br utality .
70

Aliens have been driven across in cars lying in the engine compartment, tied 

beneath the chassis or packed like sardines in trunks. Some have suffered burns, 

and suffocated from carbon monoxide fumes. Their bodies have been found 

dumped on the side of the highway.

In McAllen, Tex., 22 aliens were found inside a tan ker trailer w ith four inches 

of flammable fuel oil sloshing around.

Some have been frostbitten in blizzards while being guided across the Can adia n 

border. Others have nearly died after spending days trav elin g across cou ntry in 

unh eated trucks, and with virtually no food or water.

Last August, 58 Ecuadorians were discovered—shivering and hungry—in the 

hold of a banana ship after it docked in New York. They had spe nt a week nearly 

freezing in the 50 degree hold, living on w ater a nd green bana nas.

After several days, the 58 Ecuadorians were loaded aboard a jetliner to be 

return ed home at a cost of between $60,000 and $70,000 to the U.S. taxpayer.

But as th ey were being deported, thousands more were coming; slipping th rou gh 

the wire, wading the Rio Grande, marching boldly throug h border checkpoints 

with false documents, step ping off commercial jetliners masquerading as tourists, 

pa rt of the floodtide of desperate hum anity seeking a be tte r life here, joining the 

eight million illegals who are alrea dy looking for it.

Tomorrow: Some th oughts on dealing with problems of illegal aliens.

[From the Washington Star-News, Nov. 19, 1974]

Sol ut io n ‘Sim ple’: C ut Off J obs

(By Michael Satchell)

To the casual observer, the revelation th at America is now the unwilling host 

to an estim ated eight million illegal aliens usually comes as a surprise. The problem seems to have crept up w ithout warning, a sudden lightning invasion of bro wnskinned hordes flocking across the U.S.-Mexican border in the last few months.

Ju st the opposite is true.

The hordes of popular imag ination pouring through the fences are doing just 

that, bu t it’s been happening with increasing intensity since the old Bracero 

migrant farm worker program was halted in 1964.

The trickle has turned into a flood.

In a country preoccupied since the middle 1960s with civil disorders, Vietnam, 

Waterga te, the energy crisis and economic woes, illegal aliens have ranked low 

on the list of national concern.

So low, in fact, t ha t v irtu ally no one outside the U.S. Immigration and N atu ralization Service knew what was happening, and those who ran INS during these 

crucial years did little or nothing to warn Congress, the White House or the 

public of just how serious thin gs were.

Conversations with deeply frustrated and often angry staffers at INS headqua rters, in the Washington field office and in the U.S. Border Patrol in California 

make it apparen t that they knew the extent of the problem and fretted at being 

unab le to do anyth ing a bout it. The word from the top was: Don’t rock the boat 

and don ’t talk to the press.

While alien arrest rates zoomed higher tha n a wetback clearing the barbed 

wire atop the border fence— 2,000 percent in the case of the Border Patrol since 

1960—budgets and staff allocations lagged fa r behind.

INS topsiders universally blame the two men who controlled INS during 

this period for the current alien problem—Commissioner Raym ond Farrell and 

his management chief E dwa rd A. Loughran, who is widely acknowledged to have 

been th e power behind F arrell’s figurehead role.

Farrell retired last year amid criticism from Congress, and Gen. Leonard F. 

Chapman Jr., former com man dant of the Marine Corps and a man identified 

more with management skills than the martial arts, replaced him with orders to 

shape up an Immigration Service dispirited and in disarray.

Chapman quickly eased out Loughran, who is now the staff direc tor of the 

Senate immigration subcomm ittee. Repeated calls to Loughran by the StarNews seeking an interview on criticism against him went unanswered.

Chapm an, diplomatically, will say only th at “IN S in the past has not reacted 

vigorously enough to the problem of illegal imm igration.” Other INS officials were 

not so kind.
71

“ Th ey w en t tr o tt in g to Co ng ress ea ch ye ar , as ki ng for m in im al ap pro pri at io ns 

telling ev er yo ne th a t th er e wa s no re al ali en prob lem, th a t IN S ha s ever yth in g 

un de r c on tr ol ,” o ne officia l said. “ B ut w e kn ew dif fe re nt.”

Fu med anoth er: “ We we re alw ay s under str ic t or de rs ne ve r to ta lk to th e news 

me dia . The y d id n ’t w ant to rock th e boa t. T he countr y was facing th is mas sive 

inva sion of ille gals an d all th ey we re in te re st ed in was loo kin g go od be fore Con ­

gress. The y hi d th e p roblem a nd ign or ed i t an d no w look a t th e s ituati on w e’re in.

“ Ho w th e hell ca n we ca tc h an d deport eigh t or te n mi llion aliens or s to p th em 

coming in no w ?” th e offic ial as ke d.

M od es t as b udget re que st s we re duri ng th es e yea rs wh en th e ali en pr ob le m wa s 

co mpo un di ng , Con gr es s an d va riou s adm in is tr ati ons still ch op pe d he av ily in to 

th em . An an al ys is of IN S bud ge t re ques ts and appro pri ati ons sin ce 1970 show s a 

clea r p att ern of m oder at e tr im m in g b y Con gres s, and s om e hea vy- ha nded slas hing 

by th e W hi te Hou se .

The co mbi ne d effect of th es e su bs iste nc e, cap-i n-h an d bud ge t re qu es ts s in ce th e 

mi d-1 960s, co up led w ith th e par in g kn ives of th e po lit ic ians , ha ve le ft an ob viou s 

lega cy : an Im m ig ra ti on Se rvice th a t to d ay is woe fully un der m an ned .

On Sep te m be r 30, fo r ex am ple, C hap m an an no unce d cu tb ac ks on all ex ce pt 

hig h pri ori ty pr og ra m s with in th e serv ice . H e sw itch ed 450 ag en ts fro m th e ir job s 

of al ie n- ca tc hi ng in th e in te ri or to he lp pl ug th e ga ping holes in se cu ri ty alo ng 

th e th in ly pat ro ll ed bo rd er .

“Our reso urce s hav e increa se d on ly sl ig htly wh ile ou r ta sk s ha ve in cr ea se d 

en or m ou sly, ” C hapm an said in an no unc in g th e mov es.

But m as sive infu sion s of m on ey an d equip m ent to do ub le or tr ip le th e IN S 

force of Bor de r P at ro lm en or in ves tigat ors is n’t th e so lu tio n to th e pr ob lem. 

W ith six, eigh t, te n or 12 m illion s al re ad y he re — ta ke you r pick on th e e st im at e— 

and a pr oj ec te d th re e or fo ur mi llio n en te ri ng th e co untr y in th e 12 -m on th pe rio d 

th a t be ga n Ju ly 1, no am ount of IN S pe rs on ne l will be sufficie nt to h alt th e flow 

or sco op up th os e wh o ge t ac ross.

If t he flow is n’t hal te d, pe ssim istic o ffic ials s ay gloo mily t h a t th e a dv er se im pac t 

on th e American ec on om y will co nt in ue to wor se n. Alre ad y, th e est im ate d ei gh t 

mi llion ille gals he re we re re sp on sibl e fo r a $10 bil lio n wa ge loss to American 

worke rs. T he y ho ld mi llion s of jo bs a t a tim e of ris ing un em pl oy m en t. The y 

mail ou t billion s of do llar s in unta xed m on ey to th eir ho melan ds , aggra vati ng th e 

countr y’s ba la nc e of pa ym en ts . An d th ey m ak e use of a wide v ari ety of pu bl ic 

service s from sc ho ols to med ical ca re.

Aliens c om e to t h e U nited S ta te s fo r on e re as on — jobs . C ut off t he lu re a n d e rgo: 

T he pr ob lem is so lv ed . I t sou nd s sim ple, b u t it i sn ’t.

C ha pm an an d oth ers co nc erne d with ille gal im m ig ra tion are ban kin g on pa ss ag e 

of a bill in tr oduce d b y Kep. Pet er Rod ino, D -N .J ., th a t wo uld m ak e it illeg al fo r 

an y em pl oy er to hir e an ille gal ali en .

The Ro dino bil l has pa ssed th e Hou se tw ice but ha s been kille d on ce in th e 

Sen ate Ju dic ia ry C om m itte e, a vi ct im of th e bu sine ss lo bb y an xiou s to pre se rv e a 

ch ea p la bor s up pl y. On ce a ga in it lang ui sh es in th e Se na te, its to ug he st pr ov isio ns 

al re ad y de leted.

To co m pl icat e m att ers , Sen. Edw ar d K en ne dy , D-M as s., ha s in tr oduce d a bill 

w ith stiffer pe na ltie s fo r e mploy ers of ille gal aliens b u t wh ich wo uld gra nt am nes ty 

to ille gals wh o ha ve liv ed in th e U nite d S ta te s fo r long er th an th re e ye ars.

And Sen . Ja m es O. Eas tlan d, D -M is s. , ch ai rm an of th e Sen ate Ju dic ia ry Com ­

mitte e, ha s dra ft le gi slatio n th a t wou ld so ften still fu rt her th e pr op os ed pen al ties 

ag ai ns t em pl oy er s th a t al re ad y am ount to lit tl e m or e th an a r ap on th e kn uck le s in 

th e w ater ed -d ow n Rod in o version .

Add iti on ally , th e E ast la nd and Rod ino pr op os al s co nt ai n no am nes ty pr ov isio n 

as Ken ne dy w an ts and o bs erve rs ar e n o t o ptim is tic fo r an y co mpr om ise in ti m e for 

a bill to em erge from th e curr en t ses sio n of Co ng ress.

IN S believes an em pl oy m en t bill is th e an sw er. T he Califo rn ia le gi slat ur e rec en tly 

pa ssed a st ate law pro hib itin g em pl oy er s fro m hi ring ille gals an d ar re st s dro pped 

alm os t i m m ed ia te ly a s it q uick ly to ok e ffe ct. T he la w w as ov er tu rn ed , ho w ev er , bv 

an ap pe llate co ur t, whi ch ruled th a t th e fede ra l an d not st ate go ver nm en t had 

jurisd ic tio n ov er th e m at te r.

W ha te ve r form any fu tu re em plo ym en t bill ta ke s, m an y feel it face s en fo rc em en t prob lem s.

The Am eri can Civil Li be rti es U ni on wor ries th a t em pl oy ers will si m pl y tu rn 

down all Sp an ish- sp ea ki ng , Chica no or oth er et hnic min or iti es se ek in g jo bs an d 

th us wo rsen alr ea dy ex istin g em pl oy m en t di sc rim in at io n.

The Re v. Se an O ’M all ey , a pr ie st who de als w ith ille gal ali en s in his w or k as 

he ad of th e D is tr ic t of C ol um bi a’s Sp an ish C at holic C en ter, be lie ve s it will ha ve 

ev en worse re su lts .
Said O'Malley, who favors bla nket amnesty: “These people will no t tu rn around 

and go home. Decent employers will comply with the new law, and the illegals 

wili be forced to go and work for the unscrupulous ones. The Simon Legrees will 

continue to hire aliens and will exploit them even more. You will have widespread persecution of a lo t of innoce nt people who are simply economic refugees.”

There are even skeptics in the immigration service who feel th at the Iiodino 

bill as i t stand s is too weak for effective enforcement.

. There are still others convinced th at the only lasting solution to the problem of 

illegals flocking here for jobs is massive economic aid to Mexico, the principal 

source of th e vast human migration.

. “If we’re smart we’ll help industria lize them and raise their s tan dard of living,” 

one INS official said. “I ’m ju st praying th at the Mexican oil discovery is big 

enough to really get them on the ir way .”

A higher stan dard of living in the adjoining Latin countries may be a longterm answer, but there is the imm edia te problem of awakening an ambivale nt 

Congress and public to the consequences of millions of u nauthorize d residents in 

the United States and their effect on the quality of life here.

“T his country is sleeping,” said Imm igration Cou rt Jud ge Grace Beatrice 

Davis, who views the problem from the deportation bench each day. “I think 

there are 12 million here, no t six or eight, and people ju st don’t realize 

the ramifications.

“We are suffering socially, economically and politically from this problem and 

it ’s time to stop,” she said. “T his cou ntry isn’t being settled by immigrants any ­

more, bu t these people think they have squatte rs’ rights. We’ve got to st ar t 

thin king abo ut the people who hav e a le gitim ate stake in the United S tate s.”

fFrom the Washington Star-News, Nov. 17, 1974]

C arlo s D id n ’t L a st L ong in t h e P r o m is ed L and

(By Michael Satchell)

As soon as the cruising car slowed down, Carlos knew the y were a fter him. And 

he ran like he had never run before, racing nor th up Connecticut Avenue at 

7 o’clock on a golden summer morning, the inbound drivers wondering perhaps 

who this fleet young sprinte r was and why the man in the double-knit blazer 

was puffing afte r him. Carlos Itodis Modesto Hern ande z, 24, is married and the p rovider for his wife, 

three thildren, his three brothers and his two sisters. By trade, he is a chauffeur; 

by necessity, an illegal alien, and now, by bad luck, a hunted fugitive.

Carlos left his home last Jan uary, a shy young nobody from San Miguel, El 

Salvador, the tiniest and most densely populated cou ntry in the Cen tral American 

umbilical joining North and S outh America. lie had about $200 in his wallet, the money scraped together mostly by his 

in-laws as a high-risk inve stment and an expensive gamble on the family’s future. 

Like hundreds of thousands of oth er campesinos or threadbare refugees from rural 

poverty who are jamming urban areas thro ugh out Latin American, Carlos joined 

the migration north to the United States, where a m an can earn the princely sum 

of $10 a day, maybe $15 if he is lucky. In San Miguel, Carlos drove a wealthy businessman arou nd for $2 a day. But 

it wasn’t enough to provide for so many. So on foot and by bus he made his 

way to Tiju ana, Mex., and paid a smuggler $100 to guide him across the border 

an d deliver him to Oceanside, Calif. There Carlos became one of eight million illegal immigrants now estimated to 

be living in the U nited States.

The illegality of his act never entered his thoughts.

.“ I had to do it, ” he said, wondering why anyone would ask such an obvious 

question. “ I want a better life for my family. Here I can earn it. There I cannot. 

We are a poor cou ntry .” Carlos quickly melted into the barrios of Los Angeles, comfortable among other 

Spanish speaking people. lie washed dishes for two months and earne d enough 

tq buy a one-way ticke t to New York, where once again he was quickly swallowed 

up in a latino community.
In New York, he worked as a carpe nte r’s helper earning $10 a day and lived 

with a friend in a $25 a week room, lie did not drink or smoke, he ate sparin gly, 

spent nothing on himself. Every spare dollar was mailed to El Salvador tow ard 

his goal of saving $2,000. When he reached th at sum, he would return and begin 

a small business, maybe a shop.

Carlos paid no taxes, and his employer, probably aware th at he was an illegal 

alien—there are about one million in New York—certainly wasn’t going to the 

trou ble to deduct taxes. Even if he had, there would have been no problem.

Like other illegals, Carlos would simply have inven ted a Social Security num ber 

and claimed six or seven depe ndents. By the time the computer caug ht up with 

him he would have drifted to ano ther job th at paid a dolla r or two more for a

da y’s work.

In August, Carlos did ju st that. He moved to Wash ington and shared a room 

with two or three oth er aliens in the Columbia Road area , joining them with the 

und erstanding th at if cau ght, none would reveal the ir address and thus pro tect 

th e others. It is a comm on bond between illegals, and many who are deported 

board the plane with only the clothes the y were wearing when captured.

Carlos quickly found work as a bric klayer’s helper on a small construction site 

and at a 50 percent boo st in salary—$15 a day. On abo ut the 10th day after 

arr iving in Washington, Carlos was waiting on Connecticut Avenue to be picked 

up for a ride to work.

He was wearing old clothes and holding a brown pa per bag containing his lunch, 

three tortillas. The green car carry ing two imm igration investigators spotted him, 

slowed down to check his identity, and away he went—running to escape his 

pursuer, runn ing to prote ct his precious investment, running to assure his family’s future.

He was caug ht and deported.

[From the Washington Star-News, Nov. 16, 1974]

S ta tis tic s o n I m m ig r a tio n

(By Michael Satchell)

The arith metic of illegal immigration illustrates the scope and magnitude of 

th e problem.

In the 12-month period tha t ended Jun e 30, the Im migration and Naturaliz atio n 

Service caug ht 788,185 illegal aliens. Eighty-eight percent, or, 693,084 of them , 

crossed the border witho ut papers. They were “wetba cks,” altho ugh the term is 

n, misnomer because most simply walked across and never came nea r the Rio 

Grande.

The remaining 12 percen t—95,061 people—were tourists or students who 

overstayed their visas and just tried to blend into the community.

The Mexican border is 1,945 miles long, and there are abo ut 1,100 border 

patrolmen guarding it.

Once the aliens get p ast th e b order and find work, the force of INS investigators 

is much thinner. In the San Joaq uin Valley of California, for example, INS 

■estimates that abo ut 120,000 illegals work in the farms, which cover 81,000 

squa re miles. During any given 24 hours, not more than 46 officers are on du ty in 

this area to catc h aliens, which means th at one inv estigator has nearly 2,000 

square miles to cover.

New York City, which has more tha n 1 million illegals, many from the Caribbean countries, has a force of 200 investigators. Only 25 men are assigned full 

time to catching illegals. The 175 others are also involved in various routine tasks 

•connected with legal imm igra nt applications.

Mexico accounts for about 90 percent of the “w etbacks,” and INS officials 

point with alarm at Mexican population projections th at suggest w hy even more 

people from the cou ntry will sneak into the United States.

Mexico had an estimated population of 56 million in 1973, a bout half of which 

live in rural areas. Half of these rural dwellers have no reportable income. The 

remainder earn abo ut $400 a year. It is estima ted that 40 p ercent of all Mexicans 

of working age are jobless, underemployed or do only seasonal labor.

At current growth rates, the population will reach 85 million by 1985 and 120 

million in 20 years.

“I t’s a frightening pro spect,” said Gen. Leonard F. Chapman, commissioner of 

th e INS. “Twen ty years is not th at far off.”
74

Othe r countries with sizable numbers of illegal immigrants here are th e Central 

American and Caribbean nations, the Philippines, Greece, I taly , Ethiopia, Great 

Britain, Nigeria and Poland. There are an estim ated 250,000 illegal Poles living 

in the Chicago area, who en ter thro ugh Canada to join friends and relatives.

INS bud get requests in the last five years have been severely cut by Congress 

and the White House. The 1975 request for $280,715,000 has been pare d down by 

the Office of Management and Budget and Congress to a pending app ropriation 

of $175,350,000 in the House and $1 million more in the Senate.

As the United States nears zero pop ulation growth, the total of illegal immigrants acco unts for an estim ated 60 to 70 percent of the remaining growth.

In the 81-year period between 1892, when the first regular deporta tion s began, 

and 1973, the INS caug ht just over 8 million illegal aliens. Next year alone, it 

expects to catch 1 million.

[F ro m th e W as hin gto n Pos t. Nov. 13, 1974 ]

I lleg al I m m ig r a t io n : A G lo bal P roble m

It was about a century ago th at Emma Lazarus wrote her inscription for the 

Statu te of Liberty, calling on the nations of the world to send “your tired, your 

poor, you r huddled masses yearning to breathe free’ and the “wretched refuse of 

your teem ing shore . . .” More recently, Attorney General William Saxbe stated 

the contemporary reality: “With the manifold problems the nation faces—energy 

shortages, inflation, scarcity of some foodstuff's, rising unem ployment—it is 

appar ent th at we are not a limitless horn of plenty.” He went on to call for a 

redoubling of the effort to keep illegal aliens from entering this country in search of 

work and social services unavailable in many countries of th e world.

As the shortages of food and the price of energy continue to exacerbate the 

plight of the underdeveloped countries, the problem of America’s accessibility to 

the hu ngry of the world will create an increasing moral and legal dilemma. During 

the activ e development of this continent, almost all the people of the world were 

welcome to pass through “the golden door,” as Emina Lazarus chose to call New 

York harb or. Now, there are at least 8 million illegal immigrants in the United 

States—t he equal of New York City—and more are entering each day. Some come 

with legal visito r's visas and then, as Mr. Saxbe put it, they “go underground and 

vanish when their visits officially expire.” Others ente r with forged documents, are 

smuggled in at hundreds of points along the Cana dian and Mexican borders or 

jus t walk across undetected. They come from Mexico and the Philippines, Italy, 

India and Korea, Greece, Portugal and the Caribbean.

They come, as they always have, in search of a better life. And where once 

America proudly held t ha t welcome light aloft, the times have changed and no one 

knows what to do about the “illegals” who now turn up in the cities, although 

once they were principally seeking work in the fields and on farms. They are said 

to hold hundred s of thousands of jobs th at might otherwise go to the American 

unemployed or the legally adm itted alien. They are estim ated to have an annual 

payroll of $10 billion. Social services t ha t are alread y overstrained must absorb the 

added burden. Some “illegals” return to their native lands and collect Social 

Security on jobs they never legally held.

The problem s could be catalogued indefinitely. Only the solutions are scarce. 

Mr. Saxbe wan ts to strengthen the Bord er Patrol and obtain bette r coordination 

among federal agencies assigned to cope with various aspects of the problen . The 

AFL-C IO wants the Senate to pass a bill the House already has passed th at makes 

it illegal for anyone “knowingly” to employ an illegal alien. The AFL-C IO wants 

the word “knowingly” dropped and thu s to place the burden on the employer to 

establish an alien’s credentials before giving him a job. Colleges and universities 

have agreed with a new regulation th at permits the admission of only those 

studen ts who can prove they have enough money to keep them during their first 

year and who can demonstrate their ability to finance their educ ations without 

additional assistance.

The problem is not unique to the United States. Switzerland recently held a 

referendum on whether to eject all th e so uthern Europeans in th at cou ntry as alien 

labor. Great Britain’s political parties are in constant deba te about what is the 

best way to deal with immigrants from the former colonies in Asia an d the Caribbean. Germany ’s guest labor is a matter of co nstant internal deb ate and a source 

of occasional unrest. But those countries have no easy solutions either. If the Swiss 

were to eject their Italian menial workers, many Swiss wondered who would
75

ha nd le t he ga rb ag e, cl ea n th e st re ets an d fa ct or ie s and clea n off re sta u ra n t ta ble s. 

An d so, for th os e and o th er reason s, th e re fe re nd um wa s de fe at ed .

And th ere ’s th e ru b. T he ali en worke rs in th e w ea lthy W es tern la nd s ar e th ere 

be ca us e th ey on ce were ne ed ed bad ly — to til l th e soi l of th e American W est or to 

bu ild a r ai lroa d th a t sp an ned a c on tinen t. A fter W orld W ar II , th e rec ov er y of th e 

R uhr Valley in dust ri es de pe nd ed he av ily on th e la bor of Por tu gu es e and It ali ans, 

wh o did work th a t th e G er m an s eit her co uld not pr ov id e m an po w er t o do or th a t 

German s di d not wish to do. No w th e W es te rn co un trie s ar e facing a di ff er en t 

prob lem. The r ai lroads hav e be en bu ilt, th e field s hav e become larg ely m ec ha ni ze d 

an d m uc h less “l abor in te nsi ve” an d th e une m plo ym en t fig ures ar e cli mbing . T h e 

ali en wor ke r is not as bad ly ne ed ed a s he on ce w as. B ut ju st as th e W es te rn co un ­

trie s ne ed ali en la bor less— an d in de ed ca n affo rd it less— sh or ta ge s of food an d 

reso urce s ar e be co m in g mor e acu te ar ound th e wo rld .

An d so th is pr ob le m ge ts s to od on its he ad : M r. Sa xb e chooses to foc us, as do es 

th e A FL-C IO , on th e pr ob lem of th e illeg al al ie n; b u t th e rea l pr ob le m is ho w 

th e co un trie s of th e wor ld ar e go ing to wor k out th e pr ob le m of re d is tr ib u ti n g 

th e w ea lth in ge ne ra l and of stab iliz in g th e food s upply in par ticula r. The “ G re en 

R ev olu tion” sh ow ed ea rl y prom ise of as si st in g w ith one im p o rt an t as pec t of th e 

pr ob lem. B ut t h e ene rg y sh or ta ge s ha ve m ean t a s harp r ed uc tion in t he avail abil it y 

of ch ea p ch em ical fe rtiliz er s— so m et hi ng th e Green Rev ol ut io n de pe nd ed on fo r 

it s success in ra isin g ne w a nd p le nt iful form s of co rn and rice. As long a s th ere a re 

hu ng ry , jobl es s pe op le in th e wo rld , th ey are bound to he ad across fr ontier s in 

se ar ch of b e tt e r liv es . The re is no pra cti cal way of sealing th e M ex ican an d 

C an ad ia n bo rd er s again st illegal en tr y. And it is hard to ge t th e mes sa ge bac k 

to th e “te em in g sh ore ” th a t th os e wh o we re on ce we lco me are no w an in to le ra ble 

bu rd en .

The legi slatio n to punis h th os e wh o hi re ill eg al aliens — al m os t al w ay s a t de ­

pr es se d wa ges— sh ou ld be pa ss ed . The legi slat io n again st sm ug gling pe op le and 

tra fficking in hum an fle sh sh ou ld be st re ngth ened. Th os e st ep s will hav e so m e 

eff ect, b u t not m uc h. The real so lu tion s, to th e exte nt th a t th er e are any, lie 

w ith th e gover nm en t of t h e U nited S ta te s an d th ose nat io ns in a po si tion to he lp 

th e less de ve lo pe d co un trie s, w ith ec on om ic dev el opm en t and ai d and w ith 

m ea su re s to im pro ve th e dis tr ib uti on of food and th e mea ns of pro duci ng fo od . 

T h a t is whe re th e pro ble m of “i lle ga l im m ig ra ti on” be gins and is pro bably th e 

on ly plac e it ca n be so lved .

[F ro m th e W as hi ng to n Post , Feb. 2, 1975]

U.S. I ll eg a l I m m ig rati on P r o blem D e f ie s t h e N u m b er s Gam e

A L IE N S HARD TO C O U N T

(B y La wrenc e M ey er)

On Ja n. 9, Georgios an d Athan as io s Plessia s we re plying th ei r tr ade, pain ti n g 

th e S ta tu e of L ib er ty a t th e un ion ra te of $9.71 an ho ur, wh en th ey were arr est ed 

by fede ral officials. T he Ple ssias br ot he rs , labo ring so di lig en tly under th e la m p 

be sid e th e go lde n do or, were illegal im m ig ra nt s.

Th e prev ious da y, Je su s Her rera-S au ce do , a M et ro su bw ay co nst ru ct io n crew 

foreman , was pick ed uo by fed eral im mig ra tio n officials in do wntow n W as hi ng to n. 

Herrera-S au ce do , a Mexica n wh o ea rn ed $8.44 an ho ur, was als o an ill eg al 

im mig rant .

Eve ry da y, so m ew he re in th e U nited Sta te s, th ou sa nds of illegal im m ig ra nts 

ar e ap pr eh en de d by in ve stig at or s fro m th e Im m ig ra tion an d N at ura li zati on 

Service— more th an 800,0 00 las t ye ar . But a t le as t th at nu m ber an d per hap s tw o 

to th re e tim es mor e slip in to th e U nited S ta te s w ithout be ing ca ug ht , ac co rd in g 

to im mig ratio n officia ls.

Al tho ug h wh en pr es se d im m ig ra tio n officials co nc ed e th a t no one ca n sa y w ith 

an y ce rt ai nty how m an y illegal im m ig ra nt s go un ap pr eh en ded or ho w m any ar e 

liv ing in th e U ni te d S ta te s now, th ey est im at e th a t 4 millio n to 12 mill ion illeg al 

im m ig ra nt s al re ad y ar e here.

Im m ig ra tion officia ls an d mem be rs of Co ng ress co nc erne d about th e pro bl em 

va rio us ly ch ar ac te rize th e influx of illegal im m ig ra nts as a “to rr en t” or a “ floo d” , 

an d expre ss al ar m th a t unles s ne leg islatio n is pa ssed an d th e im m ig ra tion 

serv ice’s bu dg et is increa sed, th e si tu ta ti o n will ge t worse.

49- 76 9— 75-------6
76

Local public officials across the country alre ady are complaining th at illegal 

imm igrants are stra ining public services, swelling welfare rolls and taking jobs 

away from American citizens. Neither federal law nor the laws of most sta tes 

require th at an individual be a citizen or a legal resident in order to receive public 

assistance.

The problem is so acu te and resources so limited, according to immigration officials, that they lack the personnel to respond to all the tips they get concerning 

the location of illegal immigrants. In some instances, officials said, even when the 

imm igrants are caught, they sometimes have to be released because the immigration service lacks the funds to send them back to the ir homes.

The problem, according to im migration officials, is simply out of hand. The New 

York metropolitan area alone, they say, harbors more tha n 1 million illegal immigrants. In the Los Angeles area, according to estimates, there are at least another 1 million illegal immigrants.

But these estimates are estimates only. When pressed, immigration officials 

concede th at the y really do not know how many illegal immigrants are in the 

United States now, how many enter each year witho ut being apprehended, how 

much money in federal income taxes goes uncollected, or how much money leaves 

the c ountry each yea r to support the families of illegal aliens working here.

During hearings cond ucted by a House Judiciary subcommittee in July, 1971, 

the Imm igration Service director for the El Paso dis tric t testified that possibly a 

“tre mendous amount of money” was being sent to Mexico. Pressed to be more 

specific, he said the amount was “at least several million dollars.”

That same day, the Southwest regional director testified, “I feel th at it is in 

the area of a billion dollars, not millions * * * ”

Leonard F. Chapman Jr., commissioner of the Imm igra tion and Naturaliz atio n 

Service, uses a variety of figures on different occasions to describe th e problem.

During a recent interview in his office, Chapman said that 1.5 million to 2 million illegal immigrants are n ot apprehended annually . The figure could be as high 

as 4 million, Chapman said. He also estimated “conse rvatively” th at abo ut 

$12 million a day, or about $2.88 billion annually , is leaving the United States.

In a speech in Houston last week, Chapman used a different figure. “L ast year,” 

he said, “the Imm igra tion Service apprehended nea rly 800,000 illegal aliens— 

equal to more than half the population of the city of Houston. Though this was 

10 times the num ber we apprehen ded just a decad e earlier, it was probably no 

more than one out of four who entered the country illegally * * * ” Thus, according to Cha pman’s figures in Houston, the minim um number of illegal immigrants was not 1.5 million to 2 million, bu t more likely 2.4 million.

These figures, which Chapman conceded are only estimates, have been cited 

repe atedly in several news stories within the las t year on the problem. Last summ er 

U.S. News and World Re port carried a four-page interview with Chapman on 

“How Millions of Illegal Aliens Sneak Into U.S .”

The W ashington Star-N ews ran a series last November on the issue. The mag azine of the American Legion in December, 1974, c arried an artic le on “Our Illegal 

Alien Prob lem.” Also in December The New York Times ran a thr ee- part series 

on illegal aliens in the New York area. ABC News “C loseup” telecast a one-hour 

program on “Illegal Aliens: the Gate Crashers” Jan. 3.

When asked how the immigration service determines how many illegal aliens 

are in the United States and how many come in annually , Chapman said in an 

interview with The Washington Post that, these statistics come from estimates 

for each of the 32 districts in the United States sub mitted by the district directors. Asked how the distric t directors get the ir estimates. Chapman responded 

th at the y have a formula, and directed a reporter to call the director for 

Washington.

The distric t director, David L. Drummond, said in a telephone interv iew th at 

he knew of no formula. Drum mond late r referred his caller to the regional office 

in Richm ond, were more information was available.

Edw ard T. Sweeney, associate regional commissioner for operations for the 

Sou thea st region, said in a telephone interview: “We just went thro ugh trying to 

make an estimate. * * * I don’t think any formula existed. I ’m a t a loss.”

S. LaVerne Jervis, public information officer for the Immigration Service, said, 

“There are formulas and there are formulas. But it sure isn’t scientific.” The estimates are based on “leads” th at im migration investig ators are unab le to follow 

up, monitoring of electronic sensors used along the Southwest border with Mexico, 

where 80 to 90 per cent of t he illegal immigration comes from, local police estimates, economic conditions in the countries were the immigrants come from and 

“stree t wisdom,” according to Jervis and other officials.
77

“It’s based on the base estimates of our people in the field,” Jervis said. “I t’s 

based on judgm ent, and how the Miami direc tor decides how many people are in 

his district an d how the Houston directo r decides ju st are n ot the sam e thing. “This certa inly isn’t an attempt to make it seem tha t it ’s a much worse problem 

than it is, because th at isn’t the commissioner’s way of doing things an d it wouldn’t 

work,” Jerv is said. One source, who has had occasion to examine the im migration service’s ways of 

measu ring illegal immigration, said, “I d on’t think they have any plausible method 

for gathering statistics.” But, this source continued, “I think the re’s a prob lem.” He cited the immigra­ tion service’s statistics on apprehensions, which reflect a steadily and rapidly rising increase, from 201,000 in 1969 to 277,000 in 1970, to 348,000 in 1971 to 430,000 in 1972 to 576,000 in 1973 to 800,000 in 1974. “I suspect th at the rise of those apprehension figures is a v ery real set of s tatistics and t hat it reflects somethi ng,” this source said. The Law Enforcem ent Assistance Adm inistratio n has awarded a $48,000 con­ trac t to a private consultant to crea te a design to study meth ods th at could be used for counting illegal immigrants and to measure the ir impact. The Immigra­ tion Service asked for $2 million in its bud get request for the nex t fiscal y ear for 

the stud y. Despite the lack of any reliable statistics, Chapman and members of Congress concerned about the problem insist th at it is serious. Rep. Peter W. Rodino Jr. (D-N .J.) has introduce d legislation, which has passed the House of Represe ntatives twice since it was first introdu ced in 1972.

The Senate has never had an opportunity to vote on the bill. Rodino’s bill, which would amend present federal law to make it a crime for an employer knowingly to hire an illegal alien, has been re ferred to the Senate Judici­ ary S ubcommittee on Imm igration and Naturaliz atio n. The com mittee’s chairman, 

Sen. James O. E astland (D-Miss.), has no t had a meetin g of the subc omm ittee to 

consider the Rodino bill. According to Chapman, Rod ino’s bill, although not a panacea, is a necessary item to handling the immigration problem. If the legislation passes, Chapman 

said, “it will result in a ma jority of American employers faithfully carrying out its provisions. And th at will narrow it down to the small percentage of employers who act illegally. * * * it will dramatica lly reduce the magnitude of the effort 

require d.” In addition to the Rodino bill, Cha pman said he needed about $50 million in additional money for the Imm igration Service. With t ha t much added to the $180 million authorized in fiscal 1975, Cha pman said, 1 million jobs could be opened up for Americans, “attractive jobs, the kind you could get an American to do.” Rodino and Rep. Joshua Eilberg (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Judiciary 

Subcomm ittee on Immigration and Nationality, which is to hold hearings on the bill, both cited the 1 million jo bs th at could be opened up during a press conference called last week to dram atize the need for legislation. With millions of Americans unemployed, the y argued, the need for the legislation, serious in past years, had become critical. When Eilberg was asked by a re porter a fter the press conference if he was confi­ dent of the statistics supplied by the Immigration Service, he replied, “No one 

knows for su re.” The Imm igration Service, he said, “gives us a rule of thum b th at 

for every one th at gets caught, five or six get through.” By th at calculation, the num ber of illegal immigrants who came into the United States last year was not the 1.5 million to 2 million or the 2.4 million 

variously estimated by Chapman bu t rather 4 million to 4.8 million. When Eilberg was asked if he was no t troubled t ha t the stati stic s seemed to be soft, he replied, “It doesn’t matt er w hether i t’s 4 million or 6 or 8 or 12 million” 

if it is conceded th at illegal immigration is a problem. Then, pointing to the estimates supplied by the Immigration Service, Eilberg again asserted that 1 million jobs could be made quickly available to Americans if 

the Rodino bill were passed. In any case, the prospects for the Rodino bill do not seem markedly bette r in 

this session of Congress tha n before. Eastlan d, who owns a large pla nta tion in Mississippi and who reportedly has close ties w ith Southern agricultural interests, 

was not available for an interview. An administration source who has watched the Rodino bill in Congress discounted th e prospect th at E astland would act on it. Rodino, when asked at his press conference abo ut Eastlan d, said he intended 

“to tak e this up with the senator and impress upon him the urgen cy of this kind 

of legislation.”
78

In ad di tion to th e do ub tful pr os pe cts fo r Rod in o’s bill in th e Sen at e, th e 

Im m ig ra tion Se rv ice’s bu dg et re ques t to be su bm itte d to Co ng res s by P re sid en t 

For d will s eek on ly about a $30 mi llio n in cr ea se an d not th e $50 m illion C hap m an 

had ho pe d for, an info rm ed source said.

[F ro m th e W as hi ngt on Post , Fe b. 2, 197 5]

I ll eg al E nt ra nt s F loc k to U .S .— A N ew’ P ov erty Class

(B y Leroy F. Aaron s)

Lo s An geles— No on e kn ow s how m an y. B ut th ey ar e he re. Te ns of te ns of 

th ousa nds. D ow nt ow n on Los An geles Str eet, th ousa nds of w om en pe da ling aw ay 

a t sewing m ac hi ne s in hun dr ed s of fly- by- nig ht ga rm en t sw ea tsho ps , no air c on di ­

tion ing, no coffee br ea ks , us ua lly at less th a n $2 an ho ur, th e no n- fa rm m in im um 

wa ge.

In th e re sta u ra n ts , hi dd en in th e kitch en s or in unobtr usi ve pr es en ce as busbo ys ; in th e w as hr oo m s, pa rk in g cars, cl ea ni ng ho tel room s, was hing car s, as se mblin g elect ro ni c g ea r, by th e c olo rs, in lig ht in dust ri es; in th e ho mes of th e well-todo, min di ng th e ch ildr en .

The y ar e a ne w urb an pover ty clas s: th e illegal im m ig ra nts , m ost of th em 

M ex ican s, wh o, in th e la st de ca de , ha ve sw ar m ed in ev er -inc re as in g num ber s 

ac ross 2,0 00 mi les of bo rd er , th ro ugh holes in bar bed wire, hi di ng in se cr et co mp art m en ts of va ns , ridin g th e rai ls, or flas hing counte rf ei t cr ed en tial s a t bord er 

st at io ns.

Mexica n im m ig ra tion—l ega l or illeg al— is n o t an un kn ow n ph en om en on to th e 

Sou th w es t. Thi s la nd on ce was p a rt of Mexico , an d th e eb b an d flow of mill ions 

of Lat in s across th e ne w bo rd er ha s be en p a rt of Am erican social and ec on om ic 

hi st or y.

Mex ica ns, br ac er os an d wetba ck s, he lp ed bui ld th e W es tern ra ilro ad s, dig th e 

mines, co nst ru ct th e da m s an d, m os t im p o rt an t, pr ov id ed a seem ingly en dl es s 

so ur ce o f ch ea p l ab or s. M an y s ta ye d, t o fo rm th e fo unda tion of A merica’s M ex ic an - 

American popula tion of about 6.5 mi llion .

The m ig ra nt s, leg al an d illegal, co nt in ue to wo rk th e fields an d vi ney ar ds from 

McA llen, Te x., to So no ma, Ca lif., in cr ea sing ly an ir ri ta n t in th e s trug gl e be tw ee n 

C es ar C hav ez ’ U nited Far m W orke rs U nio n and th e grow ers, w ith C ha ve z 

ch ar gi ng th a t th e illeg als ar e us ed as st rikeb re ak er s.

B ut mor e and mor e, th e illegals ar e tu rn in g fro m ba ck bre ak in g stoo p la bor in 

th e fields to th e citie s. The y ha ve flo ck ed to Los Angeles, pe op lin g th e barr io s 

of E as t Los An geles and th e sm all su b u rb an co m m un itie s to th e so uth east an d 

nort h.

C onst antl y fe ar fu l of ex po sure an d deport ati on, th e ille gal Mex ican liv es a 

sh ad ow ex istenc e— un se rv ed by mos t so cial in sti tu ti ons th a t he lp th e poor, 

th re ate ned and ex pl oi ted by la nd lo rd s an d em pl oy er s, unpro te cte d by co n st it u ­

tiona l civ il righ ts .

On th e rim of th e ru nw ay a t a reg iona l ai rp ort , se par at ed on ly by a m et al fen ce, 

si ts a co lle cti on of old motel roo ms an d sh ac ks th at ha s become an illegal alien 

co lony . It s w hite American ow ners get $45 a week for a ty pic al ru nd ow n fiv e-r oo m 

ho use an d $100 m on th for each mo tel unit co ns istin g of a ba re be droo m, a ki tc he n 

an d a s ha re d ba th ro om .

Am id th e fr eq ue nt scr eam of je t tak eo ffs , Isab el lives with he r seven ch ild ren. 

At 36, sh e loo ks 45. She came to t he U ni ted Sta te s tw o ye ars ago, th en se nt fo r her 

ch ild ren, one by one, as she was ab le to ra ise th e mo ne y to pa y the sm ug glers, 

di sd ainf ul ly kn ow n as “co yo tes,” w ho m ak e millions o f dolla rs an nu al ly traf fick in g 

in illegals. All to ld , it co st her $950.

“ My hu sb an d ca me here first, an d he per su ad ed me to come . Afte r I go t he re, 

m y hu sb an d left me five mon th s la te r, ” she sa id th ro ug h an in te rp re te r. “ I go t a 

jo b in th is ga rm en t fa ct or y at $1.65 an ho ur. It ha s gone up to $2 now , but we do 

no t wo rk ev ery da y. I mak e $75 af te r taxe s, an d someti mes rny ol de st dau ghte r, 

who is 18, h elp s ou t ba by si ttin g. We a re ov erw or ke d in the ga rm en t fa ct or y. He is 

ah va ys pr es su ring us to do mo re e ach ho ur. He th re at en s to expo se us or la y us o f f 

if we don’t pu t out e no ug h wor k.”

Fo od is ex pe nsive. Lab el (no t he r real na m e) is afra id to appv for welf are be ­

cause she mi gh t be ar re sted . But an Anglo vol un te er worke r is tryin g to ar ra nge 

to g et h er food st am ps.
Tn the old refrigerator is some lard, a dozen and a half eggs, ketchup, butter, 

tortillas, one or two bags of vegetables. “I buy less now. The children who go to 

school have a free lunch. The rest only have dinner. The kids will non nallv eat 

cornflakes when they come home from school, and at night beans and meat, if we 

have any.

“Sometimes I think I’d be b etter off back home. Bu t I feel th ere ’s more ways of 

feeding your kids here. And medication is free. I’m still much bette r here.”

Take the guesstimated sum of abo ut 1 million illegals in the Los Angeles area, 

area, add the number of legal Mexican residents,—nearly 250,000,—place it 

against the tota l population of the Los Angeles area—8 million—and you get a 

measure of the dimensions of the issue.

Until the last few years, the illegals problem was largely ignored in the cities. 

The illegals are generally good workers; if they were taking work from anyone it 

was from the least powerful or vocal. Spanish-speaking, with a common cultural 

history, the y blended easily in to the urban American Chicano environment.

Bu t now, with the deepening recession, rising unemployment and the increasing 

numbers, this is changing.

INS has begun to keep job statistics on aliens it picks up or who are picked up 

by local police.

Of 842 illegal aliens who reported holding jobs in the Los Angeles area in the 

first, three weeks of Janu ary , 60 per cent were making $2.50 an hour or less. A tota l 

of 96 percent were making roughly $3 an hour or less. Aboiit 250 of the total were 

working in service industries, such as dishwashing, and 375 were in light industry, 

such as garm ent work. Only a handful reporte d jobs in heavy industry or 

construction.

Fully 85 percent of the illegal aliens apprehended in fiscal 1974 (ended last 

June 30) were nabbed in or coming into the Southwest (basically Texas, Arizona 

and California), and nearly 50 percent were in California.

(For the frustrated, und ermanned U.S. Imm igration and Nationalization 

Service staff the deportation process is more like a conveyor belt: they run the 

aliens out, and they tur n around and come back in again as soon as they raise t he 

$250 to $350 it takes to pay the coyotes.)

There are perhaps as many as a million illegal aliens in the greater Los Angeles 

area. For them $2 an hour in a sweatshop is preferable to $4 a day and 50 percent 

unemployment in the ir homeland.

If all the aliens were deported, say some employers who hire them, the economy 

would suffer.

Dav id Tallichet, a restau ran t entrepreneur from Texas who runs 40 restauran ts 

nationally, half of them in California, hires Mexicans as dishwashers. Many of 

them , he admits, are illegal aliens.

“In our industries we get the immigrant mainly because he’s the only guy 

reporting to work,” he said.

“These immigrants come here, the y work very hard and we’re pleased with 

them . A dishwasher gets $2 an hour less meals. It feels kind of good to see these 

boys come in and work hard for you .”

If the government makes it illegal to hire these aliens, Tallichet says, “we’re 

going to end up having to go down to the missions, or else raise the price of dishwashers to $5 an hour and raise the price to the customers.”

On the other side of the coin, the labor unions argue th at alien workers are 

easily exploited, depress wage rates, serve as strikebre akers and take jobs from 

•other workers. At the same time, the unions sign up those aliens who w ant to join, 

use them as voters in National Labo r Relations Board elections, and as picketers.

The Los Angeles Laborers local, for example, dissident workers have alleged, has 

had as many as 3,000 illegals among its 10,000 members. (The dissident group of 

workers complained to the NL RB th at illegals were getting preference in hiringhall assignments and paying kickbacks to union officials.)

Cornelius Wall, western regional director of the Int ern ational Ladies Garmen t 

workers Union, who admits th at his union organizes illegal aliens, said: “This 

union is not going to say pick ’em all up and throw ’em out of the country. Those 

with roots here, let’s p ut them in a different category. Those who don ’t, let’s ship 

’em back. And no new arrivals! Close up th e border with machine guns if we have 

to, and shoot every son-of-a-bitch th at puts a foot across the border, and you ’ll 

kill less t han those th at come across in the tru nk of a car or in a tan k tru ck.”

Los Angeles Street, nine blocks south of city hall, is the Southwest’s Seventh 

Avenue. State industrial welfare agent Salvatore Andriola is showing a reporter 

around the streets, past rows of monotonously similar lots, office spaces and 

basements t ha t make up his beat, where he and a handful of others try to enforce 

state wage and work condition codes within the garm ent con trac tor indu stry.
80

“Los Angeles County probab ly has 60,000 people working sewing machines 

for these contractors,” Andriola said. “ Most of them are women, and at least half 

are illegals.

“Union representation is low, maybe 12 per cent. Most of these are marginal 

operators, undercapitalized. In order to survive they ’ve got to pay less than legal 

wages. They farm work out to homeworkers (women who sew at home, against 

state law), who in tur n farm it out to friends and relatives. They got ’em over a 

barrel. They say, ‘I’ll give you 10 cents a dress, 25 cents a dress, or no thing/

Th ere ’s always the threat of sending ’em back to Mexico. Usually the bulk are 

gettin g $1.50 to $2 an hour . . . They pay in cash, no statem ent, no deductions.

You fight ’em [the c ontractors] and the next week the y’re gone. They don’t own

the lots, they jus t ren t them, so they can split easily. •

“A t the wages they are working, the illegals are not American citizens out of 

jobs. Why should an unwed mother with four kids work for 50 cents an hour if she 

qualifies for welfare? What it does do, is tha t these people develop a toehold. It 

provides encouragement for sisters and brothers and cousins to come. They all 

gathe r in the rats’ nest in the barrio, and even tually these people begin drawing ■

on the economy for welfare and health benefits. It creates a large pool, ready, 

willing and eager to be exploited.”

Inside a basement shop, 40 women are working at 40 sewing machines turning 

ou t identical cheap halterskirt combinations. It is grimy and hot, unrelieved 

by the whirl of a few electric fans. “This place has improved,” Andriola said. “In 

ma ny places you see rats and cockroaches running around the clothes. I find 

machines blocking exits, elevators not running. The sweatshop concept is very 

much alive today.”

The owner, a Mexican-American, went into business two years ago. He is 

try ing to eke o ut a living from the $1.25 to $2 an item the manufacturer pays for 

clothes th at will sell for five times as m uch in the stores.

“If the illegals stopped, I ’d go dead,” said the contractor. “Because 90 percent 

of the operators are illegals. Th ey ’re very hard workers, they ’ll work extra hours, 

Saturday s, even Sundays. The ones th at do have papers th ey j us t don’t want to do 

the work unless they get pa id more. If you don’t pay, right away they threaten you 

with Immigration. I ’m very w ary of legals. T hey cause me problems.”

In the city of San Fern ando , for the first time last week, the Cham ber of Commerce acknowledged th at a large p art of the city ’s population of 18,000 consists of 

illegal aliens. The cham ber agreed to set up a committee with comm unity leaders 

to find a way to educate the aliens on how to legalize their status.

Short of a huge military-type operations to weed o ut illegals by house-to-house 

or factory-to-factory searches, it is clear th at many thou sands of aliens are here to 

sta y. (An effort to do this occurred in the summer of 1973, during which 11,000 

persons were ejected in 25 days. The siege produced a g reat ou tcry in the Chicano 

com munity about indiscrim inate harassment of the Spanish-surnamed and led 

to a spa te of lawsuits.)

Some illegals pay income tax because it is deducted from employer payrolls. 

However, many claim so m any depen dents th at the deduction is very little.

Illegals are not entitled to food stamps, welfare, unemployment insurance or *

Social Security. Some receive some benefits, however, either thro ugh use of false 

identification or because the ir American-born children are eligible. Illegals are 

given health care by county hospitals, and the schools are technically not supposed 

to ask studen ts for origin of birth .

The Los Angeles County Health Department recently tried to estimate the cost 

of trea ting illegals. B ut the figure—$8 million for one year— was based on a hodgepodge of assumptions and guesses.

A more accurate figure was provided by the County Welfare Departm ent: of 

13,000 welfare applications checked by INS in 1974, 645 were ineligible aliens. 

Projected, t ha t would mean one in every 200 suspected applications turns ou t to be 

ineligible.

Bu t here again, th at doesn’t acco unt for human error, records lost by INS and 

the num ber of applications INS failed to repo rt back on.

Bu t what is to be done? One labor leader offered this observation:

“T here are millions in here. How are you going to literally throw what amounts 

to millions of people out of the country ? There’s going to h ave to be an amnesty of 

some kind for those who are established.”

He does not, however, want to see any more illegal aliens allowed into the 

cou ntry.
81

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 3, 1975]

P atrol C an’t K eep Alie n s Out

(By Leroy F. Aarons)

Yuma, Ariz.—I t is a mildly warm win ter afternoon in this desert border town, 

just 15 miles from Mexico, and the U.S. Border Patrol is making wh at it calls 

“ran ch checks.”

Translated, th at means stalking illegal aliens— “wetbacks” or “Mojados” — 

in the lemon groves.

It is ex tra sensitive right now since Cesar Chavez’s United F arm Workers union 

* has been striking the lemon groves since the harv est began thre e months ago, and

the Chavez people consistently have complained th at illegals were being used as 

strikebreakers.

The border patrolmen—four of them divided into teams of two, each driv ing a 

medium-sized van with steel-mesh windows—pull up to one of the groves.

« Excep t for the pistols a t their hips, the y could be forest rangers: the broad-brim

hats, the deep green fatig ue shirts and trousers, the waist-length jackets.

They hop out and race stea lthily into long rows of lemon trees so dense th at 

the y conceal any evidence of hum an life within. Inside, the trees hide the sun, 

creating a cathedral-like archw ay and apse, strange ly dark, quiet and cool, thick 

with the pungent-sw eet smell of ripened lemons.

The pickers are there, on ladders, amid the leaves and branches, strip ping lemons 

and dropping them into shoulder bags. Some ignore the patrol— “La Migra” or 

“im migration” as it is known—with feigned indifference. Others break and run. 

But there seems to be no hun ter-hunted anta gonism on eithe r side. They’re all 

doing their jobs. Besides, the illegals know they will be back on the U.S. side of 

the border soon enough.

Within 20 minutes the p atrol has roun ded up a dozen illegals and pack ed them 

into th e back of one of t he vans. It is all very civilized: the pa trol sometimes allows 

workers to collect pa rt of their day’s pay from the foreman.

The vanload will be brought back to Border Patrol headquarters in Yum a. 

The aliens will be held in a grimy detentio n cell, processessed swiftly (most choose 

voluntary departure rather tha n dep orta tion proceedings), and bused to Mexico 

to San Luis, the border station th at abuts the Mexican city of San Luis on the 

other side.

At San Luis the borde r sepa ration is a 10-foot high metal fence with rolls of 

barbed wire along the top. A mile to the east and west the fence shrinks to a few 

strands of barbed wire, a nd at long intervals along the 2,000-mile border from California to Texas there is no fence at all.

To guard this vast stretch, the Imm igration an d Naturaliza tion Service now has 

1,545 patrol officers—augmented by 1,445 a few mon ths ago, when INS Dir ector 

Leonard Chapman ordered a shift of emphasis from apprehending illegals in the 

interior to blocking the m at the border.

This represents one patrol agent for every 1.3 miles of border—n ot counting, of 

course, different shifts, sickness, vac atio n and the high turn ove r rate. Despite 

all tha t, the bord er gua rds in the Southwest Region managed to catch 611,000 

illegals in fiscal 1974, about 400 per agent.

Notwithstanding th at effort, the alien shuffle is like pitting a water bu ck et 

against a tidal wave.

> Funding is pa rt of the problem. The Office of Managemen t and Budget has

shaved INS budget requests sharply in recent years. Thus, in Los Angeles and 

Houston, alien hunti ng has slowed nearly to a halt. Police in Las Vegas are told 

to release aliens the y app rehend —it is too expensive to come a nd get them .

But the roots of the issue go deeper, as ta lks w ith a number of people in and o ut 

of the Imm igration Service indicate. It has to do, these sources say, with an entrenched and com plac ent bureaucracy within the INS who either refused to see 

or adm it there was a problem until the problem was out of control. Estim ate s of 

illegal aliens range in t he millions.

Austin Fragom en, a New York imm igration lawyer who was staff counsel 

to the House Jud iciary Subcommittee on Immig ration in the la te 1960s, recalls a 

1969 committee hearing on the growing illegal traffic across the Mexican border.

“The immigration service told us at the time the re was at the most 100,000 

illegal aliens in the U.S., not a sub stantial problem,” said Fragomen. “I th ink 

they really believed it, and only recently came to grips with the rea lity of th e 

situation. They never complained about insufficient funds. [Raymond] Farre ll 

[previous INS administrator] used to get what he aske d for, and what he ask ed 

for was always mo des t.”
82

According to long -time INS employees in the West, orie factor which slowed 

IN S pursuit of illegal aliens was lobbying pressure by Western agribusiness, 

which, when the “b racero ” program of allowing Mexican natio nals to com mute 

to work in this country ende d 10 years ago, sought to pro tect its supply of ch eap 

field labor.

“H istorically, the a gricultura l groups have had an impac t on the gov ernment,” 

said Joseph Sureck, chief of the INS Los Angeles office. “For example, in the 

federal law against harboring and concealing aliens, hiring an illegal is excepted. 

Th at was known as ‘The Texas proviso’ and it reflects th e power of the agricu lturefarm bloc in Texa s.”

The illegal alien influx lias spawned ano ther phenomenon—the million-dollar 

alien smuggling and counterfeit rackets.

The smuggler—or “c oyote”—arranges the passage of illegals across the border 

and provides tra nsp ort ation to the cities or agr icultural fields where the y find 

work. For years the system thrived as a group of small businesses. Now, acco rding to federal officials, it has blossomed into sophisticated smuggling s yndicates 

on both sides of the bord er.

A year ago, for example, federal agen ts broke up a ring of 25 alien smugglers 

they said had been netting $9,000 a day over several years. One defend ant absconded, leaving behind $175,000 bail—$133,000 of it in cash.

“P robably more deaths occur as a result of alien smuggling tha n all oth er 

federal crimes combined.” Assistant U.S. Attorney Ha rry Kissane of San Diego 

has said. Aliens are thrown from speeding vehicles an d robbed, beaten and raped , 

said Kissane, and they are suffocated while being smuggled in tiny airti gh t 

vehicle compartments.

A trip from Mexico costs about $350 each at the going rate. A coun terfeit 

visa or the treasured green card (the credit-card-size pass denoting legal residency 

which is actually blue in color) can cost $1,000.

The sordid world of border activity and the prospect of easy mopey has had 

its impact within the Immigration Service. In 1972, an immigration insp ector 

nam ed Frank Paul Castro was convicted for selling border-crossing papers at 

the Tijuana station for $2.50,000.

The Castro case led to a massive Justice Department probe of the INS called 

Operation Clean Sweep, which allegedly turn ed up evidence of corruption at 

various levels of the INS. At one point, the chief investigator, Alfred Hartm an, 

dep uty chief of the Justice Department’s general crimes section, told a congressional committee, “T here is a liaison of sorts between our American officials and 

the so-called coyotes . . Few others were indicted, however, and th e investiga ­

tion fizzled out.

As for the illegals, every one has his own coyote story.

Reyna is a Central American who made her way to Los Angeles via Mexico.

“Five of us travele d by c ar in to Mexico with this man, who lives in New York,” 

she said. “I t cost us $90 each for the trip. But when we arrived in Tijuana, he 

robbed me. He told us to give him all our money and clothes until he was safely 

across the border. So, we gave it to him, $300 each, me and my friend. And we 

never saw him again.

“I stayed a mon th in Tijuan a until I pu t pa rt of the money together to pay 

another coyote. I needed $250, but I paid $75 and agreed to pay the rest late r. 

We came across in a car .” The coyote was an American citizen.

For the Reynas and hundred s of thousands like her, the promise of America 

seems worth running the gau ntlet of the border patro l, the coyote, the exploitation and the subterfuge.

“I constantly live in fe ar I may be expelled. I try not to go out of the hous e,” 

she said. “I always carry my babyT for fear th at they may send me back and pu t 

mv bab y in a home.” She has lost he r job and is living on $300 she managed to save. Still, back in h er 

home country things are worse.

“I want to stay here ,” she said. “I t’s a b ett er chance for me.”

C h av ez S h if t s Vie w o f I lleg als

Cesar Chavez, leader of the embattled United Farm Workers union, had long 

opposed admission of illegal aliens to the United States. He claimed to have proof 

th at the agricultural industries he has attem pte d to organize used illegal aliens 

to break strikes a nd resist union pressure.
Recently, however, he has modified his position on illegals, reportedly under 

pressure from urban Hispanic activist groups, who apparently convinced him that he was acting against the best interests of Spanish-speaking and Spanish-surnamed 

people of both countries. Chavez now says his union does not oppose aliens coming to this country so long as they are not used as strikebreakers. He favors laws punishing employers who hide strikebreakers and increasing quotas of legal admission of Mexicans and 

others in the Western Hemisphere.

24 Ille gal Alien s Found Hiding in T ruck in L.A.

Los Angeles, Feb. 2 (UPI)— A routine check of a large truck today led to the arrest of 24 illegal aliens who had been huddled together without food or water 

in the bay of the truc k for two days. The driver, Arthur Nusoen, 48, of San Diego, was arrested and charged with 

suspicion of smuggling aliens. Officers said when they opened the rear doors of the truck, they found some of the aliens unconscious from lack of food and water. The group included a woman 

and a 16-year-old yout h and 22 male adults. Members of the group had paid $200 each for the ride across the border from 

Mexico and into Los Angeles, police said. The two officers who made the arrests said they stopped the truck because 

there have been several hijackings in the area.

[F ro m th e New Yo rk Ti m es , Dec. 29, 1974 ]

Million Illegal Alien s in Metro politan Area

silent invasion par aly zes immig ration-law enforcers

(By M. A. Farber)

A wave of illegal aliens into the metropolitan region— officially estimated at more than one million— has overwhelmed the Federal Immigration and Naturali­ zation Service here, virtually paralyzing the enforcement of immigration laws. A 10-week investigation by The New York Times shows that, through individual and organized fraud, counterfeiting, falsification of travel and identification papers and smuggling, illegal aliens have mounted what immigration authorities call a “silent invasion” of New York and northern New Jersey. Thousands of these mobile aliens— mostly poor, young, marginally skilled Latin Americans who could not qualify for legal immigration— arrive each month, and now seem to outnumber legal resident aliens here. The illegal aliens come to work illicitly and save money and decide whether to stay permanently. And the vast majority of these men and women, blending into polyglot communities on the Upper West Side and in Queens, Brooklyn and other 

areas, are going undetected. “ We’re at a stand still in terms of our ability to go out and remove aliens who are not entitled to be here,” said Henry E. Wagner, investigations chief of District 3 of the immigration service, which includes the city, Long Island and seven other 

counties in southern New York.

SH O RT O F FU N D S AN D S TA FF

“ But I ’m coming to the conclusion that nobody except us gives a damn.” Mr. Wagner said, “ and we don’t have the money or the men to carry out the law .” Some church, ethnic and civil liberties organizations view illegal aliens as exploited, even persecuted, “economic refugees” — essentially law-abiding people with the same hopes for prosperity and security as regular immigrants. Others, however, argue tha t illegal aliens are “ squatters” who usurp jobs that can be filled by American citizens, engage in crime, including drug trafficking, and sponge on 

public services while payin g little, if any, taxes. Most of the aliens come here from the Caribbean and elsewhere in Latin America on tourist visas valid for two weeks to six months, having lied about their real intentions to American consuls in such places as Bogota, Colombia, or Gu ay­ aquil, Ecuador, or Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic.
84

Inte rviews with more tha n 100 people here and in the Caribbean, also reveal a 

fluorishing, extensive, well-established pat tern of organized frau d, illicit dealings 

In genuine and fake visas and oth er docum ents and smuggling of aliens thro ugh 

Pu erto Rico, the Bahamas and Canada.

S E E K IN G G R E E N E R F IE L D S

Nothing, it appears, is sufficient to deter the illegal aliens from coming. Not t he 

forms th at require tou rist visa applicants to certify th at the y will not work or 

overstay their visit. No t t he expense of buying documents on the black market in 

Latin America for up to $1,500, or the fear of exposure. Not the clandestine 

crossings of the Mona channel between the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico 

in cram ped fishing boats, or the random inspections of crowded flights from San 

Ju an to New York.

They’re seeking greener fields, greener pastures,” said a leading Jam aican lawyer 

in his office two blocks from the American Embassy in Kingston. “They know 

the risk and the y’re willing to tak e it because they know i t has paid off for many. 

In this day, you can’t tell a young man with good grades or an adve nturous 

spirit to go back to the land and plant bananas.”

The weakness of the immigration service here and the imp unity with which 

most illegal aliens are able to flout the laws against them once they arrive are 

illustra ted by the statistics.

There are now one million to 1.5 million illegal aliens in District 3 of the immigration service, with two-thirds of them in the city, according to Maurice F. 

Kiley, the distric t director.

To detec t this number of aliens—on th eir jobs, a t their homes and elsewhere—in 

wh at is known as “area control,” the district now has 28 agents. And as the 

num ber of agents has dwindled from 50 in recent mon ths with a shift in national 

work priorities imposed by Leonard F. Chapman Jr., the Commissioner of the 

Immigration and Natura lization Service the number of illegal aliens seized here 

has declined by 30 to 50 per cent.

5,3 00 D EPO R T ED IN 5 T E A R S

In the last five years, Distric t 3 officials have deported about 5,300 persons and 

verified the departure of 55,000 aliens who were allowed to leave volu ntarily 

after their illegal statu s was discovered. But the service does not know whether 

anoth er 48,000 illegal aliens who were ordered to leave actually went home. It 

has no record of their dep artu re, and it is not trying to find them.

More tha n 18,000 complaints from the public about persons suspected of being 

illegal aliens here are piled up awaiting investigation—the figure was 44,000 

before “unpromising” leads were pulled from the file in the last two years. 

Hundreds of new leads, including letters from scorned lovers and from employers 

who wan t to reduce their work forces with out firings, arrive each week.

Lying dorm ant in bulging file cabinets at the service’s headqua rters a t 20 West 

Broadway are thousands of cases of persons who ente red the district on stu dent 

visas bu t who did not attend the ir designated schools or who dropped out without 

an indication of the ir having gone home.

Hundreds, perhaps thousan ds, of cases of fraudu lent or criminal activity by 

aliens, ranging from drug trafficking to prostitutio n to driving without a license, 

are also unassigned. And “ac tiv e” caseloads are often enormous. In the criminal 

un it alone, 13 agents and two supervisors are currently handling more tha n 800 

cases th at might result in dep ortation or voluntary dep arture of aliens.

C O N F L IC T O VER R E PO R T S

According to agents who asked not to be identified, thousand s of Police Departm ent reports of arrests of aliens—no t all of them illegals—have been thrown 

out by the service without investigation. Mr. Wagner denied the assertion. lie 

said th at many repo rts of min or crimes by aliens had simply been “laid aside.” 

for lack of agents to review them .

The United States, often described as “a nation of imm igrants,” has no F ederal 

laws governing th e admission of aliens for alm ost 100 years after its founding.

Immigration was first regu late d in 1875, when Congress pa ssed a law pre venting 

the entry of prostitutes and convicts. In 1882, Chinese laborers were excluded and 

oth er laws in the next 25 years ba rred physical “defectives,” m enta l inco mpetents , 

polygamists, anarchists, p aup ers and other special categories of aliens.
A general immigration act in 1917 also excluded aliens from most of Asia and 

the Pacific islands and required immigrants to be able to read and write in any 

language.

In 1921, Congress passed a temporary immigration quota act, and a “permament” act followed in 1924. The laws, the first to place a numerical limit on 

immigration, had a “national origins” basis, typing the number of immigrants of 

any nationality who might be admitted in any year to the percentage of foreignborn persons of th at nationality in this country according to the 1890—and late r 

the 1920—census. The 1924 law also established a class of nonquota immigrants, 

including persons born in the Western Hemisphere and close relatives of United 

States citizens.

Legislation in 1952 eliminated race as a complete barrier to immigration, but 

continued to favor aliens from northwestern Europe and to discourage immigration 

by Asians and blacks.

In 1965, in the last general immigration act, the national origins principle was 

abolished. A ceiling of 170,000 immigrants annually from the Eastern Hemisphere 

was set and the first numerical limit on emigration from the Western Hemisphere, 

120.000 a year, was imposed.

The plight of the immigration service here in enforcing the law is matched by 

the problems confronting the American Foreign Service in its efforts to stem the 

flow of illegal aliens, especially in the last decade.

To persuade American consuls that they have ample reason to return home on 

time—the critical test in obtaining a non-immigrant visa—many aliens pad bank 

accounts, forge letters of employment locally, have houses and other property 

listed under their names temporarily and rent “show” money and clothing to 

appear affluent. In Kingston, a tailor turned out suits for visa applicants even as 

they stood in pre-dawn queues at the consulate.

Some applicants attem pt to bribe consuls with money or sex—at least two 

consuls who were mentioned in connection with bribes in recent years in Cali, 

Colombia, and Santo Domingo are “no longer on the rolls of the Foreign Service,” 

a State Departm ent official confirmed. Other applicants apply pressure by local 

government officials, including senior ministers, or through friends and relatives 

here, enlist the aid of American legislators at all levels.

s e n a t o r’s l e t t e r so u g h t

Last month, in a car parked at dusk in front of the casino in Port-au-Prince, 

a Haitian “entrepreneur” offered an American $500 for every name the American 

could arrange to have included in a letter from any United States Senator to the 

consulate, requesting expedition of visas.

“We would never run out of names,” said the Haitian, who took from his 

pockets the passports of 32 persons who had been denied visas. “This would be 

a sta rt and, with a Senator’s letter, it’s a sure thing.”

In Haiti, anxious applicants for visas may call on the powers of voodoo. In 

the Dominican Republic self-styled “papa-bocos,” or witches, offer to win over 

the “five senses of the American consul” by blowing cigar smoke in the face of an 

applicant and anointing him with a sticky mixture of oils, herbs, cologne, white 

sugar and “holy” water. The cost is $13.13.

Many applicants who cannot obtain visas turn to local travel agents or “consultants” whose package deals often include counterfeit visas or American 

resident alien cards or genuine documents cut out of passports or otherwise 

stolen or bought for illegitimate use. In one Caribbean country, a travel agent 

hired a runner from the foreign ministry who, on official stationery and in the name 

of the nation’s president, requested 100 tourist visas over a period of months.

But, for thousands of aliens, smuggling may be cheaper.

A C R O SS CANADIA N B O R D E R

An increasing number of Latin Americans are flying to Toronto and Montreal 

and, among Canadians and persons of their own nationalities, finding smugglers 

who will drive them at night down unguarded back roads into Vermont or New 

York State—at times to a waiting “guide” near Lake Champlain or to the bus 

station in Plattsburgh, N.Y., or Burlington, Vt.

Many aliens come through the border checkpoints—hidden in the trunks of 

cars or jammed in the back seat between smugglers with valid entry papers, 

or carrying some “proof” of residence in the United States, such as a Social 

Security or voter registration card. Only last spring the immigration service
S6

arrested a Jam aican who was going from one Board of Elections office to anoth er 

here, acqu iring registration cards and selling them to aliens in Canad a for up to 

$250 apiece.

Edw ard Wildblood, deputy commissioner for operations of the immigration 

service’s no rth east regional office in Burlington, estim ated th at at least 50 per 

cent of the 6,012 persons apprehended by the Border Patrol in th at region last 

year were destined for New York.

Until rece ntly, he said, 90 perc ent of apprehensions involved Canadians whowere ineligible to enter the United States because of prior deportations, criminal 

convictions or o ther reasons. But more and more citizens of other countries, particu larly from the Caribbean, “are using Canada as a stepping stone into th e U.S.,” 

he said, a nd the p roportion of Canadia ns a pprehended has dropped to 70 percent.

In the Caribb ean itself, a major smuggling route runs between the coves of 

northern Haiti and Nassau in the Bahamas, where aliens then try to set off for 

Miami or New York. An even more popular route, however, is the “P uerto 

Rico Ru n” from northern and eastern Dominican Republic where, on a clear 

day, the com monwealth can be sighted 75 miles across the Mona channel.

In the Dominican Republic, it is said th at a person who can not qualify for a 

visa to the United States should go to see the American consul in Miches.

There is no consul in Miches, a small, ramshackle town on the n orth coast full 

of pigs and m ud and men on horseback w ith machetes dangling from their waistbands. But th ere are beaches shaded by palms and almond trees and, for th e em igrant with $150 and no papers, there are fishermen who will make the rough, 

day-long crossing to th e un watched inlets and villages of Puerto Rico.

The common view in Miches is th at Dominican officials will never stop this 

traffic, and may not even wan t to. “ The re is a law of nature th at you can ’t goaga inst the people’s will,” a wiry, old resident explained.

In a hill-top fort above Miches, the local army commander agreed th at it was 

nea rly impossible to halt the smuggling. “ Muv dificil, muv dificil,” mu ttered the 

commander, who was lying in his underw ear on a gray iron cot, his pistol under 

his pillow and a dozen of his men gathered roun d. “ We tr y to catch them at sea 

because if we surprise them on land,” he said , “ the judge lets them go.”

JU M B O J E T S A PR O B LEM

After th ey arrive in the commonwealth, many of them borrow, buy or make u p 

Pu erto Rican birth or baptismal certificates for use at San Jua n airpor t or, later, 

in the United States. Posing as Puerto Ricans, the y book a flight for New York, 

where passengers of any natio nality from the commonwealth are n ot inspected by 

imm igration.

“ We ge t the last crack a t the m,” said James H. Walker, a senior immigration 

official in San Juan. Passengers bound for New York, or elsewhere in the United 

States, are stoppe d and interrogated on an “as need ed” basis at San Juan airport 

bu t, Mr. Walker said, “we had bette r con trol” before the jum bo jets. “I t’s become an impossible task now, with our limited manpower.” he added.

Nor is it easy for immigrati on inspectors at Kenne dy Airport in Queens.

On Nov. 16, Gloria Moreta-C ueto, a 34-year-old Dominican arriv ing on a noon 

flight from Santo Domingo attem pte d to pass through inspection with a passport 

in which her pho tograph and identification had been substitute d on two pages. 

Earlier in the week, three other Dominicans who h ad purchased tick ets from the 

same trav el agency in Santo Domingo as Mrs. Moreta-C ueto were prevented 

from ente ring with similarly frau dulent docum ents.

F IR S T C U R B S IN 1875

Mrs. Moreta-Cueto toyed with her lacqu ered black hair and knitted shawl and 

told immigration officials th at she was unaware of the passport having been 

dumm ied. Bu t she withdrew her application for admission and left on the next 

plane for Santo Domingo. She was one of 750 persons who withdrew from Kenne dy 

Airport in the last year (another 125 were barred from entering after hearings 

before imm igration judges), bu t imm igration inspectors have no idea how many 

fraudulent documents escaped their scrutiny.

However they get here today, illegal aliens are nothing new to New York. 

This area has had illegal aliens, nea rly all of whom were from the Eastern Hemisphere, since Congress began regulating immigration in 1875 and especially since 

the adoption in 1924 of a controversia l national origins quota system for the 

Eastern Hemisphere.
87

But only since 1965, when the immigration laws affecting both hemispheres 

were changed and the first restriction s were placed on the num ber and kind of emig rants from the Western Hemisphere, has the size of th e illegal alien population here grown to the point where it now dwarfs the cap acity of the imm igration 

service to enforce the laws. Before 1965, a citizen of a cou ntry in the Western Hem isphere could emigrate 

to the United States b y dem ons trating to a consul th at he could sup port himself in this country . But the conditions for emigration now, particularly from the Western Hemisphere, are much more severe and complica ted and, it is generally 

agreed, serve as a stimulus for illegal immigration.

T H E L IM IT S TO DAY

In bo th hemispheres there is a lab or certification require ment in which an applic ant for imm igration must satisfy the United States De partm ent of Labor th at his employment will not adve rsely affect the job m ark et in the area where he will work. And nearly 50 categories of workers, from bar ten ders to taxicab drivers, from farm labo rers to maids and sales clerks, are autom atically disqualified from 

■certification. In the Easte rn Hemisphere there is a ceiling of 170,000 im mig rants annually, 

a per country limit of 20,000 t hat is rar ely filled except for the Philippines, and a preference system based prim arily on relationship to United States citizens and 

resident aliens. In the Western Hemisphere, the re is a ceiling of 120,000 imm igrants each year, 

with no per cou ntry limit. However, child ren and spouses of Unite d States citizens and parents of adu lt citizens are exem pt from both the 120,000 limit and labor certification. Spouses and par ents of resid ent aliens and par ents of m inor United States citizens are exempt from labor certification, bu t no t from the numerical 

restriction. A resu lt of these changes in the laws has been a 2^-ye ar waiting period for 

emigration from anywhere in the Western Hemisphere and a waiting line th at is loaded with persons exempt from lab or certification, inclu ding Cub ans who are “paroled” into this country w ithout initial numerical lim it are here and prob ably work-come residen t aliens' after two years, when the y are counted aga inst the 

120,000. For the n on-Cuban citizen in the W estern Hemisphere who c ann ot obtain labor 

certificatio n and who does not have immediate relatives living legally in the United States, there is virtually no hope of legally emigrating—even if he were willing 

to w ait more than two years.

JO B O F F E R N EED ED

It is also very difficult to arra nge for labor certification withou t coming to the 

Un ited States because an app lica nt mu st have a specific job offer, an d few em ploy­ ers will offer a position to an alien who is living abroad and whose work the y have 

not seen. On the oth er hand , it is possible for an alien to come here on a tourist visa, take a job illegally, obtain labor certificatio n on the basis of th at employment, apply by mail for an immigrant visa, continue working until the visa is available in two years, return to his home cou ntry for a day to be issued the visa by a consul, 

and come back as a legal resident entitled to hold any job available to him. In fact, more than half the 20,000 ann ual requests for labor certification in the 

metropolitan area involve aliens who and who are permitted to being illegally, according to the United States Labo r Dep artm ent. And the Labo r Department informs the immigration service of th at employment only when certification is 

denied. The a pproval rate is ab out 70 per cent. “Under these conditions you’d have to be some kind of a fool to sta y in another 

country and give up,” a prom inent immigration lawyer here said. “A t worst, if 

you ’re ca ught, they’ll send you bac k.” Yet no one really knows how many aliens are working here illegally, just as no 

o n e—n o t. the immigration service or the State Department—is certain of the 

total number of illegal aliens in this region or elsewhere in the United States.

A C E N S U S PR O B LEM

John C. Cullinane, regional dire ctor of the Census Bureau, said the bureau 

“would have no way of knowing” whether illegal aliens were counted in the 1970 census, when the city ’s pop ulation was officially pu t at close to 8 million. 

Blacks a nd Hispanics are often said to be undercounted in censuses.
88

Mr. Kiley, the director of Distric t 3 of the immigration service in southern 

New York, said his estim ate of 1.5 million illegal aliens in the district was based 

on “w hat we see in areas and what community leaders and oth er sources tell us.’r

As much as 80 per cent of the illegal aliens here are from South America and 

Centra l America and the Caribbean, he said, with Chinese, Greeks (mostly crew 

members who have jumped ship), Filipinos and Italians also represented.

Some ethnic organizations assert th at Mr. Kiley’s 1.5 million figure is grossly 

inflated, bu t some priests and community workers who have considerable conta ct 

with aliens say the figure is realistic.

NO L IM IT ON SO M E VIS AS

More tha n 630,000 legal resident aliens—immigrants who are not naturalized 

citizens—are registered in the district, of whom 40 per cent are from the Western 

Hemisphere. And an unknown num ber of legal aliens are not registered, alth ough 

it is required by law.

As a measure of the large numb er of illegal aliens here, Mr. Wagner, the immi- *

gration investigations chief here, noted that, while 50,553 Dominicans were 

registered as legal aliens in the dis trict, most sources placed the num ber of Dominicans living in the city alone at 200,000 or more. “Illegals make up the difference,’' 

he said. “They are n ot legal aliens who didn’t bother to register.”

Between 1964 and 1973, the Sta te Departme nt issued 3,190,000 non-imm igrant 

visas in the Western Hemisphere, excluding Can ada and Mexico. There is no 

ceiling on non-immigrant visas.

In the same years, according to the immigration service, 1,464,000 visitors for 

pleasure or business, excluding studen ts and Mexicans and Canadians, ente red 

New York by air. Imm igration officials said the y did not know how many of 

these visitors were en route to other states or how many of the more than 1.7 

million Latin Americans who entered the United States through San Jua n,

Miam i or other airports were destined for this area.

Whatev er their differences on numbers, almost everyone concerned with illegal 

aliens agrees that the m otiv atio n for this exodus from Latin America is economic.

The aliens are coming mainly from countries where per cap ita income ranges 

from $100 to $900; where unemploymen t hovers between 20 and 30 per cent of 

the labor force; where populations are doubling at current rates , every 25 to 35 

years.

Many government officials in Latin America do not want to talk about the 

sub ject of illegal aliens, and more tha n a few regard the emigration as a convenient, if not crucial, “safety value” for their countries. Some even lobby in 

Wash ington against tougher laws affecting illegal aliens.

‘A M IG RA TO RY PEO PL E*

“We try to insure th at Jam aica ns follow scrupulously the laws of oth er 

governm ents,” said Hugh Bonnick, a top aide to Prime Minister Michael Manley,

“b ut ours is a migratory people, and we would have a severe domestic problem 

if we trie d to restrict the ir leaving. The United State s, as we all know, has the *

machin ery and the means for tracking down people who don’t belong there and 

seeing the y return .”

Rarely do Latin American governments prosecute their citizens for attem pti ng 

to sub vert American imm igration laws. .

For example, on Sept. 6, 1973, a 43-year-old Haitian with an altered visa was 

refused entry at Kennedy Airport. The Haitian said he bought the visa for $500 

from a particu lar trav el agent in Port-au-Prince. Imm igration auth orities notified 

the American consulate and the consulate inform ed the Haitia n police and 

Foreign Ministry.

But the travel age nt is still very much in business. The other day he leane d 

over a desk in the back room of his agency near the National Palace, brushed 

aside a drawing of the Las t Supper mounted on a wooden stand engraved with 

“ New York City” and offered, for $1,000, to help a Haitia n come here illegally.

Fra ud is not all, however. Many tourists honor the term s of their visas and 

return home on time. And some illegal aliens obtained their visas with good 

inte ntions and decided to overstay and work in this area, if only for a year or 

two, after they arrived.
ONE CO NS UL ’S VI EW

Yet in the three or four minu tes in which the y determine whether to gran t 

a non-immigrant visa, American consuls are having an increasingly hard tim e 

distinguishing the bona fide a pplicant from what the y call the “mala fide” and the 

first-time visa refusal rate—less than one per cen t in such cities as Brussels and 

Osaka—is approachin g 50 per cent in some Latin-American cities.

And while some consuls say they are being h ustled and are stern w ith que stio nable applicants, others are not hap py about tur nin g away so many people, even 

if they migh t become illegal aliens here. “I know the illegals make a mockery of the imm igration law and pu t a lot of 

pressure on the schools and hospitals and oth er services in the sta tes,” a consul 

in the Caribbean said. “B ut their lives are miserable down here. Who are we to 

deny them a chance to bette r themselves?”

[F ro m th e New Y ork T im es , Dec . 30, 1974]

I m m ig r a tio n F raud C a se D r o p p e d in 19 72

Partly because “unfavorable publicity” might have resulted from an ind ictment the United Sta tes Attorney for the S outhern District of New York dro ppe d 

in 1972 an imm igration-fraud case aga inst a form er commissioner of the Joh n V. 

Lindsay adm inistra tion.

The case involved Earl A. Rawlins, who was the cit y’s Commissioner of Relocation from September 1969, to Jul y 1970.

In a previous case, Mr. Rawlins and seven oth er persons were indicted on 

Jun e 10, 1970, by a Federal grand jury in Albany—the Northern District of 

New York—on a charge of conspiring to bring three Urug uaya ns into this country 

illegally from Canad a. A mon th late r, when City Inve stigation Comm issioner 

Rober t M. Ruskin learned of the indictm ent from law-enforcement sources, 

Mr. Rawlins was susp ended from his $35,000-a-year post.

CH AR GE DISM ISSE D IN 1971

Mr. Rawlins, a 39-year-old former ass istant city corporation counsel who was 

working part-time as an immigration lawyer while he was commissioner, said he 

was innocent of the charge in Albany and, when the Government failed to pro ­

duce a bill of partic ulars against him, the charge in the Northern District was 

dismissed in Jun e 1971. Mr. Rawlins was offered ano ther job in the Housing 

Development Administration bu t rejected it.

Nothing more was said publicly abo ut Mr. Raw lins and aliens.

Between 1970 and 1972, how’ever, the Imm igra tion Service here investigated 

Mr. Rawlins and concluded th at while he was a City Commissioner and while 

he was not, he had helped more than 100 aliens sub mit frau dulent app lica tion s 

for extensions of their tou rist visas and for labor certifications th at would allow 

them to sta y here.

In some instances, according to imm igration officials, the applicants did no t 

have the job skills they purported to have; in others, they were working in violation of their tou rist visas.

The case against Mr. Rawlins was sub mitted by the United States Attorney 

for the Southern District to a Federal grand jury, and at least 30 witnesses, 

including Mr. Rawlins, testified. But on Sept. 26, 1972, the Imm igration Service 

was called by William Gray, an ass istant United States atto rney, and told th at 

Federal prosecutors would no longer pursue the case.

Mr. Gray, imm igration records show, indicate d th at the “su bstantial evidence 

th at was gath ered would normally suffice to proceed with prosecution,” bu t he 

cited five reasons why the ma tter was being dropped. They were as follows:

1. Mr. Rawlins no longer held a position with the city adm inistration.

2. Mr. Rawlins was no longer engaged in an immigration practice.

3. There was a question as to the “credibility” of an important witness.

4. The expense of bringing witnesses from abroad was “prohibitive.”

The indic tment in Albany, a lthough sub sequen tly dismissed, had cost Mr. Ra wlins his city post. “If an indictm ent is again return ed against Mr. Rawlins, unfavorable publicity may result because of his claim that he is being persecuted.”

Mr. Rawlins said las t week th at he had sometimes handled imm igration cases 

in his city office at 100 Gold Street b ut “never on city time.” And he sa id he had 

been unaware th at any of the information in the alien s’ applications was false.

The United States Attorney ’s office declined to comment on the case last week.
90

[From th e New York Time s, Dec. 30, 1974]

U n la w fu l A l ie n s U se C ost ly C it y S e r v ic e s

TH O U SA N D S C O M PETE FO R JO B S AN D G ET SC HOOL, H O S P IT A L AN D W E LFA R E B E N E F IT S 

(By M. A. Farber)

Thousands of illegal aliens here are sending their children to public schools, 

using municipal hospitals and receiving welfare benefits while often paying 

minimal taxes and sending large amounts of money abroad. A 10-week investigation by the New Yor k Times also shows that many of the estimated total of 1.5 

million illegal aliens in the region, most of whom are young, marginally skilled *

Latin Americans, are far less exploited at work than is widely believed.

But the full social and economic impact of illegal aliens— who also include 

Chinese, Greeks, Filipinos, Italians and others— is open to dispute, as is illustrated 

in the area of employment.

In one recent month, the Immigration and Naturalization Service here appre- *

hended more than 140 illegal aliens who were working in jobs ranging from dishwasher to beautician to accountant. At the same time, the State Employment 

Service had in its files the names of hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of 

people seeking identical jobs.

Some people dismiss this sort of comparison, arguing tha t most illegal aliens do 

menial, necessary work that citizens and legal resident aliens shun. But to immigration officials, and a growing number of other people, the figures prove only that 

illegal aliens are taking jobs from legal residents.

“ Get these illegals out of this country,” one man bellowed at a communitv 

board meeting on illegal aliens last month in Queens.

“ It ’s time to protect the Americans,” another man shouted to the 300 people 

in attendance. Before he could go on, applause was wafting across the school 

auditorium in Elmhurst. Scant attention was given a woman who warned against 

making illegal aliens “ a scapegoat, like in Nazi Germany.”

Among the findings of The Times’s investigation of illegal aliens are the 

following:

*!Some illegal aliens are victim ized because of their status by employers, landlords, lawryers, merchants and creditors. Some are afraid to call the police when 

needed or to appear in court, and some continually dread capture b y the immigration service. But most who are working earn at least the minimum wage, and 

many enjoy union benefits. Increasingly surrounded here by thousands of their 

countrymen and aware that the net of the immigration service is small and 

erratic, many illegal aliens are leading relatively stable lives.

“ What we might define as exploitation, many illegals regard as the greatest 

opportunities of their lives,” said Austin T. Fragomen Jr., an immigration lawyer 

whose firm sees thousands of illegal aliens a year. “ Generally the illegals have 

become part of the community and are a lot more secure than is commonly 

thought. They are basically law-abiding people trying to climb out of pove rty 

and, in the truest sense of the American dream, they are willing to work for i t.” *

^Some illegal aliens are engaged in crime, especially drug trafficking that 

originates in Latin America and the Far East. For example, half of the 210 

persons who were arrested last October in connection with an international 

cocaine-smuggling operation were officially identified as illegal aliens living and 

working in this area. And officials of the cit y’s jail system estimate that 6 to 10 

percent of the 7,300 inmates in the jails are illegal aliens, many of them posing as 

Puerto Ricans or Cubans. But there is no evidence that illegal aliens who come 

here to work commit more crime, proportionally, than other people.

^Many illegal aliens rarely, if ever, file Federal, state or city tax returns. And 

many, including a number who come here alone and expect to go home eventually, 

reduce the amount of taxes withheld from their wages by claiming more dependents than they are entitled to. An Internal Revenue Service spokesman said 

illegal aliens could usually claim dependents living in this country, however 

illegally, but were not entitled to claim dependents residing abroad.

5 An unknown number of illegal aliens are receiving welfare and Medicaid 

benefits. According to the immigration service the number is “undoubtedly in 

the thousands.” But others say that most illegal aliens do not seek welfare for 

fear tha t their illegal status will be uncovered.

Until last August, the cit y W’as not required to ask the legal status of welfare 

applicants who were aliens, and it seldom did so. Now illegal aliens are barred by 

Federal and state laws from receiving aid except for 30 days of “emergency”
91

assistance. Although some senior welfare officials apparen tly do not understand 

the new laws, the city says it is trying to remove illegal aliens from the welfare 

rolls a nd prevent others from registering.

One couple dropped from the rolls were Caro and Joh n Rob erts (the name s of 

illegal aliens in this article have been changed). The y came here from Antigua, 

Leeward Islands, on tourist visas in mid-1972, with the ir four children, and 

Mr. Roberts took a job as a secu rity guard.

On July 17, 1974, a fter a complain t about Mr. Roberts was lodged with immigration officials, the Roberts family was allowed to leave th e cou ntry vo luntarily. 

Mrs. Roberts att em pte d to prove with a baptism al certificate that she was born 

in the Virgin Islands. However, after a batch of blank certificates were found in 

the Roberts apart me nt in the Bronx, she conceded th at she had boug ht the 

document in Harlem, officials said.

W hile they were here, according to the city’s Department of Social Services, the Robertses received an estimated total of $7,140 in welfare paymen ts; welfare 

officials did not know Mr. Roberts was working. In addition, Mr. Roberts used 

his public-assistance card to arrange Medicaid pay ment for a $328.46 bill at 

Morrisania Hospital, which he entered on J uly 12, 1974, with a stab wound.

Illegal aliens, including the ir children born abroad, use schools, hospitals and 

other public services at will or with little difficulty, at times avoiding the pa ym ent 

of bills or submitting fraudu lent docum ents to estab lish eligibility for services. 

Although the city’s Board of Education, according to a spokesman, has no policy 

that would deny public educatio n to illegal alien children, some schools insist 

th at aliens show “green cards”—proof of legal residency—and tur n away those 

who lack the cards. These children retu rn to the ir native countries to live with 

relatives, or remain out of school, or enroll in a school th at makes no special demands on aliens.

SC HOOL C IT A TIO N S

On the pink living-room walls of the Sanchez family’s fifth-floor walk-up 

apartme nt in Washington Heights are three fram ed certificates from public schools 

here, citing the model atte nda nce, scholarship and work habits of the three 

Sanchez boys.

Mrs. Sanchez arrived here from Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic 

on a touris t visa in August, 1970. With the help of other Dominicans in Washington 

Heights, she soon found a job making plastic dolls in a factory in New Jersey. 

She still works there, rising at 6 A.M. to meet a car pool.

Mr. Sanchez, who was a Dominican soldier, works for a curtain manufacturer 

in New Jersey. He and the Sanchez children arrived here on tourist visas in 

April, 1971, and, as he said the o ther day with a slight smile, “just stayed .”

The Sanchezes are “tota lly delighted” to be living here and wan t to become citizens. Nothing pleases them more tha n the educatio nal oppo rtunities opened 

to the ir sons. Mr. Sanchez said he had to produce only birth certificates and vaccination records to register the children at Public School 115, 586 West 177th 

Street.

M OST STU D EN TS H IS PA N IC

Ninety-three per cent of th e s tudents at P.S. 115 are Hispanic, with Dominicans 

accounting for the largest number, then South and Central Americans, then 

Puerto Ricans.

“I have to assume we have some illegal aliens, bu t we ha ve no way of knowing 

how many,” Abraham Gross, the school’s principal, said in an interview. “If a 

child lives in this district and wants an education, I have to give it to him. We’re 

not in the immigration business.”

Nor are municipal hosp itals initially concerned with aliens’ status. State law, 

according to officials of the Health and Hospitals Corporation requires general 

hospitals to admit a ny person in need of trea tment, whether or not the person is a 

legal resident.

One person who availed herself of th at circumstance was Therese Claire, a 

42-year-old Haitian who overstayed her tou rist visa and worked as a domestic 

on the East Side. Between May, 1973, and last February, Mrs. Claire made six 

“billable” visits to Metrop olitan Hospital.

Officials at the municipal hosp ital said th at Mrs. Claire did not pay her bill for $30, tha t several reminders were sent to her address on the Upper West Side 

and that the letters were no t retu rned as undeliverable. If Mrs. Claire does not 

respond, a spokesman for the hospital corporation said, the bill will be “writte n 

off as a bad d ebt.”

49- 769— 75------ 7
92

It will probably be written off.

U nk no w n to th e hos pi ta l, M rs. Cla ire ga ve up he re 12 -foo t-s qu are, $25-a -week 

room so m e m on th s ago an d wen t bac k to H ai ti w ith he r hus ba nd, wh o was wor king he re illeg all y as a ta ilor . Sh e has be en de nied a visa to re tu rn to th e U ni te d 

S ta te s be ca us e sh e vi ol at ed th e te rm s of he r ea rlie r vis a.

Ther e are oth er de bt s, of o th er ille gal ali en s, an d th e su m s ar e su bst an tial ly 

larg er .

L as t Ju ne a Con gressio na l su bc om m itte e ex am in in g th e im m ig ra tion service 

es tim at ed th a t th e ye ar ly loss of in co m e- ta x re ve nu e to th e Fed er al G ov er nm en t 

fro m illegal ali ens th ro ughout th e countr y wa s $10 0 mi llio n.

In a pil ot pr oj ec t he re la st sp ring , th e In te rn al R ev en ue Se rvice colle cte d 

$21,4 50 fro m a small num ber of alie ns who we re ap pre hen ded by th e im mig ratio n 

serv ice and wh o ha d ca sh rese rves . M an y of th e aliens, a Fed er al ta x official said, 

ha d not on ly fai led to tile ta x re tu rn s b u t als o said th ey were unaw ar e of th e 

ne ed to do so.

“ T he $21 ,00 0 sh ou ld n’t be ta k en as an in di ca tion of w ha t co uld be colle cte d on 

a re gu la r bas is ,” th e ta x officia l sa id . “ We haven ’t go t a solid ide a of th e compl ianc e ga p am on g illegal aliens in Ne w York, b u t it’s ob vi ou sly more th an 

$2 1,00 0.”

$40,000 S E N T HOM E

H ow ev er m uc h th ey pay in ta xe s, ille gal aliens ro utinel y line up at regi ster ed - 

mail windo ws in th e region on S atu rd ay mor ning s to se nd m on ey ho me to re la ­

tiv es , or fo r safe-kee ping in th e event of th eir ex po su re he re. No on e know s how 

muc h mon ey is “e xport ed ” in th is fash ion but, in th e C ar ib bea n, it is said th at, 

ne xt to su ga r, Am erican vis as genera te th e m os t for eig n excha nge . On e ice -cr eam 

ve nd er he re, im m ig ra tion officia ls sa id , se nt ho me $40,0 00 and file d on ly one ta x 

re tu rn duri ng th e six ye ar s he over st ay ed his to uri st vis a.

R ep re se nta ti ve Pet er W. R odi no, th e Ne w Je rs ey D em oc ra t wh o he ad s th e 

Hou se su bc om m itte e on im m ig ra tion , ha s es tim at ed th a t m or e th an $l -b illion is 

“ rem ov ed fro m ou r ec on om y” yearl y by illegal ali ens.

Y et M r. Fr ag om en , th e im m ig ra tion lawye r, wh o was fo rm er ly a staf f counsel 

of th e su bc om m itte e, sa id th at any dra in wa s m or e th an offset by ta xati on of 

ille gal alie ns an d by th eir sp en di ng . And th e aliens th em se lv es , like Ja im e Llorca, 

te nd to sh ar e th a t vie w.

M r. Llorca was 55 yea rs old w he n he ar ri ved he re from Bue no s Aires on a 

to u ri st vi sa in Sep tem be r, 1970. He qu ic kl y go t a jo b as a bicy cle bu ilde r, re nte d 

a ro om from friend s in Qu eens and was soo n se nd in g his fa m ily $25 0 a m on th . 

By 1972 , hi s wife an d se ve ra l ch ildr en ha d join ed hi m , on to u ri st visas, an d th ey 

ar e no w l iv in g in a co m fo rtab le, w ell-fu rn ishe d ap art m en t in th e F la tb ush se ction 

of Bro ok lyn.

O ve r a cu p of th ic k, sw ee t coffee, Mr. Ll orca re ca lle d some tr y in g tim es he re. 

He was on ce ro bb ed of “e v ery th in g .” A m an in tr oduce d by a pri est to ok $1,500 

to he lp him obta in a “gre en card ” an d did not hi ng . M r. Llorc a ca rr ie d a m ap of 

th e cit y to av oid as ki ng direc tion s from st ra ng er s who m ig ht disc ov er his st atu s, 

li e lost weigh t. For long pe riod s he wou ld “j u m p ” a t th e sigh t of a police officer.

B u t M r. Llorca gr ad ual ly co nc lu de d th a t th e im m ig ra tion se rv ice “d oes not 

bo th er yo u if yo u ju st go to w or k and come ho m e. ” An d he fo und a la w ye r wh o 

arr an ged fo r his en tire fa m ily to be come leg al perm anent re side nt s. Tod ay . 

Mr. Llo rc a said, his s on ha s a car a nd he h as a ca r and he is s av in g to buy a ho us e 

in Que en s.

“ W ho co uld w an t m or e? ” he as ke d, se tt in g do wn his go ld -rim m ed gla sse s ne ar 

a so uve ni r pla te insc rib ed w ith “ New York C ity— C ity of W on de rs ."

“ H er e yo u do a jo b an d pe op le appre ci at e it ,” he sa id . “ I t ’s a gre at sa tisf ac tion 

to m e.”

N o t ev er yo ne , ho wev er, is sa tisf ie d, espe cially in mid dle- clas s ne ighb or ho od s, 

bl ac k or w hi te or mixed, whe re th e Hispa ni c bo de ga ha s be co me as co mmon plac e 

in re ce nt ye ar s as th e de lica tess en or th e pub or th e sp aghett i ho use.

R A C IS M S E E N

So me su pport er s of ille gal aliens , wh o pr ef er to call th em “ alie ns w ithou t do cu ­

m ents ” or “ ali ens w itho ut sta tu s,” see a ra ci st or b ig ot ed a tt it u d e i n th e criti cis m 

of th e alie ns , not un lik e th e cr itic is m of American bl ac ks in m any p re d o m in an t y 

w hi te co m m un ities. A ra nkin g im m ig ra tion official sa id th a t, if th e popu la tion 

ch an ge h ad b ee n m ad e up of w es te rn Eur op ea ns , “ yo u w ould n't see all t he se n eigh ­

bo rh oo ds up in ar m s— I kn ow , fr om th e re m ar ks m ad e to m e.”
93

Yet the conflict is there.

In churches in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn, priests say that half 

the foreign parishioners are illegal aliens. Nea tly dressed Haitians , who may once 

have lived in stra w shac ks w ith tin roofs, chant Fren ch mass on Sunday mornings 

and their voices carry into the streets.

Meanwhile, the Crown Heights Taxpaye rs and Civic Association advises its 

members how to rep ort illegal aliens to the imm igration service. In Queens, th e 

Community Planning Board for Corona and Elm hurst declares th at “th e illegalalien problem is the first and foremost of all the problem s” in the area. And in 

Jack son Heights, the preside nt of the civic association, Patrick C. Deignan, 

describes illegal aliens as “an unbearable burde n” on the comm unity, “an American tragedy .”

W ID E -R A N G IN G A C C U SA TIO N S

In these areas, long-time residents see graffiti on new homes, auto body “shops”-

set up in driveways, a half-dozen mailboxes and garbage cans in front of homes 

zoned for one or two families—and, rightly or wrongly, they blame illegal aliens. 

Indeed, the accusations aga inst illegal aliens range from double parking to littering to “ hanging out on the stree ts” in sum mer. But often th e talk turns to broader 

issues—crime, welfare, the job market.

The Police Department, according to a spokesman, notifies the imm igration 

service of the arrest of any alien, legal or illegal, bu t does not compile its own 

statistics on aliens and crime.

Max Weinman, chief of the criminal un it of the immigration service here, 

said 75 per cent of the referrals from the police involved drug use or trafficking, 

alth ough he said there was also a “growing tendency” among illegal aliens to 

commit such offenses as holdups, pickpocketing and prostitution.

Immigration officials usually draw a distinction between illegal aliens who. 

come here to work bu t com mit crimes (a num ber th at officials say is increasing 

bu t is still “minimal” compared with the illegal-alien population) and aliens 

whose primary purpose, often after being smuggled into the country, is to engage 

in crime (a numb er the y say is increasing significantly).

In Chinatown, in partic ular, immigration officials say, Chinese illegal aliens 

have helped to make murder, gambling, extortion and oth er crimes “the rule of 

the day.”

W E L F A R E LA W C H AN G ED

With regard to illegal aliens on welfare, lack of da ta is not the only problem . 

There is some question whethe r top officials of the city’s Dep artm ent of Social 

Services and the Health and Hospitals Corporation, as well as lower-echelon 

welfare employes, understand or enforce the new laws barring all bu t “emergency” 

aid for illegal aliens.

Before last August, according to the sta te's De partm ent of Social Services, no 

person in need could be denie d welfare or Medicaid because he was an alien, legal 

or illegal. But last Jun e Governor Wilson signed a bill making the s tat e law conform with new Federal regulations banning welfare or Medicaid to illegal aliens. 

(Applicants for unemployment insurance are not asked th eir residency status .)

Yet in interviews in recent weeks, Harold Scharfstein, director of reimbursement plans and programs of the Health and Hospitals Corporation, and James 

Costantini, deputy director of the City’s Bureau of Medical Assistance in the 

Dep artm ent of Social Services, both said th at aliens were not required to be here 

legally to qualify for Medicaid.

A ID MOS TL Y FO R C H IL D R E N

And Martin Burdick, director of income main tena nce for the city ’s Social 

Services Department said the dep artment had no obligation to inform the immigration service of illegal aliens, although a sta te welfare directive issued last 

summer said the imm igration service should be notified immediately of an y alien 

who is unable to verify his legal residency or who presents documents of “questionable validity .”

Most welfare assistance is aid to dependent children and now, as before, the 

American-born, child of an illegal alien is entitled to help. For example, Ma rga rita 

Oliva arrived here in Feb ruary, 1968, from the Dominican Republic on a tou rist 

visa and gave birth to a daughte r in Brooklyn in April, 1969.

Mrs. Oliva, who worked for a Ma nhattan pocketbook manufacturer was 

allowed to leave th e United States voluntarily last November when she was found 

by the immigration service. Bu t in the preceding five years, welfare officials said, 

she collected $14,105 in aid to dependent children.
94

Welfare officials did not know th at Mrs. Oliva was working. A et, jus t as no one 

really knows how many of the 950,000 welfare recipients in the city are illegal 

aliens, no one knows how many illegal aliens are employed here.

SO M E W O RK FOR U .S .

According to the immigration service, most illegal aliens who are employed are unskilled and semiskilled laborers working throug hou t the region. Some have even been found working as kitchen helpers in Governm ent facilities at the United 

Sta tes Military Academy at West Point and in the cafeteria of the Federal Office 

Building at 26 Federal Plaza. Bu t Maurice F. Kiley, the immigration direc tor for southern New York, estimates that more than 100,000 “higher p ayin g’’ jobs are also being held in this region by illegal aliens. The average salary of illegal aliens appre hended here in 

the last year was $150 a week, officials said. Supporters of illegal aliens assert not only th at the aliens hold jobs that legal residents scorn bu t also th at many small businesses would have to close witho ut this source of labor. Besides, the supporters say, the aliens are exploited in term s of wages and working conditions. A priest, for example, told of a group of H aitian 

factory workers in Brooklyn who were dismissed after they complained about a 

lack of ve ntilation in the plant. But immigration officials sav there is litt le merit to these argum ents. They say 

th at “exploitation is a rela tive term” and that, con trary to the plight of many citizens and legal resident aliens, there is little unem ployme nt here among illegal 

aliens who want to work. “They’ve got the greatest grapevine in the world,” a senior immigration official here remarked. “A week off th e plane they ’re holding down one or two jobs and 

working Sundays and nights. You have to remem ber why the y came.”

[From th e New York Times, Dec. 31, 1974]

B a tt le E x pe c t e d o n T ig h t e r L aw s T o C u rb I ll eg a l Al ie n s

(By M. A. Farber)

A major battle over illegal aliens that could have gre at consequences for this 

region is fihapihg up in Congress. For t he first time in a decade, key members of b oth the House of Representa­ tives and the United Sta tes Senate seem eager to pass legislation th at would make it more difficult for illegal aliens to work in this country , if not actually to 

come here. Bu t influential lobb y groups—including agricultural interests th at wa nt a rea dy supply of cheap labor, organized labor th at wan ts to protect its members and church organizations th at want “amnesty” for illegal aliens who are presently 

in the cou ntry —differ sh arply on how to proceed. “A real hassle is brew ing,” a leading immigration lawyer remarked recently. 

“Everybod y is mobilizing.” Imm igration officials es tim ate that th ere is a total of six to seven million illegal 

aliens in the United States, with 1.5 million in metropolitan area. Most of these aliens work in jobs th at could be held by citizens and legal resident aliens, the 

officials say, and many of the illegal aliens benefit from such public services as 

schools, hospitals and welfare. So far, there is no consensus on Capitol Hill or in the Adm inistration on how 

to solve the illegal alien problem—a complex issue with economic, moral, political diplom atic and demographic dimensions. And prob ably th e central figure in the 

looming legislative fight, Sen ator James O. Eastlan d, Dem ocra t of Mississippi, 

is ju st beginning to stir.

a n a t io n a l c r is is

Senator Eastland, a cotton pla nte r with close ties to southern agric ultural interests, is chairman of the Senate’Judiciary Committee and of its subcommittee on immigration. The subcom mittee, which has a $205,000 staff appropriation 

this year, has not met for a decad e to consider any basic immigration measures, alth ough it received in 1973 a House bill th at would impose sanctions on the 

employers of illegal aliens.
95

The only re al po in t of ag re em en t on ille gal ali en s now is th a t nat io na lly, as 

we ll as in th is reg ion, th e Im m ig ra tion an d N atu ra liza tion Se rvice ca nn ot cop e 

w ith th e st eady inf lux of th es e aliens.

“ The im m ig ra tion service is w ho lly in ca pa bl e of han dl in g th e ille gal ali en 

pro bl em — nat io nal ly as well as in New Y ork ,” Ge n. Leo na rd F. C hap m an Jr ., 

th e Com m ission er of Im m ig ra tion and N at ura liza tion, to ld th e New York Cha m ­

ber of Com m erce ea rlier th is m ont h.

“ I be lie ve it is a nat io nal cr isis,” he sa id , “and it will ce rt ai nly grow muc h 

worse un less st ep s are ta ken al m os t im m ed ia te ly to ch ec k th e Hood of illegals 

in to th is co u n tr y .”

W hil e Gen er al C ha pm an , wh o be ca m e Com m ission er in N ov em be r, 1973, aft er 

se rv in g as C om m an dan t of th e M ar in e Cor ps , sa id th er e ar e a t le as t six or s ev en 

million ill eg al aliens in th e co un tr y, he also sa id th e fig ure co uld be as high as 10 

to 12 m illion.

A L IE N CO M M U TERS

The illeg al ali en po pu la tion was on ce al m ost ex clus ively m ad e up of M ex ican s, 

who cros sed th e b or de r to en ga ge in se as on al fa rm wor k in Te xa s, C al ifor ni a an d 

oth er p art s of th e ru ra l Sou th w es t. Now , ho wev er, larg e num be rs of low-to - 

m od er ate- in co m e, m ar gi na lly sk ill ed illeg al ali en s can be f ou nd in m an y big c iti es 

whe re t h ey ho ld a var ie ty of in dust ri al and service job s. An d, in addit io n to Mex ­

ico , th ey co me fro m m uc h of L at in America an d th e C ar ib bea n and from th e 

Philip pi ne s, It aly , Can ad a, Gr eece, C hin a (m os tly ll o n g Kon g and Tai w an ) and 

els ew here.

On e di fficul ty in de te rm in in g th e nu m b er of ille gal aliens in th e U nited St at es , 

and part ic ula rl y in th is reg ion , a t an y tim e is th a t m an y of th em vir tu all y co mm ute from co un trie s in th e C ar ib bea n, C en tral America and n ort hern South 

Am eri ca. T hey come fo r a yea r or tw o, m ak e m on ey to buy a ho us e or sta rt a 

bu sine ss a t ho me, an d lea ve . Some , to o, lik e Oscar Alvarez , do not lik e w hat 

th ey ca ll “ th e stee l ga rd en ” of Ne w Yo rk. (T he na m es of all ill eg al aliens in th is 

st ory ha ve be en ch an ge d.)

Mr. A lvar ez , a 24 -yea r-o ld ci tize n of th e Dom in ic an R ep ub lic, obta in ed a 

fo ur -y ea r, m ultip le entr y to u ri st vis a in San to Dom ingo in 1972 . H e come s to 

New Yor k, ov er st ay s his vi sa and wor ks , goe s home , come s bac k ag ai n. He la st 

ar ri ved a b o u t a m onth ago an d to ok a jo b as a ta il or in Qu eens. And th is tim e, 

he sa id th e oth er da y as he sipp ed a D om in ic an be er in Cor on a, he will st ay a 

ye ar .

B U D G E T IS U P

Tw ice, M r. Alvarez said, th e im m ig ra tion service ha s vi site d him he re wh ile 

look in g fo r anoth er illegal ali en. “ T hey d id n ’t as k fo r m y pa pe rs , b u t I ’m go ing 

to mov e anyw ay,” he s aid.

In fisc al 1974 th e Im m ig ra tion and N at ura li zati on Se rvice , in cl ud in g it s Bor de r 

P at ro l, appre hen ded 788 ,00 0 ille gal alie ns — 10 tim es th e figure of a de ca de ago. 

More th a n 735,0 00 of th es e aliens wer e re tu rn ed to th eir nati ve co un trie s an d 

ab o u t 80 pe r cen t of th em we re M ex ican s, ac co rd in g to th e service .

Le gal im m ig ra nts , incl ud in g aliens w ho ar e all ow ed to be co me re si den t ali en s 

aft er m ar ry in g an Am eri can cit izen or obta in in g a la bor ce rtific at io n or ha vi ng 

an American ch ild , now num ber ab o u t 400,0 00 a ye ar .

D ur in g th e la st 10 y ea rs, th e budget of th e im m ig ra tion se rv ice in cr ea se d fro m 

$7 1-million to $1 75-m illi on. How ev er, th e siz e of th e Bor de r P atr ol grew by on ly 

20 per ce nt (now 1,700 officer s), as did th e size of th e in ves tigat iv e force (no w 

925 ) th a t ap pre hen ds ille gal aliens in ci ties and pe rfor m s oth er du ties .

“ Thi s is a ni ck el -a nd -d im e org an iz at io n,” sa id E dw ar d K av az an jian , fo rm er 

pre si dent of th e em ploy es c ou nc il of th e service , which is affil iated w ith th e America n F edera ti on of G ov er nm en t Empl oy es .

G en er al C hap m an finds th a t ch ara cte ri zation to o ha rs h. B ut la st Sep te m ber h e 

de cl ar ed th a t th e service lac ke d th e m on ey an d m an po w er t o do all its ta sk s well 

and sa id it m u st co nc en trat e on B or de r P atr ol op er at io ns in th e Sou th w es t at th e 

ex pe ns e of “su bst anti al re duct io ns ” in t h e a pp re he ns io n of ille ga l a lie ns i n cit ies .

BA CKLOG O F CA SE S H E R E

“ U ntil th is se rv ice ha s rece ived ad eq u ate re so ur ce s,” he said, “ we simply 

m ust pe rf or m cert ain elem en ts of our m ission well an d resign ou rselve s to le tt in g 

ou r oth er re sp on sibi lities ta ke a lower pri ori ty w ith th e full kn ow ledg e th a t we 

ar e perf or m in g t he se ta sk s ba dl y or n o t a t al l.”
96

Th e Com mission er’s stat em en t— in t he form of a dir ectiv e to all distric t offices— 

has added to th e woes of th e immigra tion service in Dist ric t 3, which 'inclu des 

Ne w York City, Lon g Island and seven othe r counties in southe rn New York.

Th e distric t office her e was a lre ady gro ani ng u nd er the weight of m ass ive b ac klogs o f cases, or possible cases, again st illegal alie ns in this are a. Now i t is able to 

do even less th an i t was doing before to c atc h illegal alien s.

While the nu mb er of illegal aliens her e was bu ild ing up in the la st dec ade , th e 

dis tric t’s budget rose fro m $8.7-million to $17.6-m illion. And the nu mbe r of 

inv estig ato rs increased from ab ou t 150 to 202. Bu t Mauric e F. Kiley, th e di st rict 

dir ector , said th e “ wo rkload s inc reased tre mendo usly— pr ob ab ly 10 pe rcen t a 

ye ar in th e pa st 10 ye ar s.”

In recent yea rs th e di st rict has ap preh ended an average of 10,000 illegal alie ns 

annu ally.

C U R B S ON IN V E ST IG A T IO N S

Und er Gen eral Cha pm an ’s direct ive , inve stiga tor s no longer go after illegal 

aliens who have been appreh en de d bu t have “ab scon de d” —failed to ap pe ar for 

hearings on depo rta tio n or vo lu nt ar y de pa rtu re.

Also, illegal aliens who ar e arreste d by local police de pa rtm en ts are no t to be 

pic ked up if long tr av eling dis tan ces are in volved , or if t he re is no space or m oney 

for de tai ning th e aliens. Re fer rals from th e Social Se cu rit y Ad mi nis tra tio n regarding aliens who ma y be here illegally are “no longer accorde d an y pr io rity for 

inve sti ga tio n” .

An increasing nu mbe r of inv estig ato rs have been sw itc hed from “area c on trol ” 

op erati on s in which th ey go ou t and tr y to loc ate illegal aliens to assig nm ents 

in which they sp en d mu ch o f th eir tim e in th e office. And th e focus in “ area contr ol” is now on crewm en who have deserte d ships bec aus e, if they are ca ug ht 

withi n five vears, th e ste am sh ip line mus t pa y for th eir depa rtu re. (D ep ortatio n 

fro m New Y ork costs th e Gov ernm en t a n a ve rag e of $400 p er alien.)

PATTERNS OF LEG AL IM MIG RA TION TO THE UN ITED STATES FROM 1821 TO 1974

Year

To tal

im mig ra tio n

Perce nt

Northern

and

we stern

Europe

Sou thern

and

easte rn

Europe

Western

He misphere

A ll oth er 

co un trie s

1821 to 1830. .................................................... 143,4 39 66. 7 2.2 8.1 2 3.0

1831 to 18«0_ ................................................... 599,125 81. 8 1.0 5.6 11. 6

1841 to 1850. ____________ _____________ 1,71 3.25 1 93.0 .3 3.6 3.1

1851 to 1860. ................................................. 2,59 8, 214 93 .6 .8 2.9 2 .7

1861 to 1870. ........................................ ........... 2,31 4, 824 87. 8 1.4 7.2 3.6

1871 to 1880. ............................................ 2 812.191 73 .6 7.2 14 .3 4. 9

1881 to 189 0. ................................................... 5,24 6,61 3 72.0 18 .3 8.1 1.6

1891 to 1900 __________ _______________ 3.68 7, 564 44 .6 51 .9 1.0 2 .5

1901 to 191 0. ____________ . . . . . 8,79 5.38 6 21. 7 70.8 4.1 3.4

1911 to 1920. _____________ _____ ______ 5.73 5,811 17.4 58.9 19 .9 3 .8

1921 to 1930. .................................................. 4,1 07. 209 31. 3 29.0 36 .9 2 .8

1931 to 194 0. ____________ _____________ 528.431 37 .6 28. 3 30 .2 3 .9

1941 to 1950. ................................................... 1,03 5, 039 47 .2 12 .9 34. 4 5. 5

1951 to I9 60. ................................................... 2,5 15. 479 36. 8 16. 0 39 .6 7.6

1961 to 1965. .......................... ................. .. 1,45 0.31 2 23.8 12 .9 54 .8 8. 5

1966 to 1974. .................................................... 3, 421, 452 2 8.0

Note : Between 1790 and 1820, it is es tim ated 250 ,000 im mig ra nts entered the United Sta tes 

Sou rce: Im m ig ra tio n and Nat ur alizat io n Service .

“ You can believe the im migr ati on people kno w where all the illegals ar e, ” remarke d a Domin ican who said he worked with man y illegal aliens in an ele ctric 

cable -making co mpa ny here. “ Bu t th ey only come ou t if som ebody really 

comp lains. ”

Othe r difficulties of th e im migr ati on service here pr ed at e Gen eral Cha pm an ’s 

direct ive , and no t all of them are related to finances.

Th e distric t office has space for holding o nly 90 a lien s in its d eten tio n ce nter at 

20 West Broad way, an d th e ce nter is shared with th e di stric t office in Ne wark. 

As a result, ma ny illegal alie ns are rele ased af te r apprehensio n and dis appear.

Moreover, few im migratio n offenses are accepte d by United States Atto rn ey s 

for prosecutio n, here or elsewhe re. Und er Federal law, an y alien who en ters th is 

co un try witho ut ins pecti on or throug h fra ud or misr ep resentati on can be charged
97

w ith a m is de am ea nor p un is ha bl e by up to six m on th s in priso n and a $500 tine. A 

se co nd offense is a fel ony, pu ni sh ab le by n o t mor e th an tw o years ’ im pri so nm en t 

an d /o r a $1 ,00 0 fine.

But in th e la st ye ar, for ex am pl e, whe n th e im m ig ra tion se rv ice he re so ug ht 

pr ose cu tion in 1,672 “se le ct ed ” ca ses, onl y 72 we re ac ce pt ed by th e U nited Sta te s 

A ttorn ey s fo r th e So ut he rn an d E ast ern D is tric ts of New York.

An d in m os t eases whe re co nv ic tion s ar e o bt ai ne d or g uilty pleas a re ent er ed , th e 

se nt en ce is 30 d ay s or it is a su sp en de d se nt en ce w ith an ord er to le av e th e c ou nt ry . 

Aliens ar e us ua lly su bj ec t to deport ati on if th ey vi ol at e th e te rm s of th ei r vis as, 

b u t th ey are ord in ar ily off ere d “ volu nta ry depart ure ,” in which th ey m ee t th e 

co sts of leav in g.

R O U X D l’ PS CH A LLEN G ED

“ Going t o c ourt hasn ’t been m uc h of a d ete rr ent to ille gal al ie ns ,” sa id N or m an 

H en ry , an im m ig ra tion official wh o m ain ta in s lia iso n w ith Fed er al pr os ec ut or s in 

th e ci ty . “ B ut if we don’t ev en tr y, th e who le th in g become s a fa rc e.”

The im m ig ra tion service itse lf ha s be en ta ken to co ur t by th e Amer ican Civil 

Lib er ties Uni on and o th er s ov er w hat th e se rv ice re ga rd s as a n effectiv e m et hod of 

ap pre hendin g il leg al aliens; ro un din g th em up a t bu sy s ubw ay sto ps.

The o per at io ns, in 1972, we re “ hi ghl y s uc ce ss fu l,” ac co rd in g to se rv ice officials, 

b u t th e civil libe rtie s un io n ar gued th a t su ch “ dra gnets ” vio la te co nst itutional 

guara nte es ag ai ns t un re as on ab le se ar ch es . Th e ca se is pen di ng in Fed er al co urt 

he re ; mea nw hi le th e ra id s ha ve be en st opp ed .

All o f t he se prob lems, an d o th er s, h ave g ra du al ly pe rs uad ed im m ig ra tion officials 

th a t th e flow of ille gal a lie ns int o this reg io n an d th ro ughout t he c ountr y c an no t be 

st opp ed by th e serv ice— a t le as t not w it hout im port ant ch an ge s in laws affecti ng 

th e ability of aliens t o c om e to th e U nit ed Sta te s an d wor k ille gally .

S ta te D epart m ent officials in W as hi ng to n an d ab ro ad s eem to hav e re ac he d th e 

sa m e co nc lusion . A re port fo r th e d ep art m en t th is yea r st ate d th a t consuls , in 

th eir a tt e m p ts to stop ille gal ali en s fr om get ting s ta rt ed, ar e co ming “f ac e to fac e 

w ith t he st ro ng p os sibilit y of incr ea sing fa ilur e in t he fu tu re .”

STA TE LA W S VOID ED

“ The la w re al ly as ks us to do tw o th in gs th a t ar e nea rly im po ss ib le,” said 

As hle y H ew itt, deputy chief of th e Amer ican Em bas sy in K in gst on, Ja m ai ca . 

“ I t as ks us to ju dg e a pe rs on ’s in te n t in a few m in ute s an d pr ov e a ne ga tiv e— 

th a t he do es n’t mea n to ov er st ay and w or k in th e U nited S ta te s. ”

As im m ig ra tion is a Fe de ra l j uri sd ic tion, st ate s or lo ca lit ies ar e n o t in a po sitio n 

to alt er laws on ali en s. Se ve ral st ate s, in cl ud in g Califor ni a an d C on ne ct ic ut , ha ve 

pa ss ed law s in th e last fe w ye ar s bannin g t he em pl oym en t of ille gal ali en s, bu t th e 

law s hav e be en de clared unco nst it uti onal. A sim ilar bill in Ne w Yor k wa s ve toed 

la st Ju ne by G ov er no r Wil son.

In W as hi ng to n, prop os als for le gi slat io n, an d actu al bil ls, ha ve also ce nt er ed on 

dep rivi ng ille gal aliens of th e i nce nt iv e to come t o th is co un t ry b y m ak in g it mo re 

difficu lt fo r th em to work he re.

Some c ritics , ho wev er, ar gu e th a t th e m ea su re s wou ld p lace a n unfa ir b ur de n on 

em pl oy er s who wou ld ha ve to in quir e about an al ie n’s leg al sta tu s; wou ld disco urag e em pl oy er s from hi ring m in ori ty pe rson s an d wou ld be diffi cu lt, if not 

im po ssible, to en force.

R O D IN O B IL L PASS ED

A bil l sp on so re d by R epre se nta ti ve P ete r W. Rod in o, D em ocr at o f New J er se y, 

and p as se d by th e Ho use of R epre se nta ti ves in M ay , 1973, wo uld im po se san ct ions 

an d po ss ibly cr im in al pe na ltie s and fines on em pl oy er s wh o “ kn ow in gl y” hire 

ille gal aliens .

N ei th er th is bill no r a m ea su re in tr oduced th is yea r by S en at or Edw ar d M. 

K en ned y, D em oc ra t of M as sa ch use tts, ha s be en co ns id er ed by th e Sen at e su bcom m itte e on i m m ig ra tion , of wh ich M r. K en ne dy is a m em be r.

The K en ned y bill ca rries a st iffe r civil pen al ty on em pl oy er s (u p to $2,000 

pe r illeg al al ie n for re pe at ed offend ers ) th a n th e R od in o m ea su re (up to $1,000 ). 

B ut w he re as th e Rod in o bill ca rries cr im in al pe na ltie s of up to on e- ye ar i mprison ­

m en t fo r em pl oy er s wh o re pea te dly vio la te th e law , th e K en ned y mea su re has 

no Cr im ina l pe na lties.

A no th er pr ov isio n of th e K en ned y bill wou ld gra nt a vir tu al “ am nes ty ” to 

illegal aliens wh o ha ve be en “ phy si ca lly pre se nt” in th is co untr y fo r a t le as t th re e 

ye ar s pri or to th e en ac tm en t of th e bill.
98

Th is pro vision , which would allo w the se aliens to ad ju st th ei r st at us to legal 

reside ncy , is su pp orted by man y church and ethn ic organiz ati ons. Bu t it is 

opp ose d by th e imm igration service an d othe r persons who feel that, one am nesty 

would ha ve to lead to an ot he r—th us enc ourag ing illegal immi gration.

According to Congressional sou rces, Se nator Eastla nd , who hea ds th e Senate 

im migratio n sub comm itte e, agree d sev era l weeks ago to repo rt ou t a bill th at did 

no t provide a ny ‘‘am ne sty” but did impose rela tiv ely m ild sanctio ns o n employers 

who knowingly hired illeg al aliens.

Bu t im po rta ntly, the se sour ces said, th e bill would ma ke it easie r th an it is at 

presen t for aliens to come to this co un try to work lega lly for up to two years. 

Now, th e United State s Labor Dep ar tm en t mus t certify th at suc h em plo ym ent 

does no t ta ke jobs from legal resid en ts in this coun try .

Und er th e Ea stland propos al, if th e La bo r Dep artm en t ref use d certification to 

alie n wo rke rs sought by emplo yer s, it wou ld have t o “prod uce” th e legal res ide nt 

worke rs it say s are ava ilable . An d th e AFL -C IO is str on gly opposed to this 

pro vision.

W ha teve r legisla tion emerges af te r hea ring s, there are man y persons on all 

sides of th e illegal alien questio n who believe th at illegal aliens alread y living and 

wo rking in th e United St ates will no t go home , unless it is of th eir own accord. 

And there is wide senti me nt th at th ey cann ot be forced to go home.

“N ot Ch ap man nor the whole Marine Corps could sweep dow n an d get rid of 

all th e illeg al aliens livi ng in New Yo rk alo ne,” said one im mi gration lawyer. 

“ And th e pub lic would no t tole ra te it .”

[F ro m th e New Yo rk Times, Ju ly 15, 1974]

D etentio n Cent ers Last U.S . Stop for T housands of M exi can Aliens

(By M ar tin Wa ldro n)

El P aso, T ex .—Abo ut 100 aliens sa t on the porch of th e El Paso deten tio n 

ce nt er ’s “rec reati on room” an d star ed across th e Ri o Gr ande tow ard th e Mexican 

land scap e sh imme ring throu gh hea t m irag es.

Th e aliens, mo st of the m in th ei r early 20’s, ha d bee n caught in th e Un ite d 

States illegally an d were w ait ing to be de po rte d h ome.

Pat ie nt as tim e, they wa ite d for th e buses to come for the m. Man y ha d mixed 

feelings. Most were going hom e em pty- ha nd ed caug ht by th e police or by the 

Borde r pa trol b efore they could save u p the $1,000 fortune t h at would allow them 

to go home in styl e. Still, sev era l said there was alm ost an irresistibl e tu g tow ard 

hom e even tho ug h they had b een unsuccessful.

“ Yes, I am glad to be going ho me,” said a 20- yea r-old un iversity stud en t who 

had bee n arreste d near Denver. He said he ha d bee n “b um ming” arou nd before 

being caug ht.

Mo st of th e aliens spoke lit tle or no Eng lish , which was one of th e reasons they 

were c au gh t in th e first place.

Th e United State s Im migr ati on Serv ice has thre e de tention cen ters on the 

Me xican border, th e oth ers bei ng at El Ce ntro, Calif, and Po rt Isabel, Tex. Only 

men are ke pt in them ; women aw aitin g d ep or tatio n are hous ed in co un ty jails.

Th e Me xican Go vernme nt comp lained ab ou t the se de tention cente rs rec ent ly. 

Me xico’s Foreig n Minis ter, Em ilo O. Ba basa calle d for “fair an d hu man e” 

tr ea tm en t for t he one million or so Mexica ns who cross th e Uni te d State s border 

ille gally eac h year. Ma ny come to th is co un try seeking job s to supp ort families 

ba ck in Mexico.

Th e Uni te d State s is s tudy ing th e comp laint. Bu t the ma n who run s the detentio n ce nter here, Gene Wood, say s he is my stified. “ I ca n’t figure ou t wh at the 

fuss is ab ou t. We th in k we ’re doing a good jo b, ” he said. “ We’ve got to keep 

these peop le somewhere while w aitin g to s end th em ho me.”

It is generally believed by th e Im migratio n Serv ice and Bo rder Pa trol th at 

th e Me xic an Go ve rnmen t’s p ro test was p ar t of a pla n to get th e United State s to 

re in stitu te a pro gra m to allow unem plo yed Mexica ns to com e into th e Un ite d 

States to seek jobs. ,

Tha t prac tic e was estab lished by a se aso nal work ers agreem ent betw een Mexico 

and th e United State s in 1949, but it was rev oked by Congres s in 1964 following 

pressu re from American Labor .
99

A Mexican official who was on duty at th e El Paso de tention ce nter rece nt .y said th at he had no co mpla ints ab ou t th e wa y alie ns were being tr ea te d at th e El Paso c enter, r ln re ality , I t hink i t’s m ag nif ice nt, ” said Ro be rto Quevedo. Mr. Quev edo, an em plo ye of th e Mexica n consula r serv ice, is one of sev era l such officials who regu larly meet with th e arrested alie ns in an office prov ided at 

the d etentio n c en ter b y th e United St ates Gov ernm en t. Almost 100,000 Me xic an aliens are de po rte d thro ug h th e de tention ce nters each yea r, th e Im mig ratio n Serv ice say s. Th e El Paso ce nte r processes ab ou t 3,000 a mo nth , th e one at El Ce ntr o some wh at mor e, and the one at Po rt Isa be l 

som ewhat less, the service say s. Mr. Wood said th a t th e prepon deran ce of th e 800,000 Mexicans arrested for illegally en terin g th e Uni te d States du rin g the last ye ar were ta ke n across th e 

bo rder in v ans a nd “ du m pe d. ” Th ere is ju st no pla ce to pu t the m. If th e Go ve rnmen t tri ed and convict ed all th e Mexica ns who ar e arrested for illegally en terin g th e co un try , the United St ates would nee d 40 ti mes as much spa ce as th e Bu rea u of P risons now has. “ The Border Pat ro l in El Paso alone arrested 11,000 illeg al aliens in M ay ,” 

Mr. Wood said. Only ab ou t 1,000 of thes e were br ou gh t to th e de tent io n cente r. Th e othe rs were take n across th e riv er to Juarez and rele ase d on the str ee ts. Some of thos e brought to de tentio n centers were to be held for for ma l de po rta tio n hearings be ­ cau se they ha d bee n ar re sted in th e United St ates man y tim es for bei ng here 

illegally. Mo st of th e othe rs ar e from sma ll tow ns in th e in terio r of Mexico an d th e Im mi grati on Service has a policy of tak in g them as close to the ir hom es a s p ossi ble. If they are take n across th e riv er an d rele ase d on th e str eets, th ey are almost inva ria bly bac k in th e United States withi n a few hours , looking for work in Los 

Angeles, Ho uston, Denve r or Chicago. The dai ly buse s, th e la st of which leav es at 9 p.m. for Jim ene z, more th an 300 miles s ou th of El Paso, are op era ted by the Ch ihuahu an ses Bus Line, a Me xic an concern , un de r a co nt ra ct with the United St ate s. Aliens with money are charged 

bus fares; oth ers ride free. Althou gh th e de tent io n cente rs are no t ac tually prison s, there are man y 

sim ilarities. Detain ees sleep in large dormitories inside com pounds surro un de d by ta ll wire fences. Althou gh th ey ar e no t req uir ed to work, no t eve n to clean up th ei r beds, tho se who vo lunteer to do so are fed ex tra tr ea ts (fla nk ste ak instea d of liver) 

an d are given cig are tte s. “Th ey ea t pre tty good ,” said Mr. Wood. “Since mos t of them are Mexicans , 

the menu calls for dish es with a lot of chili powd er. ” A rec ent menu was: br ea kf as t—cor nm eal with milk, bread , jelly, coffee an d juice ; lun ch—posole (a so rt of stew with pork, hom iny , chili and onio ns), bea ns, bread and Kool Aid; di nn er —fried liver with Sp anish sauc e, ma she d po tatoes, 

bu tte red gree n beans, cole slaw, bread an d Kool Aid. “Th e sleeping do rm ito rie s have big fan s which comp letely em pt y th e air in the m eve ry three m in ut es ,” Mr. Wood said. In additio n, the dormitories an d the 

rec rea tion room are air -co nditio ned. “ Ninety percent of th e people who pas s throug h here stay less th an one day ,” 

said Mr. Wood. On arriv al at th e cente r, the aliens are fin gerprin ted , interv iew ed briefly, an d 

photo graphed for the Me xic an au thorities. “ We give them soa p an d towels and razors if th ey wan t to ba th e an d sh av e,” 

said Mr. Wood. While wa iting for th e bus es to ta ke them hom e, the detainees are allo wed to 

pla y checkers, volley ball, table tennis, soccer, or to watc h television. During a recent vis it to th e cente r it was too ho t to pla y volleyball or soccer, an d the television set in the rec rea tion roo m was tu rn ed off an d locked. “Th e Spanish- lan guage prog rams have no t st ar te d ye t,” Mr . Wood explained.

“ The set is br ok e,” said a un iversit y stu de nt.

One of the gu ards con firmed this . “ Well, we’ll ju st have to see ab ou t ge tti ng 

it fixed,” said Mr. Wood. Since mo st of the de tai ne es who are goin g throug h th e ce nte r have agr eed to vo lu nt ar y de po rta tio n, man y can be exp ected back wi thi n a few mo nth s. Th e Im migratio n Serv ice will usua lly not for ma lly de po rt Mexica n aliens un til they 

ha ve bee n cau ght six or eig ht times. An alien for ma lly de po rte d and arreste d again is usua lly br ou gh t to co ur t an d tried . If con victed, ro ut in e offenders are give n 179-day jail sentences. Because of
100

the increasing number of these, the Bureau of Prisons has borrow ed part of the 

El Paso Dete ntion Center to house 165 Mexican aliens serving these six-month 

sentences.

They are kept apart from the routine detainees and are fed at different times. 

Mr. Wood said that the cen ter had contracts with physicians, dentists and a 

hos pita l clinic for tre atm ent of aliens who became ill while awa iting d eportation.

“In April, we had 20 who requ ired medical treatm ent, the mon th before th at 

25,” he said. “A lot of them hav e venereal diseases, bu t most of the treatm ents are 

for flu or for some minor i njury.”

[F ro m th e U.S. Ne ws & W orld Rep or t, Feb. 3, 19 75 ]

R is in g F lo od o f I lleg a l Al ie n s

HOW' to d ea l w it h it

As recession worsens, concern is m ounting over foreigners who slip into the U nited 

Sta tes undetected and tak e jobs from citizens. Here is a nationwide, in-depth 

look at a big and growing worry.

A swelling tide of illegal aliens coming into the United States is stirring alarm 

nationwide.

This year, says the Immig ration and Natura liza tion Service, 2 to 2.5 million 

“illegals” will sneak into the country . More tha n half will go undetected.

Illegal aliens already are filling at least 1 million well-paying jobs a t a time w hen 

unemployment is rising among U.S. citizens.

Some jobless aliens are tur nin g to crime. Others are illegally siphoning off 

welfare money, medical aid and unem ployment benefits.

INS Commissioner Leonard F. Chapman, Jr., reports th at the num ber of 

illegal aliens living in the Un ited States has risen to 6 or 7 million, and is still 

going up.

The num ber caught has increased nearly 10 times with in a decade, to almost 

S00,000 in 1974. Even so, probab ly 2 out of 3 escaped detection—and chances 

are th at few'er will be cau ght and expelled in 1975 tha n las t year, because of a 

shortage of funds.

Double and redouble.— With unemployment growing abroad, says the Commissioner, the influx—particularly of European s—is certain to increase this year. If 

the present trend continues, he predicts, the present illegal population will double 

within abo ut five years, then double again shortly thereafter.

To deal with this problem , Mr. Chapman is asking for the addition of abo ut 

2,000 more trained investigators and border-patrol officers—about a 25 perc ent 

increase in the present INS staff, and a near-doubling of the present number of 

patrolmen and investigators.

These and other measures to help stem the flow of illegals would mean an 

increase of abou t 50 million dollars a year to a b udg et th at now runs at 175 million.

Among the new measures foreseen: a tamper-proof, plastic identity card to be 

carried by all legal aliens. Such a card, including magnetic imprints th at make it 

almo st impossible to counterfeit, would be issued to some 5 million legal aliens. 

Many illegals in the past have used counterfeit cards to come in.

The biggest need, Commissioner Chapman feels, is for Congress to make it 

unlawful for an employer to hire an illegal alien. The INS believes this would 

cut heavily into jobs available to such aliens, thus reducing their incentive to 

come in illegally. Such a bill has been passed several times by the House, bu t 

never by the Senate.

To tell how much of a problem the influx is bring ing to metropolitan areas 

around the country, “U.S. News & World Re port” bureaus filed the following 

acco unts:

NE W' YORK

The flow of illegal aliens into this city is increasing “alm ost in direct proportion 

to the decline in economic conditions abro ad—especially in the Western Hemisphere, where m ost of th e illegal immigration comes from .”

So reports Maurice F. Kiley, director of Dis trict 3 of the Imm igration and 

Naturaliza tion Service, covering New York City’s metro politan area.

Right now, according to Mr. Kiley, more than 100,000 jobs in the New York 

are are held by aliens who are there illegally—tho ugh a ma jority of the illegals
101

are employed as unskilled or semiskilled laborers. The average pay of the illegal 

aliens apprehended in New York last year was about $150 a week.

No one is sure how many live in this city. In recent years, the INS has cau ght 

between 12,000 and 15,000 yearly. In the past five years, it has deported 5,300 

and verified the volun tary departure of 55,000 others. Even so, officials estimate 

th at from 1 to 1.5 million illegal aliens live in the metropolitan area.

To cope with the growing population of illegals, the local INS is now trying to 

get a larger detention facility th at will hold 1,000 d etainees instead of 70 as at 

present.

Nearly 80 percen t of the aliens living illegally here now, officials say, came 

from Latin America. Most of t he rest are Chinese, Filipinos, Italians or Greeks— 

including many crew mem bers who jumped ship in New York.

Drug traffic is a growing problem among illegals in this city, Directo r Kiley 

reports . As an example, 50 percent of the 210 people arre sted in October in 

connectio n w ith a cocaine-smuggling operation here were illegal aliens.

Imm igration officials rep ort th at “m any ” of the illegals have been drawing 

welfare payments, par ticula rly aid to dep endent children, altho ugh the numbers 

involved are uncertain. Others are said to be collecting unemployment insurance 

and medicaid benefits.

D E T R O IT

An increasing num ber of illegal aliens are entering Michigan, Ohio and 

Kentu cky —and ta kin g more and more jobs sought by Americans. Between 30,000 

and 40,000 illegals are holding jobs in Michigan. And the positions they have are 

mostly union-scale, ind ust rial jobs, according to Armand J. Salturelli, direc tor of 

De tro it’s INS distric t office.

“To clean the illegal aliens out of our State,” he says, “we’d have to double our 

pre sen t staff of 21 investigators.”

In the Detroit area, where the auto ind ustry attrac ts large numbers of these 

aliens, the mix of nationalitie s appears to be different than th at found in oth er 

major centers.

Says Mr. Salturelli; “A wild guess would be t ha t about 15 pe rcen t to 20 percent 

of the illegal aliens here are Canadia n; about 40 per cen t European—largely 

Polish; 20 percent Asian, 10 percen t Latin-Am erican and Mexican, and the other 

10 percen t African and Car ibb ean .”

Catching the U.S.-bound illegal alien is an especially tough problem, officials 

point out. There are few cultural barriers, or language barriers, and bord er 

relations are on an almo st casual basis between De troit and Windsor, Ont. Many 

Europeans come in thr ough Canada, too, living there long enough to become 

lan ded immigrants and then coming here for jobs.

Elsewhere in this region, immigration officials estimate th at there may be as 

many as 8,000 illegal aliens in Ohio and 2,000 in Kentucky . They often come as 

crew members of Gre at Lakes vessels and t hen jum p ship.

Mexican illegals, says Stanley F. Perryman, INS distric t dire ctor in Cleveland, 

freque ntly work in agriculture an d food processing.

This distric t is authorized to have 18 imm igration investigators, bu t actually 

has only 12 on duty.

Says Mr. Perryman:

“ We’d prob ably have to at leas t double our force in orde r to make even a 

sub sta nti al inroad into the n um ber of illegal aliens in Ohio and Kentucky .”

Illegal aliens from the whole C aribbean are a growing problem here.

An estimated 50,000 illegals live in the Miami area alone. Another 15,000 to 

25,000 live elsewhere in Florida. At least 60 to 70 percent are from the Caribbean, 

reports Louis T. Gidel, acting I NS district directo r.

They come int o Florida us ually as cruise-ship crewmen, stowaways, tem porary 

visitors who sta y on, co ntract workers who skip out or imm igrants with false 

identifications.

An easy way to get false documents here, says an imm igration official, is to 

obtain a legitimately issued voter-registration card. This official recoun ts how one 

Jam aican stowaway used such a card to get a driver’s license, then loaned the 

card to at least four friends to aid in their illegal entry.

Behin d the large num ber of Caribbean entries, officials explain, is the growing 

unemploymen t in th at area and the relatively high pay available in the U.S.
102

T h a t als o ap plies to M ex ic an s, th e seco nd la rg es t gr ou p of illegal aliens he re, 

who wor k th eir w ay to F lo ri da’s c it ru s an d ve ge tabl e- gr ow in g ce nt er s. “ M ex ican s 

sa y th e y ca n work on e or tw o m onth s he re and ev en if th ey get ca ught, th ey 

m ak e m or e th an in a yea r a t hom e, ” sa id an offic ial.

As a re su lt, m uc h mon ey is se n t ho me by th es e illegals , of te n w ithout paym ent 

of in co m e taxe s.

Flo rida em ploy ers, im m ig ra ti on officia ls sa y, of te n ar e te m p te d to hi re ille gal 

al ie ns be ca us e th e y ar e non un io ni ze d, w or k hard fo r les s, and do n o t ca re whe n 

So cial Sec ur ity pa ym en ts ar e om it te d. Sa ys on e official:

“ I th in k a lo t of aliens ar e be in g hi re d by em pl oy er s who kno w7

 th ey ar e her e 

ill eg al ly. But th er e is no penalt y for th e e m pl oy er so th ey co ntinue to do it .” 

CHIC AGO

On a ty pi ca l da y, ag en ts fr om th e Ch icag o office of th e IN S will ente r a local 

re sta u ra n t, m ot el o r f acto ry a n d em er ge w ith 20 to 30 illegal aliens w ho h av e be en 

w or ki ng fo r $2 to $0 an ho ur.

I t ’s a ye ar -r ou nd ro ut in e, sa ys W illiam B ar tley , IN S d is tr ic t dire ct or , “b u t 

w e ’re gett in g fu rt h er beh in d every d a y .” He ad ds th a t th e agen ts so m etim es re - 

•ceive co -o pe ra tion from m anag em en t. B ut so m et im es th ey ar e as ke d to leav e, as 

•empl oy ers sa y th ey ar e bre akin g no ex isting law’.

A bo ut on ce a we ek, a ch art ere d bu s from Chica go ca rr ie s ill eg al Mex ican aliens 

appre hen ded he re — an d in St. Lo uis an d K an sa s C ity— bac k to th e M ex ican 

bo rd er .

“ So metim es ev er yo ne on th e bus is ver y h ap p y an d la ughin g be ca us e th ey ar e 

gl ad to be ge ttin g a free ride back hom e, ” M r. B ar tl ey sa ys . B ut m os t ar e bac k 

w ithin a sh or t tim e, “ and so m et im es a few will ev en b e a t th e ag en ts bac k to 

C hic ag o.”

In Ch ica go , w ith it s hu ge Span is h- sp ea ki ng popula tion, it is fa ir ly ea sy fo r an 

ille ga l Mex ican to go undete cte d fo r m on th s, ev en ye ar s, a t a tim e— es pe cially 

if he ha s co un te rf ei t pap er s or has had an “ arr anged” m ar riage in th e U.S . M os t 

em plo yer s do not del ib er at el y hir e illegal aliens , Mr. B art le y be lie ve s. Y et some 

do, an d ha ve adm it te d it to hi m . “ T hey tell me th ere is no l aw again st i t, and th e 

ill eg als m ak e b ett er em pl oy es .”

SAN FRAN CIS CO

M or e th an 32,000 illeg al alie ns ar e th o u g h t to be ho ld in g va riou s jo bs in th e 

San Fr an ci sc o Bay ar ea . A su b sta n ti al por tion ar e in hig h- pa yi ng w hi te-c ol la r 

an d m an ufa ct uri ng j ob s.

R ic ha rd L. William s, d is tr ic t IN S direc to r, sa ys th a t fewer th an 10 per ce nt 

are ev er ca ught an d dep ort ed bac k to th eir ho me co un trie s.

The se illegals wh o get to San Fra nc isco an d do not find w or k of te n m an ag e 

to ge t on we lfare, rece ive food st am ps an d qu al ify fo r fre e m ed ic al care.

T he tr en d is for mor e and m or e of th e illeg al aliens, ho wev er , to lo ca te and 

ho ld do wn skilled j ob s th a t arc so ught by un em pl oy ed Amer ican s. Exa m pl es :

A C an ad ia n be ha vi or al sc ie nti st was te ac hi ng ill eg ally a t a lo ca l ju nio r colleg e 

a t $9 an ho ur whe n disc ov ered .

A de sign en gine er from In d ia was em pl oy ed by a B ay ar ea en gine ering firm 

a t $6 .25 a n hour w he n he w as r eport ed.

A M ex ican wa s pi ck ed up w hi le wor ki ng as a se m iski lle d la bore r in heav y 

co nst ru cti on a t $6.78, th e pr ev ai ling un ion ho ur ly w ag e.

Few s uc h ille gals ar e caught, ho wev er.

Fundin g cu tb ac ks hav e all b u t st opped ef fo rts to arr est and deport aliens wh o 

are n ot ca us in g socia l or crim in al pr ob le m s i n th e Bay a re a.

Illega l ali en s, a t th is poi nt, ar e th o u g h t to co mpr ise m os t of th e 75,00 0 fo rei gn er s no w liv ing in th e Sa n Fra nc isco ar ea . M an y ar e Chine se , wh o come fro m 

H on g Kon g as sh ip s’ cr ew m en and ju m p sh ip he re. B ut M ex ican s an d C en tr al 

Am er ic an s pr ob ab ly m ak e up 80 per c en t or m or e of th e illegals .

O th er s come from all ov er th e glo be. R ec en t dep or te es , fo r ex am ple, we re 

se nt ho m e to Nigeria, Br az il, E th io pia an d th e Ph ili pp ines .

An ev en gr ea te r num ber of illeg al ali en s— a t le ast 120,0 00— are belie ve d to 

be w or ki ng in Cal ifor ni a’s lu sh C en tr al Va lley, do ing ag ri cu ltura l wo rk. “ For 

ev er y on e we ca tc h, we mi ss fo ur or fiv e,” sa ys a U.S. bord er -p at ro l offic ial. 

L ast ye ar , his u n it wa s re sp on sibl e fo r th e ap pr eh en si on of 46,00 0 ille gal ali en s, 

nearl y SO pe rc en t of who m were em pl oy ed a t th e tim e of th eir ar re st .
103

LO S A N G E L E S

“ We were apprehen ding 200 illegal aliens a day in Los Angeles and Orange Counties not long ago,” says Joseph C. Dernetz, deputy INS direc tor here. “ Bu t now we only have funds enou gh to take in 75 to 100 a day .” The reason: Southern California's bud get was cut from its normal $75,000 or more a m onth down to $32,000, as of January 1. About 200,000 illegal aliens were caught in the past fiscal year in southern 

California—about 18,000 of th em in the Los Angeles area. “Illegal aliens are working a t eve rythin g,” the INS official says. “A number of them are hired knowingly by employers. In one factory we surveyed last fall, 108 of the 150 employes were illegal. All wen t back to Mexico, most of them 

voluntarily.” An earlier INS survey of fish canneries in this area showed th at m any illegals were earning $3 to $5 an hour there. But in this ind ustry, at least, the canneries are reported to have begun policing themselves and gettin g rid of all the illegals 

th at the y find. The Los Angeles area has an estimated 250,000 illegal aliens. And crime is a growing problem in this group. Lt. Dan Cooke, a Los Angeles police-d epartme nt 

official, gave this explana tion: “They can’t get work as easily as they once did. The recession is hitting them , too. So they are starting to rob and steal in order to get by .” Increased burglaries in the West San Fernando Valley have been attri bu ted largely to illegal aliens. A survey of one precinct of Los Angeles where ma ny aliens live showed tha t 36 percen t of all felony a rrests last October involved illegal 

aliens.

HOUST ON

With unem ployment rising sou th of the border, illegal aliens are swarming into this pa rt of the country in growing numbers—depriving U.S. citizens of jobs, depressing wages, drawing welfare paymen ts and draining millions of dollars 

from the local economy. About 90 percent of the illegal entrants come from Mexico, sneaking across a poorly guarded 1,500-mile border and simply overwhelming the Immigration and Natura liza tion Service. The INS office in Texas recently announced, in fact, th at it will no longer arrest illegal aliens and ship them back to Mexico unless 

they are involved in a serious crime. “The problem is snowballing,” warns B. Warren O’Neal, dep uty INS dire ctor 

in El Paso. No longer are the illegal aliens working mainly at low-paying agriculture jobs in the border region. A growing number earn prevailing wages in manufac turing and construction jobs in such dis tan t cities as Denver, Kansas City and Washington. D.C. In Texas itself most illegal aliens now are concentrated in service and con­ stru ction occupations, according to Kelly Sayre, distric t dire ctor of the Texas 

employment agency in Dallas. Most of the Mexicans who enter illegally simply walk across the border, then arrange to be transporte d nor th. Smugglers currently are charging $250 a head for a trip from El Paso to Chicago. Says one border patrolm an: “ You get 50 of them in a U- lIa ul truc k and you can make over $10,000 in a 

single trip. “ And the penalty for smuggling people into this cou ntry is less tha n for smuggling narcotics, so th at many former dope runners have gotten into the 

alien -running business.” Ma ny aliens escape dete ction by purchasing coun terfeit identification papers 

in Mexico. For around $300, a Mexican reportedly can purchase a counterfeit “green ca rd” with an INS stam p, which perm its an alien to work legally in the U.S., plus 

a fake Social Security card and a U.S. driv er’s license. Such accounts, across the natio n, tell the story of an illegal inflow th at is raising problems more troublesom e than those created many decades ago b y the “huddled masses” waiting docilely on Ellis Island for e ntr y to the promised land. Americans’ trad itional sym pathy for people driven to the desperation of illegal entry is being tem pered because of the jobs they are taking from U.S. 

citizens in hard times.
104

Yet it is not certain th at countermeasures, even on an all-out scale, can fully 

stem the flood if worsening economies in poor countries send still bigger hordes 

of aliens to the U.S. borders.

What immigration authorities are dealing with is a bolder and more sophisticated breed of arriva l—willing to tak e his or her chances on finding a non ym ity 

an d survival in urbanized and welfare-conscious America. And the concerns 

such people are creating may be around for a long tim e.

Mr. Fish. Let me address one further question. General, did I 

hear you say of the people who come into this country every year as 

visitors, about 300,000 get lost in the course of each year? Was that 

the figure? Was tha t correct?

Mr. Chapman. Five to ten percent of 6 million who enter as 

tourists are not shown to have left.

Mr. Fish. Tha t would be between 300,000 and 600,000?

Mr. Chapman. Yes, sir. I might point out, sir, in tha t regard, 

with regard to those overstayed tourists and students, and with 

regard to those who entered fraudulently through various means, 

those who jumped ship, we believe tha t most of them come to stay 

permanently.

Mr. Fish. I am just referring to these people who had a visa and 

came as visitors. Are they mostly Western European?

Mr. Chapman. They are from everywhere, sir. I can provide for 

the record a breakdown.

Mr. Fish. Would you?

Mr. Chapman. By nationality. We have those figures.

Mr. Fish. Thank you very much.

[The following table was submitted:]
I «

TABLE 17.— NO NI MMIG RA NT S AD MITTE D BY CLASSES UNDER THE IM MIG RA TION LAWS AND COUNTR Y OR REGION OF LAS T PERMANENT RESIDENCE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1974 

[Da ta ex clu de bo rder crossers, crew men , and insu la r trav elers. S tude nts and othe rs en te rin g w ith m ultip le e nt ry do cume nts a re o nly co unted on the 1st a dm iss ion]

Cou ntry or regio n 

of la st pe rm an en t 

resid ence

A ll c o u n tr ie s .. . 

Eu rope ................

A u str ia ...... .................

B elg iu m .....................

Bulg aria......................

Cz ec hoslo vakia .........

Denm ar k....................

F in la nd........................

Fran ce .........................

German y.....................

Greec e.........................

H u n g a ry ....................

Ic ela nd........................

Ir e la nd ........................

It a ly .............................

Lu xe mbou rg ..............

M alta ............................

Neth erla nds...............

Norw ay.......................

P ola nd........................

P ortugal......................

Romania .....................

Spain ...........................

Swed en .......................

Switzerland................

U.S.S.R ....................

Un ited K in g d o m .. ..

Yug os lavia..................

Othe r Eur op e______

Spouses

and Spouses

ch il- and

Num be r

ad m itted

Foreign

go ve rn ­

men t

offic ials

Tempo rary

visito rs

fo r

bu siness

Tempo rary

visito rs

fo r

ple asure Tra nsit aliens

Tre aty 

tra de rs 

and in ­

vesto rs

Spo uses Tempo rary 

w ork ­

ers and 

tr a in ­

ees

dren of 

te m ­

po rary 

w ork ­

ers and 

tr a in ­

ees

Represe ntativ es of 

foreign 

in fo rma tio n 

me dia

Exchang e

visito rs

Spouses 

and 

c h ildren of 

exchang e 

visito rs

Fiances 

(e es) 

of U.S. 

citiz en s

Childre n of 

fian ces

(e es) 

of U.S. 

citiz en s

In tr aco mpany

transfer ees

c h ildr en of 

in tr aco mpany 

transferees

NATO

officials

Returnin g re side nt 

aliens S tu ­ dents

and 

c h ildren of 

stu ­

dents

In te rna tio nal

re pre ­

se ntativ es

i, 908, 708 70 ,652 543, 796 4,7 82 , 536 296, 483 36 ,853 109,197 10, 721 34 ,385 60,371 11,373 6,082 50,91 1 18, 322 8, 248 1,111 12,478 8, 849 4,07 6 842, 264

771 7,3 53 19, 760 25 3,97 2 1,22 4,31 7 115,4 85 13,921 11,026 1,19 4 13, 356 9, 354 2,090 3, 340 23, 326 6,142 1,9 60 224 6,186 4, 398 3,516 3, 786

23, 500 172 2,329 18, 592 748 78 126 11 370 337 14 52 456 70 15 3 53 42 2 30

37, 739 602 8, 555 25 ,272 1,0 22 191 325 49 448 132 43 52 432 205 21 1 155 96 109 29

671 55 122 335 20 2 58 34 6 9 18 7 2 3

a, 153 150 758 2,15 8 834 1 7 1 73 89 6 12 40 6 6 11 1

27, 777 296 4, 459 19, 577 1,2 55 425 224 20 322 77 28 88 651 162 25 1 49 18 84 16

14,853 219 1,891 10, 561 761 265 208 35 254 44 3 21 431 115 29 9 4 1 2

196, 242 2,74 2 30, 099 140, 737 10, 535 1,7 57 1,5 65 161 2, 208 656 165 486 2,53 9 788 94 6 610 547 44/ 100

340, 655 2,93 7 45, 536 268, 045 7, 742 3,166 1,2 04 58 1,1 03 618 161 656 3,19 6 837 468 114 782 520 2,02 1 1,4 91

35, 442 331 2,911 18,36 6 11,178 112 1,27 2 128 153 197 35 43 267 55 137 43 10 65 139

6, 881 113 442 5, 684 99 5 14 144 175 8 9 118 41 22 2 4 1

5,22 0 62 668 3,413 45 6 55 10 83 5 4 792 GO 6 4 7

33, 569 141 3,22 0 25, 802 944 G92 265 15 136 305 37 30 1,6 94 99 39 2 70 53 1 24

120, 796 869 19, 678 81 ,742 12, 920 1,2 51 656 39 726 398 104 240 915 254 145 6 250 158 79 366

2,26 4 61 363 1, 723 23 27 2 19 1 1 1 20 14 2 4 3

1,1 52 5 48 978 71 6 18 4 2 1 13 2 4

76, 243 482 13, 202 53, 569 4, 650 357 403 42 649 200 117 119 974 373 61 5 417 423 129 71

34, 522 565 5, 332 18, 624 7, 471 472 527 95 262 186 33 87 443 161 23 2 123 74 21 21

17, 863 407 1,9 44 13, 298 1,181 4 45 93 116 210 7 10 325 99 35 3 10 5 71

14, 600 358 1,60 6 9,19 1 2,50 0 8 104 64 93 153 5 19 109 38 165 6 63 45 28 45

2,298 189 560 947 226 3 24 1 101 39 1 11 154 37 5

49, 974 1,373 8, 461 31, 884 4, 393 522 422 48 522 773 130 67 712 315 126 11 117 68 30

54, 948 628 10, 558 37, 056 2,03 4 29 587 61 507 232 80 173 1,3 92 279 45 3 369 296 1 618

70, 606 449 10, 552 51 ,714 2, 729 1,3 27 570 62 649 322 117 68 896 448 27 1 235 153 4 283

8 644 1 002 2 283 1 815 1 562 23 3 2 1 213 521 66 111 16 1 13 11 2

519; 537 5; 406 78; 262 370; 884 39; 591 2, 882 2,21 4 191 2; 933 3, 400 976 1,0 02 6,1 60 1,55 6 431 58 2, 793 1, 861 517 420

16,214 139 2,021 11, 566 920 340 156 5 179 242 7 17 460 103 26 10 2 1 20

990 7 112 784 31 5 15 1 17 4 1 8 2 1 1 1 —C i
TABLE 17.— NO NI MMIGRA NT S AD MITTE D BY CLASSES UNDER THE IM MIG RA TION LAWS AND COUNT RY OR REGION OF LAS T PERMANENT RESIDENCE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1974— Co ntinued 

[Data ex clu de bo rder crossers, cre wm en , and in su la r trav elers. S tude nts and othe rs en te rin g w ith m ultip le e nt ry do cu ments are o nly co un ted on the 1st ad miss ion)

Spouses

and

children of Re pre- Tern- Tern- Spouses Tern- tern- senta - po rary po rary and In te r- po rary po rary fiv es of Foreign visito rs visito rs Trea ty chil- na tio nal work - w ork - foreign Co un try or regio n go vern- fo r fo r tra de rs dren of re pr e- ers and ers and in fo r- of la st pe rm an en t Num be r men t bu si- pleas- Tra nsit and in - Stu- stu- senta - tr a in - tr a in - ma tio n i res idence adm itted offic ials ness ure aliens vesto rs dents dents fiv es ees ees me dia i

A sia ............ .1 ,0 4 6 , 678 21, 288 146, 869 730, 424 35,644 21, 696 41, 805 4, 337 5, 783 8,95 5 1,3 17 1,5 77

Cam bo dia.

915

491

Spouses

and ChilSpo uscs and c h il­ dren of

chil- dren of In tra- in tradren of Fiances fiances com- co m- Returnex - (e es) (e es) pany pany NATO ing re si- change of U.S. of U.S. trans - trans - offi- de nt

visitors citiz en s citiz en s fer ees fer ees cials aliens

5, 460 3, 894 676 1,27 5 723 275 3,1 5

China ........................... 21 ,760

M ain la nd ................ 401

T a iw a n ................ 21 ,359

Cyp ru s--------------------- 1,02 6

Hong Kon g________ 32 ,340

In d ia ............................ 37 ,646

In donesia ______ . . 5,72 9

Ir a n .............................. 24,701

Ir a q ...................... 985

Is ra el........................... 42 ,230

Ja pa n........................... 76 6,108

Jo rd an ......................... 2,15 5

Korea........................... 19, 820

Kuw ait......................... 1,93 2

Laos.............................. 422

Lebano n...................... 7,306

Malay sia.......................... 3, 703

Nep al..................... 312

Pak is ta n.................. 9,4 94

Philip pin es............ 29,494

Ry ukyu Is la nds____ 43

Sa udi Ara bia ............. 3, 569

Singa po re ........ ........... 3,936

Sri La nk a.................... 1,2 14

S yria.................. 1,3 47

T hailand...................... 11,845

281

277

1,3 13

3

1,3 10

25

12

479

717

3, 681 

18

1,07 4

136

22 

5, 457 

134 

5, 323

66

4,12 8

4, 334 

967

1,7 68

186

5, 333

4, 604 106, 266

201

1,2 93

1,0 62

122

170

222

8

306

846

3

2, 258

150

39

73

1,09 3

304 

4, 794

183

27

1,3 47

424

49 

1,4 28 

4, 543

16

279

887

70

135

861

196

85

5,94 3

7

5,93 6

408 

15,972 

18,961 

1,9 72 

9, 770

508 

29, 051 

609, 599

919 

4, 215

507

126 

4,02 0 

1,4 15 

79 

3,51 5 

9, 440 

16 .

575

1,8 88

445

642 

3, 468

7

13

2,92 6

40

2, 886 

187

5,75 8 

4,92 0 

873 

197 

23 

709 

9,21 3 

50 

2, 894 

10 

5

208 

258 

13 

822 

4,822 

. . . . . .

213

136

91

125

618

' 6 i8 

2

71

20

’ 83'

” 76 9' 

18, 323 

4

1,0 35

154

416

65 

51

3, 080 

1

3, 079 

95

5, 689 

4,293 

325 

7, 783 

101 

2,27 6 

5,911 

400 

964 

97 

62 

947 

554 

9 .

1,75 9

931

1

215 

269 

89 

114 

4,19 9

4

4

620

620

2

80

969

29

575

34

359

614

32

237

8

3

43

105

126

70

1

34

16

4

12

238

63 

12 

377 

213 

164 

43 

75 

1, 146 

226 

147 

83 

228 

635 

69 

200 

23 

20 

162 

101 

65 

397 

677 

3 . 

60 

41 

166 

57 

185

1

1

371

371

2

116

244

25

18

4

308

1,3 95

2

1,391

27

28

14

2

96

4,7 71

153

221

35

10

53

1,2 55

2

150

135

20

519 233 151 7 48 40 . 6

519 233 151 7 48 40 6 97 17 4 .. 2 1

159 32 90 1 85 36 12 2 1,2 59 692 22 2 73 46 1 72 435 118 9 10 16 3 1 418 166 13 .. 22 15 . . 29

18 7 3 . .

846 885 94 2 32 15 . . 43 2,26 8 2,0 47 336 36 702 352 2 2, 329 117 37 11 . . 2 .. 1 4

500 124 1,62 5 197 80 64 .. 22 12 . 1 . 1 1

49

195

225

5

49

100

1

17

253

21 709 119 7 1 15 4

5 1,06 5 312 550 136 135 93

1 . 2

85 25 3 2

1 83 44 11 2 9 19 . 160 66 2 11 4

1 139 56 7 . . 5 1 .

8 1,0 43 105 346 60 16 1 .

274

1

6

12

12

627
T u rk e y........................

Vie tn am ......................

Other Asia ..................

A fr ic a ...............

Alg er ia .........................

Congo ...........................

Egy pt ...........................

Ethiopia................... .

Ghana ..........................

Guine a.........................

Iv ory Co ast................

Kenya..........................

Lib eria.........................

Lib ya............................

Mo rocco......................

Nigeria ........................

Sene gal.......................

Sierra Leo ne..............

South Africa ,

Re pu blic o f............

So uthern

Rh odesia................

S udan.........................

Ta nz ania ....................

Tunis ia ........................

Ug and a........................

Z a m b ia ......................

Other A fr ic a ..............

Oc eania..............

A ustralia ....................

F ij i...............................

Trench P oly nesia ... 

G ilb er t and Ellice

Is la nd.....................

New Ca ledonia.........

Ne w Ze alan d______

Pa cific Island (U.S. 

adm in is tration)...

Tong a..........................

Western S a m o a ... . 

Other Oceania.........

8, 049 256 944 4, 840 251

4,42 2 484 1,62 3 440 52

3, 684 221 292 1,4 09 857

54, 958 3, 186 9, 303 25 ,120 2,35 9

1,2 78 109 359 386 34

387 43 68 132 20

4,33 5 150 446 2, 491 431

2,115 188 142 583 54

3,1 17 130 333 1,541 135

138 11 15 69 12

646 114 122 210 31

2, 394 36 373 1,2 12 95

2, 342 252 147 1,0 32 43

1,798 37 203 242 18

2, 065 123 316 1,1 13 244

6, 797 595 984 1,6 04 347

602 46 87 245 S3

944 47 64 242 52

16, 772 200 4, 508 10,456 256

639 2 23 419 24

509 73 79 102 12

1,1 54 30 89 502 127

855 164 113 296 15

562 24 80 138 52

943 57 128 534 30

4,5 66 755 624 1,571 234

203,082 3,17 2 20, 605 144, 437 26, 392

119,4 20 2,6 77 15, 767 86 ,179 10,19 2

3, 029 17 142 1.931 690

4,47 4 139 3,51 8 684

428 1 1 111 312

1.0 99 1 24 933 128

52, 269 389 3, 647 35, 574 11,459

20, 001 14 586 14,738 2,671

415 7 16 256 51

1,0 13 33 194 601 79

934 33 89 596 126

683

571

272

214

58

250

33 6,5 53 1,080 2,942 249 60

118

12

175

760

392

2

40

327

595

492

67

2,18 3

18

320

376

91

43

109

21

75

48

289

5

29

40

230

9

330

1

77

86

23

23

8

1

10

6 

31

215

42

369

90

147

27

57

143

62

85

93

211

64

101

111

12

112

137

90

96

77

601

1 10

3 7

 6 : 2

1 5

1 1 ................

, 1

1

1

: 2 1

1

1

2

53 2,87 3

352

27

38

117

128

61

47

379

159

8

27

29

17

15

4

40

79 2,90 5 236 827 521 187 95 1,2 74 833 93 3 669 453 6 322

37 622 151 601 311 117 89 844 649 62 3 571 295 1 252

66 7 28 15 4 17 8 1 . . . 6 95 2

9 71 1 . . 39 .. 1 1 . . 3 8

214 39 188 78 38 6 290 141 2 2 ............ 85 62 2 23

1,78 9 33 .. 52 22 . . . 50 7 3 _____ 2 _. 31

36 3 .. 9 3 . . . 13 18 . . 3

76 6 1 . . 13 3 3 ........... 3

26 2 4 16 3 . . . 16 6 2 ............ 5 1 .
TABLE 17.— NO NI MMIGRA NT S AD MITTE D BY CLASSES UNDER THE IM MIG RA TION LAWS AND COUNTR Y OR REGION OF LAS T PERM ANENT RESIDENCE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1974-C ontinued 

[Data exclu de bo rder cros sers, c rewm en , and in sula r tra ve le rs . Stud en ts and othe rs e nte rin g w ith m ultip le e nt ry documents are o nly co unted on the 1st admiss ion)

Cou ntry or region 

o f last pe rm an en t 

resid ence

Ca nada .....................

Mex ico........... ..........

Un ited State s_____

West In die s.............

Antigua..............

Bahama s..............

Barbados..............

Ber mud a..............

Brit ish Virg in

Is land s............. .

Cayman Is la nd s. .

Cu ba.......................

Dom in ic a..............

Do minican

Rep ub lic............

Granad a.................

Guadelou pe_____

H a it i. ................... .

Ja maica ................ .

M a rtin iq u e ......

M ontserrat ...........

Num be r

adm itted

Foreig n

go ve rnmen t

offic ials

Tempo rary

visito rs

fo r

bu siness

Tem ­

po rary

visito rs

fo r

ple asure Tra nsit aliens

Tre aty 

trad er s 

and in ­

vestors

S tu ­

dents

Spouses 

and 

c h ildren of 

stu ­

dents

.3, 47 4,23 8 12,145 78 ,189 2, 351, 301 93, 608 650 35, 541 2,40 5

. 34 4,883 1,571 10,212 243,95 4 50, 954 212 10,15 2 1,2 19 .1 ,7 46 , 677 4, 431 34 ,340 1,675 .4 08 14, 149 59 8, 323 565 . 827,068 5

. 405,377 3, 460 22, 892 316,81 6 19, 383 216 10, 705 295 13,071 41 441 8, 305 281 1 249 1 . 100,1 30 405 2, 660 92, 789 580 11 3, 291 26 . 10,11 8 126 754 6, 880 1,10 3 4 176 12 . 25 ,042 17 1,3 00 20 ,155 2,92 9 3 450 18

5, 655 11 280 4, 281 285 30 128 1 6, 781 1 313 5, 890 477 4 81

1, 382 6 49 776 37 . 110 1 3, 521 7 88 2,12 3 81 . 70 3

70, 658 985 2, 882 59, 757 1,56 5 47 1,8 43 74 2,13 9 11 129 1,447 135 . 132 7 3,12 7 4 249 2,37 1 380 1 19 17, 522 492 1,9 67 11, 104 2, 264 3 1,0 07 18 . 72,977 825 6, 508 49, 281 5, 228 46 1,4 06 51 2,0 41 4 168 1,4 96 321 3 34 1 1,0 10 1 52 725 36 . 21

Spouses

and

c h ildren of Re preTem - tern - sentaIn te r- po rary po ra ry fiv es of

work - w ork - foreign 

in fo rSpouses and chil- C hil- dren of

Spouses 

and 

ch ildren of

In tr a - in tradr en of Fiances fiances 

ex- (e es) (e es)

co mpany

.. _ _ _____ ______ trans- trans- tive s ees ees me dia visito rs visitors citiz en s citiz en s ferees fer ees

Ex- co m- Return- pany NATO ing re side nt 

aliens

officia ls

4, 670 39, 633 7, 254

731 14,64 3 

724 2,79 2

1, 776 

240

1,8 87

23

51

71

7

4

1

296

1

355

12

2

316

388

1

21 ,712

2,43 2

71

876

2

466

..... i'

709

1,0 72

168

73

104

8, 762 

1

97

5,19 2 

1, 267 

5 

17 

1

87

2

" '4 2 8 '

310

89

20

2

19

2

68

110

65

4,15 5 2, 276 1,9 90 193 2, 843 2,4 01 252 834,1 01

1, 532 995 419 46 1,9 85 1,935 36 2,455 981 630 628 107 270 168 48 2, 381 

827, 063

1,9 45 634 231 147 20 460 249 23 11 4 . 5 1 1 7

42 7 10 2 79 33 1 43

46 6 6 . 6 9 . 23

4 3 7 . 10 7 2 117

3 1 3 . 37 15 . 23

1 2 2 . 3 1 . 3

6 3 13 1 7 2 . 69

6 1 4

189 73 23 4 179 103 1 1,13 0

4 2 3 .

1 1 . 6 22 15 8 . 5 1 19 171 51 39 5 30 16 3 144

6 . 1 2

1 1 1 .. 1 . 6
k * #

Nethe rla nd

A ntilles..............

St. C h ri sto p h e r. ..

22 ,370 

13, 497

95

19

2,646

233

17, 554 

6, 448

1,1 12 

252

51

6

384

339

20

7

87

4

140

4, 275

71

1,871

3

2

15

13

28

4

1 . . 

5

33

3 ..

38 13

11

79

12 3

St. Lucia ............ 4,671

2,13 1

8 138 2,238

1,04 5

130 74 1 5 1,3 35

392

678 . 7 . 1 2 4 1 49

St. V in cent............ 11 107 419 .. 69 1 3 70 2 6 2 1 . . 2 ..

Trinid ad and

T o b a g o .. ..........

Turk s and Caicos

27 ,337 390 1,904 21 ,079 1,6 76 6 804 52 260 736 185 2 79 31 20 1 51 22 39

Is land . . . . . . 1,1 97 

149,1 73

24 1,0 50 

115, 077

91 18 1 1 . 2 .

Ce ntral A m e ric a ... . 2,68 2 10, 740 9,12 0 158 6, 360 326 1,32 8 486 45 32 1,00 8 420 796 20 128 49 145 253

Belize .. 5,02 4

3

66 365 3, 800 378 .. 169 3 40 21 1 .. 12 5 4 . . 1 .. 142 17

Canal Zo ne ............ 3

Costa Rica.............. 24, 364 632 1,2 54 18, 740 2, 290 2 697 49 290 105 9 5 189 54 5 1 18 11 . 13

El Salva dor ............ 19,44 2 508 734 15, 698 807 4 1,0 55 33 213 47 6 12 154 110 27 9 6 3 16

Guatem ala............. 28, 807 405 2,1 41 24 ,118 649 12 598 33 273 126 2 1 241 128 24 2 41 2 11

Ho nd uras ............... 23, 485 233 2,088 16, 449 3,05 4 6 1,0 75 26 155 76 6 1 100 59 13 4 6 3 3 128

Nicar ag ua .............. 18, 790 387 1,4 28 14,44 8 787 124 1,131 53 205 36 12 7 121 38 6 . . 3 2 2

P an a m a.. ..............

Other North

29, 258 451 2,7 30 21, 824 1,1 55 10 1,635 129 152 75 9 6 191 26 717 4 53 28 63

Am eric a. . 60 1 5 46 2 1 . 1 .. 4

So uth Am eric a. 412, 399 11,101 34 ,858 306,937 22 ,995 474 11,36 7 1,469 6, 807 1,6 59 465 386 7, 786 2,77 5 263 11 1,3 90 799 26 831

Arg entin a................... 52,636 837 3, 400 42,67 1 2,229 153 255 39 1,1 12 228 100 33 707 316 21 . . 266 162 1 106

B o li v ia .. .................... 6,92 4 222 793 4,08 0 795 11 384 19 257 9 2 4 276 44 9 . . 3 8 8

Bra zil........................... 93, 647 4, 169 13, 380 62, 440 6,3 11 24 1, 299 292 748 255 78 258 2,990 660 72 1 420 156 . 94

C hile ............ ............... 19, 258 1,0 19 2, 384 10, 970 1,3 50 8 423 123 1,1 84 163 149 44 548 615 27 . . 131 102 . 18

Colom bia.................... 68, 470 923 5, 328 51, 502 4,48 0 225 2, 744 172 1,1 25 282 39 15 832 318 60 5 173 90 2 155

Ecuador....................... 23, 854 312 1,6 37 18, 524 1,65 8 .. 635 33 410 74 12 4 403 65 22 . . 11 7 20 27

Gu yana........................ 7, 553 85 518 5,27 3 650 5 523 54 148 160 2 .. 59 12 17 4 18 9 16

Paraguay.................... 2, 421 94 227 1,58 3 111 1 62 3 115 7 2 .. 176 19 3 . . 14 3 1

Per u............................. 39, 066 1,0 94 1,6 03 31,011 1,6 12 15 1,2 26 68 680 196 27 7 1,041 210 22 . . 138 99 3 14

Surina m 1,8 67 

6, 853

12 226 1,4 16

4,18 7

125 . 23 3 24 1 . 1 18 9 .. 2 7 .

Uru gu ay ...................... 63 762 797 9 113 7 511 30 4 5 227 57 4 1 43 17 16

V en e zue la ................

Other S outh

89, 778 2, 269 4, 595 73,231 2, 867 23 3,679 656 491 254 50 15 509 450 6 . . 171 139 373

Am eric a.................. 72 2 5 49 10 .. 1 . 2 . 3
110

Mr. E ilb erg. Does any ot he r me mb er of the subcom mittee have 

a quest ion , jus t one, so th at we can ju st wra p it up as quickly as 

we can?

Mr. Sarban es.

Mr. Sarb ane s. Comm issio ner Chapma n, did I un de rst an d you to 

say th at 12 or 13 yea rs ago th e nu mb er of illegal aliens app rehend ed 

was 20,000?

Mr. C hapman. Tw enty some tho usa nd, th at is correct.

Mr. Sarb ane s. La st ye ar it was 800,000?

Mr. C hapman. T ha t is correc t.

Mr. Sarb ane s. That is a facto r of 40 in apprehensions. Do you 

proje ct the same fac tor in the nu mbe r of illegal aliens?

Mr. Chapman. We exp ect to app reh end som eth ing up close to a 

million.

Mr. Sarb ane s. N o, m y q uestion is th is: Was the 20,000 apprehend ed 

13 ye ars ago rou ghly the sam e percen tage of illegal alien s the n as 

the 800,000 app rehend ed M as of illegal aliens las t year?

Mr. C hapman. No, sir. Th e 20,000, it Mas a su bs tantial portion , 

perha ps nearly all of those M’ho Mere here 12 or 14 years ago. The 

800,000 we app rehend ed last ye ar M as only a fra cti on of those th at 

are here.

Mr. Sarb ane s. Nom’, T j ust m an t to say in passing t hat I appre ciate 

the s ort of se nsitivity reflected on the top of page 9 in yo ur statemen t, 

Com missioner, M’ith respec t to the sit ua tio n in which these illegal 

aliens find them selves. And I agree M’ith those com ments th at illegal 

aliens a re in ma ny instances exploited by other s in one M ay or ano the r, 

and th at is som ething th at M’e mus t be very sensitive to.

Mr. Silb erm an, one final que stio n. Would you agree M’ith the 

stat em en t th at in the past we have really been very lax M’ith resp ect 

to these Hims, both in how serious ly we tak e the m and how ha rd we 

try to enforce them respec ting illegal aliens?

Mr. Silberm an. Yes, although J Mould say it Mas mu ch less of a 

pro blem because the influx 10 or 20 yea rs ago Mas mu ch less. But 

you are rig ht.

Mr. Sarb ane s. Would th at lax ity arg um ent, to con tinu e an 

exchang e you had M’ith the chairma n, argue in behalf of giving some 

serio us tho ught to acc om mo dat ion s or exceptions M’ith resp ect to 

aliens who ma y hav e been here for a very long period of time, and 

also pe rhaps for those M’ho ha ve been here a shorter period of time 

but have assumed some perma nen cy? S hould there not be an effort to 

get some perspective in those M’ho came in at a tim e whe n the M’hole 

at titu de M as different.

Mr. Silberm an. Pr actic all y you ma y have a point. I am not sure 

mo rally you do. I have ahv ays felt M’hen the Congress passes a laM*, 

M'hether it is laxly enforced or zealously enforced, it, inde ed, is the 

law’ of the United State s of America, and it is very ha rd for me as 

Acting A tto rney General to give a great deal of deference to illegality 

and to, inde ed, rew ard tho se M’ho violate the laMs of the Un ited 

Sta tes . Bu t I recognize the problem that you raise, and I think some 

at tentio n ought to be give to the pro per procedure M’hereb y it ought 

to be han dled. I am no t pa rti cu larly of the vieM* th at ju st a flat 

gran dfathe r clause rew ard ing all of those uh o vio lated the laM’ is the 

correc t May to do it, looking ahead to res pec t for the laM' in this 

country.
Ill

Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you.

Mr. E ilberg. Ms. Holtzman?

Ms. Holtzman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In connection with the questions 1 was asking you before, I would like to point out for the record some figures I have from the New York District regarding the apprehension of illegal aliens. I would like to point out that out of 8,717 illegal aliens apprehended since July 1974, 6,050 came here originally as visitors. Thus over 62 percent in the New York District, came here through improperly issued tourist visas, visas that were issued on the basis of the fact that the person was thought to be a tourist, but obviously had every intention of staying in the United States. In view of those figures, I would en­ courage you to try to see whether or not we could have better screening processes to avoid this problem. I would also like to ask, Mr. Chair­ man, if in providing figures for the subcommittee we can have the problem broken down on a regional basis in terms of, for example, the percentage that the number of illegal aliens apprehended represents of the total number of illegal aliens estimated to live in tha t area, whether there is a difference between these figures and those in the Southwest, the Northwest, and the Southeast, and whether there might be different procedures in different areas that could help alleviate the problem until we get this or some other kind of 

legislation enacted.

Mr. Chapman. We have those figures, and we will furnish them.

[The material referred to follows:]

T he ra ti os of ille ga l ali ens ap pre hended to th e est im at ed num ber of illeg al ali en s in th e re gi on s v ary g re at ly . T he var ia nc e is a r eflec tio n, as su gg es ted, of th e di ffer en t enfo rc em en t pro gr am s th a t are ut iliz ed in th e di ffer en t region s. The South w es t Reg io n, for ex am pl e, ha s th e g re ate st co nce ntr at io n of B ord er P atr ol A ge nts bec au se th e en fo rc em en t str ate g y of th e Se rvice is to p re v en t en tr y, whe re po ss ible, an d to appre hen d illeg al en tr an ts as qu ic kl y as po ss ible aft er en tr y. Ther e were 690,0 00 aliens ap pre hended in th a t region in F Y 1974, m os t of who m were st opped a t th e line o r w ithi n 72 ho ur s of en tr y . Se rvice off ice rs est im ate t here ar e a t l east 2 million illeg al aliens i n th a t region . Th e th re e o th er regi on s pr es en t an entire ly di ffer en t en fo rc em en t pro bl em . In th es e th re e, th ere is no gr ea t pus h of e n tr a n ts ove r th e la nd bord er and ill eg al aliens , te nd, in th e m ai n, to concentr ate in ci ties whe re jo b opport unit ie s ar e av ai la bl e. The* ille ga l alien po pu la tion also dif fer s in m os t re sp ec ts f ro m th e S o u th ­ west profile which is pre ponder an tly m ad e up of M ex ican ma les . In th e n o rt h ern and ea st er n cit ies, th e illegal ali en is ty pic all y a f or m er t em pora ry vis itor who ha s over st ay ed his tim e, or who ha s vio la te d his vis it or st atu s by ta kin g a jo b. H e als o as sim ila te s m uc h more ea sily in to th e popula tion at lar ge, an d is m or e dif fi­ cult to dete ct and m ore ex pe ns ive to det ai n and expel. Th e in ves tigat iv e forces ar e als o sp re ad th in ly th ro ugh th es e region s, as a co n­ sequ en ce of th e as si gnm en t of a lim it ed num ber of en fo rc em en t pe rs onne l to ta sk s th a t ob vi ou sl y re qu ire a gre at er nu m be r. T hus th e th re a t in th e S ou th ­ west ha s to be m et and co nt in uo us ly co nt ai ne d, wh ile oth er lo ca tion s opera te with fa r less e ffec tiv en es s. The N ort heast reg ion, w ith th e same est im ate d num ber of illegal aliens as th e So ut hw es t, at le as t 2 mi llion , was on ly ab le to appre hend 31,000 . T he South east , w ith at le as t on e million ille gal ali ens, an d th e N ort hw est , with at le as t ha lf th a t nu m be r, ea ch ap pr eh en ded 30,000. Th e ra tios reflec t, if an yth in g, th e en or m ou s ta sk of sp re ad in g sm all w or k forces to cont ai n w hat is re al ly unco nta in ab le . W hat is ne ed ed is th e el im in at io n of th e in ce nt iv e fo r ill eg al en tr y, which II. R . 982 wo uld pr ov id e by sh u tt in g off 

jo b op por tu nitie s fo r illeg al aliens.

Mr. Eilberg. And the possibility of different methods of app rehension that might be applicable.

Mr. Chapman. We are employing different methods now.
112

Mr. E ilb erg. T would like to announce to the subcom mittee th at 

we will recess until 2 o’clock this afte rno on at which time we will 

have the Un de r S ecretary of the De pa rtm en t of Labo r, the H ono rab le 

Ri ch ard F. Schub ert.

And I wa nt to tha nk you ve ry muc h, At torney Gen eral Silberman 

and Com mission er Ch ap man and your staff for being so very helpful 

to the subcomm itte e this mornin g. T k now we will be working together 

as we evolve some legi slation on this matter . Tha nk you very much.

Mr. Silberm an. Tha nk you, Mr. Chairma n. I appre cia te the 

op po rtu nity.

A FT E R N O O N SESSIO N

Mr. E ilb erg. The comm itte e will come to ord er and we will contin ue our hearing s on House bill 982.

We have with us this after noon the Un der Se cre tar y of Lab or, 

Richard F. Sch ube rt. We are very ha pp y to have you here , Mr. Sch ube rt, thi s afte rnoon, and look forw ard to yo ur stat em en t and the 

op po rtu nity to ask you a few questions.

TESTIMONY OF HON. RICHARD F. SCHUBERT, UNDER SECRETARY

OF LABOR, ACCOMPANIED BY ALFRED G. ALBERT, DEPUTY

SOLICITOR, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, AND DAVID 0. WILLIAMS,

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. EMPLOYMENT SERVICE, DEPARTMENT

OF LAEOR

Mr. Schubert. Th an k you , Mr. Chairma n.

Mr. Ch air ma n and members of the sub com mittee, we are happ y to 

ap pe ar before y our c om mittee in sup port of the purpose and objectives 

of H.R . 982. The Dep ar tm en t of Labor believes th at a legislative 

ap pro ach inv olving san ctions again st employe rs, and othe r persons 

who pa rti cipa te in the em plo ym ent of illegal aliens is bo th soun d and 

absolut ely essential.

Twice the House has passed legislation to deal with this problem 

whic h, in o ur view, grows more critical with each passing day. We have 

support ed these efforts in the pa st and we con tinue to support them 

with an even gre ate r sense of urgency.

Th e princi pal concern of the Dep artm en t of La bo r necessa rily 

arise s from the im pact upon the legal work force of this growing 

problem of job displacem ent. Th e De partm ent of La bo r is by stat ut e 

the gu ardian of the welfare of the wage earners of the Na tion. We 

cann ot ignore the im pact of illegal en try upon wh at inde ed is a climbing une mploy ment rate.

As a na tio n predom ina tely compose d of gen era tions of im migra nts 

and their offspring, our his tor ic compassion for the oppressed and 

needy emigres of oth er na tio ns has pro bably helped to produce a certain degree of ap athy ab ou t the grow ing pro portio ns of this prob lem. 

We are no t unm indful of the desires ma ny foreign natio nals have to 

seek a be tter life for themselves and their families by immigra ting to 

this country.

How ever, the alien who en ter s thi s country illegally cheat s not only 

the Ame rica n worker, bu t the person who follows the lawfu l im mig rati on 

pro ced ure s as well. Fai rne ss dictates th at we no longer permit illegal 

aliens to tak e jobs of the Am eric ans and aliens who have immigra ted 

here lawfully.
113

Furth er , we are also aware th at illegal aliens are som etim es e xploited 

by unscr upulo us employers who tak e advanta ge of the vulne rab ilit y 

of the illegal alien to d eport ati on. Th is o ften has the effect of depressing 

the wages and working con dition s no t only of the illegal aliens, bu t 

also eve ryone else who is comp eting for the same job.

Irrespecti ve of the precise nu mbe r of illegal aliens in ou r cou ntry, 

there is ample evidence th at it is substan tia l, th at it is grow ing, and 

th at it, unless checked, will overwh elm us w ith more and more serious 

lab or and economic trou bles. Th e economic stat e of the Na tio n com- 

« pels us to focus o ur compassion first and fore most upo n those who are

here legally.

De spite the realiza tion th at there are a nu mb er of are as of curre nt 

im migration law which would warrant furth er review, our sense of 

• urg enc y moves us to defer any othe r immigra tion law pro posals which

migh t delay or impede the rapi d acti on needed to dea l with the 

“illegals” prob lem.

Before com mentin g s pecifically upo n II. R. 982, let me no te th at the 

rec en tly ena cte d Fa rm La bor Co ntractor Re gis tra tio n Ac t Amendmen ts of 1974 str ength en and broaden those provisions of the act 

dir ected again st em plo ym ent of illegal aliens by proh ibi tin g a contrac tor from knowlin gly rec ruiting, employing, or utilizing the services of suc h aliens. This bill, the one under con sideration, would comple me nt the sanctio ns un der the Fa rm L abor Co ntractor Re gis tration 

Act. Of course, th at act applies only to farm lab or co ntractors dealing 

with a sm all pa rt of the problem. How ever, it does serve as a prec edent 

for establishin g bro ade r san ctions applicable to all emp loyers.

Th e bas ic provisions of II .R . 982, Mr. Ch airma n, as you know, 

would ma ke it illegal for an emp loyer, his age nt, or a ref err er of w orkers for emplo ym ent , to knowingly emp loy or refer for emplo ym ent 

an y illegal alien. It imposes a t hre e-s tep p roce dure of sa nctions a gai nst 

vio lating employers. Th e first violatio n would resu lt in th^ issuance of a citatio n; a 

su bs eq ue nt violation within 2 ye ars would resu lt in the im position of a 

fine with op po rtu nity for heari ng; a third vio lati on would be a crim ­

ina l viola tio n w ith fine or im pri sonm ent.

Our Dep ar tm en t is eager to assist the comm itte e and has some 

sug gestions for strength ening , and we believe imp rov ing, the bill. 

Fo r example, II.R . 982 p rovides th at an employer m ay esc ape liability 

if Such emplo yer ob tains a sign ed sta temen t th at the p erso n is a citize n 

„ or an alien lawfully adm itted. A person who has alr eady enter ed the co un try illegally ma y very 

well no t be deterred from signin g such a false sta temen t. The refore, 

we belie ve th at the add ed require me nt, which is conta ine d in the 

so-c alled Biaggi bill, II .R . 257, which prov ides th at in order to escape 

pe na lty an employe r must also sign a stat em en t th at he has read a 

bi rth certifi cat e or o ther do cume ntati on e stablishing the legal presence 

of the person , seems a m ore effec tive way of p rev enting circum ven tion 

of the law. As we un de rst an d it, the Dep artm en t of He alth, Ed uc ati on , and 

We lfare, since the 1972 am endm ents of the Social Security Act, has 

been admi nis ter ing su bs tantially the same type of req uir em ents with 

res pect to the issuance of social sec urity card s.
114

On the degree of the penalty, whether civil or criminal or both, 

we would defer to the Department of Justice which has, of course, 

greater expertise and which will be required to enforce the law; bu t I 

should note our general support for as strong deterrents as are reasonable and at the same time are expeditiously attainable in the 

legislature.

A- We would also favor some clear requirement in the law which would 

pr eclude its application on any discriminatory basis, recognizing tha t 

no ethnic group has any monopoly on illegal admission.

We therefore urge expeditious action to deal with this growing problem and we pledge ourselves to give whatever assistance is necessary 

to enact strong and effective legislation designed to prevent the illegal employment of aliens.

Mr. Chairman, 1 have with me Mr. Alfred Albert, who is Deputy 

Solicitor of the Departm ent of Labor, and also Mr. David O. Williams, 

who is Deputy Director, U.S. Employment Service, and both of whom 

have been involved with the problems of immigration and aliens across 

a number of years in the Department. I think tha t they will be in a 

position to help in this discussion.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Richard F. Schubert follows:]

Statement of IIon. R ichard F. Schubert, U nder Secr etary of L abor

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am h appy to appear before 

your Committee in support of the purpose and objectives of H.R . 982. The 

Department of Labor believes that a legislative approach involving sanctions 

against employers, and other persons who participate in the employment of illegal 

aliens is both sound and absolutely essential.

Twice the House has passed legislation to deal with this problem which grows 

more critical with each passing day. We have supported these efforts in the past 

and continue to support them with an even greater sense of urgency.

The principal concern of the Department of Labor arises from the impact upon 

the legal workforce of this growing problem of job displacement. The Department 

of Labor is bv statute the guardian of the welfare of the wage earners of the 

Nation. We cannot ignore the impact of illegal entry upon the climbing unemployment rate.

As a nation, predominately composed of generations of immigrants and their 

offspring, our historic compassion for the oppressed and needy emigres of other 

nations has probably helped to produce a certain degree of apathy about the 

growing proportions of this problem. We are not unmindful of the desires many 

foreign nationals have to seek a better life for themselves and their families by 

immigrating to this country. However, the alien who enters this country illegally 

cheats not only the American worker but the person who follows the lawful 

immigration procedures as well. Fairness dictates that we no longer permit 

illegal aliens to take jobs of the Americans and aliens who have immigrated here 

lawfu lly.

Further, we are also aware that illegal aliens are sometimes exploited by 

unscrupulous employers who take advantage of the vulnerability of the illegal 

alien to deportation. This often has the effect of depressing the wages and working 

conditions not only of the illegal aliens but also everyone who is competing for 

the same job.

Irrespective of the precise number of illegal aliens in our country, there is 

ample evidence that it is substantial; that it is growing; and that unless checked, 

will overwhelm us with more and more serious labor and economic troubles. 

The economic state of the Nation compels us to focus our compassion first and 

foremost upon those who are here legally.

Despite the realization that there are a number of areas of current immigration 

law which would warrant review, our sense of urgency moves us to defer any 

other immigration law proposals which might delay or impede the rapid action 

needed to deal with the “ illegals” .
115

Before commenting specifically upon II.R . 982, let me note that the recently 

enacted Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act Amendments of 1974 strengthen 

and broaden those provisions of the Act directed against employment of illegal 

aliens by prohibiting a contractor from knowingly recruiting, employing or utilizing the services of such aliens. This bill would complement the sanctions under the 

Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act. Of course that Act applies only to 

farm labor contractors dealing with a small part of the problem. However, it 

serves as a precedent for establishing broader sanctions applicable to all employers.

The basic provision of II.R . 982 would make it illegal for an employer, his 

agent or a referrer of workers for employment, to knowingly employ or refer for 

employment any illegal alien. It imposes a three-step procedure of sanctions 

w

against violating employers. The first violation would result in the issuance of a

citation; a subsequent violation within two years would result in the imposition 

of a fine with opportunity for hearing; a third violation would be a criminal 

violation with fine or imprisonment.

The Department is eager to assist the Committee and has some suggestions for

• strengthening, and we believe improving, the bill. For example, II. R. 982 provides 

that an employer may escape lia bility if such employer obtains a signed statement 

that the person is a citizen or an alien lawfully admitted. A person who has already 

entered the country illegally may very well not be deterred from signing such a 

false statement. Therefore, we believe that the added requirement which is contained in the Biaggi bill, II.R . 257, which provides that in order to escape penalty 

an employer must also sign a statement that he has read a birth certificate or other 

documentation establishing the legal presence of the person, seems a more effective way of preventing circumvention of the law. The Department of Health, 

Education, .and Welfare, since the 1972 Amendments of the Social Security Act, 

has been administering substantially the same type of requirements with respect 

to the issuance of social security cards.

On the degree of the penalty, whether civil or criminal or both, we defer to the 

Department of Justice which has a fa r greater expertise and which will be required 

to enforce the law, but we note our general support for as strong deterrants as 

are reasonable and at the same are expeditiously attainable in the legislature.

We would also favor some clear requirement in the law which would prechide 

its application on any discriminatory basis, recognizing that no ethnic group has 

any monopoly on illegal admission.

We therefore urge expeditious action to deal with this growing problem and we 

pledge ourselves to give whatever assistance is necessary to enact strong and effective legislation designed to prevent the illegal employment of aliens.

Mr. Eilberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Schubert. Mr. Schubert, 

in your statem ent on page 3, you referred to the Farm Labor Contrac tor Registration Act Amendments of 1974. I understand tha t 

there are very severe penalties provided in this legislation which 

would be imposed on crew leaders who failed to register under tha t

•

act, and who knowingly recruit illegal aliens.

I wonder if you know how much money is in the budget to carry 

out the purposes of th at act?

Mr. Schubert. We have in the 1976 submission a doubling of the

• resources of the Farm Labor Contractor Act enforcement.

As I recall the figures with regard to compliance officers, we are 

providing for in the vicinity of 20 or so to be used on an “as needed” 

nationwide enforcement basis, focusing on those areas where we 

perceive the greatest problems are, and we arc doing that in order to 

effectuate these amendments.

Mr. Eilberg. So what are the total numbers again of personnel?

Mr. Schubert. I think we have provided for—and 1 will supply 

this for the record—but, as 1 recall a budget briefing last week, I 

think—well, I know we have provided for doubling of the enforcement 

force.

Mr. Eilberg. All right.

Mr. Schubert. And I think the total is somewhere in the vicinity 

of a couple of dozen people.
116

Mr. Eilberg. All right, my question actually, though, was how 

much money was recommended?

Mr. Schubert. We will submit tha t for the record.

[The material referred to follows:]

Th e D ep ar tm en t’s F Y 1976 b ud ge t submission included a request for a n ad di ­

tio na l $513,000 for th e enforce me nt of th e Fa rm La bo r Con trac to r Act. We 

an tici pa te th at th e new position s thus created will pe rm it us to double our 

com pli ance efforts in FY 1976.

Mr. Eilberg. Well, I am just a little surprised that you don’t 

have that information. And as far as 1 know, the figure for the next 

year is $500,000.

Mr. Schubert. That may very well be.

Mr. Eilberg. And that raised the question in my mind, when that 

figure came to my attention, Mr. Schubert, whether this is adequate 

to carry out such important legislation?

Mr. Schubert. We believe tha t we can make a significant incursion 

into the problem as we perceive the problem. Indeed, the penalties 

provided in that act are very significant.

Very candidly, they will serve as a real deterrent, it seems to me, 

for future farm labor contract activities generally. We believe tha t 

we have enough of a handle on where and how they operate through 

our employment service offices also.

And you will note, of course, that we have 2,040 or so employment 

service officers around the country tha t are a part of the Federal-State 

network and they are dealing with them and are specialists in this 

area, and we believe tha t we can make a significant dent into the 

problem of the farm labor con tractor area.

Now, that does not prevent employers from going underground per 

se, in some fashion, to evade the responsibilities of th at law.

Mr. Eilberg. So, essentially what you are saying is that with a 

couple of dozen men to enforce this law, and the psychological impact 

of the law, that this ought to be sufficient to meet the problem?

Mr. Schubert. Plus the network, again, of 2,040 employment service officers around the country who are geared into the enforcement 

effort.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Schubert, during prior hearings on this subject 

in other Congresses, we received testimony from various agricultural 

groups and farmers claiming tha t they are unable to locate American 

workers to harvest their crops.

Is it true that this is a definite problem, especially in the Southwestern United States? And if so, if the labor-certification provisions 

are properly implemented for temporary H-2 workers, shouldn’t that 

take care of the problem?

Mr. Schubert. We believe tha t the problem in some cases has been 

exaggerated, Mr. Chairman. We believe that the procedures tha t are 

set forth in the law and delegated by the Attorney General to the 

Department of Labor can be administered in such a fashion as to 

provide maximum employment opportunities for domestic workers 

initially and as vacancies remain, not filled by domestic workers, 

Mr. Chairman, can then be afforded to legal aliens brought into the 

country for our agricultural needs. And we have been involved in a 

campaign to modernize and expedite the procedures tha t are utilized.
117

We do not perceive this to be any reason for not acting on this 

illegal alien bill. Dave Williams, who I indicated earlier, is deeply 

involved in the employment service, I am sure can give you further 

specifics, if you would like to move in that direction.

Mr. Eilberg. 1 would like to ask you further what you meant when 

you said tha t the problem was “exaggerated” ? I did not understand 

you when you used tha t word.

Mr. Schubert. Yes, well what we have perceived on occasion is 

tha t certain groups of employers made what we perceived to be 

unwarranted allegations about the unavailability of legal resident 

workers before they had properly utilized the procedures tha t were 

available under the employment service regulations. And we have been 

waging a campaign to work with them cooperatively so that they 

utilize the procedures.

After all, our responsibility is to assure that vacancies be afforded 

to domestic workers first and then, as the need continues unmet, to 

make them available for legal aliens. We are absolutely intent on 

doing that.

Very candidly, some of the growers would prefer we avoided tha t 

first step, but tha t is part of our constraints.

Mr. Eilberg. 1 wonder for the benefit of the subcommittee, would 

you please define “labor certification” which is what we are talking 

about now.

Mr. Schubert. I think tha t labor certification is used in a number 

of ways and I would like to ask the Deputy Solicitor to address 

himself to that, both with regard to immigrants and also now to 

nonimmigrants.

Mr. Albert. The Department of Labor’s basic responsibility in 

the labor certification area arises from two provisions of the law. 

Certainly, I won’t presume to advise this committee about the difference between immigrants and nonimmigrants, but the two are: 

With respect to immigrant workers, section 212(a)(14) of the law, 

Mr. Chairman, keeps the door closed to admission to the United 

States until the Secretary of Labor has determined and certified to 

the Secretary of State and to the Attorney General th at for the particular employment for which the alien seeks admission there are 

insufficient American workers who are able, willing, and qualified to 

do that job; and that the admission of tha t alien will not adversely 

affect the wages and working conditions of American workers similarly 

employed. Tha t is the first.

With respect to nonimmigrants who come only for temporary 

periods, there is a provision in the Immigration Act, section 214(c), 

which says the Attorney General decides when a nonimmigrant comes 

in and under what conditions, after consultation with the appropriate 

agencies of the Government.

It lias been, ever since the 1952 Immigration Act, the judgment 

of the Attorney General tha t the Labor Departm ent is the appropriate 

agency of the Government to consult with respect to the same type 

of criteria that are provided for the administration of immigrants, 

with respect to the admission of skilled and unskilled nonimmigrants, 

namely, that there are no American workers available and tha t the 

admission of those nonimmigrants for tha t particular employment 

would not adversely affect the wages and the working conditions of 

the American worker similarly employed.
118

Mr. Eilberg. For the enlightenment of the committee also, would 

you tell us the extent to which you work with labor union organizations in determining the availability of American workers?

Mr. Albert. As the Under Secretary just indicated, the process 

by which this determination of availability of workers is accomplished 

is through the utilization of the Federal-State Employment Service 

system. These 2,040 offices, on the basis of the labor market information—the job applications on file in the local offices—make the 

determination as to whether American workers, for the particular 

job for which tha t alien is coming in, are available, qualified, and •

willing to go to wherever that job is being offered.

In making tha t determination, the instructions of the Department 

to the State Employment Security Agencies are to consult with the 

labor unions because they are, of course, also a source of supply of *

labor.

Mr. Eilberg. I have heard many complaints about the administration of the labor certification program. Many have to do with the 

uneven enforcement of labor certification in different parts of the 

country.

The program has been attacked by many who maintain tha t the 

entire program is ineffective and inefficient and should be eliminated.

What are your reactions to those statements?

Mr. Schubert. Do you want to answer?

Mr. Albert. Mr. Chairman, my personal view is, first of all, I think 

it puts the Department of L abor in a rather anomalous position to 

stand there with its finger in the dyke trying to stop the administration, or rather control the admission of some 40,000 aliens who come 

to the United States for employment, and are subject to the 212(a) 14 

labor certification, while right beside them the flood-gates are open 

to a tremendous number of immigrants coming into the country as 

relatives, about 300,000 or more every year.

Second, there are some other features about the labor certification 

process which makes it a ra ther moot process. As you know, admission 

to the United States on the day you arrive and are legally admitted, 

makes you free to accept any and all employment just like any other 

person in this country. The Labor Department engages in the process 

in which we try to determine, for tha t particular job to which the «

alien is destined, whether or n ot there is an American available, but 

the day after tha t alien arrives, he is free to go wherever he wants to 

and take whatever job he wants to.

Third, in the process of making this labor certification—there is a •

tremendous gap between the time the Labor Department tests the 

job market and the actual admission of that alien. It may take up to 

roughly 2 years or more in many instances, because of the long waiting 

period involved in getting visa numbers, so tha t you are testing the 

American job market today, and then 2 years from nowr

 tha t alien 

arrives when that determination may be completely unrealistic.

There are other reasons. It is not a simple process. There has been 

a growing concern in the courtrooms about the applicability of the 

Administrative Procedures Act, due process requirements, and hearing 

requirements. How much of a burden is there upon the Department 

of Labor to produce a worker as opposed to the employer’s obligation 

to find one himself; when the Labor Department finds that the general 

labor market information available to the Department suggests that
119

with a little recruitment effort on his own, the employer might find 

an American worker? There is a sharp division in the circuit courts at this time on this question, 1 suspect shortly the question will go to the Supreme Court. In short, it is my own feeling that much of the energy and expense and agony tha t the Departm ent goes through is futile and a waste of 

effort in this entire area.

Mr. Schubert. Mr. Chairman, if I might add something to that? Th at is a view I also share and institutionally we would support, but as a practical matter, this area is fraught with sufficient con­ troversy tha t if it were opened up at this juncture, it would preclude moving on the illegal portion of the problem, and 1 think that would 

he highly undesirable.

Mr. Eilberg. Why does tha t conclusion follow?

Mr. Schubert. Well, because we know how constitutent groups feel about this matter, and they would perhaps countenance a change in labor certification if the entire immigration concept, including the commuter business, were opened up and were all addressed in one fell swoop. Apart from tha t, our best sense and jud gment is tha t the illegal issue is the only one that can move expeditiously through the 

legislature. We think it is incumbent to move on that one.

Mr. Eilberg. We propose to do so, if we can, but you know tha t the General Accounting Office is preparing a repo rt on the labor certification program for this subcommittee and that should be coming out very shortly. As a matter of fact, you probably have some 

of the tentative conclusions now. How do you react to that study, or have you seen the study?

Mr. Schubert. I think that Dave has had some discussions with the GAO personnel. Dave, do you want to comment on that?

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, we have had an op­ portunity to review the draft report of the General Accounting Office and we can indicate certain recommendations that are made and our State, local, and regional employment service offices to consider the willingness of the resident workers to accept jobs when making determinations. The Dep artm ent in the past, and in reviewing the reaction to this, has indicated when a resident worker is registered for employment with a public or private employment agency, college or association or similar organization, tha t we must presume tha t the person is interested in seeking work in the occupation and it is reason­ able to assume, unless proven otherwise, t ha t he is willing to take the job that offers the prevailing wage and working conditions. When the employer seeking an alien adequately demonstrates tha t he actively and objectively recruited at the normal sources w ithout success, the Department of Labor does usually g rant approval. The high 65- to 70-percent approval rate would indicate this. We feel tha t we should, as the regulations are presently adminis­ tered, continue with this te st and administer it in the manner in which 

we are administering i t now.

Mr. Eilberg. Excuse me, I thought tha t you said that the “willingness” requirement was being ignored by the Department. I 

thou ght tha t that was your statement?

Mr. Williams. No, that is not what I said, Mr. Chairman. I said that the issue of willingness was raised by the General Accounting Office in their report and in our response to their draft report we
120

commented that at present registration occurs either through the 

Employment Security Office, private agencies, or other associations, 

to which the courts and our own procedures have directed us to look 

for qualified personnel and tha t we presume tha t if a person has 

registered and indicated an intent to seek employment, that he is 

willing to take the job.

We do test that, and when we find that an employer cannot find 

a worker, then we do approve an application if a qualified worker is 

not available.

Mr. E ilberg. So, you deny tha t the Department of Labor is 

ignoring the “willingness” requirement?

Mr. Williams. Oil, 1 think as we now proceed, if we are looking 

at the issue of willingness, but in the context to which I referred 

earlier.

Mr. Eilberg. Does the Department support revisions to the labor 

certification provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act?

Mr. Schubert. Again, Mr. Chairman, I think we perceive this to 

be an area that is deserving of a careful scrutiny. It just does not make 

a great deal of sense, given the nature of the certification process in 

view of the overall total problem, it doesn’t make a lot of sense but 

we don’t think tha t this is the time and in the context of this bill, 

very candidly.

M r. E ilberg. Mr. Schubert, I don’t like to be at all impatient 

with you or with anyone, for tha t matter, but 1 have served on the 

subcommittee for 6 years and tha t statement was made 6 years ago 

and 5 years ago and 4 years ago, and ju st about every time the Labor 

Department lias sa t before the subcommittee.

1 am just wondering when will be the right time, because I have 

been hearing it every year that I have served on the subcommittee.

Are you saying tha t the right time will be after we have taken action 

on the illegal alien bill? Is that what you are saying?

Mr. Schubert. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eilberg. Are you working on legislative proposals now?

Mr. Schubert. We have had in process a number of legislative 

proposals that we are prepared to move with expeditiously, including 

this one.

Mr. E ilberg. Will you show us the courtesy of keeping in touch 

with us?

Mr. Schubert. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eilberg. Keeping in touch as tha t progresses, so that-----

Mr. Schubert. We certainly shall.

Mr. E ilberg [continuing]. So that we can give it the most effective 

attention because this certainly is one of the most important subjects in 

immigration lawr as far as this member is concerned.

Mr. Schubert. All right. We won’t necessarily make every one 

happy with our basic conclusion tha t it doesn’t make any sense to 

have the certification process, but we will be delighted to work with 

your staff on tha t basis.

Mr. Eilberg. All right. I have taken too long now.

Mr. Cohen?

Mr. Cohex. Than k you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me echo your concern, Mr. Chairman, about the labor certification program. This is something tha t occurs quite frequently in Maine, 

as you are aware, with the apple pickers. The growers, trying to get 

labor from Canada, are often being held up at the last moment, and
121

then granted a few more laborers and as a result, the applegrowers are losing crops quite frequently because of the early fall we have and the 

frost. So that does apply to our State. I notice in your statem ent you say tha t the proposed legislation sort of compliments the Farm Labor Contract Registration Act of 1974, the Amendments of 1974, tha t is, and 1 noticed then on page 10 of that report tha t the Department of Labor has the discretion to for­ mulate or promulgate regulations as far as the enforcement of these provisions upon the employers, you know, the farm contractors. What regulations have you proposed or promulgated?

Mr. Albert. We have not promulgated any in terms of publication. We are about to p ut out for proposed rulemaking a set of regulations.

Mr. Cohen. What would tha t entail?

Mr. Albert. In connection—well, in the context in which you raised 

the question, on page 10 of the Senate report that accompanied the 

Farm Labor Contracto r Registration Act it states:

It is the intention of the comm ittee th at all contractors must evidence affirma­ tive showing by m aking a bona fide inquiry of whethe r a prospective employee is a U.S. citizen, a lawfully admitted permanen t resident, or a nonimmigrant authorized to work in the United States.

Our regulations would carry out tha t directive from the Congress.

Mr. Cohen. The problem tha t 1 have is regarding what sort of action should an employer take. For example, there are several States now that allow voting registration by postcard. This is a matter, you know, tha t we debated in Congress but did not pass, hut several States, it is my understanding, do proceed on t ha t basis on their own 

now. It seems to me if one is certified to vote and if he can do so by post­ card registration, and he is on the voting list of a community or State, that would imply, at least, tha t th at person is a citizen entitled to vote, would it not? Would that be sufficient for an employer to rely upon 

the voting rolls of the community?

Mr. Albert. Well, we hadn’t really entertained the voting card 

as one of the documents. Roughly what we had in mind is that if you can show a b irth certificate tha t you were born in the United States, 

then that, of course, ends the matter. Secondly, if you can show a citizen paper, then that, of course, ends the matter. If you can’t show that, there are other documents issued by the Immigration Service. The 1—151 Form, for instance, which snows you have been legally admitted to the United States, the Alien Registration form, and perhaps the social security card, to the extent it has been issued after 1972 when th at obligation went into effect.

Mr. Cohen. Has the Department of Labor acted in concert with 

the Social Security Administration in terms of this requirement now?

Mr. Albert. With respect to this requirement, yes, we are cer­ tainly going to coordinate our efforts with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. I just now, last week, spoke to the General Counsel’s Office in HEW , and they have fundamentally the same step process th at 1 just outlined for the issuance of the social security 

card.

Mr. Cohen. Do you really think tha t you arc going to come to 

grips with the problem by just asking the employer to say if this man wants to come to work, he has to show you a birth certificate? I noticed in your stateme nt tha t you endorsed the principle tha t w’e 

should not adopt any kind of legislation which wrould in any way
122

be applied in a discriminatory fashion, and therefore the only conclusion is that all people who seek work, whether they be white, black, 

brown, whatever color, that they all have to carry a birtli certificate 

or some means of identification, is th at not correct?

So that, in other words, every one who is hired in the future will 

now have to present that birth certificate or other means of identification before they can be hired, otherwise we would have that 

problem of discriminating on the basis of race, or creed, or color, or 

speech, or accent, or whatever. So, we have to move to tha t level 

then. «

The problem I have is t hat with respect to most birth certificates 

like th at of my own, you see, the employer has no way of identifying 

the authenticity of such a certificate tha t one can carry in a wallet.

It seems to me tha t those people engaged in smuggling aliens into »

this country, that—well, th at it would not be terribly taxing to their 

imaginations or abilities to devise a system of forging documents like 

that as well, which then leads you to the conclusion tha t you can’t 

rely upon local certificates. You may have to have a national 

certificate.

I think then, Mr. Chairman, we get into the problems of having 

one national identification card and all of the other problems implicit 

in that concept. So, I am just wondering about it.

It is important tha t we move ahead expeditiously, but I don’t 

support movement without any real achievable goal.

Mr. Schubert. Mr. Congressman, this is a slippery slope in the 

sense tha t you can go down as far as you want to go toward tha t 

ultimate result and say this is an appropriate line to draw and beyond 

it is inappropriate. I don’t think there, is anything repugnant about 

asking an employer to take affirmative action to determine whether 

an employee—particularly a new employee—has a right to a job in 

terms of a job in terms of lawful admission to the United States.

I can also share your concern about the extension of this principle 

to perhaps a logical or illogical extreme, but I think that this problem 

is serious enough that it warrants taking some relatively extraordinary 

actions to deal with it, frankly.

Mr. Cohen. And you think tha t the production of a birtli certificate might be sufficient? w Mr. Schubert. I think it is better than asking for a signed statement of affirmation; yes.

Mr. Cohen. One other question, if I might. This morning we heard 

testimony to the effect th at many of the jobs that are now being taken «

by the aliens are actually in the upper income levels and not at all 

the low backbreaking and low-paying-type jobs.

Do your statistics confirm tha t?

Mr. Schubert. Unfortunately, we don’t have any statistical 

measure. This is a terribly frustrating admission. It is not part of 

BLS’s mandated plan, for which it has budgeted funds, to make 

those kinds of determinations. What we do have, however, is a 

growing—and I realize this is less than sufficient—but growing 

anecdotal evidence, particularly with regard to the building trades, 

and the incursion of illegal aliens into a number of building sites, not 

only in the Southwest, but into the West.

Mr. Cohen. Part of the difficulty we have is tha t your Department, 

and Justice, now come forward and recommend we go the way of 

imposing very high civil fines or penalties because so much money
123

is being accumulated in savings accounts. Part of the problem we 

have there, it seems to me, is tha t it is important to document the 

instances and actual facts, as opposed to anecdotal reports tha t 

someone has $10,000 in a savings account and therefore we can a ttach 

that in a civil process and eliminate going through the criminal 

process.

So I think it is impo rtant we have tha t before us.

Mr. Schubert. Well, the only way tha t I can conceive tha t that 

could be done under the circumstances is to run some kind of a 

sample study with regard to people who have been apprehended and 

the holdings they had and make some kind of a projection beyond 

that. And I don’t know whether you made such a request of Justice 

or not, and, of course, tha t is within the confines of the Immigration 

Service and not our statistical gathering devices, but beyond that, 

and as a practical matter, Congressman, if we had better information, 

we would have more apprehensions.

Mr. Eilberg. Will the gentleman yield at this point?

Mr. Cohen. Yes.

Mr. Eilberg. For the benefit of the gentleman, last week I saw a 

breakdown prepared by the Immigration and Naturalization Service 

which identifies the various parts of the country and indicates the 

estimated number of illegal aliens who are employed, and it comes to 

the figure of 1 million. Perhaps we should have gone into tha t with 

Commissioner Chapman this morning.

If such information is available, and I don’t know whether or not 

the staff has it here, but I am going to ask the staff to obtain it and 

make it a part of the record at this point.

[The information referred to follows:]

INS ESTIMATE OF JOBS WHICH COULD BE CREATED BY ENACTING H.R. 982 AND 

IMPROVING ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS

Location Agriculture

Heavy

industry

Light

industry Service Total

Northeast region.............. . ......... . .......... 1,000 35,000 58,000 72,000 166,000

Boston, Mass_____________ 2,000 2,000 2,500 6. 500

Hartford, Conn____________ 750 1,250 3,000 5, 000

Newark, N J ______________ 5,000 14, 000 6, 000 25, 000

New York, N.Y....... . ......... . 24,000 32,000 50, 000 106,000

Other........................................ 1,000 3,250 8,750 10, 500 23, 500

Southeast region_____ _________ _____ 30,000 15,000 26,000 49, 000 120,000

Miami, Fla______ _________ _____ 13,000 6,000 12,000 21,000 52, 000

San Juan, P.R_____ _______ 1,500 3, 500 8, 000 13,000

Philadelphia, Pa.......... ......... 2,000 3,000 4, 000 9,000

Washington, D.C.......... ........... 2,500 3, 000 6, 000 11,500

Other....................................... 17,000 3, 000 4,500 10,000 34, 500

Northwest region____ _________ .......... 56,000 25,000 30,000 45, 000 156,000

Chicago, III........................... .. _____ 8,500 19,000 21,000 31, 000 79, 500

Detroit, Mich................ ........... . . . 4,200 2,500 4,000 9,000 19,700

Kansas City, Mo___________ _____ 2,000 1,500 1,500 2,000 7,000

Helena, Mont______ _______ . . . . 9,500 ... 500 1,000 11,000

Havre, M ont______________ _____ 15,000 ... 15,000

Other............ ............................ .......... 16,800 2,000 3,000 2,0 00 23,800

Southwest region............................. .......... 248,000 75,000 100,000 135,000 558,000

Denver, C o lo .. ........................ .......... 15,000 3,000 3,000 7, 000 28, 000

Livermore, Ca lif........... . ......... _____ 100,000 2,000 3,000 5, 000 110,000

Los Angeles, Calif__________ _____ 6,000 29,000 50,000 50,000 135,000

Dallas, "Tex................... ........... .......... 2,500 10,000 10,000 30,000 52, 500

San Francisco, Ca lif________ _____ 1,500 1,000 2,000 2,0 00 6,500

Border citie s._____ _______ _____ 100,000 20,000 30,000 40, 000 190, 000

Other..................... ................... .......... 23,000 10,000 2,000 1,000 36,000

U.S. to ta l.......................... .......... 335,000 150,000 206,000 309,000 1,000, 000

49 -769 0 - 75 - 9
124

Mr. Eilberg. Any further questions?

Mr. Cohen. No.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Sarbanes?

Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. Schubert, I notice t hat at the bottom of page 2, 

you are very careful not to get into this numbers’ game, and you 

sta rt out your paragraph by saying, “Irrespective of the precise 

number of the illegal aliens in our country.” And then you argue th at 

the problem is substantial.

I just wondered whether that represented a very conscious decision 

on your part tha t these various figures being bandied about with 

respect to the dimensions of this problem are, in effect, so devoid of a 

rational statistical basis that you just are unwilling to make any use of 

them whatsoever?

Mr. Schubert. Mr. Congressman, as you well know from some 

discussions we had on other subjects, those figures tha t we stand 

behind, we have some problems with on occasion.

And with regard to this area, we really are frustrated very seriously 

about how to get a handle on it. I t is INS’s primary responsibility.

We have been observant of the fact tha t the figures seem to vary a 

bit and we really don’t have any good handle on it, and so we did purposely avoid the subject.

Mr. Sarbanes. Now, I am a little interested in what the nature of 

the working relationship if any, is, between you and INS with respect 

to the problem of illegal aliens?

Mr. Schubert. Dave, do you want to address that?

Mr. Williams. Congressman, I would say this, that we meet 

quite frequently both here and on a regional level where our regional 

offices are located to discuss problems in terms of certification and to 

discuss other problems that come up. So, I think, both here at the 

national level and at the regional level, there are fairly frequent 

discussions.

In many cases, the offices are located within the same building, 

so there is discussion of the problems of common interest in terms of 

certification activity.

Mr. Sarbanes. Would you say because of your concerns, tha t in 

some areas you have as good an understanding of the nature of the 

problem as INS may have?

Mr. Williams. Well, I think certainly in the area of enforcement 

or compliance, tha t their knowledge is superior to ours. I do think 

in areas where the issue of certification comes forward, we can be of 

help and properly are in terms of the advisory role tha t we are to 

maintain.

But, I think in regard to enforcement or compliance—tha t kind of 

activity—clearly they have a role to play and they have the expertise 

in that area.

Mr. Sarbanes. I would like to take up the point tha t Mr. Cohen 

raised about the proposal to carry the bill even further with regard to 

the screening process.

I take it tha t your proposal is th at the screening should be univeral 

with respect to any employee seeking a job—is t hat correct?

Mr. Schubert. Yes; i t seems to me tha t you could make a break, 

though, on a couple of levels. You could require a screen on the part 

of employers of all existing employees. That might be viewed, though,
125

to be unduly burdensome under all the circumstances, bu t it seems to 

us a more appropriate balancing of interests would be at the new 

employment status.

And necessarily, in order to avoid singling out a particular group 

in terms of ethnic or racial background, necessarily it would have to 

be clearly applied across the board.

Mr. Sarbanes. Now, that is a position, of course, tha t was advocated this morning by the Department of Justice, and I wondered 

whether there was a joint determination of th at position on the part 

of the two Departments or whether you had arrived at your position 

separately and independently from them, and without consultation?

Mr. Schubert. We have had consultation with them, Congressman, about this problem prior to preparation for this hearing, and in 

preparation for this hearing. We have also done our homework with 

regard to touching base and getting reactions from constituent bodies 

and our sense was that this was a proper place to draw the line and 

balance it.

Mr. Sarbanes. Is the secretary a member of the Domestic Council 

Committee on Illegal Aliens? Who represents the Labor Department 

on t ha t council?

Mr. Schubert. The secretary is a member of the committee, and 

the deputy solicitor, who I have with me, is the working member on 

that group.

Mr. Sarbanes. Well, I would be interested in what, if anything, 

tha t committee has done to date with respect to this matter.

Mr. Albert. I believe, as the Attorney General mentioned this 

morning, they have just scheduled their first meeting, and I believe 

it is this Friday. They have not met yet prior to this.

Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Dodd.

Mr. Dodd. Mr. Chairman, I just have a few questions and many 

of them have been answered. I was going to raise some questions 

particularly with regard to the numbers’ game.

I just wanted to go back and I would like—in addition to the 

material tha t you want to have—I would like to know whether or 

not the Labor Department has done any studies at all to identify 

job classifications where illegal aliens have been apprehended and 

are employed?

Mr. Schubert. Not to the best of my knowledge. I will check, Mr. 

Congressman, for insertion into the record, to see whether any of 

the R. & D. efforts in the Manpower Administration may have focused 

on this, but not to the best of my knowledge.

[The following statement was submitted:]

The Labor Dep artm ent does no t maintain statistics on the wage levels and 

occupations of jobs held by illegal aliens, a task which would, by definition, 

be nearly impossible. The Department, however, has funded a research project 

to secure inform ation on this subject. The Manpower Adm inistration has retain ed 

Linton, Mields & Coston, Inc., to study the imp act of illegal aliens on the nation ’s 

labor markets. In the course of the stud y, Immigration and Naturalization 

Service apprehension records, which have been carrying subs tantial labor market 

information since the first of the year, will be tab ula ted to secure inform ation 

on the wages earned by the illegal, the occup ation and employer involved, and 

the dur ation of the illegal’s stay in the country. Additional da ta on these subjects 

will be secured by searching Social Security earnings tax records (on a group basis) 

and by interviews with a cross-section of the apprehen ded illegals. In addition 

the firm will secure labor m ark et information on a small group of non-apprehended 

illegals.
126

Mr. Dodd. And I would also, of course, be interested in pay scales 

within those job classifications where apprehensions have occurred, 

and also labor markets, because the State laws have been changed, 

and California, I think, in particular, has a pretty stiff State lavv. 

There has been a migration of illegal aliens that did reside in California 

to other parts of the country, and I wonder whether or not the Labor 

Department is actively following these patterns which may occur 

throughout the country in order to identify those parts of the country 

which are more seriously affected than others with the illegal alien 

problem?

Mr. Schubert. This we would normally view to be the function 

of INS, but to the extent that some of our research efforts may have 

highlighted some of this data, we will submit it for the record.

[The following statement was submitted:!

It is our understanding th at the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration 

has reta ined a consulting firm which is designing a study for the Justice De partment which will establish sound methodologies for estimating the numbers of 

illegal aliens, their characteristics, their movements, and their location in the 

United States. Although this study has not yet been made, it is th e Depar tment’s 

und erstanding that illegal aliens are not simply a problem in the Southwest, 

bu t illegals are now active in a num ber of labor markets in other par ts of the 

nation, specifically in the Middle West and the Northeast. The Dep artm ent of 

Labor looks forward to the completion of this basic Justice Depar tment stud y, 

which will complement the Labor Depar tment’s ongoing stu dy of the role of 

illegals in the labor market.

Mr. Dodd. The only other question tha t I have for you is, was it 

not in your statement tha t there have been suggestions made which 

would include in a bill penalties not only for the employer but for the 

employee? Do you have any feelings about the employee, I mean the 

illegal alien, do you have any feelings on tha t at all as to whether or 

not the illegal alien itself should suffer any penalties at all under this 

law?

Mr. Schubert. As a practical matter, incarceration doesn’t seem 

to be a practical answer. There is a good question posed, it seems to 

us, with regard to confiscation of property, as occurs with regard to 

certain violations under the drug law.

There is also a very legitimate question posed about denial of access 

to benefit programs. Our philosophic view is tha t there is nothing 

whatsoever repugnant about either confiscation or denial of benefits. 

We would preier to have a stronger rather than a weaker bill, and t hat 

is our view, based on discussions with organized labor as well as 

unorganized segments of labor.

Our only concern is that we not get bogged down in debating what 

additionally is to be done, because we need a bill.

Mr. Cohen. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Dodd. Yes.

Mr. Cohen. Do I understand the D epartme nt’s position to be tha t 

you support the notion that if a person drove his car across a line 

into this country, tha t you would endorse the seizure of the automobile 

as a part of the penalty to be imposed?

Mr. S chubert. Yes, sir.

Mr. Cohen. Do you think that is not incompatible with notions of 

due process under the law?

Mr. Schubert. I do not. I think it is defensible constitutionally, 

and I can see-----
127

Mr. Cohen. Do you think it is similar to contraband drugs?

Mr. Schubert, fardon ?

Mr. Cohen. Do you think it is similar to transporting contraband 

drugs?

Mr. Schubert. Well, one could make an argument tha t it was an 

instrument for carrying out illegal activity. But if this is necessary to 

slow down the flow and return jobs to Americans and legal aliens, I 

have no problem with it.

Mr. Cohen. You are recommending we do it through an administrative process, but not the judicial?

Mr. Schubert. Well, certainly with judicial review available.

Mr. Cohen. That is all.

Mr. Dodd. In conjunction with that, you said, if I am paraphrasing 

your remarks correctly, that you would support any strengthening of 

this act which would, of course, improve the situation.

May I fairly assume then that you would prefer to see say step 1 

or 2 in fact removed from the bill—and I think the first step is included on page 4 here, where it would be just a notification to the 

employer, whereas step 2 is a lesser fine and step 3 being the stiffest 

fine—and would you like to see us eliminate those first two steps and 

go right at them?"

Mr. Schubert. I am not sure tha t we are prepared, without some 

very careful consideration and discussion of what can administratively be handled, to subscribe to that, but we are very prepared to 

make and to subscribe to the notion of stiffer penalties moving down 

the ladder that you describe with regard to the imposition of civil 

and criminal penalties, and we don’t see anything prohibitive about 

such a modification.

Again, we are concerned, however, t hat we not make it so unpalatable that the bill will not move.

Mr. Dodd. Fine. Thank you. I am sorry tha t I took so much time.

Mr. E ilberg. Mr. Russo.

Mr. Russo. Just a few questions, Mr. Chairman.

Is there any system that is set up in the Department of Labor in 

which you can track down the illegal aliens in the labor force today? 

Is there some system setup?

Mr. Schubert. No; there is not, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. Russo. OK. You indicated on page 5 of your statement tha t 

you would favor some clear requirements in the law which would preclude the application on any discriminatory basis.

Do you have suggestions at this time?

Mr. Schubert. Well, the only specific portion tha t I was alluding 

to is the notion that once we move down this track, you have to do it 

on an across-the-board nature. Tha t doesn’t mean that you have to 

necessarily apply it to everyone on a payroll as of a particular date, 

but you must apply it on a color, ethnic background and speech basis 

to all employees, for example, regardless of the color of their skin or the 

area of the country in which the facility is located.

Mr. Russo. One other question. One question on the labor certification that you referred to earlier where you indicated tha t after the 

alien is certified for a specific job, tha t he comes into the country and 

chances are he leaves that job in a short period of time.
128

Do you have any setup where you follow that alien to see where he 

has gone, and is there any procedure tha t you use to find out what he is 

doing after he leaves this job for which he is certified?

Mr. Albert. Well, there is no standard operating procedure under 

which we do that. We have really no autho rity to do that.

There was a study made several years ago by a gentleman by the 

name of Dave North, I think, and it was called the North study. As I 

recall it, he found tha t 57 percent of the aliens adm itted as immigrants 

changed their occupations within 2 years or less after being admitted.

But, our function under the Immigration Act is over, once we have 

made tha t labor certification. The alien then, once we have done th at, 

becomes a part of the American population, and we have no authority 

or power to follow him in any real fashion.

[The following additional information was subm itted :]

Regarding the post-arrival labor ma rke t behavior of labor certification beneficiaries, the Department has evidence, based upon a research study, th at most 

of them (about 57%) change occupations—no t just jobs bu t occupations—within 

two years of th eir arrival. The study was based upon a review of visa applications 

of 5,000 members of the 1970 cohort of immigrants, as well as the alien address 

cards filed by these same immigrants in January 1972. A num ber of these immigrants, w'hile stay ing within their original occupation, moved across coun ty 

lines between 1970 and 1972, suggesting again, an extensive movement away 

from the jobs for which they had been certified. Of a total of 1,119 labor certification beneficiaries studied, only 313 were in the same occup ation and the same 

county in 1972 as they had been in 1970; man y of these 313 undoubtedly changed 

jobs, bu t stayed within the same occup ation. Another stud y, of labor certified 

domestics in New York State, indicated rapid movement away from the jobs to 

which the beneficiaries had been certified. Some of these alien household workers 

did not even report to their prospective employer after arriv al in the U.S.

Mr. Eilberg. May I interrupt?

Mr. Russo. Yes.

Mr. E ilberg. Mr. Russo makes somewhat of a valid criticism. Can 

we gentlemen agree—that is, can you agree tha t this is an area where 

the law should be changed so tha t you would have some control over 

the certified alien?

Mr. Albert. Mr. Chairman, I think the Canadian law does so 

provide tha t when an immigrant comes to Canada for permanent 

residence, tha t in effect his admission is conditional for a 2-year period 

and he has to remain in the particular type of employment for which 

he is admitted. It is my view, however, tha t under our Constitution, 

I don’t think we could defend tha t unless we changed the character 

of th at admission to a temporary admission.

The nonimmigrants clearly can be brought into the country, and 

their stay conditioned upon remaining in the specific employment for 

which they were admitted, but I have some doubt about our capacity 

to do tha t under the Constitution with respect to an immigrant 

admission.

Mr. E ilberg. So you are saying that i t is probably unconstitutional 

to follow that certified alien, even though he leaves the job that he 

was certified to do, is that your conclusion?

Mr. Albert. Well, there are some court decisions that say tha t 

once an alien is admitted as an immigrant, tha t he is free to partake 

of all the benefits of our Constitution, with some very limited exceptions, which are still being adjudicated, including the right to employment and citizenship and so on.
129

But, it is my view tha t if you characterized his admission as a 

nonimmigrant, a temporary one, and after the 2-year period then 

confirmed him to an immigrant one, I think tha t would be defensible.

Mr. Eilberg. And would you confirm the system you just alluded 

to?

Mr. Albert. I think that is one of the alternatives.

Mr. Schubert. The only question I have is is whether it is bette r 

to get rid of the process because the administrative burdens that 

would be imposed on top of the initial labor certification process 

would be found to be unduly burdensome, given the benefit—in 

terms of just cost/benefit analysis, given the benefits that are provided 

for the Government and for the society.

It seems to us—it seems to me, and speaking for the Department, 

tha t we ought to consider this very carefully before we add another 

burden onto this process. More appropriately, we ought to consider 

doing away with the certification process and limit our immigration 

to numbers tha t are passed by the Congress.

Mr. Eilberg. Th at is a very bold statement, Mr. Schubert, and I 

never thought I would hear an official of the Labor Dep artm ent 

say that.

Mr. Schubert. I was very careful at the outset to indicate this is 

precisely the reason we suggest we not get into this, because there 

will never be agreement among constituen t groups, but having to 

live with that which Congress passes, I have to be very candid.

Mr. Eilberg. Thank you for your candor. Mr. Russo.

Mr. Russo. No further questions.

Mr. E ilberg. I have a few other questions about labor certification.

My understanding is that a large percentage of aliens seeking alien 

certification are already employed in the United States when certification is requested. Do you consider this to be a real problem? Are 

there any actions that can be taken to prevent this situation from 

occurring?

Mr. Albert. Mr. Chairman, I think tha t arises by virtue of the 

provision and one of the features of your bill, which would legalize the 

conversion of statu s in the Western Hemisphere from the nonimmigran t status to the im migrant status. I don’t see legally, a t least, that 

tha t presents any problem, tha t is, the alien who is legitimately here 

as a nonimmigrant and who the Congress, in its wisdom, has provided 

can convert his status to tha t of an immigrant.

There are certain situations where, as a nonimmigrant, he is permitted to be employed. There are others, however, where he is not.

Of course, there is always the potential that the nonimmigrant 

admission becomes just a vehicle for serving your waiting period in the 

United States, rather than in the country of your origin while you get 

your immigrant statu s. But, as long as tha t process is in the law, we 

really have no choice but to entertain a petition for the labor certification when an alien seeks to convert to the imm igrant status.

Mr. E ilberg. Does the D epartmen t of Labor take any action when 

it denies certification to an alien who is already employed in the United 

States? Is INS notified?

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I am advised by our staff that that 

is done. There is a notice sent where we are aware of it.
130

Mr. Eilberg. Does the Department of Labor monitor to any 

extent those temporary workers who receive a labor certification 

and are admitted to the United States in order to determine whether 

they are receiving the wages indicated in the job offer accompanying 

the certification request?

Mr. Williams. To the extent, Mr. Chairman, tha t there are 

resources available, we do attempt to followup to see t hat wages and 

working conditions, tha t are indicated in the order, are adhered to.

Mr. Eilberg. You say “to the extent available” ; would you try 

to explain and expand on that, please?

Mr. Williams. I guess the best way to explain it is—as the Under 

Secretary has already explained—there are many, many procedures 

required both at the local, State and regional office and the national 

office level with regard to this activity. I think in the past there has 

probably been, to the extent possible, and to the extent tha t there 

are people available to do this, there has been followup and necessarily 

it has been confined, I believe, rather than to followup on every order, 

confined to a sampling of orders within a State or within a local area.

Mr. Eilberg. Would you say tha t 10 percent of these people were 

followed up, or can you give us any indication of how many?

Mr. Williams. I am no t aware of an exact percentage, Mr. Chairman. We will look at our information and see if we can’t furnish some 

additional information on t ha t for the record.

Mr. Eilberg. Do you check to determine individual- or groupcertified temporary workers, to check tha t they depart when their 

job is completed?

Mr. Williams. Again, Mr. Chairman, where we are able to follow 

up, we do that, b ut again it is dependent upon the resources available, 

sir.

Mr. Eilberg. Again, I think the subcommittee would like to know 

the extent of your efforts in tha t regard and would like you to supplement the record, if you will.

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.

[The following information was submitted in response to Mr. 

Eilberg’s questions:]

In regard to temporary workers in agricultural occupations, we have an established procedure designed to assure th at such workers, whether t hey are citizens, 

permanen t residents or aliens, are provided the prop er wages and working conditions. This procedure provides for monitoring th e wages and working conditions 

offered by employers who seek oth er tha n individual workers. The process sta rts 

with the order placed with the Sta te employment service for U.S. workers. Extensiv e recruitment is required offering prevailing wages and working conditions 

such as acceptable housing, transp ortation, food and other conditions of employment. The State agencies conduct housing inspections, conduct wage surveys, of 

these employers, and federal representativ es conduct post aud its to assure th at 

workers on incentive or piece work have been properly paid. Both our regional 

office and national office staff also conduct spot checks related to conditions of 

employment. These procedures apply whether the employers are requesting 

aliens or not and likewise they app ly equally to alien workers. In fact, unless the 

employer meets the criteria, workers are not referred at all.

As sta ted earlier, the num ber of people followed up will vary; however, all 

employers of aliens have been checked at one time or another. In 1974, for example, we audited payroll records of employers of foreign workers in agricultu re 

and logging as follows:

Boston Region— 1650 aliens certified; 30% of employers aud ited ; 40% of 

workers covered.

New York Region— 1800 aliens certified; 27% of employers aud ited; 35% of 

aliens covered.
131

Philadelphia Region—1400 aliens certified; 95% of employers aud ited ; 98% 

of workers covered.

Atlan ta Region—8000 aliens certified; 90% of employers audited; 96% of 

workers covered.

The amoun t of monitoring is expected to increase significantly as a result of 

the recently established Monitor-Advocate System whereby each Sta te and each 

of our regional offices are responsible for checking to see th at all employers of 

migra nt or seasonal farm workers in agricultu re are complying with all Sta te and 

Federal laws and regulations.

In addition to the agricultural workers, we processed applications for 18,100 

tem por ary non-ag workers in FY 1974 and approved 15,700. Of those, approximately 65% were monitored or under con tract and or employed in highly unionized situations where pay and working conditions are self-monitoring for all 

practical purposes. For example, 3,750 were in logging occupations which are 

handled like the agricultural work; 4510 were in the entertainm ent field; 880 as 

athlete s, most in organized spo rts; and 1100 in construction skills. The athletic 

clubs are now required to furnish post-season repo rts on the number of alien 

athlete s employed as a resu lt of temporary labor certification and other information on wages and working conditions.

Mr. Eilberg. Are there any other questions?

If not, we thank you gentlemen for appearing here today, and for 

the contribution you have made, and we look forward to a continuing 

association with you and hope tha t it will be considerably less than 

2 years before we see you again.

Mr. Schubert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We will work to tha t end.

Mr. Eilberg. This meeting is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, subject to 

the call of the Chair.]

J

ILLEGAL ALIENS

W EDN ESDA Y, F E B R U A R Y 26 , 19 75

H ous e of R e pr e se n t a t iv e s,

S ubcom m it te e on I mm ig ra ti on,

C it iz e n s h ip , and I n tern a tio n a l L aw

of th e C om m it te e on th e J u d ic ia r y,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m. in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joshua Eilberg [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding.

Present : Representatives Eilberg, Sarbanes, Fish, and Cohen.

Also present: Garner J. Cline and Arthur P. Endres, Jr., counsels; 

Janice A. Zarro, assistant counsel; and Alexander B. Cook, associate 

counsel.

Mr. E il b e r g . The subcommittee will come to order.

During today’s hearing, we will continue our consideration of 

legislation to combat the serious illegal alien problem in the United 

States. This hearing has been called in order to accommodate those 

Members of Congress who have expressed a desire to personally 

appear before the subcommittee to comment on the illegal alien 

situation. We certainly look forward to hearing from our colleagues 

on this important matter and anxiously await their remarks on the 

illegal alien legislation, H.R. 982, which is currently being considered 

by this subcommittee, as well as other legislative suggestions or constructive comments they may wish to make on the overall illegal alien 

situation.

I hope tha t the Members will understand tha t Congressman 

Mario Biaggi has a subcommittee meeting at 10:30, and he has asked 

to be the leadoff witness this morning. I hope the other Members 

will be agreeable.

So I would like to introduce then our dear friend and colleague from 

New York, Congressman Mario Biaggi.

TESTIMONY OF HON. MARIO BIA GGI, A RE PR ES EN TA TIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM TH E STATE OF NE W YORK

Mr. B ia g g i. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank my 

colleagues for being so generous and accommodating to me, because 

this is my maiden voyage as a subcommittee chairman, and I do not 

think it would be very appropriate for me to be tardy.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to testify before this committee on the problem of illegal aliens. Mr. Chairman, you and the 

committee are to be commended for your diligence in pursuing this 

issue and for providing a forum for discussion of the various legislative 

proposals which have been offered, including my bill, H.R. 257.

(133)
134

America is contending with a silent invasion of 4 million to 12 

million illegal aliens. This invasion poses a dangerous thre at to the 

economic security of this Nation and her people. It must be dealt 

with forcefully and quickly.

Illegal aliens are contributing to a myriad of grave social and 

economic problems which plague the American Nation today. Perhaps 

the most serious of these is the unemployment situation. Presently, 

more than 7 million Americans are out of work with the numbers 

increasing daily. We are working feverishly to restore this Nation to 

a semblance of economic stability, but this will take time. I have a 

more immediate solution, one which could provide 1 million permanent jobs for American workers. That solution is to get the million 

illegal aliens who are now on payrolls off and out of this country. This 

can be done with the passage of my bill, H.R. 257, which I will discuss 

shortly.

Illegal aliens contribute to a serious overburdening of State and 

Federal public assistance rolls. The State of California in 1972 alone 

spent some $100 million in welfare payments for illegal aliens. In 

contrast, the entire INS budget for fiscal year 1973 was only $129 

million.

Illegal aliens drain the economic resources of this Nation in other 

ways. Many employed illegal aliens pay no taxes, send large sums of 

money back to their homeland, and contribute to an overall depression 

of American workers’ wages. These practices combined cost this 

Nation over $10 billion annually.

The problems are well known. Let us now deal with the solutions. 

There have been some 47 bills introduced in the 94th Congress on the 

subject of illegal aliens. I feel my bill, H.R. 257, offers the most 

realistic approach to solving this grave national problem.

The bill is designed to achieve a twofold objective. The first is the 

slowing of illegal alien entry into this Nation. The second is the 

imposition of stiff new penalties to eliminate the primary economic 

incentive which lures these individuals here, namely employment.

H.R . 257 adds 2,500 new personnel to the Immigration Service 

Border Patrol and investigations divisions. This will allow the INS 

to deter new illegals from entering. More importantly, the INS will 

be able to resume their apprehensions and deportations of illegal aliens 

which in the past year, due to severe budgetary restraints, have been 

virtually eliminated. Anything less than an increase of 2,500 personnel 

will be a meaningless effort.

The INS has been understaffed and funded for much of the last 15 

years. This, despite the fact tha t the number of illegal aliens seeking 

entry into the United States has increased by more than 2,000 percent 

in a like period. This discouraging trend is continuing. The administration’s fiscal year 1976 budget request for the INS calls for an 

increase of only 750 personnel. The President even sought to rescind 

$1.3 million of the moneys appropriated for the INS for this past fiscal 

year. I was pleased tha t the Congress yesterday voted down this 

request.

Despite all of their budgetary and manpower problems, the INS 

has performed admirably. In fiscal year 1974, they were able to 

apprehend some 800,000 illegal aliens, a sizable increase over past 

years. For the past 3 years, the number of deportations increased by 

71 percent.
135

The needs of the INS must be recognized by the Congress and the 

administration. They are one of our most important law enforcement units and deserved to be funded in a fashion which will allow them to control the illegal alien problem in an effective way. In my hearings in New York, INS District Commissioner Maurice Kiley flatly stated that if he were given sufficient manpower, he could free more than 100,000 jobs for workers in New York City. H.R. 982 does not provide for increased immigration service personnel despite the fact tha t if its provisions were adopted they could not be implemented without 

some increase in INS personnel. The thrust of my legislation is directed at the employers of illegal aliens across this Nation. These unscrupulous individuals are guilty of the most vile forms of exploitation and extortion imaginable. In my New York hearings, I received testimony from actual illegal aliens who related tales of horror regarding their working conditions. These included working 7-day, 84-hour weeks for wages which came out less than $1 an hour. In some cases, illegal aliens working under similar conditions were not even paid. In El Paso, Tex., it is estimated tha t there are some $250,000 in back wages owed to illegal aliens. The employment of illegal aliens often results in employers making enormous profits. Due to their greatly reduced labor costs, they are often able to bid lower on big contracts thus driving many honest contractors out of business. This point was also brought out at my hearings in New York when representatives of several major construc­ tion companies in the city pointed out tha t city, State and Federal agencies knowingly and regularly hire contractors who employ illegal aliens. Included among these agencies was the New York City Board of Education, and the U.S. Army which allowed a prime contract at West Point to be awarded to a contractor who had illegal aliens in his employ. I personally found four illegal alien painters employed by the 

board of education working in Queens, N.Y. My bill, H.R. 257, will make it an immediate Federal crime to knowingly hire illegal aliens. The first offense would result in a $500 fine and/or 6 months in jail, the second offense, a $1,000 fine and/or 1 year in jail. H.R. 982 imposes considerably weaker sanctions against employers with only a warning served on the first offense within a 2-year period if still in violation would be assessed a civil penalty of $500 per alien. No criminal penalties would be imposed until after a third offense is discovered. This is a deficient approach, for in the time before an employer would be eligible for a criminal penalty under 982, he could continue to make large profits. In addition, for the employer who only has a few illegals in his employ, he might even find it more profitable to pay the fine and continue to employ illegal aliens. There is no deterent factor in citations or even in civil penalties. If we are to put a quick end to the employment of illegal aliens, we must impose hard-hitting and immediate criminal penalties. This is 

exactly what my bill does. H.R . 257 also places the burden of proof on the employer regarding the ascertainment of an alien’s legal status prior to hiring. Under H.R . 257, an employer must sign a form indicating he has read an alien’s birth certificate or other appropriate immigration, naturaliza­ tion or other document which verifies a claim of legality. H.R. 982 again falls far short of the mark by merely providing tha t an employer either make a bona fide inquiry or obtain a signed statement from
136

the alien ind ica ting th at he is legally able to work. Th e weakness of 

thi s prov ision of H.R . 982 and the desirabilit y of this provision 

of H .R . 257 were noted in tes tim ony before this very com mittee on 

Fe br ua ry 4 by officials from the Justice and La bor De partm ents.

We cannot ignore the illegal aliens problem any longer. We cann ot 

apply weak legislation to a problem which has grow n in such sev eri ty 

in the pa st yea r. We mus t prese nt the House with the str ongest possible legislation w’hich will add ress itself to solving the problem . I 

conside r H.R . 257 to be such a bill. It is bo th tou gh and fair. Its 

strictes t prov isions are dire cted at those mo st wo rth y, the emp loyers <

of illegal aliens whose hiring of 1 million illegals has mea nt 1 

million less jobs for Am eric an citizens and lega lly ad mitt ed aliens.

Th e bill is fair to the illegal aliens for it will prev en t them from hav ing 

to end ure con tinued degradati on and explo itation by their employers . •

It is fair to both, for it allows a 90-day grace period for employers to 

weed ou t those illegal aliens in the ir employ.

I main tai n th at my bill offers the be st solu tion. How ever, I am 

no t wedded exclusively to all of its prov isions. I feel, for exam ple, 

th at we should make efforts to avoid the bre aking up of families in 

de po rta tio n acti on. I know of several legislative proposals which contain this prov ision and I look with interest on possibly adoptin g the m 

to my bill. The point is, we need to do som eth ing and soon. We mus t 

avo id becoming embroiled in em otio nal rheto ric which can only serv e 

to obscure the real issue. The Am erican working men and women 

look with great interest on this legislation , for its passage might mean 

the difference between a job and continued unem plo ym ent. The issue 

is urge nt; a solu tion is more urg ent. I offer H.R . 257 as the solution 

and hop e for yo ur s up po rt.

Tha nk y ou.

Mr. Eilberg. Tha nk you , Con gressm an Biaggi. And ju st a few 

que stio ns if we may.

In yo ur bill you pro vid e an autho riz ati on for 2,500 add itio nal 

pers onnel. How do you arrive at the 2,500?

Mr. Biaggi. We have con sulted with officials of the Im mi grati on 

and Na turaliz ati on Service, and in the light of their pa st experience, 

as far as pers onnel incr eases are conc erned, and in the light of the 

2,000-percent increase of illegal aliens and of the even more acute w

na tu re of the problem, it w as determined th at the 2,500 would be able 

to do the j ob effectively.

Mr. E ilb erg. I won der if I could have you r rea ction to a bill which I 

ha d occasion to introduce Janu ar y 14, H .R . 1276, which would auth orize *

appro priat ion s for th e a dm inist ratio n of th e I mm igr ati on an d Naturalizatio n Service. In othe r words, an autho riz ati on bill which does no t 

specify the nu mber of em ploy ees, bu t gives us the au tho riz ation po wer 

to autho rize appro priation s, how would you reac t to that?

Mr. Biag gi. 1 think I missed the last few words.

Mr. E ilberg. Would you app rov e of the Ju diciary Co mm itte e 

havin g the power to autho rize appro priation s for the activitie s of the 

Im migr ati on and Na turaliz ation Service? You do this in effect in 

yo ur bill which says there shall be an autho riz ati on for 2,500, and I 

am say ing th at we have intro duced a bill which does no t specify the 

nu mbe r of needed employe es, bu t sim ply gives us the au tho riz ati on 

pow er to authorize.
137

Mr. Biagg i. Yes, I do.

Mr. E ilbe rg . Whatev er sum mi gh t be necessa ry.

Mr. Biagg i. Yes, I do.

Mr. E ilb er g. You do agre e with the prin ciple of th at bill?

Mr. Biagg i. Yes, I do. Fr an kly I think the Ju diciary Co mm itte e is 

closer to the problem. There would hav e to be fu rth er tes tim ony th at 

would have to be presen ted to the Ap pro pri ations Co mm itte e, bu t 

at lea st they are dealing with a fixed figure, and you and yo ur committee have had extensiv e hea ring s on this m at te r and would be in a

» be tte r pos itio n to estim ate the needs.

Mr. E ilb er g. Mr. Biaggi, yo u provide penal ties which are, indeed, 

stiffer th an we provide in H.R . 982, and I would call yo ur at tentio n 

to the circ umstance s which existed in the 93d Congress. And it was

• the feeling of the sub comm itte e then, and I migh t say th at since I 

was the cha irm an of the subcom mittee du rin g th at period, we arrive d 

at som eth ing th at the 93d Congres s would buy . In othe r word s, th at 

we would find su pp ort on the floor for such a measure, and we did 

find ad eq ua te s up po rt for it. Now, my question to you is wh eth er you 

th in k th at the mood of the 94 th Congress is much dif fer ent th an the 

93d Congress?

Mr. Biag gi. You are prob ably rig ht, and I agree wi th you as far 

as the 93d Congress is concern ed. But the economy in the last 2 yea rs 

had no t rea che d the eme rgency stat e th at we are subje cted to tod ay. 

The Americ an lab or marke t, the wor king people of Am erica have 

reache d alm ost a panic stage. Th ey are concern ed ab ou t their jobs, 

every seg me nt of them, they are looking ab ou t for remedie s. The 

ad minist ratio n and the Congress as well are looking ab ou t for 

solutions. I do no t believe th at the re will be any single rem edy to the 

em plo ym ent prob lem, bu t thi s rep res ents one sign ific ant one, and it 

migh t well be more effective and more imm ediate in its im ple me nta tion.

I migh t sugg est, Mr. Ch air man , th at the en ac tm en t of these provisio ns which have stiffer penalties will serve, in my judg men t to do 

two things. One, to rem edy the con dition we have toda y, and two, 

which might be even more im po rta nt , is disc ourage more emp loye rs 

from traffick ing in human mis ery, ma ny of whom ma ke arr angeme nts 

for the im po rta tio n of thes e aliens knowing full well th at they are

• subject the m to economic sla very, and kno win g full well the re is no 

legal sanction again st the m. I t is ironic at thi s stage in our his tor y 

th at an emp loyer can do this wi thou t being subje ct to any kin d of 

sanction, and wh at it will do, in effect, is discourage the alien from

• even think ing of coming to Am eric a for the mo st pa rt where he thinks 

of it in terms of an op po rtu ni ty to earn more mon ey.

Mr. E ilb er g. Mr. Biaggi, I would like to keep you longer, and we 

intend to keep you ju st a few mi nu tes more. But I am notifyin g the 

ot he r memb ers of the sub comm ittee by this announceme nt th at 

Co ngres sman Biaggi has to chair an othe r subcom mittee meetin g, so 

I am going to ask you one more question and then ask the oth er 

me mb ers to be as brief as they can so th at we can dism iss you.

Mr. Biaggi, I am som ew hat conc erned with the req uir em ents in 

yo ur bill th at the pro spe ctive employer would hav e to sign a form 

th at he has rea d an individu al’s bi rth certificate or an y othe r appropr iate im migr ati on -naturaliza tio n or othe r docum ent . Now , considering the size of our country , the larg e po pulat ion of the country , and
138

the mobility of our population, I can conceive of many, many situa ­

tions where someone might have been born let us say in South Carolina and he is applying for a job in Nevada, and he may have considerable difficulty getting a birth certificate. It is possible that 

the job may no longer be available after this period transpires? So I 

wonder how practical th at suggestion is?

Mr. Biaggi. Well, none of these suggestions are ultimate, but let 

me respond to that. And let me respond to it in a broader sense.

Though some objection has been made to the fact tha t the employee, 

prospective employee would be burdened with providing this identi- •

fication, and they talk in terms of foreign born, why I do not know 

of any American or any individual who seeks employment today 

in America that is not required to fill out a form and provide some 

identification, provide some additional material in their background. *

ou, Mr. Chairman, are required to do it, your assistants, your 

counsel has been required to do it, I am required to do it. Bank 

employees are required to do it, construction people are. Across the 

board it is a common practice. We happen to be focusing attention 

on it now for a particular purpose, and some people argue tha t it 

will inflict a special burden on those who have foreign sounding 

names or may speak with an accent. I say tha t is specious. It does 

not hold water in the light of the universal practice tha t has been 

going on in this country.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Sarbanes.

Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions, but I do 

want to thank Congressman Biaggi for his very helpful statement 

and testimony, and I look forward to the opportunity of discussing 

this matter with him when we have some more time and at our 

convenience.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Cohen. Just one question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Biaggi, under your bill, you would make it a Federal crime 

for an employer to knowingly hire an illegal alien. I assume tha t 

with respect to this proof of citizenship, either a birth certificate 

or some other form of identification, the employer would not be 

attesting to the validity of the document itself, but merely the fact 

tha t he had read some document? «

Mr. Biaggi. Tha t is true.

Mr. Cohen. I assume that there will be a great deal of forgery 

tha t will also take place.

Mr. Biaggi. Tha t is true. I said there is no perfect, no ultimate 

solution. On the other side of that, currently the social security 

cards are being sold. We have hearings in New York, and there was 

testimony given tha t social security cards are being sold. There are 

people from South America that come into Puerto Rico, and establish 

residence in Puerto Rico, and from there they come to America as 

Puerto Ricans, but while they are in Puerto Rico, there are mills 

in Puerto Rico tha t produce and sell documentation to these illegal 

aliens. It is a very grievous situation, and as I said, I am not wedded 

to any of these, and we are amenable to any practical solution to 

deal with this very grievous problem.

Mr. Cohen. Did the Immigration Service take any action against 

the illegal aliens who testified before you at your hearings in New 

York?
139

Mr. Biaggi. That was quite a very delicate orchestration. The 

Immigration Service, in deference to their official rank, testified 

first, and after they testified they left. An hour or so later the illegal 

aliens came in.

Mr. Cohen. One final point. I got an entirely different impression 

from your testimony than I did last time we had hearings, Mr. Chairman, where the implication was that many of the foreign aliens or 

illegal aliens are holding down very high paying jobs, and sort of are 

stashing awray their savings and possibly might ship them back to

• their own countries. But your impression, at least the impression tha t 

you give me is tha t most of these aliens who enter illegally and are 

hired really engage in sort of the slave labor type of occupations.

Mr. Biaggi. Well, if I did, I ju st cited a few cases. I am sorry about

• the impression. It was an erroneous one because the fact of the m atter 

is tha t Americans have been largely laboring under tha t impression 

that illegal aliens coming into this country for a job have been subjected to employment at the lower rung of the ladder. But frankly, 

according to the statistics and the hearings tha t have already been 

conducted by this committee in the past, and other surveys, that is 

not the truth. The fact is they run the range. They are into the building 

trades, which is quite high pay, and into the service areas, the service 

areas, which frankly has an adverse impact on the minorities of our 

Nation. This is an area where the minorities have an opportunity to 

break into employment and earn some money because of the organized 

nature of labor, the minorities are being adversely affected by this 

unfair competition. And they run the range, right up to the top, and 

they do occupy some high-paying jobs.

I think one-third or one-quarter of those are employed at the lower 

rung, and the least of them are service jobs, semiskilled, skilled, and 

that is it.

Mr. Cohen. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Biaggi, jus t one final question. Wha t is your 

point of view with regards to amnesty for illegal aliens, or some 

adjustment of status for them as has been suggested and requested by 

many persons, including some church leaders? What is your answer 

to that?

w Mr. Biaggi. Well, I would not respond by granting total amnesty.

I would talk in terms of the special situation where people have rooted 

by wedding and children were bom. I would talk in terms of tha t kind 

of misery, tha t to avoid any hardship in tha t area, but to grant a total

> amnesty at this point is not to alleviate the problem. We should never

lose sight of the fact tha t they are here illegally. There is due process 

for legal admission in this Nation. We have not turned our backs on 

immigrants, but we have a prime responsibility to Americans and to 

the method by which we function, and I am certain tha t this exodus 

from their lands into this country may have worked a hardship on those 

waiting to legally enter into this country. You would be more familiar 

wdth tha t, Mr. Chairman, but what you would be doing, in fact, is 

rewarding illegal conduct on a wholesale basis. And I would not go 

along with blanket amnesty. I w’ould think in terms of more humane, 

and talk in terms of as the standards your committee would utilize, 

families, breaking up of families, tha t w*e would avoid that, and 

children who are born here, and well, let us at tha t point make the 

exception.

49-7 69 0 - 75 - 10
140

You will find ma ny of those, by the way , will come within th at 

area. But to gr an t bla nk et am nesty , I do no t think I could su pp or t it, 

and I do no t think Americans could, bu t they would un de rst an d a 

more com pas sionat e view.

Mr. E ilbe rg . Congressm an Biaggi, we wan t to th an k you ve ry 

mu ch and apologize for hold ing you pa st 10:30. I know how anxious 

you are to ge t to yo ur s ubcomm itte e meeting.

Mr. Biag gi. I wa nt to th an k the chairma n of the comm itte e and 

my colleagues again for pe rm itting me to tes tify ou t of order. And I 

would like for the record, I hav e a more exte nsiv e stat em en t th at I •

have given to each mem ber, and I would like to leave th at for the 

reco rd.

Mr. E ilbe rg . W ith ou t objection, it will be made a par t of the 

reco rd. •

[The prepare d sta temen t of Hon. Mario Biaggi follows:]

St a t e m e n t o f H o n . M a rio B ia g g i, a R e p r e s e n t a t iv e in C o n g r ess fr om t h e

Sta te o f N ew Y ork

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this opportunity to tes tify before this Committee 

on the problem of illegal aliens. Mr. Chairman, you and the Committee are to be 

commended for your diligence in pursuing this issue, and for providing a forum for 

discussing the various legislative proposals which have been offered, including 

my bill, H .R. 257.

America is contending with a silent invasion of four to twelve million illegal 

aliens. This invasion poses a dangerous threat to the economic security of this 

nation and her people. It must be dealt with forcefully and quickly.

Illegal aliens are contributing to a myriad of grave social and economic problems 

which plague the American nation today. Perhaps the most serious of these is the 

unemployment situation. Presently, more than seven million Americans are out 

of work with the numbers increasing daily. We are working feverishly to restore 

this nation to a semblance of economic stability but this will take time. I have a 

more immediate solution, one which could provide one million permanent jobs 

for American workers. That solution is to get the million illegal aliens who are 

now on payrolls, off and out of this country. This can be done with the passage of 

H.R. 257.

By means of background, an illegal alien is someone who has entered this country by bypassing our inspection stations or who, after entering on sa y a visitor’s 

visa remains beyond his authorized term.

As mentioned, estimates as to the number of illegal aliens range from four to 

twelve million. The massive numbers of illegal aliens is a relatively new phenomenon. Net immigration has grown from 365,000 (mostly legal) in 1965 to 1,482,000 

(mostly illegal) in 1973. What this latter figure means is for the first time in his- *

tory the number of immigrants— legal and illegal entering this nation exceeded the 

number of Americans born. Further, while natural born Americans enter as 

babies, most immigrants enter as adults seeking immediate employment. A great 

majority of illegal aliens are now migrating to our major metropolitan areas. In <

the New York Metropolitan Area alone, there are some 1.3 million illegal aliens.

What effects do illegal aliens have on this nation? Without question it is a decidedly negative one. I would like to discuss some of the areas where illegal aliens 

are having their most serious effects.

EMPLOYME NT

The illegal alien problem is primarily an economic one. The major impetus 

behind this illegal migration is the severe economic imbalance which exist between 

the United States and those nations from where illegal aliens come from. Aliens 

from Caribbean nations are attempting to escape from the dire poverty which 

exists in th at area. Mexico, which is responsible for more than % of the total illegal 

alien population in the United States has an unemployment rate of between 25 

and 40 percent. Approximately 25 percent of the 1973 Mexican population of 56 

million had no reportable income, while another 25 percent had incomes of only 

S400. Therefore, despite our own problems, the United States still serves as a 

magnet luring the poor and oppressed with its many job opportunities and overall 

prospects for a better life.
141

Illegal aliens occupy more tha n one million jobs and earn as much as $10 billion 

yearly according to the Immigration Service and the Labor Department. Specific breakdowns include 135,000 employed in Los Angeles, 106,000 in New York, 

79,500 in Chicago and 20,000 in Detroit. Included among the one million jobs held by illegal aliens are 335,000 Agricultural, 315,000 in industry, and 301,000 in services. All these are jobs th at could and should be held by American workers who inste ad are forced to collect unemployment compensation or public assistance. This is perhaps the m ost intolerable aspect of the illegal alien problem. When we consider that more tha n seven million Americans are enduring the agony of un ­

emplo yment, the fact th at one million illegal aliens are employed is disgraceful and the retu rn of these jobs to American workers should be of utm ost im portance 

to the Congress. A related aspect is th at the one million illegal aliens employed contribute to an overall depression of American workers wages estimated to be as high as $10 

billion.

The illegal alien also suffers. By virtue of their being in violation of the law, the y are forced to suffer the most vile forms of exploitation a nd extortion at the h ands of unscrupulous employers. During recent Congressional hearings I held in New 

York City, I received testimony from actual illegal aliens who related tales of horror regarding their working conditions. These included 7 day, 84 hour weeks for salaries which came to less than $1.00 an hour. There are other illegals working 

und er similar conditions, who are not even paid. A recent investig ation by Mr. John Pecoraro, Legislative Director of the Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades disclosed t hat in El Paso, Texas, there were some $250,000 in back 

wages owed to illegal aliens. The employment of illegal aliens often result in employers making enormous profits. Due to their grea tly reduced labor cost, they are often able to bid lower on big contracts thus driving many ho nest contractors out of business. This p oin t was also brou ght out during my hearings in New York when representatives for 

several major construction companies in the City pointed out t ha t city, sta te and federal agencies knowingly and regularly hire contractors who employ illegal 

aliens. Included among these agencies was the New York City Board of Educa tion and the United States Army which allowed a prime con trac t at West Point to go to a contractor who had illegal aliens in his employ. I personally found four 

illegal alien painters employed by the Board of Education working in Queens, 

New York.

ILLEGAL AL IEN S AND WELFARE

Illegal aliens contribute to a serious overburdening of Federal, state and local public assistance programs. While there are no accurate estimates as to the number of illegal aliens on welfare, it is safe to say th at the y number somewhere in the millions. In California, alone for the year 1972, $100 million was spent on welfare 

benefits to illegal aliens. In contrast, the entire INS bu dge t for FY 1973 was only 

$129 million. There are two key causes of this problem. The first are th e vague and ineffective sta te and federal laws governing eligibility for public assistance. According to testimony provided in hearings before this same Committee in 1972, in most states 

all th at must be established to obtain public assistance is need and residency 

within the States. Furth er in 1971, the Supreme Court ruled th at an alien could not be denied a particu lar benefit because he was a non-citizen. They did not distinguish between a legal and illegal alien. The lack of cooperation between INS and local welfare agencies further aggravate s the problem. In m any instances local welfare agencies fail to provide the INS with sufficient information abo ut known illegal aliens collecting welfare. In some state s where the problems are acute such as New York and California, 

some improvement in cooperation have been noted. The fact remains th at much 

more is needed and additional INS personnel such as are provided for in H .R. 257.

ILLEGAL AL IEN S AND TAX ES

Similarly, according to Immigration Service Commissioner Leonard Chapman, 

illegal aliens pay little if any taxes, while receiving all basic public services paid 

for by American workers. A related aspect of this problem is the fact th at illegal 

aliens by virtue of not paying taxes are able to accum ulate large sums of money which is oftentim es mailed out of the country to friends and relatives in the home­ land. The General Accounting Office estim ates that as much as $8 billion a year 

is taken from our economy through these practices. Examples wrere uncovered 

across the nation. In New York City, in cases where illegal aliens wrere success-
142

fully apprehended, of a sample 819 illegal aliens, 113 were found to be in possession 

of cash tota ling some $345,000. One alien had been in the United States illegally 

for six years earning $259 a week and had sent some $40,000 to his nativ e country.

Again, as in the case of welfare, there is a distinct lack of cooperation between 

the INS an d the IRS in both reporting illegal aliens and in insuring th at departing 

illegal aliens pay overdue federal taxes. What is needed is better organization on 

the part of the INS and IRS to develop criteria under which those illegal aliens 

scheduled for deportation are assessed a bill for overdue taxes. Further, when 

IR S receives word abo ut the presence of illegal aliens, INS should be notified 

immediately so th at deportation actions can begin.

A grea t num ber of illegal aliens enter this natio n as crewmen on ships. Rece nt 

disclosures have uncovered two other areas of concern concerning illegal aliens. *

There are increasing indications th at some of the crewmen on these ships are 

coming from Red China thus presenting this nation with a new and potentially 

dangerous subversive element to contend with. In addition a great quantity of 

illegal drugs from marijuana to heroin are smuggled in on these ships thus contrib uting to th e drug abuse problem and the illegal drug trafficking in this natio n. *

\\ hat is needed to solve the illegal alien problem? There are two fund ame ntal 

needs, more personnel for the Immigration and Naturalization Service to apprehend and deport illegal aliens, and stiff new penalties to eliminate the incentive 

for employing illegal aliens.

I have introduced legislation to deal specifically with these two points. My bill,

H.R. 257, would increase the Border Patrol and Investig ations Branch of the 

INS by 2500 men. This will practically double th e INS st ren gth in these areas and 

will substantially increase b oth the apprehensions and deportation of illegal aliens.

The INS is in the midst of a severe bud getary and personnel namely to prevent 

illegal alien entry, locate and depo rt illegal aliens already here. Yet due to her 

present bud getary and personnel problems the INS Commissioner was recently 

forced to issue an operational directive which sta ted t ha t the INS would be forced 

to now place apprehension and deportations on a very low priority, and only by 

transferring personnel from other offices would the INS be able to deter some new 

illegal aliens from entering. A specific c asualty under this new directive are area 

control apprehensions which are responsible for locating and deporting illegal 

aliens in our major cities. The INS has repe atedly state d th at were t here adequate 

funding and manpower available for area control operations, the numbers of 

additional aliens they could locate and deport would num ber in the millions. In 

my hearings in New York, District Commissioner, Maurice Kiley, flatly stated 

th at if additional personnel could be provided to him he could free more tha n 

100,000 jobs for New York workers. As mentioned, my legislation, H.R. 257 

provides for 2500 additional INS personnel. H.R . 982, has no similar provision.

INS current fiscal problems have been building over the years. In the past 14 

years, the Border Patrol, INS’s most important enforcement unit has been increased by less tha n 20 percent while estim ates of the number of illegal aliens 

seeking entry has increased by 2000 percent in the same period. Despite their 

budgetary problems, the INS has perform ed admirably. In fiscal year 1974, 

they were able to apprehend 800,000 illegal aliens. In the past ten years, their *

apprehensions of illegal aliens has increased by 1380 percent, and in the la st three 

years deportations have increased by 71 percent.

In light of the increasing severity of the illegal alien problem, I consider it 

imperative th at we provide the INS with this additional personnel. It must be 4

provided for the INS to deal with the illegal aliens here today and to deal with 

projections tha t the numbers of illegal aliens seeking e ntr y will double by the ye ar 

1980.

The tren d against the INS continued as reflected in th e Preside nt’s Fiscal Year 

1976 bud get for the INS which only provides for 750 additional personnel. In fact, 

the President recently sought to rescind some 1.3 million dollars of the monies 

appropriated for the INS in F Y 1975. I view the Congress’ rejection of this rescission as a positive sign th at in the future the IN S’s needs will be bette r responded 

to.

The provisions in my bill for the additional INS personnel have been endorsed 

by former Atto rney General Saxbe, INS Commissioner Chapman, as well as the 

Subcommittee on Legal and Mon etary Affairs, and a number of newspapers 

including the New York Daily News. In th e words of your Chairman, Mr. Rodino,

“The Immigration and Natu ralization Service must be recognized as one of our 

most important law7 enforcement agencies and must be accorded sufficient man ­

power and funding to do an effective jo b.”
143

The second key provision of my bill, H.R. 257 makes it an immediate federal 

crime for an employer to knowingly hire an illegal alien. Under my bill a first 

offense would result in a $500 fine and/or 6 months in prison, the second offense, a 

$1000 fine and/or 1 year in jail. Only immediate and tough criminal penalties will 

do if we are to stop employers from hiring and exploiting illegal aliens. H.R. 982, 

which passed the House each of the last two years, will do little more than say, 

“ TS K, T SK ” to the employers of illegal aliens. He would only have to contend 

with a citation for the first offense and if a second violation is uncovered within 

tw’o years then a civil fine of $500 per alien could be imposed. Only after a third 

violation is uncovered would an employer be eligible for a criminal penalty under 

H.R. 982. This approach is deficient. There is no deterrent factor in a $500 per

• alien fine for an employer. In the two years he wras to correct a violation he can 

accumulate the necessary money to pay this fine and then some for his employment of illegal aliens at substandard wages. Further in the event that he has only 

a few illegals in his employ, it would be worth it just to pay the fine and continue 

to make a profit from their work. The immediate criminal penalities are the only

• real way to end these practices.

Under my bill an employer must also make a greater effort to accurately determine an alien’s legal status. An employer must first obtain and then sign a form 

which indicates that he has read an alien’s birth certificate or other appropriate 

documents to verify a claim of legality prior to hiring. H.R. 982 only requires 

that an employer either make a bona fide inquiry or obtain a signed statement 

from the alien indicating legal status prior to hiring. The weakness of this provision 

of H.R. 982 and the desirability of the provisions of H.R. 257 as an alternative 

were noted in hearings before your Subcommittee on February 4th by officials of 

both the Justice and Labor Departments.

There is little doubt that sanctions must be imposed against employers to 

prevent the future hiring of illegal aliens. None exist now’. However, if we are to 

impose sanctions let’s not have mere window dressing. Without hardhitting and 

immediate criminal penalties the heinous practices associated with the employment of illegal aliens will continue and expand.

The need for criminal penalties is clear. After a six month investigation of the 

illegal alien problem a Federal Grand Jury in California they concluded, “ Laws 

making it a crime to knowingly hire illegal aliens would be a major step toward 

diminishing the magnitude of the problem.”

The Southwest Regional Commissioner of INS, Leonard Gilman expressed the 

opinion in 1972 that if sanctions against the employers were enacted “in my 

opinion . . . 80 percent of our problem would be over.”

We cannot ignore the illegal alien problem any longer. In the words of INS 

Commissioner Chapman “The Immigration Service is wholly unable to cope with 

the problem and unless adequate resources and legislation are forthcoming almost 

immediately, the flood of illegal entries we are now experiencing will become a 

torrent. I w’ant to emphasize my strong belief that we are poised on the brink of 

what could become a national crisis unless some actions are taken very soon.”

The concept of America being the great melting pot is today being abused.

• Our nation grew strong and owes a great deal to the millions of legal immigrants 

w’ho came over in times of need and worked hand in hand with Americans for the 

betterment of this nation.

Today we are dealing with a new and entirely different entity, the illegal alien, 

whose entrance into this country has only contributed to the grave economic and

• social problems we must now confront. It is safe to say that the illegal alien has 

weakened rather than strengthened our nation.

Let us continue to extend open arms to those from other lands who are willing 

to become American citizens, abide by our laws and work to improve the quality 

of life in this nation.

But let us quickly close the door on the millions of illegal aliens who are seeking 

to gain entry into this nation purely to drain the economic lifeblood of this nation 

and her people.

[The bill referred to, H.R. 257, follows:]
144

94th CONG RE SS 

1st Session H. R. 257

• • ■ I-. .{____________ , ‘ i '■

I - ,n '

IN TH E HOUSE OF RE PR ES EN TA TIVE S 

J anuary 14,1975

Mr. Biaooi introduced tile following bill; which was referred to the Com- 

• mittee on the Judic iary “ ■ ' - i , i!

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality A,ct to provide 

penalties for certain persons who employ, or who refer for 

employment, aliens who are in the United States illegally, 

'• and fof other purposes. < :

 os; -t J j . - ;

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of"Represenld2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8

4 U.S.C. 1324) is amended-^ •.’« m :>?

5

 ' (1) by striking out in subsection:

 (ft) (4) the

6 following: Provided, however} Thatt. fdt the! purposes

T of this section, employment (including 'the/us ual ahd 

8 -1 (normal practices incident to eihfdbyTilettt1

) ‘shall nbt lie

9 * , deemed to constitute hatboring” ; , , l l l ! j l ' ,!

I 'I • ' , V- ' i I: i « l i l ‘ 1 • ) * ! ! •;

4
145

*

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

(2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection 

(c) ; and

(3) l^y adding after subsection- (a) , t^ie following

new subsec&on; As ’

“ (b) (1) No person may employ in the United States 

or refer for employment in the United States any alien who 

has not 'been lawfully admitted to the United States for 

permanent residence. However, a person shall be deemed 

not to have violated the first sentence of this subsection if, 

before he employs an individual or refers an individual for 

employment, he—

“ (A) obtains a form signed by the individual to 

be employed or referred for employment stating that 

. he is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully 

admitted to the United States for permanent residence; 

•. and

“ (B.) signs a form which states that he has read 

such individual’s birth certificate or any other appropriate immigration, naturalization, or other document 

which validates such individual’s statement under subparagraph (A ).

The Attorney General shall, by regulation, prescribe the 

forms to be used under subparagraphs (A) and (B) and 

he shall provide such forms to any person, upon request, 

for use under such subparagraphs.
146

1 “ (2) Any person who employs or refers for employment

2 an alien in violation of paragraph (1) of this subsection

3 (A) shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned for

4 not more than six months, or both, for the first such em5 ployment or referral, and (B) shall be fined not more than

6 $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both,

7 for each such subsequent employment or referral.” .

8 Sec. 2. Before the end of fiscal year 1975, the Immi9 gration and Naturalization Service shall increase its personnel

10 by two thousand five hundred over the level of personnel

11 existing on the date of enactment of this Act. Such increase

12 in personnel shall occur only in the United States Border

13 Patrol and in the Investigations Branch of the Immigration

14 and Naturalization Service. There are authorized to be ap15 propriated whatever sums as may be necessary to carry out

16 this section.

17 Sec. 3. The amendments made by the first section of

18 this Act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after the date

19 of enactment of this Act, and such amendments shall only

20 apply to any alien who becomes employed or who is re21 ferred for employment on or after such ninetieth day.
147

Mr. Biag gi. T ha nk you.

Mr. E ilb er g. Next, I would like to welcome our colle ague, the 

Ho norab le B. F. Sisk. Congressman Sisk, would you kind ly come 

forw ard.

TESTIMONY OF HON. B. F. SISK, A REPRESEN TATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Sis k. Mr. Ch airma n, I certa inly app rec iate the op po rtun ity 

to appear befo re yo ur com mittee to discuss the critical illegal alien 

problem and the various pro posals w’hich have been put forth to 

allevi ate it, and pa rticular ly y ou r proposal, H.R . 982.

I think the re is basic agree me nt th at wre will never beg in to sto p 

the flow’ of illegal aliens to this co un try u ntil wre remo ve the economic 

inc entive which draw s him here in the first place. Most employers 

do no t go ou t and rec ruit illegal alien s and mo st do no t kno win gly 

hir e the m, but the fac t rem ains th at illegal aliens can be fou nd in 

every are a of the coun try and in nearly eve ry line of w ork, regardless 

of w he ther o r no t the ir illegal stat us was kno wn at the tim e they were 

hire d.

Th e solution to the problem as I see it the n, is to sto p employers 

from hir ing illegal aliens, whe ther kno win gly or unknowing ly, bu t 

at t he same time insure th at in the process we do no t s ub jec t A merican 

citizen s and legal reside nt aliens to discriminat ion , or impose un ­

reason able req uir em ents on an emplo yer —re quire me nts w hic h cannot 

only be more efficiently met by Go vernm ent agencies, but wdiich, 

I feel, lega lly shou ld be handled by the Governm ent.

I do no t see how all three of the se objectives can be acco mplished 

by H .R . 982 or the stronger pro posal offered by the Dep ar tm en t of 

Justi ce t hrou gh the tes tim ony before this s ubcomm itte e on Fe br ua ry 4 

of Acting At torney General, Laure nce H. Silb erm an.

Fo r the life of me I cann ot see w’hat is to sto p the illegal alien who 

has alr eady risk ed a great deal to get int o thi s country , from signing 

a statem en t ind ica ting th at he or she enter ed the Un ite d State s 

legally, as pre suma bly wou ld be req uir ed un de r H .R . 982. And 

wha t ha pp en s to th at w’hen it is obtained? Is it su bm itted to an alrea dy overb urd ened Im migr ati on and Naturalization Service? Ev en 

if Con gress agrees to gr an t the IN S the increased fun din g recommende d by the Presi dent in his bu dg et, I see little prospect for any 

im me dia te large-scale im prov em ent in the Service ’s cap abilities. 

Nor can I see the three objectives I have cite d bein g accomp lished 

by asking e mpl oye rs to do the wrork w’hich should be done by Governm en t au tho rities —requirin g docume nte d proof of U.S. citizenship 

or legal res iden t status as the Dep ar tm en t of Justice has prop osed. 

Co un terfe it bi rth certifica tes, vo ter registr ati on cards, social security 

cards, dri vers licenses and gree n cards are used all the tim e by illegal 

aliens and even our experienced immigra tion au thorities can be 

fooled by the m. Yet, it is pro posed th at we ask employers , large and 

sma ll, to beco me exp erts in deter mi nin g the citizenship or alien s ta tu s 

of a prosp ective employee throug h the exam ina tion of a wide va rie ty 

of docume nts wdiich m igh t be used for th at purpose.

A few mon ths ago a me mb er of my staff applied for a passp ort and 

su bm itt ed wha t she thou gh t was the best proof of her citizen ship—
148

her original hospital birth certificate. It was unacceptable, according 

to officials in the Passport Office, because such certificates could so 

easily be fraudulently produced. Fortunately, she was readily able to 

obtain the State certificate, but I mention her experience only to 

point to the burdens such a requirement would impose on employers 

and employees alike. What happens if the employer does not "like 

the looks of the documentation presented by the prospective employee? 

Does he hire the applicant anyway or refuse to do so on the basis 

tha t he suspects fraudulent documentation has been presented? 

Can the employer use the excuse of suspected fraudulent documentation to cover his own racial or ethnic prejudice?

As you know, Mr. Chairman, for several years now I have favored 

an approach to this problem which would utilize the social security 

system. Public Law 92-603 requires, in effect, tha t no alien be furnished a social security account number unless he has first submitted 

documentary evidence to establish his lawful admission to the United 

States for permanent residence or under conditions permitting him 

to engage in employment in the United States. I understand tha t the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service has developed a tamperproof, plastic identity card to be carried by all legal aliens and tha t it 

plans to test it in the near future. I see no reason why such a card 

cannot be adapted for use by the Social Security Administration, 

with special markings, if necessary, to designate those persons not 

legally entitled to work in this country.

Employers would be required to check the prospective employee’s 

social security card and perhaps some other evidence of identity, 

not his citizenship or alien status. If you or I wish to cash a personal 

check a t some business establishment, we are usually asked for some 

identification. An employer could simply ask to see the individual’s 

social security card and some other evidence of iden tity to insure tha t 

the holder of the card is the person he says he is. Not only would the 

employer be spared the time and effort of inspecting various documents, most of which may be easily altered, but the prospective 

employee would be spared needless questions about his citizenship 

or lack thereof.

Yesterday I introduced legislation to implement this proposal, 

H.R. 3737, but since it amends the Social Security Act, it was referred 

to the Ways and Means Committee. While I realize that your subcommittee is unable to deal with tha t bill directly, I would hope t hat 

you would weigh the proposal carefully in your deliberations here and 

perhaps recommend tha t we move toward such a procedure as the 

most acceptable and equitable long-range solution.

I realize tha t the social security approach cannot be implemented 

immediately, particularly since the Social Security Administration 

is having such difficulty keeping up with the responsibilities it already 

has. But I urge this subcommittee to use its influence to give this 

proposal the serious consideration I feel it deserves.

In the meantime, of course, we are faced with an ever-rising flood 

of illegal aliens. We in the Southwest have been all too aware for 

many, many years now of the economic and social burdens of coping 

with illegal aliens. As you know, I represent a portion of the vast, 

fertile San Joaquin Valley of California which at one time brought in 

vast numbers of braceros to harvest its many crops. When the pro-
149

gram was terminated, more and more illegal aliens began flooding the 

valley, and in recent years I have received an ever-increasing number 

of complaints from American citizen and legal-resident alien farmworkers who cannot find work. 1 have a letter here from the Acting 

Chief Patrol Agent from the Libermore Border Patrol sector in 

California which indicates that the Fresno Station, whose area of 

responsibility covers the counties of Tulare, Kings, Fresno, Mariposa, 

Madera, and Merced, has an authorized strength of 13 officers. During 

fiscal year 1974, Fresno officers located 11,424 deportable aliens.

• Although the greatest portion were employed in agriculture (10,176), 

this may very well be attributed to the fact tha t with its limited 

capabilities, tne Border Patrol must concentrate its efforts on those 

locations where it expects to find large groups of illegal aliens.

• And departing from my statement briefly, Mr. Chairman, in discussing this particular matter with the Department last year, they 

frankly said to me we simply are so limited in manpower, and the 

demands are so great because of the vast number of illegal aliens 

tha t we must go where there are large groups in order to get as many 

out as possible. And we cannot go into the business establishments 

because of the problems we have with a lack of manpower. And this 

just indicates some of the problems.

Getting back to my statement now, however, just last year the 

head of the Immigration Office in Fresno told me he estimated tha t 

90 percent of the business establishments in the city of Fresno had 

illegal aliens in their employ. And again, Mr. Chairman, departing 

from the statement, they simply did not have the manpower to go 

in and check these people. They went to where they had the large 

groups.

Crime attributed to the illegal alien is increasing. The Border 

Patrol tells me tha t it is receiving continuing complaints and requests 

for assistance from local law enforcement officials throughout the 

San Joaquin Valley. Above and beyond the illegal aliens apprehended 

by the Border Patrol, the two investigators working out of the Fresno 

INS Office last year located a total of 1,398 deportable aliens. Of tha t 

total, more than half were taken from the Fresno County Jail, and 

the majority of those had been arrested for vehicle driving violations.

* This brings me to another subject, the tremendous burden imposed 

on local governments in furnishing essential medical care to illegal 

aliens. As you know, in the 92d, 93d, and again in this Congress, 

I introduced legislation which would require the Federal Government

* to reimburse local governments and hospitals for the costs incurred 

in providing just emergency medical care to illegal aliens, provided 

the cost could not be recovered from the alien or from some public 

assistance program.

The problem first came to my attention several years ago when the 

small county hospital in Merced, Calif., came to me for help in getting 

an illegal alien, who had been critically injured in a automobile accident, transferred to a hospital in Mexico or to a Public Health Service 

Hospital. We discovered that the Public Health Service would accept 

the patient if a request were made by an interested Federal Government agency. In this case the request would have to come from the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service. The INS took the position
150

tha t it would not accept jurisdiction over the alien until he was well 

enough to return to his own country, and it would not request the 

Public Health Service to treat the alien because it did not have jurisdiction over him. Not unless the illegal alien is injured or otherwise 

in need of emergency medical care while actually in the custody of 

the INS will that agency utilize the provisions of the Public Health 

Service Act to provide for treatment in PHS public health facilities.

In the end, the county of Merced paid approximately $76,000 for 

medical care for the above-mentioned illegal alien, almost its entire 

medical budget for the year. •

We checked with other California counties and found tha t the problem was widespread. Over $2 million was spent last year in providing 

emergency medical care to illegal aliens by San Joaquin Valley hospitals, and the county of Los Angeles alone spent over $8 million on *

this one problem.

It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, tha t your subcommittee will give my 

bill, H.R. 2159, serious consideration once the necessary legislation 

has been passed to stop employment of illegal aliens, so tha t hardpressed local governments can obtain some measure of relief from the 

tremendous financial burden they now must morally and legally carry 

in treating indigent illegal aliens.

Finally, I would like to call your attention to an article which 

recently appeared in the Los Angeles Times, “Illegal Aliens Target 

of Union Organizers.” For years I have heard rumors, some verified, 

some not, that the Border Patrol was apprehending illegal aliens who 

held UFW and Teamster ID cards. And the UFW, by the way, is 

the Caesar Chavez union, as you know. But this is the first indication 

I have seen tha t union organizers are actually engaged in an all-out 

effort to organize illegal aliens. According to this report, and I have 

copies of the story, the headlines out of the L.A. Times, “Officials of 

the International Ladies Garment Workers Union decided to start 

unionizing aliens because garment manufacturers persist in hiring 

them and U.S. Immigratation authorities claim they do have the 

manpower to deport most of the m.” The Assistant District Director 

of the INS in Los Angeles noted tha t it is no more illegal for unions 

to organize illegal aliens than for employers to employ them, but he 

also said: “I can’t say tha t we condone either practice.” «

[The article and letter referred to above follow:]

[From the Los Angeles Times, Jan. 30, 1975]

I ll eg al Alie ns Target of U nion Org an ize rs

GARMENT WORKERS BREAK LABOR RANKS, BLAME IMMIGRATION AND HIRING 

POLICIES

(By Fra nk Del Olmo)

For the first time, the garm ent workers union is publicly campaigning to organize illegal aliens in Los Angeles’ garmen t indu stry.

Officials of the Internation al Ladies Garment Workers Union said Wednesday 

they decided to star t unionizing aliens because garm ent manufac turers persist 

in hiring them and U.S. immigration auth orities claim they do no t have the 

manpower to dep ort most of them.

The new ILGW U policy marks one of the first breaks in the heretofore united 

stand U.S. labor unions have tak en against the employment of illegal aliens by 

American industry.
151

“If the immigration service is not going to do anything (abo ut illegal imm igrants), then we have no choice bu t to try to organize them,” said Cornelius Wall, 

regional director of the ILG WU .

Wall said the first test of the new organizing policy is a relative ly small ILGWU 

strike at High Tide Swimwear, 3131 S. Broadway.

The labor dispute at High Tide, a subsidiary of Warnaco, Inc., which also 

manufactures Puritan sportswear, Hathaw ay shirts and White Stag womens 

wear, began Jan. 20.

Although the swimwear manufacturer is not officially unionized, ILG WU 

sup porters walked out of the pla nt, charging the company with 2 unfair labor 

practices.

r ILGW U officials claim union sympath izers had been threatened by supervisors

with dismissal unless they ended the ir organizing activities.

The company employs abo ut 150 garment workers a t the peak of its nine-month 

manufacturing season. ILG WU claims to have signed auth oriz atio n cards from 

more than 90 of the striking employes.

* The union has petitioned the National Labor Relations Board to order a union 

representatio n election. A hearing on the petition has been set for Feb. 14.

In the meantime, union officials charge, the strike is being broken mostly by 

illegal aliens who have filled the jobs left by the workers who walked out.

Ironically, ILG WU officials readily adm it th at the majority of the workers 

the y were organizing inside the pla nt before the strik e started, and who signed 

union authorization cards, also are illegal aliens.

“T his is the type of company th at exists on undocumented workers,” said 

Danny Perez, ILG WU ’s chief organizer at the High Tide, “90% of the workers 

in there were undocumented.”

(“ Undocumented workers” is the phrase used by Mexican-American activ ists 

to refer to illegal aliens. They claim the term “illegal alien” carries negative 

connotations.)

“Most of the strikebreakers in there are also undocumen ted,” Perez added.

No company officials would comment Wednesday on the labor dispute or the 

union’s charges that High Tide regularly employs illegal aliens. A secretary 

said company executives authorized to comm ent publicly were out of town and 

not available.

Joseph Dernetz, assistan t dis tric t direc tor in Los Angeles for the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, confirmed Wednesday th at ILG WU officials 

had asked INS to investigate the alleged use of illegal aliens as strikebreakers 

at High Tide.

He said the local INS office does “not have the manpower to survey the place 

and determine how m any aliens might be in there.”

Dernetz added that if INS inve stigated High Tide, “we would also survey the 

picket lines outside to see how many illegal aliens might be the re.”

It is no more illegal for unions to organize illegal aliens tha n for employers to 

employ the m,” Dernetz said. “B ut I can ’t say th at we condone either practice.”

INS officials have pressed Congress for the last two years to pass a federal law

* th at would make it illegal to employ illegal aliens. Labor lobbyists have been 

among the stron gest su pporters of the proposed legislation.

Historically, labor unions have favored tough immigration laws, arguing th at 

alien workers take jobs th at mig ht otherwise go to U.S. citizens and depress 

wages and working conditions because they demand less tha n U.S. workers.

* However, the ILG WU’s Wall said this condition may be changing, and illegal 

aliens may now be “organizable.”

“ Many aliens have lived here for a while, and as t hey get used to our stan dard 

of living, the y star t making demands for higher wages,” he said.

In addition, he said, many illegal aliens may be less fearful—and less subject 

to intimidation by employers—because of a new immigration service policy on 

arresting aliens.

Lat e last year, INS officials announced that the agency would concentrate 

most of its manpower in border areas to inte rcep t illegal aliens before they can 

establish themselves in the country.

This has resulted in a downgrading of effort to trac k down illegal aliens in urb an 

areas like Los Angeles. Manpower has been reduced and budg ets have been cut 

back in many INS offices away from border areas.
152

U.S. Department of J ustice

I mmigration and Naturalization Service

U.S. Border Patrol

Pleasanton, Calif., January 28, 1975.

Mrs. Betty Cornelious,

District Representative,

Congressman B. F. Sisk

Federal Building,

Fresno, Calif.

Dear Betty: Reference our telep hone conversation of Jan uary, 27 1975, the 

following is sta tistical data from the Livermore Border Patrol Sector which 

hopefully will be helpful to Congressman Sisk in his upcoming test imony before 

the Imm igra tion subcommittee.

First, I would like to outline our area of responsibility. The Liverm ore Border 

Patrol Sector is responsible for immigration violations in the 49 counties of 

Northe rn California commencing with Kern County and going north to the 

Oregon border. We have officers statio ned at Bakersfield, Fresno, Salinas, Stockton, Livermore and Sacramento. All im migration violators in this area are our responsibility except for those in the cities of Fresno, Sacramento, San Francisco 

and Oakland. These cities are under the jurisdiction of the District Dire ctor and 

Officers in Charge.

In this area during fiscal year 1974, the Border Patrol located 39,640 illegal 

aliens. 29,105 of these illegals were em ployed in agric ulture. 2,476 were employed 

in ifidustry. Of the total 79.60% were employed at time of arre st. In calendar 

year 1974, 46,717 illegal aliens were located in our Sector. (See attached charts.) 

The autho rized officer force of the Livermore Sector is 71 officers; half of what is 

needed to do an efficient job.

The Fresno S tat ion’s area of responsibility, which ta kes in most of Congressman 

Sisk’s Congressional District, has the responsibility for immigration enforcement 

in the counties of Tulare, Kings, Fresno, Madera, Merced and Mariposa. This 

station has an authorized stre ngth of 13 officers. During fiscal ye ar 1974, Fresno 

officers located 11,424 deportable aliens. 10,716 were employed in agriculture. 

451 were employed in indu stry. 319 were seeking employment. 417 were found in 

institution s (jails, hospitals, etc.) and 61 were in travel. The 1974 calendar year 

figures for the Fresno Station’s area of responsibility were 14,433, an increase of 

3,409 over calendar year 1973. (See attached charts.)

These large nu mbers of illegal aliens in your Congressional District and thro ugh ­

out San Joaquin Valley are creating serious problems for our local communities. 

Crime att rib uted to the illegal alien is increasing. We are receiving continuing 

complaints and requests for assistance from local law enforcement officials throug hout the San Joaquin Valley. Income tax unpaid by these illegals w itho ut a doubt 

runs into millions of dollars yearly. As an example, our Service last year over a 

3-month period conducted a pilot program with the Internal Revenue Service 

during which time we referred to IRS 1,700 illegal aliens whom we suspected as 

tax dodgers. From this small number of aliens, IRS assessed total taxes of a 

quarter-of-a-million dollars and was able to collect $168,000 of the amoun t due. 

This evasion of income tax paymen t is possible by the claiming of large num bers of 

dependents. One 18-year-old boy was arrested recently who had claimed a tota l of 

18 dependents on his W-4 form.

Medical care for illegal aliens in the valley was estimated by Ron Taylor, staff 

writer of the Fresno Bee, in a recent article as costing the San Joaquin Valley 

taxp ayers $2,000,000 a year. The County Administrative Officer, Fresno County, 

estimated th at it cost the county of Fresno $800,000 out of their 1974-75 budget 

to care for illegal aliens. The cost in other valley counties is also running high. 

(See attach ments.)

As you know, in 1973 the California State Social Welfare Board estima ted the 

cost of welfare payments to illegal aliens to be at least $1,000,000 a year. On 

December 24, a Superior Court judge in California ruled th at aliens may receive 

welfare in the Sta te without proving they are legally in this country, unless they 

have been ordered deported. We estimate there are in excess of 1,000,000 illegal 

aliens in California and that 120,000 of these illegals are in our area of responsibility, so you can readily judge what impact this decision will have on welfare 

costs in our State. One could add to these costs the cost of services, including 

schools and other municipal functions, which are utilized by the illegal alien without paying a share of the expense and you begin to see the seriousness of the 

situation .
153

I hope the above statistic s and comments will be helpful to Congressman Sisk 

and would like you to express our appreciation to the Congressman for his continuing inte rest in our problems of immigration law enforcement in Northern 

California.

Sincerely,

H e r b e r t E. W a lsh,

Acting Chief Palrol Agent.

1974 Ba kersf ield Fre sno Live rm or e Sa cram ento Salinas Sto ckton

Ja nu ary........................... 485 752 223 289 235 280

Fe br ua ry ......................... 440 521 153 180 202 315

M a rc h ........................... 835 933 316 336 333 494

A p ril................................ 610 1,65 0 252 539 501 554

May .................................. 1,1 49 1,22 2 434 563 450 853

Ju ne ________________ 1,0 92 1,29 3 243 559 428 780

Ju ly .................................. 1,064 1,53 4 402 679 511 887

Aug ust ............................ 920 1,8 88 309 930 560 857

Sep te m be r..................... 952 1,50 2 330 537 527 846

Octob er........................... 962 1,0 47 334 519 602 881

Nov em be r................. 809 1,05 6 340 466 518 585

De ce mbe r...................... 688 935 182 303 354 407

T o ta l.................. 10,006 14, 333 3,518 5,90 0 5, 221 7,73 9

Secto r

1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974

Ja nu ary....... ............... 973 1,10 5 1, 146 1,5 75 2,512 2,26 4

Fe br ua ry .................... 871 995 1, 189 1,382 2, 288 1,811

M a rc h ............................ 1,0 10 1,30 5 1,6 84 1,411 2, 648 3, 247

A p r il. . . ......................... 1,2 32 1,47 9 2, 039 1,471 2, 541 4,10 6

May ________________ 1,3 02 1,58 8 2,24 6 1,8 18 3, 074 4, 671

Ju ne __________ _____ 1,6 40 1,52 0 2, 508 2, 573 3, 316 4,3 95

J u ly .................................. 1,6 33 2,029 4,3 71 2, 881 3, 225 5, 077

Aug us t............................ 1,8 15 3,2 31 3,18 0 3,61 4 4, 029 5, 464

Sep te m be r..................... 1,747 2, 784 2, 585 3, 354 3, 532 4, 694

Octob er_____________ 1,457 2,173 2,67 5 3, 084 3, 401 4, 345

No ve mbe r___________ 1,288 1,611 2, 429 2,61 6 3, 005 3,77 4

Dec em ber___________ . . 964 1,2 21 1,68 5 1,7 77 1,9 54 2,86 9

T o ta l. . . ............ 15, 932 21,041 27, 737 27, 556 35, 525 46, 717
Ba ke rsfie ld Fresno Live rm or e Sacra me nto Salinas Stoc kton

1971 1972 1973 1971 1972 1973 1971 1972 1973 1971 1972 1973 1971 1972 1973 1971 1972

Ja nu ary ,........................... ________ 283 292 322 190 565 1,1 90 148 149 177 198 132 248 135 168 202 192 269

Fe br ua ry ....... .................... ................ 272 259 455 223 450 746 181 153 206 165 129 248 163 184 291 185 207

M arc h________________ _______ 409 240 524 382 517 858 195 147 230 282 138 287 180 184 327 236 185

A p r il. . . ............................ _______ 372 216 427 536 478 1,0 13 187 134 155 357 181 330 223 201 231 364 261

May __________ _______ ................ 362 290 602 557 471 859 251 148 271 321 241 392 248 301 400 507 367

Ju ne____ ____________ _______ 434 441 491 438 799 1,2 05 216 266 221 414 330 406 412 288 364 594 449J u ly ___________ ______ ________ 623 456 404 1,6 40 774 912 203 260 330 604 570 497 441 307 486 860 514

August_______________ ......... 403 465 774 918 1,024 947 233 274 362 526 683 559 438 464 6C0 662 704

Septe m be r................... ________ 486 581 599 505 782 807 301 201 233 284 514 395 456 422 443 553 854

Oct ob er ______________ .............. 525 561 652 502 802 906 203 165 213 342 340 412 417 443 443 686 773

Nove m be r____________ _______ 463 553 835 594 737 851 220 227 195 303 352 399 307 268 300 542 479

Dec em ber____________ ________ 332 308 536 559 650 630 190 169 136 133 178 214 184 180 191 287 292

T o ta l................... _______ 4,96 4 4,66 2 6,6 21 7, 044 8, 049 10, 924 2, 528 2, 293 2, 729 3, 929 3, 788 4, 387 3,60 4 3,410 4,27 8 5,66 8 5,35 4

Sector

1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Janu ar y____ _____________________________ ________________ 166 135 135 315 371 527 693

F e b ru a ry .. ............................................................ ________________ 80 97 127 214 397 593 725

Ma rch ..................................................................... ____ _____ ______ 125 139 171 335 655 869 935

A p ril .......................................................................... ............................. 128 158 205 392 613 1,2 02 1,132

May ____ _____ ____ _______ _______________ ............................... 211 197 262 478 751 1,52 0 1,6 30

June _______ _________ _____ ____ ________ _________________ 127 226 386 700 944 1,097 2,286J u ly _____________________________________ ............ 166 250 363 859 1,1 75 1,2 70 2,806August___________________________________ ._ .............................. 270 261 373 817 1,32 9 1,9 03 3, 762Sep tem be r___________________ _______ ____ .................................. 230 254 473 1,4 44 1,3 28 2, 503 3,17 1

O ctob er. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. ............. 325 304 894 1,0 08 1,690 1,9 40 2, 758

N ovem ber............................................................... ____ ___________ 192 204 324 355 722 750 1,0 94Dec em ber____________ ______ ____________ ________________ 933 153 182 198 475 597 812

T o ta l.................... ........................................ .................................. 2,11 3 2,37 8 3, 895 7,11 5 10, 450 14, 771 21, 804

♦ ♦ » •
155

C o u n ty A d m in is tr a tiv e Of f ic e ,

Fresno, Calif., July 28, 197'4.

To : Board of Supervisors.

Subject: Re port on HR 5307—Reimbursement for Medical Services to Aliens.

House of Representatives Bill 5307 has been introduced by Congressman Sisk, 

which would reimburse hospitals and other medical treatm ent facilities for emergency medical tre atm ent rendered to aliens unlawfully in the United States. 

Currently, cou nty hospitals rendering medical care to illegal aliens are not reimbursed by eith er the Medicare or Medi-Cal Programs, and their costs in the 

case of coun ty hospitals become a charge against the local coun ty general fund.

A recent stu dy conducted by Valley Medical Center and the Cou nty Supervisors Association of California of the inp atients at Valley Medical Center indica ted th at app roximately 3%% of the total inpatients during the months of 

December and Jan uary were known to be illegal aliens. This equates to over 

$800,000 in the Medical Center’s 1974-75 budget. In addition to the care rendered 

on an inp ati ent basis, it is estim ated that there is a substantial portion of patients 

tre ated on an ou tpa tie nt basis who are illegal aliens.

HR 5307 is curren tly in the House Committee on the Judiciary aw aiting reports 

on the bill from involved Federal agencies. The proposed bill has been endorsed 

by the National Association of Counties.

Recommendation: It is recommended th at your Board endorse HR 5307 and 

authorize your Chairman to forward letters outlining your Boa rd’s position to 

Congressman B. F. Sisk, Congressman Robert Mathias, and Congressman 

Peter W. Rodino, Jr., Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary.

M. G. Wingett,

County Administrative Officer.

Madera Community Hospital,

Madera, Calif., Ju ly 9, 1974-

U.S. Border P atrol

Fresno, Calif.

(Atten tion of Mr. Bartlet).

Madera Comm unity Hospital (not County Hospital) cost of illegal aliens since 

Janu ary 1, 1974:

Illegal alien hospital emergency admissions

Amoun t

Jan . 1, 1974 to June 18, 1974__________________________________ $10, 568. 80

Ju ne 18, 1974 to July 9, 1974_________________________________ 18, 699. 10

(Mario Alvarez and Yolanda Alcola) illegal alien O.B. admissions___ 7, 244. 54

To tal.............................................. ........................... ..................... 36,51 2.4 4

J ay M. Aki n, 

Hospital Administrator.

49-7 69— 71 11
ILLEGAL ALIEN INPA TIEN TS, MERCED GENERAL HOSPITAL, JAN. 1, 1972-DEC. 31, 1972

PFN Patient Why admitted Cost

8692................................. 98684.................................

98733................................. 90088.................................

99635..................................

99753.................................. 99811.................................. 98878..................................

82272..................................

100722................................

96881.................................. 100912................................

100909................................ 100908................................

100911................................ 102087................................

101838................................

75333.................................. 102751................................ 101618................................

102955................................

91913.................................. 101650................................

103226................................ 103227................................

103102................................

103311................................ 103935................................

102626................................

104603................................ 104517................................ 74885.................................. 102549................................

105259................................ 105204................................

39582.................................. 106247................................

106340................................

Castaneda, Ma Del....................

Carillo, Francisco.....................

Morfin, M ar ia ...........................

Garcia, Rosa Maria....................

Villegas, Lucio...........................

Neufeld, Gerhard......................

Alfa ro, Rosalia...........................

Castillo, Frances........................

Sandoval, Loretta......................

Alvarez, Evangelina..................

Monteon, Espectacion.............

Prado, Alfonso.....................

Nava, Leonel..... ......................

Godoy, E fr a in .. .......................

Ceja, Agapito.............................

Leon, Guadalupe.......................

Muniz, Luis................................

Bautista, Antonia___________

Espinosa, Basillo___________

Aguilar, A g ri p in a .. .. ...........

Gamino, M a ri a .. ......................

Barragan, Maria........................

Becerra, Oliva..................... ..

Morales, Eliio.......... . ...............

Granados, Manuel.....................

Garcia, Ysidro...........................

Vasquez, Jose...____ ______

Gonzales, So lomon...................

Ayala, Maria..............................

Quesada, Jesus.........................

Gutierrez, Martha ....................

"Ernesto Trevino” (imposter).

Orozco, A melia..........................

Rodriquez, Pedro ................

Alvarez, E liv ie r. .. ...................

Aguilar, Esperanza....................

Castillo, Jo se fin a. .................

Gonzalez, Fransisca..................

OB.........................................

Rash______________ _____ ____

OB......................................................

OB......................................................

Pneumonia........................................

Auto accident....................................

OB......................................................

OB............................................ .........

O B.....................................................

OB......................................................

OB......................................................

Auto accident............ ......... .............

........do................................................

........do................................................

........do.............................................. ..

Appendicitis......................................

Auto accident....................................

OB......................................................

Perforated ulcer_______________

OB......................................................

OB......................................................

OB......................................................

OB......................................................

Stab woun d.......................................

........do................................................

Burns— 2d degree............................

CVA....................................................

Stab wound.......................................

OB................................................ —

Auto accident—expire d..... .............

Misca rriage .....................................

Stab wound—eye______________

OB......................................................

Appendicitis_____ _____ _______

OB......................................................

OB......................................................

Miscarriage........................................

Ce llulitis.............................................

$374.80

326.45 

360. 90

700.60 

622.35

2, 997. 55 

1, 067.30

377.80

460.15 

371.20 

440. 20

76, 732.31 

725. 00

3, 330.95 

410.00

1, 480. 35 

1, 798. 95 

850.00 

2,073.00 

263.63

648.60 

421.00 

217.00

1,658.00

1, 445.00

2, 403.00 

1,783.95 

2, 060. 65

183. 20 

86.00

576.80

2, 471.00

281.15

1, 234. 52

381. 55 

350.65 

488. 30 

940.11

Total................................................................................................................................................................. 113,393.97

[The prepared st at em en t of Ho n. B. F. Sisk follows:]

Sta te m en t op H on . B. F. Sis k, a R epr ese n tativ e in Con gr es s F rom th e

Sta te of Cal if orn ia

M r. C ha irm an an d m em be rs of th e su bc om m itte e, I ap pre ci at e th is o p p ort unit y 

to appea r be fore yo u to discus s th e cr itic al illegal alien pr ob le m an d th e var io us 

pr op os als wh ich hav e be en p u t fo rt h to al le vi at e it, in part ic ula r, th e C hair m an’s 

pr op os al, H .R . 982.

I th in k th er e is ba si c ag re em en t th a t we will nev er beg in to st op th e flow of 

illeg al ali en s to th is countr y u n ti l we re m ov e th e ec on om ic in ce nt iv e which dra w s 

hi m he re in th e firs t pl ac e. M os t em pl oy er s do not go o u t and r ecru it ille gal aliens 

and m os t do n o t kn ow in gl y hire th em , b u t th e fa ct re m ai ns th a t illegal aliens 

can be fo un d in ev er y are a of th e countr y an d in nea rl y ev er y lin e of work, re ­

ga rd less of w he th er or n o t th eir illegal st atu s wa s kno w n a t th e tim e th ey wrere 

hi re d. The so lu tion to th e pro bl em as I see it th en , is to st op em ploy ers fr om hir in g 

ill eg al aliens, w het her kn ow ingly or un kn ow ingly, b u t a t th e same tim e in su re 

th a t in th e proc ess we do not su bje ct American citiz en s and leg al re si den t alie ns 

to di sc rim in at io n, or i m po se unr ea so na bl e re qu ir em en ts on an e mpl oy er — re quir em en ts w’hich ca n n o t onl y be mor e eff ici en tly m et by gov er nm en t ag en cie s, b u t 

which I feel lega lly sh ou ld be ha ndle d by th e go ve rn m en t.

I do not see ho w all th re e of th es e ob je ct iv es ca n be ac co m plishe d by II .R . 982 

or th e st ro nge r pr op os al offere d by th e D epart m ent of Ju st ic e th ro ugh th e te sti ­

m ony be fore th is su bc om m itte e on F ebru ary 4th of A cting A ttorn ey G en er al, 

Lau re nc e H. S ilb er m an .

F or th e life of me I cannot see w hat is to stop th e illeg al ali en wh o has al re ad y 

risk ed a gr ea t de al to get in to th is co un tr y, from sign ing a st ate m ent in dic at in g 

th a t he or sh e en te re d th e U nited S ta te s leg all y, as pr es um ab ly w ou ld b e re qu ired 

under H .R . 982. And w hat hap pe ns to th a t whe n it is obt ai ne d? I t is su bm it te d
157

to an already overburdened Immigration and Naturalization Service? Even if 

Congress agrees to grant the INS the increased funding recommended by the 

President in his budget, I see little prospect for any immediate large-scale improvement in the Service’s capabilities. Nor can I see the three objectives I have cited 

being accomplished by asking employers to do the work which should be done by 

government authorities— requiring documented proof of U.S. citizenship or 

legal resident status as the Department of Justice has proposed. Counterfeit 

birth certificates, voter registration cards, social security cards, drivers licenses 

and green cards are used all the time by illegal aliens and even our experienced 

immigration authorities can be fooled by them. Yet, it is proposed that we ask 

employers, large and small, to become experts in determining the citizenship or 

alien status of a prospective employee through the examination of a wide va riety 

of documents which might be used for that purpose.

A few months ago a member of my staff applied for a passport and submitted 

what she thought was the best proof of her citizenship— her original hospital 

birth certificate. It was unacceptable, according to officials in the Passport Office, 

because such certificates could so easily be fraudulently produced. Fortunately, 

she was readily able to obtain the State certificate, but I mention her experience 

only to point to the burdens such a requirement would impose on employers and 

employees alike. What happens if the employer does not like the looks of the 

documentation presented by the prospective employee? Does lie hire the applicant anyway or refuse to do so on the basis that he suspects fraudulent documentation has been presented? Can the employer use the excuse of suspected 

fraudulent documentation to cover his own racial or ethnic prejudice?

As you know, Mr. Chairman, for several years now I have favored an approach 

to this problem which would utilize the social security system, Public Law 92- 

603 requires, in effect, that no alien be furnished a social security account number 

unless he has first submitted documentary evidence to establish his lawful admission to the United States for permanent residence or under conditions permitting 

him to engage in employment in the United States. I understand that the Immigration and Naturalization Service has developed a tamper-proof, plastic identity card to he carried by all legal aliens and that it plans to test it in the near 

future. I see no reason why such a card cannot be adopted for use by the social 

security administration, with special markings, if necessary, to designate those 

persons not legally entitled to work in this country. Employers would he required 

to check the prospective employee’s social security card and perhaps some other 

evidence o f identity, not his citizenship or alien status. If you or I wish to cash a 

personal check at some business establishment, we are usually asked for some 

identification. An employer could simply ask to see the in dividual’s social security 

card and some other evidence of identity to insure t hat the holder of the card is 

the person he says he is. Not only would the employer be spared the time and 

effort of inspecting various documents, most of which may be easily altered, but 

the prospective employee would be spared needless questions about his citizenship 

or lack thereof.

Yesterday I introduced legislation to implement this proposal, II.R. 3737 but 

since it amends the Social Security Act, it was referred to the Ways and Means 

Committee. While I realize that your Subcommittee is unable to deal with that 

bill directly, I would hope tha t you would weigh the proposal carefully in vour 

deliberations here and perhaps recommend that we move toward such a procedure 

as the most acceptable and equitable long-range solution.

I realize that the social security approach cannot be implemented immediately, 

particularly since the Social Security Administration is having such difficulty 

keeping up with the responsibilities it already has. But I urge this Subcommittee 

to use its influence to get this proposal the serious consideration I feel it deserves.

In the meantime, of course, we are faced with an ever-rising flood of illegal 

aliens. We in the Southwest have been too aware for many, many years now of the 

economic and social burdens of coping with illegal aliens. As you know, I represent 

a portion of the vast, fertile, San Joaquin Valley of California which at one time 

brought in vast numbers of braceros to harvest its many crops. When the program 

was-terminated, more and more illegal aliens began flooding the valley, and in 

recent years I have received an ever-increasing number of complaints from 

American citizen and legal resident alien farm w'orkers who cannot find wrork. I 

have a letter here from the Acting Chief Patrol Agent from the Livermore Border 

Patrol Sector in California which indicates that the Fresno Station, whose area 

of responsibility covers the counties of Tulare, Kings, Fresno, Mariposa, Madera 

and Merced, has an authorized strength of 13 officers. During fiscal year 1974,
158

Fresno officers located 11,424 deportable aliens. Although the grea test portion 

were employed in agricultu re (10,176) this may very well be att rib ute d to the fac t th at with tits limited capabilities the Border Patrol mu st conc entrate its efforts on those locations where it expects to find large groups of illegal aliens. However, ju st last year the head of the Immigration Office in Fresno told me he estimated th at 90% of the business establishm ents in the City of Fresno had 

illegal aliens in their employ. Crime att rib ute d to the illegal alien is increasing. The Border Patrol tells me th at it is receiving continuing complaints and requests for assistance from local law enforcement officials thro ughout the San Joaq uin Valley. Above and beyond the illegal aliens appre hended by the Border Patrol, the 2 investiga tors working out of the Fresno INS Office la st year located a total of 1,398 deportable aliens *

las t year. Of tha t tota l, more than half were take n from the Fresno County Jail, 

and the majority of those had been arrested for vehicle driving violations. This brings me to another subject, the tremendous burden imposed on local governments in furnishing essential medical care to illegal aliens. As you know, in t he 92nd, 93rd and again in this Congress I introduced legislation which would *

require the Federal Gov ernm ent to reimburse local governments and hospitals for the costs incurred in providing just emergency medical care to illegal aliens, provided the cost could not be recovered from the alien or from some public assistance program. The problem first came to my attention several years ago when the small coun ty hosp ital in Merced, California came to me for help in getting an illegal alien, who had been critically injured in an automobile accident, tran sferred to a hospital in Mexico or to a Public Hea lth Service Hospital. We discovered th at the Public Health Service would accept the patient if a requ est were made by an interested federal government agency. In this case the request would have to come from the Imm igration and Natura liza tion Service. The INS took the position that it would not accept jurisdiction over the alien until he was well enough to retu rn to his own country, and it would not request the Public Health Service to tre at the alien because it did not have jurisdiction over him. Not unless the illegal alien is inju red or otherwise in need of emergency medical care while actually in th e custody of the IN S will tha t agency utilize the provisions of the Public Health Service Act to provide for tre atm ent in PUS facilities. In the end, the County of Merced paid approximately $76,000 for medical care for the above mentioned illegal alien, almost its entire medical budget for the 

year. We checked with other California counties and found th at the problem was widespread. Over $2,000,000 was spen t last year in providing emergency medical care to illegal aliens by San Joaquin Valley hospitals, and the County of Los 

Angeles alone spent $8,000,000. It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, th at your Subcommittee will give m y bill, H.R. 2159, serious consideration once the necessary legislation has been passed to stop employm ent of illegal aliens, so th at hard-pressed local governments can obtain some measure of relief from the tremendous financial burden they now mu st 

morally and legally carry in treatin g indigent illegal aliens. Finally, I would like to call your attention to an article which recently appeared •

in the Los Angeles Times, “Illegal Aliens Target of Union Organizers.” For Years I have heard rumors, some verified, some not, th at the Border Patrol was ap­ pe nd in g illegal aliens who held UFW and Teamster ID cards. Bu t this is the first indication I have seen th at union organizers are actua lly engaged in an all-out effort to organize illegal aliens. According to this report, “Officials of the Int ern a- *

tional Ladies Garmen t Workers Union,” decided to star t unionizing aliens be­ cause garmen t man ufac turers persist in hiring them and U.S. immigration au­ thorities claim thev do not have the manpower to deport most of them. The Assistan t District Director of the INS in Los Angeles noted th at it is no more illegal for unions to organize illegal aliens than for employers to employ them, 

bu t he also said: “I can ’t say t hat we condone either practice.” In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say th at I s upp ort in principle y our bill, H R . 982, bu t I am not sure it will be effective in stopping illegal aliens from taking jobs in some areas, and in others, I am afraid it will only have a discriminatory effect. Bu t any proposal to prohibit employment of illegal aliens must be ac­ companied by sufficient m anpower and funding for the Imm igration and Na tur al­ ization Service and Border Patrol. Unless we give the INS the funds it needs, enforcement of II. R. 982 or an y o ther proposal will be ineffective, if not impossible.
159

Mr. Sisk. In closing, Mr. Ch airma n, let me say th at I supp ort in 

princ iple yo ur bill, H .R . 9S2, bu t I am no t sure it will be effective in 

stop ping illegal aliens from taking jobs in some areas. In oth er areas, 

I am afr aid it will only h ave a dis criminatory effect. B ut any proposal 

to proh ibit emplo ym ent of illegal alien s mus t be accompanied by 

suff icie nt manpo wer and fund ing for the Im migratio n and Naturaliza tio n Service and Borde r Pa tro l. Unless we give the IN S the funds 

it nee ds, enforcement of H .R . 982 or a ny o ther proposal will be ineffective , if no t impossible.

« Mr. Chairma n, th at concludes my statemen t. There are m any oth er

things th at I could cite. Th is is a m at te r th at no t only do I feel deeply 

ab ou t because of the terri ble problems rig ht wi thin my own are a 

and St ate, bu t this rep res ents a grow ing concern on the par t of my

• constituents . Th e illegal alien sit ua tio n is totally an d com pletely ou t

of control in California to da y wi th the pos sibility of between a million 

and 2 m illion illegals in Ca lifo rnia rig ht now.

Tha nk y ou, Mr. Ch airma n.

Mr. E ilb erg. T ha nk you ve ry mu ch for a very enligh tening s ta te ­

ment, Mr. Sisk. I have ju st a few questions.

As far as I can observe, yo u have no t add ressed you rself to the 

pe na lty provisions of II .R . 982. I won der if you have exa min ed them, 

and wh eth er you hav e a reac tio n to them —w hethe r yo u would say 

they are too weak or too stron g. W ha t is yo ur obser vation?

Mr. Sisk. I do no t find an y su bs tantial criticism, Mr. Chairma n, 

with yo ur bill as I un de rst an d it in con nec tion with th e penalties. I 

sup pos e we could make the m tou ghe r. I no ted the rem ark s of my 

good friend and colleague from New York , who ju st preced ed me, in 

con nection with mak ing the penaltie s som ew hat s tronger. Here again, 

I th in k it gets down to a m at te r of wh at we rea lly can conside r to be 

accep tab le by the Congress an d by the people generally. I am inclined 

to th in k th at so far as a pe na lty th at 982 is pro bably ab ou t as good a 

balanc e as we could come to on th at basis.

Mr. E ilb erg. Would you su pp ort stronger penal ties th an appear 

in H.R . 982?

Mr. Sisk. I think now wi th the very serio us pro blem we hav e in 

Califo rnia, and the inc reasing problems it is causing th at I would be 

a

so incline d. I might very well person ally be able to su pp ort stronger

pen alties, bu t again I reco gnize th at this is a very con trover sial area, 

and because of the concern of a grea t man y employers across the 

co un try there is a que stio n as to how far we c an go.

« Mr. E ilb erg. Th is subcom mittee in othe r sessions of Congress

ha s received tes tim ony from various agricultura l gro ups and farm ers 

com pla ining th at they are un able to locate Am erican workers to 

ha rv es t their crops. I won der wha t yo ur reac tio n to th at statem en t 

wo uld be?

M r. Sis k. Well let me say, an d I come from a n area, Mr. Ch airma n, 

as yo u know , where we use a va st am ou nt of ag ric ult ural workers. 

We dea l in spe cialty crops, an d at ce rta in times of the ye ar we hav e 

in the valle y several hu nd red tho usand agric ult ura l employees doing 

spe cial type s of wor k in con nection with the gra pe ha rvest, frui t 

ha rves tin g, veg etable harvest, an d so on. Fran kly, as the chairma n 

may know , many years ago I supp orted , and at one tim e autho red ,
ICO

one of the extensions of Public Law 78. That has been and finally 

was referred to as the so-called bracero program. It was my frank 

conviction at the time tha t some kind of an orderly treaty with 

Mexico on the basis of legitimate contracts was the best way to 

handle the situation. And we predicted at the time tha t Public Law 

78 ended, that we would be overwhelmed by illegal aliens—and tha t 

is exactly what happened—th at the wetbacks would pour across 

that border in vast numbers. And I do not like to say I told you so, 

but there is no question but what tha t has come true.

Now, I am not here advocating a return basically to the bracero »

program. Many people charge that tha t is indentured labor, or slave 

labor. They use all kinds of terms because basically a contract is 

involved. But Lord knows, Mr. Chairman, we all live under contract.

We make a contract to do a given job and we are penalized if we do •

not live up to our contract. And I personally do not agree with the 

people who oppose that.

Mexico is interested in some kind of a trea ty relationship again 

along this line. I think tha t it is an area tha t should very definitely 

be explored. I know, of course, that as Secretary Kissinger and others 

have discussed this matter in the last year or so with the Mexican 

Government. And, as you probably know, they have a pilot program 

now with Canada in which they are trying out a new type of contract.

I would wish that we might explore this. I am opposed to slave labor;

I am opposed to indentured labor; but I frankly think tha t if, in 

fact—and there must be very stric t provisions—there is not labor 

available, and tha t is essential before permitting the importation, 

even under contract, of foreign labor, tha t to me is a much better 

way of handling it than the impossible situation we are faced with 

today.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Sisk, I am not sure you have answered the 

question that I was primarily concerned with. That is, is there a 

shortage of American labor, and bearing in mind-----

Mr. Sisk. No.

Mr. Eilberg. The economic situation today, I think that perhaps 

you might consider the answer to tha t question very carefully.

Mr. Sisk. Well in my opinion, no, there is no shortage of labor at 

present, today. I am sorry if I may have misunderstood your question 

exactly.

Mr. Eilberg. I might say in response to your idea about the use 

of the social security tha t you will be interested to know, and the 

members of the subcommittee, we are arranging to have the appear- #

ance of a representative of the Social Security Administration to 

testify directly on the operation of tha t law. But our preliminary 

studies so far indicate tha t the system has not been working well, 

and tha t it takes some 6 to 8 hours to check out a single case. It 

seems the Social Security Administration simply does not have the 

personnel or system set up to do this adequately. But we will find out 

directly from the Social Security Administration about what they are 

doing and what their capacities are.

I might also say tha t with regard to your concern about the employer not accepting a document, or feeling th at there might be some 

discrimination, I want to make perfectly dear for the record tha t in 

the last Congress when we passed II.R . 982 we made clear and em-
161

phasized tha t civil rights laws and the regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission were in effect and should he effectively utilized. And we expected tha t if there were any legitimate complaints by any prospective employee tha t tha t complaint would he taken to the appropriate Federal authority under existing laws, so that there would be a mechanism for countering or preventing employment discrimination. 1 might also say while we are not wedded to II.R. 982, and no doubt there will be changes in 982 hopefully before it comes to the floor, there were several reasons for the statement that was to be signed, or the statement by the prospective employee. In the first place, Mr. Sisk, was th at there was no obligation for the employer to obtain a signature to such a statem ent, but he could do that, and it would be held in his own personal possession, and it could be used by him as an affirmative defense in the event he were to be prosecuted under the H.R. 982, as we have introduced it. So it was not a matter of transferring the burden, or starting any flow of correspondence, but providing an easy mechanism where people in good faith could establish something for the record.

I have talked a bit long. Mr. Sarbanes.

Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank Congressman Sisk for a very helpful statement. Let me ask you this: H.R. 982 has graduated provisions for punish­ ment of employers who engage in the hiring of illegal aliens. It goes from a citation to a civil penalty, and then to a criminal penalty. Would the citation of an employer—if it were made public tha t he is employing illegal aliens—would tha t in itself have a deterrent effect on employers? In other words, would it be something they would not want to happen, to be cited publicly as employing illegal aliens? Or in vour area, let me ask, is the practice so widespread tha t they would simply shrug it off, and the only deterrent would be the fact tha t it then lakes them to the next step of the penalties? Or is 

the publicity itself something of a deterrent?

Mr. Sisk. Well, I think I would have to admit to my colleague from Maryland tha t the situation has become so out of hand in the Southwest, and I am speaking basically now of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and the Texas area, tha t I question that the fact that a person has been certified as having employed illegal aliens would have a great deal of bearing. I think tha t any employer might prefer not to be cited, b ut I question that it would have a great deal of bearing in view of the broad based situation today; whereas I cited, and I am not sure it is correct, but 90 percent of the industry, manufacturing plants and industrial plants, in my hometown are employing illegals. I am not saying that a single one of them is doing it knowingly, but yet, when we consider t hat much abuse going on, whether knowingly or unknowingly, I am not sure tha t a citation means very much.

Mr. Sarbanes. Well, do you think we need it then as a way to 

indicate to employers that, in fact, this law is going to be applied and not simply put on the books, and tha t the citation is a clear indication tha t the first step of the process is underway, or should 

we jus t drop it and start out with a stiffer penalty?

Mr. Sisk. Well, I would agree, I think we ought to give serious 

consideration possibly to what action we take in tha t first instance
162

of a conviction. There would have to be some kind of hearing or 

something to determine, in fact, tha t a man knowingly employed, 

knowingly is the key to it, and any person in this country today 

that knowingly employs an illegal alien, in my opinion, should be 

punished.

Something of significance, something tha t is going to make it 

unprofitable for him to repeat tha t crime. Now again, I realize that 

we go in degrees and for the repeater we always, of course, whether i t 

is in a felony or what it is, the penalty becomes greater, and as it 

should. But, as I said, I guess I live so close to the problem, I see so • 

much of it going on until there is just no question in my mind bu t 

what an industry tha t is knowingly employing illegal aliens today 

should definitely be punished, and should be hit very hard in the 

pocketbook in the initial phases. That is my feeling, if he is doing it • 

knowingly. Again, knowingly is the key word.

Mr. Sarbanes. Now, let me just ask one other question.

The laws with respect to illegal aliens have really not been enforced 

well for a number of reasons. B ut tha t is simply the fact of the matter.

In consequence, some illegals have established roots in this country 

and have established a family situation. Now, in your view is this 

a problem of sufficient merit that in trying to frame a remedy for 

the overall problem we should seek to make some adjustments tomeet that kind of situation?

Mr. Sisk. I think, Mr. Sarbanes, that we should let each case stand 

on its own. I would be totally opposed to any blanket amnesty of any 

kind. Well, it would just create an impossible situation. So, I think, 

these people should be deported, except and unless on the basis of 

equity, a morality, we as a generous people considering the hardships 

tha t might be involved, that were those to exist, and Lord knows I 

have them in my own district where connections have developed where 

for example, children have been born, fathered by an illegal, and a 

situation possibly where the mother is illegal, all kinds of combinations 

of really tragic situations, and I think in those areas we are simply 

going to have to judge it on an individual basis and try to deal with 

it. But no, I am totally opposed to any kind of blanket amnesty let 

us say for the large numbers of illegals.

Again, we are dealing, and 1 hope t hat I am thoroughly understood, * 

I am not anti-Mexican, or anti-South American, or anti-Spanish or 

anything else. I have very wonderful friends of Mexican descent, 

and we have lots of American citizens, very fine citizens of Mexican 

descent, but we have a problem on that border. And with the economic # 

conditions in Mexico, and that is what I tried to stress in the beginning, 

we are faced with almost an impossible task of the motivation of human 

beings. And we are all human beings desiring to better our situation, 

or try to take better care of our families, and when he stands there 

across the border, and he spends all day making a dollar and a half 

or $2, and he can go across the border in America and make tha t in 

an hour or less, tha t motivation is there, and until there is some way 

we can take the profit motive out of it, and stop it, they are going 

to continue to come. They are just human. I feel sorry for them.

I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman, I did not mean to make a speech on this.

This is something we see every day, we are living with out there.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Fish.
163

Mr. Fish. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, 

Mr. Sisk. When you refer to profit motive, as you did in the beginning 

of your statement, you say remove the economic incentive, you are 

talking a bout the thrust of the bill before us which is to prevent their 

lawful employment in the United States.

Mr. Sisk. That is right, yes, sir. Mr. Fish.

Mr. F ish. I think t hat having given this a great deal of thought myself tha t your idea of a social security card is the answer. As I understand it, the precedent tha t you refer to is the Immigration and Nat-

• uralization Service tamper-proof plastic identity card which could be 

•carried by lawfully admitted aliens or permanent residents which has a 

photograph on it?

Mr. Sisk. Yes; that is right.

• Mr. Fish. Which, of course, if tha t was incorporated in a similar 

social security card, this would go a long way, I think, toward having 

the one document.

Let us go over this. The law presently is tha t a social security card 

should only be issued to an American natural born citizen, a naturalized citizen or an alien adm itted to the United States for permanent 

residence and, therefore, eligible to work, is that correct?

Mr. Sisk. Th at is my understanding of the law. He must be a legal 

alien admitted for work anti qualified to work, and of course, any 

naturalized American or native born American.

Mr. F ish. So the affirmative responsibility th at we would be placing 

on the employer here would be to just simply ascertain th at individual’s 

social security card, assuming that we could get tha t fool-proof, 

tamper-proof card, and tha t would be the case right there, would it 

not, just the fact of the ownership and the possession of such a card, 

•either with the photograph on it or some other identity th at says tha t 

it is your card? Tha t would take care of the burden, the affirmative 

burden on the employer?

Mr. Sisk. Well, tha t is, of course, the intent. Now, we refer, if you 

note in the statem ent, to the fact that, of course, if we go to cash a 

check, or we know every day many times we are requested to have, for 

■example, or to submit a driver’s license in addition to other documention, and of course this so-called tamper-proof card is really right now

• under test. They are proposing to work on that, and we have been 

talking to those people, and tha t is to go out shortly. It depends, of 

•course, I guess, on how this test works out. You take apparently the 

forger’s ability to create, recreate fraudulent documents, and you have

• a very tough situation, and that is what we are facing here. Hopefully 

though, these could be so documented, so handled, so indexed, computerized, and have the use of the pictures to make them as nearly foolproof as possible. Th at seems to be the best way to identify them.

Mr. Fish. It seems to me this would protect the lawfully admitted 

alien, it would protect the American citizen of Hispanic origin who 

-otherwise may be discriminated against, and I think it does meet the 

fundamental problem most of us have with this, and tha t is tha t the 

most difficult person to prove citizenship is going to be the native 

born American citizen who simply does not carry around such documentation, and does not feel he needs it. Of course, this all looks to the 

future, to make it economically umvorthwhile to come to this country. 

It does not really go to the problem of the illegal aliens who are already here.
164

Can you draw a minute from your California experience where you 

have indicated that California simply is overrun with illegal aliens 

and has a very difficult problem? I am interested if there is another 

way that we can get at it in the Southwest area, and tha t is through 

those that are presently encouraging illegal aliens to come in. Can we 

identify smugglers, can we identify groups tha t are helping people 

with fraudulent documents, with promises of employment? Is there 

this kind of a traffic?

Mr. Sisk. Yes; there very definitely is. We have professional 

smugglers by air, by truck, and by rail. There is no question bu t what • 

there are those people, both Americans and non-Americans tha t are 

involved in the traffic here, which I think is almost as deplorable as 

the drug traffic, that are trafficking and handling these people. And 

they are bringing these people over. For example, we found them in •

tank trucks, and there have been people who died under very bad 

circumstances. There is tha t situation.

Mr. Fish. Are you satisfied with the prosecution of these smugglers 

in your State?

Mr. Sisk. No; I am not. I think very frankly we need much tougher 

prosecution. I think we need more law enforcement, more agents, 

more people. T hat border down there is a sieve, and I honestly believe 

sometimes if you had Border Patrolmen standing shoulder to shoulder 

from California to Texas tha t these people would still be coming in 

over you, under you, around you or some other way. It is a very 

difficult situation, and as long as the profit motive is there it will 

remain. There are some very serious law violations going on by those 

who traffic in this business of bringing illegals in, and really what I 

think we need is tougher sentences. I think, I hope, the judges would— 

and I do not want here to get into a fight with the judiciary—bu t 

frankly, I do not think they have been tough enough in sentencing 

these people who are caught trafficking. 1 think they ought to be 

treated, as I say, as criminals as, in fact, they are.

Mr. Fish. I do not want to take up much more time, but to do 

you justice, Congressman, to meet the problem of illegal aliens 

presently in the United States I assume you are proposing that all of 

us would turn in our existing social security cards for the new type 

that you envisage? It is not just something for future cards, bu t « 

everybody would get a new card tha t was entitled to it?

Mr. Sisk. Of necessity, this would be required I think ultimately.

Now, let me say in connection with this we have for now some 6 or 8 

years been looking at the use of the Social Security Administration ♦

and the use of the card, because of a greater and greater number of 

Americans carrying them. And I am not certain we have the perfect 

answer here yet. The bill tha t I have introduced went to the W ays 

and Means Committee because it does amend the Social Security Act, 

and I recognize the problem the chairman raised of the Social Security 

and the problems they are having right now, that i t is overburdened, 

understaffed, and they will tell you. But it is one area, in view of the 

broad use of social security cards today to every American, it seems 

to me tha t combining it with as foolproof a system as possible is the 

best way to approach it. Now again, 1 am not saying this is the perfect 

answer.
165

Mr. Fish. Finally, if I could have one more question, Mr. Chairman, are you suggesting in your testimony tha t in addition to going 

after the employer and putting an affirmative burden on him with sanctions, including criminal penalties, tha t we should likewise make and 

provide sanctions for unions who knowingly organize illegal aliens?

Mr. Sisk. Yes; T very frankly think tha t there is going to have to 

be some real consideration given here to what extent organizing efforts by a union or unions on a broad base tend to induce these people 

to come. I think this is a matter th at is going to have to be considered. 

« Let me say in fairness to the unions, generally I think they have

not encouraged it, and they have fought against it, and they have 

opposed, of course, these people coming in. What I cited here, of 

course, from the Los Angeles County area, the statement of the district

• attorney down there and so on is what really has come to pass now and 

it is well, we have a fact here, it is there in fact, whether we like it 

or not, and therefore, if they are going to employ them, we are going to 

organize them. And so I can have some sympathy with that. But on 

the other hand, I think again this is something tha t has to be looked 

at. If we intend to begin to put penalties on the employer, and begin 

to really crack down, we have to do the same thing with the unions, 

and we are all going to have to get in harness together on this.

Mr. Fish. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Cohen. Just a couple of questions.

I assume, Mr. Sisk, on page 1 of your statement tha t the use of the 

word “ unknowingly” was used in a very idealistic sense, that the solution to the problem is to prevent the hiring of illegal aliens knowingly 

or unknowingly? I do not really think you mean unknowingly.

Mr. Sisk. Well, I suppose you are correct. I am sure that there are 

illegal aliens working for people in California who frankly think they 

are legal. I am positive that there are. In fact, we have had actual 

cases tha t we have gotten involved in where, in fact, the person 

submitted a social security card, submitted a green card, submitted 

a union card, and in some cases an I.D. card with the Teamsters 

Union because both of them are organizing. In some instances we 

have caught them with all of these cards in their pockets, and all of 

e

the identification in the world and come to find out that the whole

thing was forged. So there are people who are employing illegals 

today who are innocent of knowingly employing or knowingly seeking 

out illegals.

• Mr. Cohen. We certainly could, you know, pass a law drawing a 

distinction between malum prohibitum and malum in laws, where by 

merely hiring someone who turned out to be an illegal alien would 

subject you to criminal penalties. We do tha t in many instances in 

the law, unrelated to aliens, of course, but I assume you would find 

that far, far too prohibitive to employers who would oppose that 

kind of penalty.

Mr. Sisk. We have, of course, and tha t is why I have always said 

that I could never support a bill unless the word “knowingly” employing becomes the keyword, which it is to me. No. 1, I have a great 

deal of problem accepting the idea of making every employer a policeman or making him an officer of the court, so to speak. In fact, I 

voted against the original bill coming out of this committee, authored
166

by the distinguished chairma n, M r. Rodin o. B ut r eal ly this sit ua tio n 

has go tte n so far o ut of h an d now th at I have become convinc ed th at 

we are all going to have to share a burden he re, we are all go ing to have 

to assu me some res ponsibility , and th at the e mployer is going to have 

to ge t in the re and sha re his pa rt of it. And kee ping in mind th at it 

has to be pro ven before he can be pr ose cut ed, t hat in fa ct, he knowingly 

emp loyed a pers on.

Mr. C oh ex. T he only o ther qu estion I have perta ins to the ques tion 

of am nesty . I believe you referred to thi s in response to a question 

from the cha irm an or Mr. Sarban es, on the que stio n of tak ing into 

account equities , or sta nd ar ds of mo rality. Fran kly , I have a grea t 

deal of difficulty w hen we tr y to phr ase stat ut or y language to encompas s an ind ividual sit ua tio n which migh t war ra nt some relief. Fo r 

exam ple, if we pass such a bill which pro hib its em ployers employing 

illegal aliens, and we req uir e th at each American, eve ryo ne in this 

country , carry a social security card to present to their emp loyer, firs t 

of all the illegal alien would h ot be able to be employed under this 

law; therefo re, no t entitled to social sec urity. T he n comes the q uestion 

th at they are in this co un try and we hav e, as Mr. Biaggi testified 

before, a trem end ous pro blem of welfare benefits. Now , several State s 

have tried to pass laws, and I belie ve Arizona an d Pennsylva nia 

passed laws to restr ict the paym en ts of welfare pa ym en ts to illegal 

aliens as such and they were str uc k dow n in the Graham case back in 

1971. So we now h ave a si tuation if th e person who comes here illegally 

has a family, th at might be a con sidera tion which w ould warrant, or 

would not warrant him no t being sent b ack to his co un try because it 

wou ld te ar up the fam ily str uc ture. I t seems to me we ru n into the 

problem of welfare pa ym ents. W ha t do we do with those ind ividuals 

who are here in this co un try , who ca nn ot work because we are prohibit ing t ha t, and y et a re ju st d raw ing on the p ublic welfare benefits? 

W ha t do we do in th at sit ua tio n? Do we send the entire fam ily back, 

or allow the entire fam ily to stay and collect pub lic welfare?

Mr. Sisk. Well, I am h ap py t hat yo u people have the responsibility 

of dra wing the law and I do no t have it. I appre cia te the problem 

th at y ou are speakin g of. I am concerned with it. I ha ve great confidence in the Ju dic iar y Co mm ittee and yo ur staff and yo ur ability to 

do it. I have those very kin ds of pro blems the gentlem an has cite d 

th at we h ave a ctu all y had to deal wi th, and we ha d a case in C alifornia 

where the judges have ruled th at we cann ot proh ibit an illegal alien 

from dra win g welfare. In othe r words, there aga in it gets down to 

whi ch comes first, the chicken or the egg. Unless the m an is deportabl e, 

and is in a position of being dep orte d technically then he can dra w 

welfare. And it g ets int o a ve ry difficult situatio n.

I have h ad e ver y conceivable, and I do no t wa nt to take a lo t of the 

co mmittee’s time, every con ceivab le kin d of a problem in connection 

with this. Re centl y I had a call. You talk ab ou t some of the problem s 

of illegals tak ing ove r job s from legals, you know, from citizens, or 

legal aliens in thi s co un try , I ha d a h urry-up call, I me an a very serious 

call from one of the s ma ller comm unitie s in my d istrict rec ently from 

a young lad y, and under questionin g as to her pro blem, and the fact 

th at he r business was being destroyed by virtu e of the illegal aliens, 

she happened to be a “lad y of the evening ,” and I will use th at term. 

You c an use wh ate ver ter m you w an t. B ut she and some of her associ-
167

ates in this particular community were finding their income substantially depleted by virtue of the fact tha t ladies of the evening 

illegally were coming into this country. This is again just an aside, and 

I do not mean to be facetious, Mr. Chairman, and take a lot of time. 

But we have got a very tough situation. I am seeking some answers, 

I know this committee is, and I want to support you in your efforts 

to try to solve some of them.

Mr. C ohen. Was she complaining about unfair foreign competition?

Mr. Sisk. Yes, she was very definite and very serious, too.

« Mr. Cohen. I will not get into the question of whether the quality

of the goods were superior or inferior. I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Sisk, do you believe the enactm ent of II.R. 981 

which would create a preference system for the Western Hemisphere,

* should be considered along with legislation affecting illegal aliens?

Mr. Sisk. Basically, w’e support that. And I think we did in the 

last Congress. It is a change in our consideration of Western Hemisphere immigrants and their treatment, being treated the same as 

Eastern Hemisphere?

Mr. Eilberg. Tha t is right.

Mr. Sisk. Yes, I very much support that. And in fact I think in 

the last Congress we had legislation in on that. I have, unfortunately, 

not studied 891 in this particular case, though, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Sisk, we are very grateful to you for appearing 

here today and we thank you for your contribution.

Mr. Sisk. Thank you very much.

Mr. Eilberg. Our next witness is Mr. Richard White, a Congressman from Texas.

TESTIMONY OF HON. RICHARD C. WH ITE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. White. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the 

committee. First, may I commend this committee for recognizing 

through your actions that the illegal alien problem is very significantly 

contributing to the economic troubles this country is presently 

attem pting to overcome. It is needless to take the committee’s time 

e

by describing the gravity and the national dimensions of the problem.

This has already been clearly spelled out and validated in a continuing 

series of reports from the Immigration and Naturalization Service 

and through research and hearings by this committee. 1 would only

• briefly reiterate the increasingly recognizable consequences of the very 

telling financial strain this problem is causing to this country— 

unemployment due to illegal aliens holding jobs, education costs, 

welfare and public health costs, and even an effect on our international balance-of-payments posture. My purpose, rather, is to offer 

sincere and what I feel are well-predicated suggestions for meaningful 

and workable solutions.

First, I should like to mention to the committee tha t I represent the 

16th District of Texas, a district which enjoys a 352.2-mile common 

boundary with the Republic of Mexico. Further, 1 am a native born 

resident of the city of El Paso, the principal city in my district, and a 

city which joins with Juarez, Mexico, to form the largest metropolitan 

complex on the United States-Mexico border. Prior to coming to
168

Congress I practiced law in El Paso, including some immigration law.

I, therefore, have a longstanding familiarity with the problem of 

illegal aliens, a problem which only in recent years has achieved 

nationwide recognition.

1 want to stress to the committee tha t I am not here to oppose any 

attempt for solution to this growing problem, nor to condemn any 

particular bill; rather, I want to suggest refinements to II.R. 982 and 

possible inclusion of additional features which I feel would strengthen 

the bill and make it more effective toward rectifying and ultimately 

solving the illegal alien problem. I address myself to II.R . 982, since 

this is the vehicle the committee has chosen to help solve the present 

dilemma. I am not going to dwell on the obvious discrimination tha t 

will result against any prospective employee who might be suspected 0

to be an alien because of appearance or spoken accent. This is a very 

real objection voiced by several who know the border.

As an alternative, the Commissioner of the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service and the Under Secretary of Labor suggested 

in previous testimony before your committee than an improved social 

security card system could be considered. May I interject a t this point,

Mr. Chairman. I believe tha t the present II.R . 982 would work at 

cross purposes to civil rights legislation previously passed by this 

committee, even though the committee has made the caveat tha t the 

civil rights legislation should be observed in employment practices.

Designation of citizenship or alien status on a social security card 

was part of a plan I had devised along with many others I am sure— 

which I now only briefly mention—to provide tha t employers check 

all social security cards, report alien designees to the INS, who could 

in turn utilize computers to sift through such designees for illegal 

aliens. Failure to notify the Immigration Service of employees whose 

social security card designates them as aliens would be a penalty.

As I read ILR. 982, and as I have discussed it with Federal prosecutors, the penalty provisions as now constructed are unenforceable 

against a calculating employer. Further, these provisions directly 

violate some of the basic principles of civil and criminal law, and the 

American jurisprudence system. First, why is the bill as now proposed 

unenforceable against a willful violator? Because, as the Commissioner 

of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Acting At- •

torney General inferred in previous testimony before this committee, 

a clear loophole is provided by the following language:

An employer shall not be deemed to have violated this subsection if he has 9 made a bona fide inquiry, a signed sta tem ent in writing in conformity with regulations which shall be prescribed by the Atto rney General, shall be deemed prima 

facie proof th at such employer, has made a bona fide inquiry.

You can be sure tha t under this language anyone who desires to 

hire illegal aliens knowingly and with impunity will secure the proper 

forms and have the alien sign one. This in effect shifts the burden of 

proof to the United States, and under the realities of evidence, it 

would be an impossible and highly expensive burden to meet.

Regarding the violation of the basic American principles of fair 

hearing, confrontation of witnesses, and the opportunity to present 

new evidence, I point to the provisions commencing on page 4 of the 

bill. Subsection (b)(2) states:
169

If, on evidence or information he deems persuasive, the Attorney General con­ cludes that an employer, agent or referrer has violated the provisions of paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall serve a citation on the employer, agent or referrer 

informing him of such apparent violation.

The idea of establishing guilt on information for an apparent violation smacks of star chamber proceedings, and, if challenged in court, 

the act could be vulnerable to a constitutional question. Equally important is the fact that there is no provision here for input on the 

part of the accused individual. You can say that no fine flows immedie

ately from the citation, but I call your attention to the structure of

the sanctions which make the citation a predicate for the civil fine 

on a second charge and a criminal fine and/or imprisonment on a 

third charge.

« Pyramid structuring of the sanctions demands that the accused be

afforded a clear opportunity to present his evidence from the onset, 

or first step. If you wish to have an administrative step that will 

allow the accused an opportunity to present his evidence, I suggest that the bill be rewritten to allow the alleged violator the chance of 

refuting the allegations of the citation by presenting a sworn statement, which would negate the citation. If he submits a false sworn 

statement, then he is subject to the legal proceedings applicable to such an offense— false swearing is a criminal offense. It is this sworn 

statement which should be regarded in terms of prima facie evidence.

Now, I will mention one thing that Mr. Sarbanes spoke of with the 

previous witness. He stated that this would be a public citation. Now, this in a sense offends me, because I cannot see the U.S. Government 

official with the immunity surrounding his office, and the powers that 

are given to him, libeling or slandering on information, on an apparent 

violation. Now, the citation, if you have contemplated a citation, 

should go directly to the offender, or the alleged offender, and not be a matter of public statement, because then we would be doing an 

injustice to the American public and to individuals who may be otherwise innocent. Subparagraphs (b) (3) and (4) in reference to the second phase of 

the sanctions provid e:

If, in a proceeding initiated within two years after the service of such citation, the Attorney General finds that any employer, thereafter violated the provisions

• of paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall assess a penalty of not more than $500 for each alien. A civil penalty shall be assessed, only after the person charged, has been given an opportunity for a hearing and the Attorney General has deter­ mined that a violation did occur. The hearing shall be of record and conducted

#

before an immigration officer, in accordance with the requirements of title 5, 

section 554 of the United States Code.

The bill does not specifically state that a full hearing based on 

evidence take place for the $500 fine by the Attorney General. In 

subjecting the employer to a civil penalty, an opportunity for hearing 

is provided, but it is before an immigration officer and not a court of 

law. If an accused person is assessed a penalty by the Attorney General and for some reason fails to respond, the finding stands. 

Furthermore, the conspicuous absence of an opportunity for the 

accused to present his evidence before a court of law, under the rules 

of evidence is extremely material, particularly because these first 

and second phases are the predicate for a prison sentence in the
170

event there is a third charge. I also point out tha t “opportunity’* 

for sharing could mean a fine could be levied without an actual 

hearing. What other fines are levied without the actual presence of 

the accused?

Now, there may be some, bu t I am no t aware of them.

Subparagraph (b)(5) states:

In any such suit or in any oth er sui t seeking to review the Attorney General’s 

dete rmination, the suit shall be determined solely upon the adm inistrative 

record upon which the civil pen alty was assessed and the Attorney General’s 

findings of fact, if supported by sub stantial evidence on the record considered _

as a whole, shall be conclusive.

This means the findings by an immigration officer who may or may 

not be trained in law. In addition, there is no opportunity to present 

evidence. Suppose the person wras given the opportunity for hearing • 

and for some reason failed to appear. The immigration officer could 

levy the assessment and develop the administrative record from the 

information—which could be hearsay—on hand. It’s possible. According to the bill, this administrative record is conclusive and again 

would be a basis for the fine and the criminal sanctions provided for 

a third violation charge. Assume tha t a person in fact was not guilty 

of the first violation nor the second charge, but failed to respond.

On the third charge of a violation, though it may have actually been 

his first, he could be sent to the penitentiary and fined up to $1,000.

The right of appeal to a Federal court should definitely be given, 

to one upon whom an assessment has been made, with an opportunity 

to present his evidence de novo.

Subparagraph (c) states:

Any em ployer or person who has been assessed a civil penalty under subsection 

(b)(3) which has become final and therea fter violates subsection (b)(1) shall be 

guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine 

not exceeding $1,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, for 

each alien.

But there is no time limitation. There was in the first finding, it said 

within 2 years, but not on the third. Suppose a man has been cited 

and fined on two violations, and after 20 years is accused of another 

violation. Can the previous two findings be used as a basis for a third 

charge 20 years later and therefore make him subject to a criminal 

proceeding? Or should there be a time limit written into the bill • 

between the first two violations and the third charge of a violation?

Can we say we have done justice to the American public when in our 

haste and need to find a solution to a serious problem, w-e violate 

some basic precepts of jurisprudence which have taken centuries and * 

the refinements of several civilizations to develop?

Having been raised on the border, 1 have lived with the realities of 

border culture and coexistence and I know’ that Federal laws do not 

always fit the local situation. That is why we have a federated system 

of government and we theoretically leave to the States those matters 

which should not be legislated by the Federal Government. Now, I 

am not suggesting this be left to the States, however.

My district relies heavily upon farming and ranching. Farming is 

one of the mainstays of our balance of payments and has helped to 

sustain a high standard of living for the people of this country. In my 

area farming is done by irrigation, which requires an additional number
171

of man hours to develop a productive crop. Cotton, alfalfa, livestock, 

and other produce are grown in my district. In order to produce a crop of minimal profit and to help furnish this country with the food and fiber it needs, it is necessary to have a labor source available for what is often referred to as stoop labor. The realities of the present indicate there is very little unskilled labor available in this country. Now, there is skilled labor, there is labor, you might say, but I will go 

further. A higher minimum wage for agricultural workers has been enacted, bu t other programs such as welfare and food stamps—as important and useful as they are for those who need them—have helped to create a group of indolent persons who are able, but not willing, to accept certain types of employment. They are not the ones this 

program was intended to reach. I am not saying there are not people in our communities who could not do this needed unskilled labor, but in developing programs which we in Congress found necessary to help sustain those who are unable to earn a decent living, we are seeing tha t many of those who were previously employed on ranches and farms can receive as much compensation to sustain themselves by doing no work and drawing food stamps, welfare payments, or unemployment payments. In certain parts of the country, where the cost of living is lower, we can find even fewer people who will accept agricultural labor. Such is the situation all along the United States-Mexico border. You can go to communities, small rural communities in my district and go to the town square. You will see people sitting around there, people who appear to be able bodied, and you will ask them if they would like to do some of this type of work, agricultural work, and they will say no, no, because they are drawing enough to sustain themselves in their standard of living at that time. They do not want to go to tha t work and they will not, as long as the loopholes exist in the present law tha t allow people to draw even though they are able bodied. This program 

needs to be reviewed. The farmers and ranchers must consequently look elsewhere for the unskilled work force necessary for such a livelihood. The available labor source has been from Mexico, from workers who are eager to accept such employment. II.R . 982 has been stalled in the Senate for several sessions and the reasons, as you well know, were partly be­ cause, as you know, no provision was contained to furnish a source of agricultural and unskilled labor—alien or otherwise—which is ab­ solutely imperative to the southern and southwest regions. I do not propose a reinstitution of the bracero program, although it succeeded in slowing down the number of illegal aliens. I understand and realize that there were abuses of that program. But what I have proposed in 

the past, and propose to you now7—with revisions to meet the objections raised at the times I have tried to amend the Rodino bills on the floor—will help solve this very real dilemma. I suggest—and have copies if you desire to study it in more detail—I suggest an amend­ ment to II.R . 982 which will merely expand and define an existing program of admission of aliens under the temporary category. 1 propose to spell out the procedures by which an individual em­ ployer can contract with an individual alien for specific terms of employment. I propose t ha t an employer can hire an alien for up to

49 -7 69 — 75------ 12
172

1year a t a time, renewable for up to 3 aggregate years, for a particular 

job under terms stipulated by the Secretary of Labor, and carefully 

controlled by the Secretary—particularly to ascertain that there is no 

domestic labor source of able and willing workers. The terms would 

also insure no exploitation of the alien.

Unlike my previous bill, I propose to allow lateral transfer of employment. To obviate any charge of involuntary servitude, my amendment would allow the alien to obtain other jobs with other employers 

in the United States without having to return to his native country, 

as long as the alien goes through the same process of certification by *

the Labor D epartment, and still be subject to the ceiling of 3 aggregate 

years of contracted employment in the United States. Unskilled labor 

is not domestically available and if no such provision of law is made 

to provide timely access to such labor, there is no way tha t you are *

going to succeed, I don’t believe, in preventing or dissuading employers from hiring illegal aliens who want to work in jobs tha t must 

be done. I am convinced U.S. employers do not want to hire illegal aliens.

If they could find legal labor in the U.S. labor market, citizens or 

legal aliens, they would hire them. Employers are under the fiat of 

the minimum wage law and they are not desirous of violating it. It 

becomes then, incumbent upon us to provide that labor because I 

cannot see how in the near future tha t we can force unemployed U.S. 

workers to take jobs they don’t want as long as these other programs 

will sustain them.

1 ask you as Americans to give the farmers and ranchers the relief 

they need, to live and let live, because what you do in this bill will 

also affect your area of the country—in the food and fiber tha t your 

constituents enjoy and in our continued high standard of living.

In closing, Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the committee,

I would like to stress th at I, as much as any legislator in the Congress, 

would like to see the accomplishment of operative and effective 

amendments to the immigration and nationality laws—probably 

more than many of the Members of Congress considering the geographical location of my district. In this context, 1 want to inform 

you tha t I have had a series of very productive meetings with the 

(Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. •

General Chapman has stressed to me t hat he needs the realization of 

three considerations in order to cope effectively with this monumental 

problem—namely: a penalty title to discourage the open hiring of 

illegal aliens; a sizable increase in his manning tables; and the in- *

stitution of a new, secure alien identification card system.

You are in the process of providing a penalty title, and I strongly 

urge your attention to and consideration of the suggestions I have 

made in this area. In addition, I would suggest the advisability of 

this committee to statutorily provide for the increase in the INS 

manning tables and for funding of the proposed new alien identification card system, rather than leaving these integral parts of the overall program to the discretion of the budget and appropriation 

procedures. Thank you very much for this opportunity to present this testimony which, I assure you, has been offered constructively and 

hopefully will receive favorable consideration from this committee.

Mr. Eilberg. Thank you, M r. White.
171

of man hours to develop a productive crop. Cot ton , alfalfa, livestoc k, 

and other produce are grown in my district. In order to produce a crop 

of minimal profit and to help furnish this cou ntry with the food and 

fiber it needs, it is necessary to have a labo r source availab le for what 

is often referred to as stoop labor. Th e realities of the prese nt indicate 

there is ve ry little unskilled labor available in this cou ntry. Now, 

there is skilled labor, there is labor, you mig ht say , bu t I will go 

furth er.

A higher minimum wage for agricultural workers has been enacted, 

but other programs such as welfare and food stamps— as imp ortant 

and useful as they are for those who need them— hav e helped to 

create a group of indolent persons who are able, but not willing, to 

accept certa in types of emp loym ent. Th ey are not the ones this 

prog ram was intended to reach.

I am not saying there are not people in our communities who could 

not do this needed unskilled labor, but in developing programs which 

we in Congress found necessary to help sustain those who are unable 

to earn a decent living, we are seeing tha t many of those who were 

prev iously employed on ranches and farms can receive as much 

compensation to sustain themselves by doing no work and drawing 

food stamps, welfare paym ents, or unemploym ent paym ents. In 

certain parts of the country, where the cost of living is lower, we can 

find even fewer people who will accep t agricu ltural labor. Such is the 

situation all along the United Stat es-M exico border. Yo u can go to 

communities, small rural communities in my distr ict and go to the 

town square. Yo u will see people sitting around there, people who 

appear to be able bodied, and you will ask them if they would like 

to do some of this type of work , agricultural work, and the y will say 

no, no, because they are drawing enough to sustain themse lves in their 

standard of living at tha t time. Th ey do not want to go to tha t work 

and they will not, as long as the loopholes exist in the present law tha t 

allow people to draw even though they arc able bodied. Th is program 

needs to be reviewed.

Th e farmers and ranchers must consequently look elsewhere for 

the unskilled -work force necessary for such a livelihood. Th e availab le 

labor source has been from Mexico, from workers who are eager to 

accep t such employment. II .R . 982 lias been stalled in the Senate for 

several sessions and the reasons, as you well know, were partly because, as you know, no provision was contained to furnish a source of 

agricultural and unskilled labo r— alien or otherwise— which is absolu tely imperative to the southern and southwest regions. I do not 

propose a reinstitution of the bracero program, although it succeeded 

in slowing down the number of illegal aliens. I understand and realize 

tha t there were abuses of tha t program. Bu t what I have proposed in 

the past, and propose to you now— with revisions to meet the objections raised at the times I hav e tried to amend the Rodino bills on 

the floor— will help solve this very real dilemma. I sugg est— and have 

copies if you desire to stu dy it in more deta il— I suggest an amendment to H .R . 982 which will merely expand and define an existing 

progra m of admission of aliens under the temporary category.

1 propose to spell out the procedures by which an individual employ er can contract with an individual alien for specific terms of 

emp loym ent. I propose tha t an employer can hire an alien for up to

49 -7 69 — 75 ------ 12
174

Mr. White. Yes, sir, they are.

Mr. E ilberg. In view of the enormous national employment 

situation.

Mr. White. They are up to date, sir.

Mr. Eilberg. I find it difficult to understand with such a large 

unemployed labor force tha t some of the labor could not be directed-----

Mr. White. Well, you cannot transport labor throughout the 

country, but I am talking about what I know in my district, and I 

would invite your staff or anybody to go through the district, to 

talk to the many employers, and to talk to the people that you find 

in the square and see if they will take this type of job. I t is a reality. 

It is not a theory.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. White, you are familiar with the H-2 program?

Mr. White. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eilberg. It is not clear to me from your statement why you 

would change the H -2 system? Why can we not use the H-2 system 

rath er than the device tha t you are suggesting?

Mr. White. I am talking about expanding the H-2 system, because 

in the H-2 system, there is no procedure spelled out. As I read the 

bill, the act, it merely makes a provision in it tha t has not been 

honored by the Secretary of Labor in most instances. The Secretary 

of Labor apparently has not liked this program, and has, therefore, 

not instituted it. But I would hope tha t the committee would lay 

out procedures, and put some teeth into it so tha t the Secretary of 

Labor will help obtain the labor tha t is necessary through this procedure. And you know, this is why, as I understand it, the Rodino 

bill stalled in the Senate.

Mr. Eilberg. So you maintain that under your system tha t the 

Labor Department would cooperate and provide labor certification?

Mr. White. If this committee provides the procedures tha t trigger 

the program, the Secretary of Labor will fulfill the law. He will be 

obliged to. Tha t would be his duty.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. White, that is his duty today, as we understand 

H-2 , and we have had considerable difficulty with the Labor Departmen t’s administration of the program.

Mr. White. Have you----- ■

Mr. Eilberg. And I fail to see how your system will place any 

higher burden on the Labor Department. It seems to me tha t same 

shortcoming would still be there. They simply would refuse to issue 

the labor certifications.

Mr. White. They have refused to issue them, and that is why 

I suggest tha t you put some teeth in it that will trigger an issuance 

of those certificates. Now, I am not talking about theory, I am talking 

about field experience, and farmers and ranchers and other employers 

who have attempted to utilize this particular program and have found 

it virtually impossible.

Mr. Eilberg. Well, where are the teeth in your proposal that would 

make the Labor Department issue a certification?

Mr. White. In my proposal?

Mr. Eilberg. Yes.

Mr. White. Well, in the first place it sets out the procedures, and 

I think you could mandate the Secretary of Labor under the procedures 

to fulfiU them, because you set out the basis, and you also give—and
175

if they have not sufficient teeth in what I propose, then I urge, if vou 

like this provision, that you put more teetn into it, whatever it takes.

Mr. Eilberg. Well, we are for more teeth in providing labor 

certification. B ut-----

Mr. White. I would suggest for one thing, Mr. Chairman, tha t 

you get some statistics from the Bureau of Labor to find out how many 

they have issued under this section, and I think you will see th at this 

section has not been honored. And it has not been honored for the 

purposes for which it was devised.

* Mr. Eilberg. Well, Mr. Wliite. I have the 1973 report of the 

Immigration Service here and i t indicates during 1973 that there were 

9,268 temporary workers under II—2.

Mr. White. II ow many?

* Mr. Eilberg. 9,268.

Mr. White. In the entire country?

Mr. Eilberg. Yes.

Mr. White. Well, that is a p retty pitiful amount.’

Mr. Eilberg. Well, I do no t know what the needs are.

Mr. White. What are they? Are they broken down? Th at would be 

a question too, because a lot of people have not had success with this 

particular program.

Mr. Eilberg. They are broken down into foreman, laborers who 

are designated as wage workers, laborers designated as unpaid family 

workers, and sheep herders.

Mr. White. Furthermore, my suggestion will put a time limit, and 

it is n ot in this particular bill or act I do not believe.

Mr. Eilberg. Well, under H.R. 981 we provide for 1 year.

Mr. White. It is 1 year?

Mr. Eilberg. Yes.

Mr. White. Then I suggest 1 year with an aggregate of 3 total.

Mr. Eilberg. Now, you have not commented, and I would like 

you to comment, if possible, on the penalties in H .R. 982; what your 

reaction is to those penalties, or whether you would recommend any 

other penalties.

Mr. White. My complaint about the bill is not necessarily the 

penalties, but the right of review, and the right for hearings on the

*

part of those who are accused. If you put in the American style 

opportunities for presentation of evidence, and to be confronted by 

witnesses, I think then an employer could not complain. But unfortunately, in the bill as it presently stands you do not have those

» protections. So I am here not complaining about the penalties, I am

complaining about the procedures.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. White, I just would like to state for your benefit and for the record tha t on page H3311 of the Congressional 

Record of May 3, 1973, a colloquy took place on this bill between 

Ms. Iloltzman, a member of the subcommittee and myself in which 

it was made perfectly clear th at that additional hearing was under 

the Administrative Procedure Act, that there was an absolute right 

to a hearing, and tha t the employer was completely protected; so 

I think you are wrong in your statement.

Mr. White. Well, I read the bill, sir, and the bill calls for the first 

time for a citation on information, on an apparent violation. The 

second time is before an immigration officer who may or may not
176

have law training, and his finding will be conclusive and on the substantial evidence rule. And these are the predicates for going to prison 

on the third violation. That is my complaint.

Mr. Eilberg. I would have no objection if the subcommittee or 

the committee felt it necessary to write tha t into the bill, but I assure 

you once again that tha t was our intent as spelled out in the colloquy 

that took place between Ms. Holtzman and myself. So I really do not 

think we have a difference on tha t point.

Mr. Sarbanes.

Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. White, what is the unemployment rate in • 

Texas?

Mr. W hite. It varies from area to area.

Mr. Sarbanes. Well, I mean what is the statewide unemployment 

rate today? *

Mr. White. I really do not know, sir, but I would take a wild 

guess th at it is something in the area of 6 or 7 percent.

Mr. Sarbanes. And what is it in your district?

Mr. White. It is probably higher.

Mr. Sarbanes. In your district higher than th at?

Mr. White. I would think so; yes.

Mr. Sarbanes. Now, what would be your view-----

Mr. White. It depends again on the part of the district. There is 

one area where there is no unemployment, but there are other parts 

where there is some unemployment.

Mr. Sarbanes. Would you say tha t in your district there is widespread employment of illegal aliens by the farmers and the ranchers 

to which you refer?

Mr. White. I would think there would be; yes.

Mr. Sarbanes. That there is widespread employment?

Mr. White. I would judge so.

Mr. Sarbanes. Are they paying the illegal aliens the minimum 

wage applicable to tha t employment?

Mr. White. I think they would because they would be under a 

violation of law if they do not with penalties.

Mr. Sarbanes. Well, I understand th at they would be violating the 

law if they were not paying the minimum wage, b ut tha t was not my 

question. I merely was asking-----

Mr. White. Obviously, I could not have personal knowledge, but 

I would judge tha t they would.

Mr. Sarbanes. Because it is a violation of the law or because you 

know for a fact tha t most of them do pay the minimum wage? «

Mr. White. Because it is the law. I do not think that they were 

paying minimum wage before, but now tha t the law has changed, I 

believe th at they would be paying the minimum wage.

Mr. Sarbanes. Now, if the law were changed so tha t it was a 

violation by them to employ illegal aliens, would you assume tha t 

they would conform with that law in the same manner as you believe 

they are conforming with the minimum wage law?

Mr. White. I think in some instances. I do not think tha t they 

would ask, and they would hope tha t the man did n ot say, because 

they are faced with the realities of their crops. I think that once if a 

man was to identify himself as an illegal alien, I think most of them 

would comply.
Mr. Sarbanes. Now, the payment of these benefits that you refer to and to which you attribute the inability to obtain, I think, what 

you called-----

Mr. White. Stoop labor?

Mr. Sarbanes. No; you called it willing and-----

Mr. White. Willing and able.

Mr. Sarbanes [continuing]. Willing and able, I think, is the way you referred to it, the paym ent of benefits is governed, is it not, by 

the State of Texas?

Mr. White. Yes. But of course, there are some problems as far as the ability to inquire, and to go in and to follow up. And this is a problem. I think it is a problem tha t you probably would find all over the country, there are persons who may be on the margin, or even who are quite able who are drawing, and this is food stamps. This is our problem nationwide, it is not just located in my district, and that is why 1 think the whole program needs to be reexamined 

and redefined.

Mr. Sarbanes. Well, there are a number .of areas in the country in which you cannot draw these benefits if you are able to take work and do not take it. Is that not the case in the State of Texas?

Mr. White. I could not say tha t it is or not, sir. I do not know. 

And I would-----

Mr. Sarbanes. Would you feel------

Mr. White. What you stated is theory, and probably not fact.

Mr. Sarbanes. Would you feel tha t rath er than addressing this particular aspect of what you perceive the difficulty to be in obtaining workers, a solution lies in setting up a process for bringing in people from outside of the country and employing them instead of employing 

our own people?

Mr. White. Well, I have recommended, myself, to the Ways and Means Committee a program whereby a man who does not take a position, does not get aid if he is able bodied, but tha t at the present time has not been instituted, and they have only gone so far as public service jobs. Now, I am talking about the private sector as well. But I say facing the realities of w hat we have now, and the fact tha t these men live from year to year and have to have the labor, now if you cut off the illegal aliens without providing some other, faster way to obtain labor, then you have chaos among the border areas. 1 think Mr. Sisk 

probably was trying to infer this as well.

Mr. Sarbanes. Now, as for the observations you make about the penalty provisions of the bill, we could, of course, impose a criminal 

penalty first time out; could we not?

Mr. White. Yes.

Mr. Sarbanes. As a m atte r of power?

Mr. White. Yes. If you had hearings.

Mr. Sarbanes. Oh, yes. Yes, indeed.

Mr. White. With de novo evidence.

Mr. Sarbanes. That is right. We could impose a criminal penalty 

first time out.

Mr. White. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

Mr. Sarbanes. Do you think we should do that?

Mr. White. Tha t is up to the committee. I am not going to suggest 

a position such as that.
178

Mr. Sarbanes. Of course, if we did that, it would eliminate the 

problems you find with the use of the citation and the civil fine, 

with respect to both stages I gather you wish to attach all of the 

procedural aspects?

Mr. White. Yes, sir.

Mr. Sarbanes. All of the procedural aspects tha t run with the 

criminal penalty; is that right?

Mr. White. I suggest the first time the opportunity for a sworn 

statement to negate the citation, in the first instance, if you are going 

to keep this system. Tha t would make the person then vulnerable to 

a charge of false swearing, and that is a very simple procedure tha t 

you could use. If the person failed to present such state ment then, 

of course, he has had his opportunity. I am talking about an opportunity now. The second time I suggest a hearing, if you are going to 

keep the present structure that you have got in the bill, and the third 

time with the-----

Mr. Sarbanes. Well, there is a hearing provided in the bill in the 

second stage.

Mr. White. No. There is an opportunity for a hearing. You did 

not say a hearing, you said an opportunity for a hearing which is 

different. That is the difference. And you also have it before an immigration officer who may or not be a law officer, I mean a man trained 

in the law, and you also do not provide de novo hearings, presentation 

of fresh evidence on an appeal. You provide for the appeal, but you 

do not give him the chance to present evidence.

Mr. Sarbanes. It would seem to me probably the way to solve your 

problem is to go to the criminal penalty at the first stage, with all 

of the procedures that run with a criminal penalty.

Mr. White. If you do that, then I do not know tha t anyone can 

•complain. But you have got to give them the full hearing.

Mr. Sarbanes. You would not complain on the procedural side 

if we did that, if we went to that stage immediately?

Mr. White. I am not recommending it, but I would not complain.

Mr. Sarbanes. Would you complain on the substantive side; 

that is, going to tha t penalty right away as too severe a penalty?

Mr. \\ hite. I think tha t most of the people in my district would 

regard it as too severe.

Mr. Sarbanes. Would you so regard it?

Mr. White. Yes, 1 think probably so.

Mr. Sarbanes. Or have some complaint if that were done?

Mr. White. I probably would. I had another system of my own 

which I felt was better, and it provided something like this—but 

it is not very popular—would provide tha t if you went to this identification system, tha t anyone who hires an illegal alien, who is designated 

on a card—social security card—as an alien, would then be obliged to 

notify the Immigration Service immediately. Through a computer 

system, if he was an illegal alien, and then the Immigration Service 

would pick him up. I said then tha t the employer would then have to 

pay assertive administrative costs and the cost of transporting him 

back to the point of debarkation, which is precisely the cost the 

taxpayer would have to pay. Tha t is not a penalty. Th at is a reimbursement to the taxpayers. That is what I suggest instead.
179

Mr. Sarbanes. And tha t is the extent of the penalty you propose 

to provide?

Mr. White. Well, under that system, you could get the repeaters.

Mr. Sarbanes. Would you regard the penalty you provided as a 

deterrent to the employment of illegal aliens?

Mr. White. I think it would.

Mr. Sarbanes. Or simply as a fee for their use?

Mr. White. I t would be a deterrent. I did not catch your last word. 

It would be a deterrent; bu t to do this and really stop hiring of illegal

• aliens in any instance you still have to provide the outlet tha t I am 

talking about for contract visas. You cannot take away without also 

making a provision. That is what I am saying, under the realities of 

the need for labor. If you did the other, I do no t think that you are

• going to find complaints. If you provide penalties, immediate penalties, 

let us say criminal penalties, and do not also provide at the same time 

the opportunity to hire, with procedures to hire individual labor, I 

do not think you would find the people in my district would be for that.

Mr. Sarbanes. There is the II-2 procedure nowr for obtaining labor. 

The Secretary of Labor is unwilling to make the certification apparently in light of domestic employment conditions. Now, would you 

go so far as to require the Secretary to make a certification in those 

instances in which the employer had entered into a contract with 

an alien?

Mr. White. I would if certain predicates could be proved—if the 

predicates could be proved—a proving of no available domestic labor 

for tha t purpose. But presently the discretion is entirely in the hands 

of the Secretary of Labor who has constantly and insistently not 

allowed the implementation of this section.

Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Fish.

Mr. Fish. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. White, I thank you for your testimony. And as regards the 

recommendations for procedural due process, I think we should, the 

committee and staff, study your suggestions very carefully.

I just want to draw your attention to the top of page 2 of your 

testimony where you are referring to the social security card system.

9 You recall, and perhaps you do because you were in the room here,

the colloquy I had with the previous witness, Congressman Sisk. That 

was t hat the social security card is authorized only for a native-born 

American citizen, a naturalized American citizen, or an alien lawfully

• admitted and entitled to work. Th at being the case I do not quite 

understand the purpose of your proposal tha t the designation of 

citizenship or alien status on a social security card should be implemented. What purpose is th at going to serve?

Mr. White. Well, this would be partially to obviate forgery. Now, 

whatever system you use or the Government institutes is going to be 

duplicated or attempted to be duplicated by those who make money 

out of it.

Mr. F ish. Can I interrupt at this point? We are even contemplating 

a social security card tha t is foolproof, tamperproof, tha t everybody 

would surrender their present card to get. It wTould be modeled after 

the alien registration card the Immigration Service is presently
ISO

working on, and presumably it would have a picture on it. Under 

those circumstances, do you not think it would be unnecessary to 

have a designation of citizenship or alien status, particularly since 

alien status might change to that of citizenship status?

Mr. White. If the alien status changes, then the man or woman 

would be issued a new card.

Mr. F ish. But if it is foolproof, why do you want to designate 

alien status?

Mr. White. Well, it is foolproof only when it goes through the 

process of the computers. If you have General Chapman—and I am 

sure perhaps you have, perhaps you have already done it—if you 

could have him to show you how these present systems are duplicated, 

you would see they are very artful. The only way you are going to 

ferret out those who have forged a card is by running it through the 

process.

Mr. Fish. The purpose of this designation of citizenship or alien 

status on a social security card is to uncover illegal aliens?

Mr. White. Yes.

Mr. Fish. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. White, earlier today we had, and I believe you were in the 

audience, testimony from Mr. Biaggi who pointed out that illegal 

aliens are exploited in his area. Some came before his ad hoc committee to testify tha t they had received less than a dollar per hour, 

that they had worked as long as 84 hours a week. I believe th at Mr. 

Sisk could cite similar examples in California. Yet I gather from 

your testimony that the people—and there are a great many people 

employed in your district who are illegal aliens—yet the employers, 

notwithstanding their illegal status, pay them a minimum wage?

Mr. White. I say I am sure the great majority do. I am sure 

there are violators, anywhere in the country.

Mr. Cohen. Well, in view of the history of this whole problem 

of illegal aliens, and the exploitation of illegal aliens, i t seems to me 

hard to really accept tha t the majority of the employers do, in fact, 

pay the minimum wage and abide by all of the existing laws. But I 

also have difficulty in accepting the fact tha t if we were to pass such 

a law, which would make it a crime eventually to employ illegal 

aliens, you indicate tha t a number of people are still going to violate 

such a law because it will be in their interest to do so.

Mr. White. They will probably not knowingly violate it. Some of 

them I think, anywhere in the country, would probably not ask. I 

uni thinking tha t most of them, once asked, if they asked and find 

the man is, indeed, an illegal alien, probably would not hire them. 

But there would be some who will hire him. But the thing is that under 

the present bill you have there is a dodge. All the man has to do is to 

have some forms printed to conform to the Attorney General’s 

specifications, and then the employer has prima facie proof tha t he 

has made the bona fide inquiry.

Mr. Cohen. But they would not ask because they really do not 

want to know?

Mr. White. Probably.
181

Mr. Cohen. I just wondered if tha t same attitude exists tha t since 

it serves their own financial interest, they do not pay the minimum 

wage because they do not have to?

Mr. White. No, because they have to make a report. They have to 

make a report presently on their W-2 forms, and I think they would 

be caught up somewhere along the line. They are very respectful of 

the law. If they are respectful ab initio, they are respectful as to what 

can happen to them.

Mr. Cohen. Another point you raise about the procedural aspects 

of the notice requirement and so forth, I believe during the course of 

your testimony you indicated that it was procedurally violative of 

the notion of due process because an employer might not attend the 

first hearing?

Mr. White. It’s possible.

Mr. Cohen. Or the second hearing?

Mr. White. Well, it is possible too. Not probable, but possible.

Mr. Cohen. It seems to me tha t under this proposal it would behoove any employer to open his mail.

Mr. White. Well, 1 am saying it is possible.

Mr. Cohen. I mean if an employer who employs legal or illegal 

aliens were to get a letter from the Attorney General of the United 

States, I assume return receipt requested, he would probably come.

Mr. White. If the postal service directed the letter rightly, and if 

he was in residence where his farm is, yes.

Mr. Cohen. But in any event, what if th at were to be made prima 

facie evidence of a violation, a failure to appear at the first hearing or 

appear at the second hearing, would tha t offend your notion of fairplay or due process if we were to make tha t prima facie evidence of 

his violation on previous occasions?

Mr. White. I do not know any other law tha t says that tha t is 

prima facie in itself.

Mr. Cohen. Or presumptive?

Mr. White. Well, the presumption could be used against him, 

perhaps, yes.

Mr. C ohen. Tha t is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. White, we thank you very much.

Mr. White. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. E ilberg. Next and finally, and we tha nk him for his patience, 

the gentleman from California, the Honorable Leo J. Ryan. And 

Mr. Ryan, do you have a statem ent which you wish to make?

TESTIMONY OF HON. IE 0 J. RYAN, A REPRES ENT ATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Ryan. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a written statem ent. I 

would rath er depend on some pictures tha t 1 have taken myself.

Mr. E ilberg. Please proceed.

Mr. Ryan. And simply make some explanation here. I would like 

to explain to the members of this subcommittee that the origin of my 

interest is my status as a member of the Government Operations 

Committee and the Subcommittee on Legal and Monetary Affairs 

where in the last 2 years we began to examine into certain violations
182

which had occurred, and which were alleged to have occurred in themisuse by immigration officers of their responsibilities, and in some 

cases their conviction for violation of the law in connection with their 

responsibilities at the border.

Once you get to this question, as you must realize yourself from 

much longer experience, it is a much more complicated problem than 

it first appears. The other reason for my interest is because I live in 

and represent an area which is suburban San Francisco, and like most 

other metropolitan areas we face a relatively high rate of unemployment. In the bay area I believe today the unemployment rate runs 

over 11 percent. You have heard the figures before. But, they may bear 

some use here in repeating.

More than half of the estimated 2 to 3 million jobs presently being 

held by illegal aliens in this country according to INS are at the rate 

of $4.50 to $6.50 an hour. And as a consequence, they tend to depress 

the employment rate and to cause a substantial part of the present 

unemployment problem in this country. Another 30 percent are 

employed at the minimum wage level, somewhere between $2, $3 or 

$3.50 an hour, and there are about 20 percent or less who are involved 

in farm labor as such.

You have already heard and know, I think, well enough the problem 

tha t relates to the cost to local, State, and Federal Governments for 

schools, for welfare, for hospitals, for even the balance of payments. 

If we estimate say $250 each sent home by illegal aliens employed 

here, it amounts to several billion dollars in a deficit balance of payments, to say nothing of the public health problems, or the housing 

problems, crime and the rest that have been referred to by other 

witnesses this morning, and I am sure before now.

Another element tha t I discovered in going into this myself had 

to do with w hat I call a kind of modern day slave traffic. I t is no t a 

minor business. It is a major business in this country, and certainly 

in the State of California. And I think tha t the pictures that I have 

here, some of which I will show you in a minute bear on that.

If tha t were not bad enough today, it is important to remember 

that whatever problem we have, it is estimated by the Immigration 

and Naturalization Service tha t the number will double at least by 

1980. The rate of population increase in Mexico alone guarantees 

tha t estimation to be correct.

Now, there are some perhaps assumptions about this problem which 

I think are slightly inaccurate, out of focus, and I would like to address 

myself to those particular assumptions because I believe they will 

help the committee in its deliberations.

In the first few days after the election last fall, during tha t hiatus 

when nothing much was happening, I took several days off, and a t the 

invitation of Caesar Chavez and the Farm Workers Union, I was taken 

by some of his staff members to look at the problem from the farmworkers point of view. I went to two places, in particular down along 

the Arizona border, outside of Yuma in a town called San Luis. I 

believe you are familiar with the city, as a matter of fact, and also to 

Fresno County in what is mostly Congressman Krebs’ district, and 

partly in Congressman Sisk’s district. Along the border there was a 

particular problem which I think relates to the farmworkers themselves, and in Fresno County the problem was somewhat different.
183

Perhaps the most mistaken assumption we make in regard to this 

particular problem has to do with the border itself. I have been 

over the border between Mexico and the United States on a number of 

occasions. As you know, Tiju ana is almost directly south of San Diego, 

and very easy to go there. It is a tourist town, and there are the bullfights and so on. I had assumed that the border was a t least to some 

extent patrolled, and tha t there was some degree of security involved. 

I would like to show you here a picture which I took myself. All of 

these were taken by me with my own camera. And this picture is a

* picture taken approximately 2 miles west of the border station at 

San Luis, Ariz. You will notice in the picture this is the end of the 

fence. This is a paved road on one side. Now, if you have the money, 

you can go by cab to the end of the fence. I t is about 2 miles, and you 

can cross the border with impunity. This is water here, and it is part 

of the Colorado River. Just outside of the picture, and it shows in the 

smaller photograph here, there is some border patrol. It is the farmworkers themselves who have 23 tents, surface-type tents, which they 

man continually because they are on strike against the growers in the area, the lemon growers and grapefruit growers in the area, trying to 

protect the integrity of their wages. The growers themselves advertise 

over a Mexican radio and say come across and work for us and make 

money and go home. The farmworkers themselves are the only patrol 

there is, and it is the farmworkers who find Mexicans coming across 

the border, they intercept them, and try to talk them into going back 

home. In most cases, they tell me they are successful. B ut the point 

is, the border is unpatrolled. If tha t picture is not unpatrolled enough, here is another picture. 

In the background here with the American flag flying, the building 

you see here, this is the Border Patrol station and the Immigration at 

San Luis, Ariz. This is one of my guides, this young lady, and she has her legs through the hole in the fence in Mexico, and this hole in 

the fence is visible from the building. It is one of many holes in the 

fence tha t are cut regularly and repaired not by the Immigration Service or by the Border Patrol, but by the farmworkers, who in 

some attem pt to maintain the integrity for their own purposes, presently patrol this area. I think this to me was a rather dramatic illus- 

«r tration of the fact tha t the border itself, as far as the integrity of the

border is concerned, is nonexistent, and there is no patrol whatever.

During my 2 days along the border, walking th at border in various 

places, I was not apprehended by any agents of the Federal Govern-

• ment, nor was I questioned, nor did anybody attempt to stop me. I t 

is simply wide open.

I do not mean to imply that they were not here at the station taking 

people coming through legally across the road. They were certainly 

there. But it was possible to walk outside of the station, walk around 

behind, and go through the fence and be in Mexico, if you cared 

to do so.

So when the Immigration Service asks for an additional 2,500 

officers, and you figure tha t it takes about 4% officers to man the border 

around the clock—that is, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day—you are 

talking about a net number somewhere about 550 to 600 additional 

places along the border that can be patroled, and if you figure tha t 

;the national boundaries are such as they are, it is simply inadequate
1S4

under the present conditions. And the reason I say tha t is if we are 

going to talk about how to resolve the problem, i t will not be under 

present conditions by simply putting more people along tha t border 

and stopping people from coming in tha t way. It would have to be 

some better solution.

There has been some reference made also to the aliens themselves 

and the question about amnesty, questions about living conditions, 

how they are taken care of, what they do, where they live, and so on.

In California, and I am not sure what the rest of the country does, 

we have what we call licensed labor contractors. I am sure you are 

familiar with the term. They are essentially agents who act for the 

grower in hiring people to pick his particular field when his crop is 

ripe. He is licensed by the State. He maintains a labor camp where 

people can live, assuming t hat those conditions arc humane, tha t they 

are safe, tha t they are the kind of conditions which a State can 

supervise and take care of.

This picture was taken by me in a licensed labor contractor’s camp 

in Fresno. There was someone living in tha t bunk at the time I was 

there. This is a licensed labor contractor’s camp. Now, if conditions 

are that bad there, you can imagine what they are elsewhere if the 

living conditions are not on a permanent basis, such as this, also 

taken nearby in the county of Fresno. These are essentially for the 

illegal aliens who are there on a seasonal basis and who are hired by 

growers through either legal labor contractors or in many cases illegally 

brought up there by Coyotes, and I am sure you have heard of them. 

Incidentally, in the pictures I have here I can show a picture tha t I 

took of a Coyote in the front seat. The back seat and the front seat of 

his Chevrolet were full of illegal aliens who were on their way to a job.

This particular picture shows all of the comforts of home. You have 

the bed, you have the refrigerator, you have the heat, and of course, 

we do not say anything about the fire hazard or whatever, and here 

is the stove. This particular bunk is worth $30 a month, just a bunk 

for one illegal alien while he works at this p articu lar place. One of the 

practices engaged in by many growers in California, and I suppose 

elsewhere, is to pay the illegal alien some kind of wage, perhaps $2 an 

hour, $3 an hour, as much as the American farmworkers who arc U.S. 

citizens demand, or try to demand in their labor negotiations, bu t * 

then, with the conditions like these, they charge them room and board, 

and get back most of the money tha t they pay them. So the illegal 

alien oftentimes very commonly gets in his paycheck a net of somewhere between $20 and $30 for a two-week period. •

It is not as if the growers themselves do not realize the problem 

and simply pass it by. This is a picture where you can see the house 

in the distance. It reminds me very much of conditions 150 years ago 

in the South where the owner of the plantation lives very close by 

the slave quarters. If you look in the right-hand corner there, you can 

see the toilet which was used at the top of the season by 40 to 50 

illegal aliens. Tha t is the only toilet they had. Incidentally, it drains 

out into the field, one of the fields tha t is right outside of the picture 

where they were growing at the time I took the picture some kind of 

low plant, probably some kind of squash or melon.

These pictures and others I think illustrate tha t the comments made 

about American farmworkers not being willing to work, it seems to
185

me in ma ny cases is bec aus e the wages are so dep ressed th at it is 

impossible for an Am erican farmw ork er to ge t a decent wage, and 

tr y to pa y his taxes, an d edu cat e his kids, an d tr y and live in this 

co un try at the kind of sta nd ar d of living wh ich is appro ached by 

alm ost any one else who is emp loyed in an y ot he r indu str y in th e 

co un try . So 1 think th at where we talk ab ou t the f arm wo rke rs as suc h 

being unwilling to do the kin d of w ork t hat is available and , therefore, 

the grower m ust res ort to some othe r means in order to pick his crop , 

we talk ab ou t a situ atio n which wou ld no t exist were the re to be 

legitim ate lab or ne go tia tio ns between a union an d the emplo yer as 

suc h r egard ing the c ondition s under which they will work.

In Califo rnia we rece ntly finally got rid of the short-h andled hoe, 

for example. I did no t know wh at a sh ort-h andled hoe was un til I 

tried to use one. If yo u have ever seen a hoe with a han dle ab ou t 2 

fee t long, and realize th at a huma n bein g can use th at hoe all da y 

long to cu t lettuc e, or to chop weeds, and recognize th at in a ve ry 

sh or t period of time a yo un g ma n in his twe nties can become a ve ry 

old ma n, and perha ps ev en die of the a ccu mu lated dibil ita tin g process 

in h is b ody over a p erio d of years, you begin to get an idea of wh at the 

con dition s are in which th ey try to force workers to live. All of this, I 

think, would be don e aw ay with were there some kin d of negativ e 

pe na lty placed up on growers as such, or upo n employers them selves 

in reg ard to how they emplo y alien wor kers in job s which they say 

Am eric ans will n ot fill. Th e reasons the Am ericans will not fill the m a re 

th at conditions are such th at no one else would acc ept the m and go to 

work.

Now , in reg ard to th e Rodin o bill itself, it is really a very comm endable 

bill, and I think it goes a long w ay to reso lving the p artic ular proble m 

th at is faced by thi s co un try in try ing to han dle the flood th at exis ts 

to da y of illegal alien s who have tak en so ma ny Ame rican jobs. I wou ld 

po int ou t to you , how ever, th at the 20 perce nt of the problem which 

is far m workers, I think, can be resolved by cre ating some kin d of 

me chanism ; and I am tal king now to members of the l abor mo vement 

who are somewhat a mbiva lent themselves, at leas t until now, a bo ut ho w 

to reso lve the problem , but if we c an pu t int o the bill, or you can put 

into the bill, som eth ing which will allow for wor kers and grow ers or 

unions and growers to make a deter mi natio n in fact in a given area 

as to wh eth er or no t there is a l abor sho rtage, an d if the re is tr uly a 

labo r sho rtag e the n allow for some kin d of legal me ans b y which aliens 

are allowed to work for a tim e in Am eric an fields, you would ha ve no 

probleim from labo r, an d of course, lab or was the prim ary source of 

opp os tion to the bra cero program, and the rea son it was done aw ay 

wit h. If we can have some means by which bo th grow ers and union s 

can agree, o r farm w orkers, how ever they are organiz ed, can agree on a 

labo r sho rtage in a g iven are a, I think we could reso lve the o pposition 

or the questio ns th at th ere a re from members of la bo r union s, and from 

labo r unio ns them selves, as to reinsti tutin g some k ind of a program of 

alien assistance.

One final point which ha s to do with am nesty , and I am ve ry in ­

trigued th at the quest ion cam e up as oft en as it did here, bec aus e it 

tro ubles me too. This Nation. I thi nk , is com posed of im migrants, 

an d the sons and da ug hters of immi grants, the grandsons and so on 

in gen era tions, and for th at very specific an d ve ry obv iou s rea son we
186

are reluctant I suppose to close off others from coming here to find 

the same kind of relief that our ancestors found in coming to this country in the first place. There was a professor of philosophy, I believe, 

at the University of California at Santa Barbara, and his name escapes me, but I must at least refer to him this much, who coined the 

phrase “ the lifeboat epic.” And I think we approach tha t point now of 

how many do you put in the lifeboat before the lifeboat itself sinks.

That is the problem we face, and it is a rather agonizing case. If we 

grant amnesty to all of those here on the face of it, it is a very humanitarian idea. The effect that it has is what concerns me. If we encourage 

by granting amnesty, others to come the same way, the flood th at we 

have now is minor by comparison with those who will come later, because they will be encouraged to break the law, they will be encouraged 

to violate the border, and a border which I have tried to show you is 

too permeable now so as to be nonexistent. And I reluctantly then am 

forced to say tha t there must some kind of limitation placed upon 

those who come later. I can show you pictures tha t I have got here 

of a woman.

1 took a picture of a woman and her child born in Fresno County 

last November or last October, I guess. She walked from Mexico to 

Fresno County. She could have ridden but she was afraid. She and 

her husband, leaving five children behind, walked into this country 

in order to have tha t baby, in conditions tha t are indescribably poor. 

Incidentally, they were just around the corner from that building.

And the reason tha t she came, of course, is because now she has one 

American citizen and tha t does two things, she told me. One, tha t 

child hopefully, some way can be kept in this country, and since he 

was born here, he is an American citizen; and the second thing is a 

very practical thing tha t if the child is here, the mother and father 

should be here to raise him. And they have a better hold on remaining 

here, if they are caught.

Now, that is the nature of the problem as it relates to amnesty in 

trying to resolve this terrible dilemma th at we face now. If then we are 

to write a bill trying to control illegal aliens, it seems to me we have 

to address the labor problem, and especially in the farmworker area, 

and if we do that, and can resolve tha t particular question, as was 

pointed out by the previous witness, we can probably get tha t bi'l .

through both Houses, because presently the strongest opposition I 

can see is from the farm area.

Incidentally, in closing let me just point out to you tha t you cannot 

go to dinner here in Washington in the evening without having yourself directly or indirectly served by an illegal alien. I bought a car last X

week, a small car, my contribution to the energy problem, from a 

dealer here in town. The man tha t washed it and got it ready could 

not speak English, he spoke only Spanish, and I had to restrain myself 

with some difficulty from asking him if he was legal, and asking his 

employer if he was legal, and I have a hunch tha t were an immigration 

official to come in the back door of any restaurant where perhaps 

your State delegation is having a dinner, if they were to come there, 

say, an hour before dinner was to be put on the table, you would not 

get your dinner. Now, there are so many examples of jobs today 

being held everywhere in the country by illegal aliens that we must,

I think, as soon as possible begin to stem the tide that exists and
187

find some way to resolve this problem in as humanitarian a sense 

as possible, but with the greatest emphasis upon those American 

citizens in this country who today sit at home for the first time in 

their lives unable to find work, desperate, looking around to try and 

find something that will enable them to live as they thought they 

were guaranteed when they grew’ up.

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this chance to talk to you.

Mr. E ilberg. Mr. Ryan, I want to thank you on behalf of the 

subcommittee for your very fine presentation. Let me tell you that

* in the 92d Congress, this subcommittee visited the Southwestern 

border on the Rio Grande and saw some of the conditions tha t you 

referred to today. And you made this information available to this 

new subcommittee and those of us tha t are here, and I am grateful

* for that. Also for your views on a lot of the various points tha t were 

raised by the other guests this morning.

There are one or two more points that I would like to get your 

reaction on, and that is, do you think tha t we need to strengthen 

tha t part of the bill with respect to the obligation of the employer; 

that is, should we require him to get a birth certificate or some other 

evidence, should we insist that the employer not hire unless some 

such evidence is presented? Would you go so far as to require some 

other device other than that which appears in II .R. 982, which places 

the minimum burden on both parties?

Mr. Ryan. 1 think that the answer lies in two parts. One is to 

provide for some better means of policing our present employment 

procedures. I back off from and would resist at least as much as I can 

until we have tried every other means, some kind of national identity 

cards, or some kind of a paper that we must carry at all times in order 

to be legal in this country, whether we are born here or whatever. 

But I do think that employers could be much more careful about the 

manner in which they question prospective employees. The precedent 

is set in many areas of employment already. If you are hired as a banking official, it is presumed that you do not have any kind, or have never 

defaulted on a bond, for example, and there are some checks made as 

to your background. 1 think we need to go further than that now and 

J>t / make some further check and require employers to make some more 

careful checks than they do today because they make none at all in 

i many cases. I know from m y own experience in moving around in 

Fresno County, and 1 did a great deal of digging in that particular 

area, there is not only tacit acceptance of these illegal aliens, but an 

£ encouragement. And it is not as if they do not know. It is that they 

encourage the illegal because he is cheaper.

1 had the experience last September in my own district in San Mateo 

County, which is primarily suburban, but has some agriculture on the 

coast, of having a delegation of European parliamentarians taken 

over to a brussels sprouts field, and as we got out of the bus, the county 

agricultural agent came over and he said, Leo, he said, now listen.

I know what you have been doing, and I think probably you are right 

about illegal aliens, but for God’s sake don’t ask any questions about 

who’s working here in this field. He said, you see t hat machine over 

there, 9 of the 11 on that machine are illegals.

Mr. E ilberg. All right now, Mr. Ryan. I understand your position. 

But you said we should do something more, but you do not say what.

49 -7 69 — 75 13
1SS

Mr. Ryan, i think it comes in two areas. One is to require the 

employer to take more responsibility for what he has than he has 

previously in regard to who he employs. It may be simply his certification tha t—you use the word “knowingly” in your bill—-and I think 

that may be enough, and providing on page 3, 1 believe it is where you 

say he lias made a bona fide inquiry. But what does tha t constitute?

I think perhaps that should be spelled out in more detail.

The other is, and the Social Security Agency may resist this, but 

the Social Security Board and its system is so much a part of the 

fabric and structure of this country tha t it could easily become with- *

out too much effort, by tightening the procedures, and perhaps by 

this card tha t has been suggested already this morning, the means by 

which you could obtain some certification as to the origin of a person 

who is involved who has the identification.

Mr. Eilberg. The other question or area tha t I would like to get 

your opinion on would be the penalty provisions of the bill. Would 

you support stronger penalties than those provided in H.R. 982?

Mr. Ryan. I think tha t depends on the economic attraction of 

violating the bill. I think it is not in the employer’s interest to pay 

the $500 for the first offense. Does lie make tha t judgment on the 

basis of dollars and cents, and try to keep it so that it becomes a 

matter of trying to live within the cost of the violation, and in tha t 

sense perhaps it is not high enough. B ut I think that the determination should be made on the basis of economics. Is it too expensive for 

him to hire illegal aliens? If it is, I do not think he will hire them. I 

think the committee itself and the staff could make that determination 

more carefully than I could here, and in t hat sense I think I ju st guess 

tha t the first penalty may be too low, but otherwise I would think 

it was proper.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Cohen. I really do n ot have any questions, Mr. Chairman. I 

thank you for your testimony.

I would only make one observation. I believe you refer to the fact 

tha t you just purchased a new car, and because the gentleman who 

happened to be working on your car, or washing it, spoke Spanish, 

tha t that at least raised your suspicions tha t the person is probably ' <v

illegal, has illegally entered into this country. I cannot say that I .

share that sentiment. 1 suppose it depends on where you go. if you go ' 

into New York City, they have a very sizable Spanish-----

Mr. Ryan. Puerto Rican.

Mr. Cohen [continuing]. Puerto Rican population, many of whom 

were probably admitted legally, and still speak Spanish. And in the 

State of Maine, if you were to go into certain parts of Maine, you 

might even encounter some young people speaking French.

Mr. Ryan. Having gone to school at Bates College, 1 know what 

you mean.

Mr. Cohen. And you would not necessarily assume tha t they are 

illegal, would you?

Mr. Ryan. No. And I do not solely—perhaps I said too little 

about that particular incident. After you have done the digging tha t 

I did, there was suggestiveness about his manner while I was there, 

and I attem pted to talk to him, just simply to pass the time of day, 

and he simply tried to move out of earshot or involve himself in
189

something else. Ilis manner, his whole appearance, I think, seemed 

to indicate to me that there would be some reason to question him 

whether or not he was at ease with himself and his job and his surroundings. I did not mean to imply—I have in my own district 17 

percent of the population which is of Mexican or Spanish descent, 

and they are American citizens. Many of them, especially older citizens, 

speak no English, which is not very uncommon. We have people who 

have lived in San Mateo county for 50 years who speak only It alian, 

who came here as young children, and this in and of itself does n ot 

indicate illegality. I think this is in itself, the question you raise, 

something which requires some degree of sensitivity to the particular 

problems faced by American citizens who are of Spanish descent or 

any other descent and who have become Americans the legal way. 

But if we weigh that against the problem, and 1 cannot help but 

measure the problem that would be faced by those who have linguistic difficulties with the problems faced by tens of thousands of 

people in my own district who do not work and cannot find work, 

whether they are teenagers just out of school or people who have 

worked for 20 or 30 years and suddenly find themselves laid off. The 

dilemma we face is a difficult one, b ut it has to be faced, and it cannot be faced by simply giving in to the one because the others are no t 

organized yet.

Mr. C 'ohen. You do express some reservations about going to any 

sort of national identification card, whether it is social security or 

whatever, but of course this presents a problem with this committee 

in designing any sort of legislation tha t would not simply issue a card 

or require the issuance of tha t card to those of minorities and nonEnglish speaking groups.

Mr. Ryan. Well, if a card is issued, the problem I face as an individual in trying to solve this problem, if there is a national identification card issued, then that national identity card can be withheld, 

and for whatever reason, and by whomever, if you do not have your 

identity card, then who are you? And tha t in itself to me, as I think 

a rath er confirmed civil libertarian, causes me some real problems. 

And how do you balance these? I think perhaps at this point I take 

the same cop-out route tha t my dear friend, Congressman Sisk, took, 

and I leave it to the wisdom of this committee.

Mr. Coiien. Thank you. Tha t is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Ryan, we are very grateful to you for bringing 

all of these photographs, and hopefully we will bring a bill to the floor. 

And I look forward to you participating in the debate which will take 

place.

Mr. Ryan. I look forward to it too. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. The subcommittee is now adjourned and will meet 

again on next Tuesday.

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the hearing was recessed subject to 

the call of the Chair.]
<f
ILLEGAL ALIENS

W ED N E SD A Y , M A R C H 5, 19 75

H o u se of R e pr e se n t a t iv e s,

Subcommittee on Immigration,

C it iz e n s h ip , an d I n ter n a tio n a l L aw

of t h e C o m m it tee on t h e J u d ic ia ry,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m., in room 

2226, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joshua Eilberg [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Eilberg, Sarbanes, Dodd, Russo, Fish, 

and Cohen. Also present: Garner J. Cline and Arthur P. Endres, Jr., counsels; 

Janice A. Zarro, assistant counsel; and Alexander B. Cook, associate 

counsel.

Mr. Eilberg. The subcommittee will come to order.

I am very happy to invite Mr. Andrew J. Biemiller to the witness 

stand, and if Mr. Meiklejohn cares to join him, it is perfectly all 

right. I apologize to you for being late. We had another obligation 

uptown and traffic delayed us, and we welcome you very much, Mr. 

Biemiller.

It is indeed a pleasure to welcome you to this subcommittee, and 

we are most anxious to receive your testimony concerning the illegal 

alien problem in this country.

This subcommittee has benefited greatly by the advice and cooperation of the AFL -CIO over the years, and once again we enlist 

your suggestions and recommendations in solving this very difficult 

problem. We await your comments on the illegal alien legislation, and you 

may proceed in any manner you so desire.

TESTIMONY OF ANDREW J. BIEMILLER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT

OF LEGISLATION. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS. ACCOMPANIED BY K ENNETH A. MEIKLEJO HN, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL

Mr. Biemiller. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, for the record, I am director of the legislative 

department of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of 

Industrial Organizations. I appreciate the opportunity to appear 

before this committee on the Rodino illegal alien bill, II.R . 9S2.

This bill is the result of lengthy and detailed study of the problem 

of illegal aliens working in the United States by the House Committee on the Judiciary. Of special importance in this connection has 

been the work put in on the problem by this subcommittee.

(191)
192

As a result of your hard work, the House of Representatives in 

both 1972 and 1973 overwhelmingly passed legislation basically 

similar to H.R. 9S2. Although the AFL-CIO and other groups supported tha t legislation, the bill foundered both times in the Senate 

Subcommittee on Immigration which has thus far taken no action 

whatsoever to deal with the illegal alien problem.

H.R. 982 would remove from section 274(a) of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act providing criminal penalties for harboring illegal 

aliens, a proviso that exempts employers from the operation of this 

provision and would impose penalties upon employers who knowingly *'

employ aliens who have not been admitted for permanent residence 

in the United States or who have not been authorized by the Attorney 

General to accept employment. We believe this bill should be promptly 

reported favorably by this subcommittee with two amendments, 

which we will discuss later in this statement.

In view of the fact tha t the House has twice acted favorably on 

legislation like H.R. 982, it hardly seems necessary to discuss here in 

any detail our reasons for believing th at there is an urgent need for 

the enactment of legislation along the lines of this bill. The A FL-CIO 

has long felt that this need was clear. At the recent meetings of the 

AFL-CIO Executive Council in Miami, Fla., a statem ent issued by 

the council pointed ou t:

With more tha n 7,500,000 Americans unemployed and joblessness rising, the 

presence of millions of illegal aliens in this cou ntry is an acute and growing 

problem.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates th at there are six to 

seven million illegal aliens in the United State s. While the num ber apprehend ed 

and deported annually reached 800,000 in 1974, the net increase in the num ber 

of illegals continues to grow. This year, because fewer immigration inspections 

are provided for und er available appropriation, fewer illegals are expected to be 

cau ght and expelled.

I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, tha t a copy of the full statement 

issued by the A FL-C IO Executive Council on February 18, 1974, and 

of a statement on illegal immigrants adopted bv the Ninth Constitutional Convention of the AFL-CIO in November 1971 be included 

in the record of these hearings.

Mr. E ilbekg. W ithout objection, those statements will be included.

[The statements referred to follow:] *.

Statement by the AFL-CIO Executive Council on I llegal Aliens

With more tha n 7,500,000 Americans unemployed and joblessness rising the 

presence of millions of illegal aliens in this country is an acute and growing >

problem.

The Immigration and Naturaliz atio n Service estim ates th at there are six to 

seven million illegal aliens in the United States. While the number apprehended 

and deported annually reach ed nearly 800,000 in 1974 the net increase in the 

number of “illegals” continues to grow. This year, because fewer immigration inspections arc provided for under available appropriation, fewer “illegals” are 

expected to be caught and expelled.

Legislation to deal with the illegal alien problem has long been an urge nt 

objective of the AFL -CIO . Efforts to pass legislation th at would make it a crime 

for an employer to have illegal aliens on his payroll, however, have been blocked 

by Senator James O. Eastland, Chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee. He refuses to consider any illegal alien bill tha t does not provide author ity 

for importation of foreign farm workers when domestic workers are not available 

at the low wages set by employers—in other words, a new “bracero” program 

such as the one killed b y Congress in 1962.
193

In 1972 an d 1973 th e H ou se of R ep re se nta tives pa ss ed legi slatio n sp on so red 

by Hou se J udic ia ry C om m itte e C ha irm an P ete r W. R od in o, Jr ., th a t wo uld ha ve 

re pe al ed a prov iso co nta in ed in th e Im m ig ra tion and N ationali ty Act th a t ex ­

em pt s em ploy ers fro m th e A ct ’s pr oh ib itio n ag ai nst th e “ har bo ri ng ” of illegal 

ali ens and would ha ve e st ab lish ed a th re e st ag e en fo rc em en t pr oc ed ur e fo r de ali ng 

w ith viol atio ns of th e law . U nder th e bi ll’s p ro vi sion s, an em pl oy er wo uld be su bje ct to a warning c itat io n fo r a f irst v io la tion , a c ivil pen al ty f or a sec on d viol atio n 

of no t more th an $50 0 fo r ea ch ille gal ali en, and a cr im in al pen al ty in th e case of 

a th ir d violation of a fine of n o t more th an $1,00 0 or im priso nm en t for no t mor e 

th an on e ye ar, or bo th . No penalt y is pr ov id ed if th e em pl oy er ha s a sig ne d sta te ­

m ent from th e wor ke r sa yi ng he is a citiz en or a leg al ali en.

The A FL-C IO su pport ed th e Rod in o bill both tim es it was be fore th e Hou se, 

ev en th ough we se rio us ly qu es tione d th e effecti ve ne ss of th e we ak en fo rc em en t 

prov isi on s.

D es pi te fa vo ra bl e ac tion b y th e Hou se, th e bill be ca m e st al em ate d b oth tim es 

in th e Se na te as a re su lt o f S enato r E ast la n d ’s a d am an t re fu sa l to a llo w h is Im m igra tion Su bc om m itte e ev en to m ee t to co ns id er th e bill. H is in tran sige nc e ha s 

bloc ke d all efforts to er ec t bar ri er s to im port ati on an d em plo ym en t of low-p aid 

foreign worke rs a t th e ex pe ns e of American worke rs.

The A FL-C IO de m an ds th a t Sen at or E ast la nd aban don his effo rt to im po se 

a new “ br ac er o” pr og ra m . We ur ge th e Co ng ress to st re ngth en th e bill by plac in g 

re sp on sibi lity fo r co mpl ianc e clea rly an d dir ec tly on th e em ploy er, not on sel fse rv in g st ate m ents by em pl oy ee s; by st re ngth enin g th e pe na ltie s fo r vi ol atio ns , 

and by giving th e Fed er al co urt s ju ri sd ic tion to re st ra in and en join vi ol at io ns 

of th e law . We call for pro m pt, fin al Con gression al ac tio n.

We be lie ve th e ille gal ali en pr ob le m clea rly calls fo r su bst anti al increa ses in th e 

fu nd s ne ed ed by th e Im m ig ra tion an d N atu ra li zati on Se rv ice to enfor ce th e law 

and th a t thes e shou ld be pro m ptl y pr ov id ed by Co ng ress.

P olicy R es ol ut ion— Ado pt ed N ov em be r 1971 by th e N in th Con st it uti ona l

C onve nt io n, A F L -C IO

IL L E G A L IM M IG R A N TS

W he reas, Ame ric a is pro ud of its histor ic rol e as a hav en of liber ty for th e 

pe rs ec ut ed an d th e op pr es se d. O ur co untr y ha s grow n gre at th an ks to th e sp ir it 

and th e ta le nts of im m ig ra nt s from ev er y p art of th e world, an d

Whe reas, Ye t th e o p p ort unit y fo r th e U nited Sta te s to co nt in ue th is 

po lic y of we lco mi ng im m ig ra nt s to ou r shor es is th re ate ned by th e ris ing num ber 

of pe rson s wh o ill eg ally ente r th is countr y to work at su bst andard wa ges pai d 

by ex ploi tin g em ploy ers. Thi s in to lera bl e proc ess is ro bb in g larg e nu m be rs of 

American citiz en s an d legal im m ig ra nts of th eir jobs , an d it th re ate ns an in dir ec t 

un der m in in g of fa ir wage leve ls in ot he r in du stries . The U.S. Im m ig ra tion and 

N at ura li zati on Servi ce ap pre hen de d ov er 317,0 00 of th es e ille gal im m ig ra nt s in 

1970, and it is est im at ed th e to ta l nu m be r of ille gal im m ig ra nts m ay be as gre at 

as on e mi llio n, an d

W he reas, Be ca use of th eir ille gal st atu s, th es e im m ig ra nt s ar e ea sy su bje ct s 

for blac km ail, ex pl oi ta tion and in tim id at io n by un sc ru pu lo us em ploy ers, wh o ca n 

tu rn th e illegal im m ig ra nts in to th e auth ori ties whe ne ve r th ey pro te st th eir 

sw ea ts ho p co nd iti on s. T he h eavy n ee d of th es e ille gal im m ig ra nt s fo r fre e med ical 

care, un em pl oy m en t co m pe ns at io n, we lfare an d socia l service s puts h ea vy b urd en s 

on go ve rn m en t a t ev er y lev el and on th e ta xpay ers of th e nati on; ther ef or e, be it

Resolved: A FL -C IO calls fo r th e fol low ing pr og ra m to co rr ec t th is pr ob le m 

of illegal im m ig ra tion :

1. Co ng res s shou ld au th ori ze a st udy of ille gal im m ig ra tion , so th a t we m ay 

ha ve gr ea te r access to th e fa ct s an d m ay b e tt e r de te rm in e th e econ om ic an d 

soc ial im pa ct of ex pl oi ta tion of ille gal im m ig ra nts by un sc ru pu lo us em ploy ers 

an d th eir ag en ts.

2. Co ng res s sh ou ld pr ov id e ad di tion al fu nd s to giv e th e U.S . Im m ig ra tion and 

N at ur al iz at io n Servi ce more ad equate staf f to ha nd le its m an y resp on sib ili tie s, 

includ ing more eff ectiv e pat ro llin g of ou r bo rders.

3. Step s shou ld be ta ken by th e in vo lv ed go ver nm en t ag en cies— part ic ula rl y 

th e S ta te D ep ar tm en t an d th e Im m ig ra tion Se rvice of th e Ju st ic e D epart m ent— 

to de ve lop mo re eff ectiv e pr oc ed ur es for ex clud ing ille gal im m ig ra nt s and fo r 

en fo rcing ex ist ing law s an d re gu la tion s more eff ectiv ely .
194

4. Fe de ra l legisla tio n shou ld be ad op te d to pr ov id e crim in al pe na ltie s fo r 

em ploy ers an d th ei r ag en ts in in dust ry , co mmerce an d ag ricu ltur e wh o kn ow ingly 

an d wilfu lly hire illeg al im m ig ra nt s, th u s ro bb in g leg al im m ig ra nt s and American 

cit ize ns of em plt ym ant opport unit ie s a t de ce nt wa ges .

Mr. Biemiller. Our convention resolution calls for action, in 

addition to passage of legislation along the lines of H.R. 982, which 

would provide the INS sufficient funds and staff lo enable the Service 

to perforin efficiently and effectively its services for legal immigrants, 

as well as its enforcement responsibilities. Provision of adequate 

funds may well be as important as additional enforcement authority 

in enabling the Service to cope with the illegal alien problem.

Of course, in addition to recognizing tha t the number of illegal 

aliens working in the United States is large and continues to grow, it 

is important, also, to all industry and commerce as well, that it is not -

restricted to States along our southern border hut extends to all 

parts of the country and to most metropolitan areas.

It, is also important to bear in mind that the alien who comes to 

the United States, legally or illegally, does so because of the work he 

can find here, work which is more satisfactory than anything he ran 

get at home even if the pay for the work he gets here is at the lowest 

end of our wage and salary levels. Both the jobs and the pay he receives are bette r than he can get at home. Unfortunately, this makes 

him an easy prey for the unscrupulous employer looking for cheap 

labor.

We have maintained, and we believe that the record makes clear, 

that the illegal alien’s need for the work he obtains and his liability 

to he deported at any time upon discovery results in serious discrimination and exploitation, both at his expense and indirectly at 

the expense of other workers. The illegal alien is in constant danger of 

loss of job and deportation if he is discovered or his presence is made 

known to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. If he entered 

in violation of law, he may also be subject to fines and imprisonment. In these circumstances, he is in no position to complain when 

his employer pays him poorly or treats him unfairly. As a result, his 

employment is characterized by substandard wages and denial of 

rights and benefits normally associated with employment in America.

The net effect of the illegal’s presence in the job market has been to 

depress and maintain low wage levels and substandard living con- f

ditions for American citizens, permanent residents and illegal aliens 

alike, in areas where they are employed in large numbers.

In addition, of course, the availability of a substantial supply of 

illegal aliens able and willing to work for substandard wages and working conditions also results in loss of jobs and employment opportunities for American workers. Obviously too, the effectiveness of the 

rights of union organization and collective bargaining are seriously 

undermined. At the same time, all too many illegal aliens who are 

unable to find jobs or who lose jobs end up on relief and become a 

burden on the community in terms of medical care and other social 

services.

It is not necessary, T believe, to discuss in detail the various provisions of II .R. 9S2. We have provided the subcommittee with our 

views on these provisions a number of times in recent years. Suffice it to 

say th at, on the whole, with the changes which we are suggesting, the
195

bill would, we believe, provide reasonable, fair, and effective means of 

dealing with the illegal alien problem. The heart of the bill is its repeal 

of the employer exemption from the prohibition against the harboring 

of illegal aliens which is contained in section 274(a) of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act. Repeal of this exemption, we believe, is essential.

We have reservations, however, with respect to the sanctions and 

the procedures for applying them which are provided for in the bill.

II.R . 982 would make it unlawful for an employer or any person 

acting as an agent for an employer, or any person who for a fee, 

refers an alien for employment by such employer, “knowingly” to 

employ, continue to employ, or refer for employment any alien in the 

United States who has not been lawfully admitted for permanent 

residence, unless such employment is authorized by the Attorney 

General. I t would be a defense in any action to enforce this provision, 

however, that the employer had made bona fide inquiry whether the 

employee is a citizen or an alien, and if an alien, whether he is lawfully 

admitted to the United States for permanent residence or is authorized 

by the Attorney General to accept employment. The obtaining by the 

employer of a signed statement in writing from the employee tha t he is 

a citizen or that he is otherwise qualified to accept employment would 

be deemed to be “prima facie proof” tha t the employer had made a 

bona fide inquiry as required by the bill.

Under the proposed legislation, a three-stage enforcement procedure 

would be established for dealing with violations of the law. For a first 

violation, an employer would be served with a warning citation by 

the Attorney General. For a second offense, by the same employer, a 

civil penalty of not more than $500 for each illegal alien found working 

in violation of the bill and could be imposed by the Attorney General. 

Subsequent offenses by the same employer would subject him to a fine 

of up to $1,000 or a year in prison, or both, for each alien illegally 

employed by the employer.

The bill should also provide for seizure and forfeiture of any vessel, 

vehicle, or aircraft used in furtherance of a violation of the law’s 

prohibition against the harboring of illegal aliens or which is used by 

any person for a fee in referring or transporting any alien for employment in furtherance of a violation of the provisions of the bill.

Finally, the bill should require any officer or employee of the Departm ent of Health, Education, and Welfare to disclose to the Immigration and Naturalization Service the name and most recent 

address of any alien whom he knows is not lawfully in the United 

States and who is receiving assistance under certain titles of the 

Social Security Act.

There are a number of comments that I woidd like to make with 

regard to these provisions. The bill specifically repeals the proviso 

contained in paragraph 4 of section 274(a). The effect of this provision 

is to eliminate the protection that employers enjoy when the employee 

is an illegal alien and the presence of such illegal alien on the farm or 

in his plant or store is discovered by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. When this happens, the employee is, of course, subject 

to deportation under existing law. The proviso, however, relieves the 

employer from any penalty under paragraph 4 of section 274(a).

Paragraph 4 of section 274(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act expressly provides that any person, other than an employer.
196

who “willingly or knowlin gly enc ourages or induces, or at te m pt s to 

enc ourage or induce, either dir ectly or ind irectly the en try into the 

Un ite d State s of any alien, inc lud ing an alien crew man , not duly 

ad mitted by an immig rati on officer o r not lawfully entitled to en ter or 

reside within the Un ited St ates ,” is guilty of a felony and, upon 

con viction , is s ub jec t to a fine or im priso nm ent, or b oth . The employer, 

however , is expressly exem pt from the opera tion of this prov ision by 

the prov iso to section 274(a) qu oted abo ve. Th e employee if found 

by an immigra tion officer can be de po rte d fo rth with ; the employer 

is free to hire an othe r alien in his place.

Th e repea l of the proviso would itself correct this ob vious d iscrim ina ­

tory trea tm en t as betw een the em plo yer and the employee. The 

provisions of II .R . 982, how ever, sti pu late th at only “k nowing” 

emplo ym ent of an illegal alien by an employer shall be gro unds for 

pro secutio n, and the cumbersome pro ced ure for holding the emp loyer 

resp onsible goes a long way in effect to res tore the exe mption for the 

employe r.

We seriously question the need for specify ing that only “knowing” 

employment of an illegal alien shall be gro unds for pro secutio n of an 

employer for hiring an illegal alien. Crimina l st at ute s, we believe, 

could be drastic all y dim inished in effectiveness if an a ffirmative showing has to be m ade in all cases th at the vio lation of law m int be specific 

and deliberate. Th e crim inal law, of course, req uir es th at in tent 

be shown to com mit the act pro hib ite d, bu t this is v ery d iffe rent from 

requir ing th at specific inten t to vio late the law be show n. We believe 

th at the e mp loy er should be held resp onsible for makin g sure th at the 

persons he employs and the terms and con ditions of such em plo ym ent 

are in accordance with the law. To require specific in te nt to vio late 

the law seem s to us to vitia te the effectiveness of the bill.

Th e thr ee-stage enforce ment provisi ons are, as 1 have said, cumb ersome and largely ineffective in coping with the illegal alien problem. 

These provisions, we believe, are bas ically unfair and will necessa rily 

be dis criminator y in the ir applicat ion .

We strongly urge th at the penaltie s for vio lations be subs tantially 

strength ened. Th e provisions for civil pen alties and fines are no t 

adequate un de r pre sen t con ditions to assure effec tive enforcement. 

We sugg est th at enf orcement could be strength ened by providing 

th at aft er a cit ati on has been served and civil proce edings have been 

initiated, the Fed eral cou rts should be given jurisd iction to res tra in 

and enjo in fu rthe r violations of the law. Injunc tiv e remedies, we 

believe, are nec essary in ord er to pro vid e effective enforcement.

We also sug ges t th at the bill be ame nde d by placing resp ons ibility 

for com pliance clearly and direc tly on the emp loye r, no t on selfserving stat em en ts by employe es. 'There is considerable justifi cation , 

we believe, for the conte ntion th at the bill in its pre sen t form discriminates un fai rly again st the foreign born and pa rticular ly aga inst 

Mexica n Am ericans. Th is is the resu lt of the obligation the bill places 

on the e mployee to furnish the emplo yer as a condition of his employment a signe d sta temen t in wr iting tha t he has been lawfully adm itted 

to the Un ite d States for pe rm an en t residence or is aut horized by the 

At torney Gener al to accept em plo ym ent in the Un ite d Sta tes .

This am endm ent would reduce the possibility of unnecessary and 

dis criminatory haras sm ent of pa rti cu la r groups of employees seeking
197

employment in the United States. Whether such persons are citizens 

or noncitizens the obligation to comply should rest on the employer 

and should not put a premium on deals between employers and employees to evade the law through self-serving statements in violation 

of the Jaw.

The amendments we have suggested will, we believe, strengthen 

the bill and make it a far more effective instrument for dealing with 

the illegal alien problem.

There is, Air. Chairman, one other question which I should like to 

mention and tha t is the ma tter of so-called amnesty for aliens who 

have been here a specified period of time. As I am sure the subcommittee is aware, the present Jaw contains a provision which permits 

adjustment of status for any alien who came to the United States 

prior to 1948. We would be opposed to setting any later date which 

would sweep into legalization for employment large numbers of aliens 

who came here illegally in the first place. We recognize, however, a 

strong case can be made for permitting aliens with family and employment ties going back over a reasonable period of years to become 

eligible for permanent residency. We recognize tha t the committee 

may wish to deal with this problem in order to enable the legislation 

to operate in an atmosphere of concern, not only for native American 

workers and their families, but also for those from other lands who 

have sought to come here as a land of freedom and opportunity.

It is important to bear in mind, as we pointed out in our testimony 

before the subcommittee in 1973 tha t any program of remedial 

action to reduce the economic and social impact of exploitation of 

illegal aliens by unscrupulous employers and their agents must take 

account of the fact tha t in a very real sense America is a country 

of immigrants. As we pointed out in our resolution of November 1971, 

our people have come from every part of the world, and to a very 

great extent the strength and vitality of our country have been 

molded by the skill and aspirations of those who have come here. 

We are proud to be, and we must continue to be a haven of liberty 

for the persecuted and the oppressed.

At the same time, we must be aware tha t the opportunity of the 

United States to continue the policy of welcoming immigrants to our 

country is threatened by the increasing number of persons who enter 

this country illegally, take jobs needed by our own unemployed, 

and undermine domestic labor standards bv working at low wages 

paid by exploiting employers. Failure to correct this situation helps 

neither the citizen, the permanent resident, nor the alien allowed 

to work in the United States under existing law.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Biemiller, we are very grateful to you for your 

valuable contribution this morning. Now the subcommittee will 

ask some questions. We will try to adhere to the 5-minute rule so that 

everyone has as much an opportunity as possible to benefit by your 

research and experience.

Beginning the questioning, on page 5, Mr. Biemiller, you state 

tha t we strongly urge tha t the penalties for violations be substantially strengthened. Can you advise us more specifically how 

you would strengthen the penalties for violations?

Mr. Biemiller. Let me call on my counsel, Mr. Meiklejohn, on 

that.
Mr. M eikl ej oh n. The principa l way in which we hav e urg ed th at 

the penaltie s he strength ened is thr ough the provision for addin g to 

the prese nt citati on, civil pe na lty and criminal penal ty, a pro vision 

for injun cti ve relief at the point where the second vio lati on occurs.

Mr. E ilb ekg. After the seco nd violation?

Mr. M eikl ejoh n. At the point where the second vio lation occurs. 

Th is would he accomp anied by a tem porar y res tra ining ord er, or a 

tem po rar y or permanent injunction.

Mr. E ilb ekg. Would you retain the three- step procedure?

Mr. M eikl ejoh n. We would no t elim inate the crim inal pen alty, 

hu t we believe that to a very conside rable ex tent if injunc tiv e relief 

were ava ilable criminal pen alties would no t be so esse ntia l. Bu t we 

would no t elimin ate them .

Mr. E ilb er g. Would you retain the three- step pro ced ure and 

provide for the citation, civil proceeding, and then criminal pe na lty ?

Mr. M eikl ej oh n. We are perfectly willing to acc ept the citati on 

pa rt of it. 1 belie ve the r est of i t becomes s omewhat moot.

Mr. Eilbe rg . You th ink the in jun cti on would do the jo b after that?

Mr. M eikl ejoh n. We think th at the injun cti on wou ld do the job 

more effe ctively than a criminal penalty .

Mr. E ilb er g. B ut you have no objection to ret ain ing the crim inal 

penalty?

Mr. M eikl ej oh n. No.

Mr. E ilbe rg . Next, I will ask from the same page, page 5, you also 

sug ges t th at the bill be am ended by plac ing res ponsibility for complia nce cle arly and directly on th e emp loye r. I hope th at you realize 

th at . I am for as strong a bill as we can get, bu t I wa nt i t to be clear 

and specific and pract ica l—one we can get thr ough the Hou se and 

Senate. Ca n you be more specific in terms of what you would require 

the em plo yer to do beyond the app roa ch suggested in II.K . 982?

Mr. M eikl ej oh n. Well, I th in k------

Mr. E ilbe rg . W hat do you me an by clea rly and dir ectly , or how 

would you imple me nt th at langua ge?

Mr. Meikl ej oh n. I think th at we have in mind th at the obligation 

here sho uld be on the emplo yer . Th e obligation here sho uld be to 

make in qu iry as to the st at us of the people w hom th e em plo yer employs, 

and there should no t be an ou t for the employer if he simply goes 

thr ough ge tting a statem en t from som ebo dy else, an employee or 

som ebo dy else, th at the person , the poten tial emp loyee is qualified 

and perm itted under the law to work for him . Th e respon sibility 

should be on the emp loyer to ma ke the inq uiry.

Mr. Eilb er g. All rig ht now, 1 do no t wa nt to ap pe ar ar gu mentat ive 

or qua rrelsome with you, but I am sure th at you can imagine as I 

can with the millions of em plo yer s th at exis t in the co un try , that at 

the time of emplo yment , it might be very difficult if not impossible 

for the employer to secu re an y clear evidence of the the stat us of the 

pro spe ctive employee. I am thinking of the re mo te areas of the Un ited 

States, rem ote from the offices of Im migr ati on and Na turaliz ation 

Service and perhaps othe r go vernmental agencies. IIo w do we mak e 

it possible for the employer to do th at in rem ote areas, for exam ple?

Mr. M eikl ejoh n. Well, M r. Ch air ma n, I think to some extent 

th at problem is exaggerated. I think it was Gen eral Ch apman who 

made the p oin t that if it is m ade illegal for emp loye rs to employ illegal
199

aliens, most employers—by far the great majority of employers—are 

going to obey t hat requirement of law. T hat has been true as we have 

certainly found in respect to other laws t hat impose responsibilities on 

employers as such, Th at problem is nowhere near as great as might 

appear to be the case. In any case, it seems to us tha t this should not 

excuse the employer—not allow the employer—to escape his own 

responsibility by putting the responsibility off on somebody else.

Mr. Eilberg. 1 can visualize the situation where a crop is about to 

be harvested, and the need is immediate. And I can realize the difficulty the employer might have in immediately trying to get proof of 

citizenship, or permanent status, and it could take days, it could take 

weeks.

Mr. Meiklejohn. You see, I think we have fallen into patterns 

here. We have fallen into patterns where employers rely on this kind 

of labor being available at the last minute, and tha t is one of the 

problems tha t very much needs to be dealt with in this area. I do not 

think tha t it is necessarily true tha t in all cases the employer has to 

wait until the very last minute to find out whether the crew that he 

is going to get contains illegal aliens or does not contain illegal aliens. 

We have, of course, the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act 

regulating farm labor contractors who provide assistance to the 

employer as far as recruitment of labor is concerned. That act which 

makes the farm labor contractor responsible for referring only legal 

aliens to the employer. If the farm labor contractor, of course, is 

referring illegal aliens, he may lose his license to function as a contractor, and is subject to criminal penalties.

Mr. Eilberg. Man y witnesses who have appeared before the subcommittee have expressed the need for a culpability requirement and 

have indicated that only the knowing employment of an illegal alien 

should be prohibited. In your statement, Mr. Biemiller, you take issue 

with tha t position. However, I can imagine that several problems 

would arise if the knowing requirement were deleted. Would you 

envision any particular problems tha t would resu lt in the event tha t 

a responsible and conscientious employer unknowingly hired an illegal 

alien when such employer had no reason to believe nor actual knowledge that the person was, in fact, an illegal alien?

Mr. Biemiller. I wan t my counsel to continue, but may I just 

inject something for the new members here. Mr. Meiklejohn is the 

former Assistant Solicitor for the Labor Department and lias worked 

in this area for many years.

Mr. Eilberg. Yes; and T might add that Mr. Meiklejohn has appeared before the subcommittee many times, and is very knowledgeable, and we are glad to have him here.

Mr. Meiklejohn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I think we feel—well, let me say first tha t when this bill first came 

before the Congress, and first came out of this committee, there was 

no provision, there was no requirement, in the bill at that time tha t 

the employment must be “knowing employment.” This was a provision that was added, that was inserted in the bill, as I recall it, when 

the bill was reported 2 years ago.

Mr. Eilberg. Yes, but if I may interrupt, what I am concerned 

about is whether there are any legal or constitutional problems arising 

by the deletion of “knowingly”?
200

Mr. Meiklejohx. No, I believe not, Mr. Chairman. Many 

statu tes, many criminal statutes, do not require or contain language 

such as this in their substantive provisions.

Mr. E ilberg. All right. Mr. Fish.

Mr. Fish. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Biemiller.

I appreciate very much your being here and speaking on behalf of the 

AFL-CIO, because it is primarily an employment problem that we 

are facing today and is the reason why I believe there is urgency in 

this legislation. And we do need the support of the AFL-CIO in 

our endeavor.

I also am quite sympathetic of your suggestion tha t there be more 

of an affirmative duty on the part of the employer than is currently 

in the legislation, and this has been brought to our attention by other „

witnesses. Now, I would ask you to explore with me if you would 

for a moment what might be the union’s responsibility as a companion 

to the employer’s responsibility tha t the bill deals with where, for 

example, the International Garment Workers Union in Los Angeles 

has been recently reported to have been moving toward organizing 

illegal aliens. And do you feel th at tha t is proper for a union to refer 

illegal aliens to employers for employment, or should constraints be 

in this legislation or in other legislation to prohibit this practice?

Mr. Biemiller. The problem tha t you raise, Congressman, is 

not really a union problem. Wha t the unions are trying to do is tn 

organize plants, and if they organize those plants and sign a union 

shop contract, the employment still is in the hands of the employer.

He is the person that provides the employment. The union has no 

control over who goes to work. A normal provision under a union 

contract would be tha t after 30 days anyone going to work for that 

employer under a union shop provision must become a member of the 

union. If the employer hires an illegal alien, there is no way the union 

can refuse to take him in under the existing NLRA procedures.

Now on the other hand, where you have a situation where the 

unions furnish employees—let me give you a concrete case from your 

own State. The painters’ union, for example, has been policing jobs 

and getting illegal aliens thrown off the job by picketing them and 

knocking them out. Certainly where you have a referral system, as 

you do in the building trades, the union will be very, very careful in 

not admitting any illegal aliens or referring them. To the contrary, I 

repeat 1 know that the painters in New York have been picketing jobs 

where illegal aliens have been at work and have gotten them thrown 

off the job. And I regret to say, in many instances the employer comes 

back with another crew of illegals that he has picked up.

Mr. Fish. I appreciate what you just said, and 1 should think it 

would be an almost intolerable position for the union to be in under 

the terms that you describe in the plant where they know- fully well 

tha t the plant they have organized has people in there tha t are taking 

jobs away from either American citizens or those admitted to this 

country for permanent residence. Do you have any suggestion, or 

would you and your counsel like to think about legislation tha t may be 

helpful. Maybe it is not in the immigration field but in the labor 

field tha t would enable the union to take a firmer hand in such matters.

Well, I would just leave that with you because it was raised in this 

committee before.
201

One other point tha t you raise is a matter of great sensitivity with 

myself, and I am sure with all of the members of this committee, is 

in your testimony you say tha t there is considerable justification we 

believe that the contention of the bill in its present form discriminates 

unfairly against the foreign born, and particularly against MexicanAmericans. And I am not sure what follows really clarifies that to me. 

I can see where any effort to put a burden on an employer might 

result in this, and I wonder if you just care to elaborate on that. 

Particularly you might think in terms of documentation which is, I 

think, a subject tha t other witnesses have talked about and you have 

not in your prepared testimony.

Mr. Meiklejohn. I think it primarily grows out of the provision 

of the bill which in effect relieves the employer from any responsibility, 

if he has obtained a statem ent from the employee that he is qualified 

to work. The principal objection tha t certain groups have made to this 

provision is tha t such a statement would be required by many employers of certain people and not of others, largely based upon appearance, or language or whatever the criteria may be that the 

employer might use, and tha t this in effect would mean tha t MexicanAmericans, many of whom have been long-time citizens, would be 

required to file statements while other persons would not.

Mr. Fish. Who are the others? I do not understand who the other 

persons are.

Mr. Meiklejohn. Persons with Anglo-Saxon surnames, for example, to be very specific.

Mr. Fish. Well, 1 think we will agree th at if you are an illegal alien 

and you make a false statement to the employer, or you have documentation that is false, which you can buy apparently in this country, 

you are still subject to deportation, and you are subject to other 

sanctions in the law; so we are not really talking about that person; 

are we?

Mr. Meiklejohn. But this is not a statement which is required by 

the employer of all employees. This is a statement which can be required of some employees and not of others, which is where the 

discrimination comes in.

Mr. Biemiller. Congressman, if you want, I can give you an 

example. It is not a question only of Anglo-Saxon names, but in certain 

parts of the country, like Milwaukee where I come from, the name 

Schimmelpfennig for example, would be accepted as a good American 

name, and nobody would question probably whether a man named 

Schimmelpfennig was illegal; but if somebody named Sanchez came 

along, ‘‘wait a minute,” you know, ‘‘who are you,” and so on. This 

is the kind of thing tha t we are talking about here, pure and simple. 

I am not saying we know any simple solution to it.

Mr. Fish. My time is up unfortunately, but I wish you would give 

some thought to an easy documentary form of identification. 1 a<i;ree 

with you, 1 think, the worst problem is going to be for the American 

citizen to go around and prove tha t he is a native-born American 

citizen.

Mr. Meiklejohn. We have been giving a good deal of thought to 

the matter of documentation, but 1 do not think anyone has come 

up with a very good answer to it.
202

Mr. Fish. Thank you.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Sarbanes.

Mr. Sarbanes. 1 am not very clear how it would work in practice, 

given the suggestion at the bottom of page 5 where you say, “we also 

suggest that the bill be amended by placing responsibility for compliance clearly and directly on the employer, not on the self-serving 

statements by employees.” How do you envision that such compliance 

would work out or take effect?

Mr. Meiklejohn. The change that we would make here would be 

very simply to sav tha t this statem ent from the employee would not *•

be sufficient by itself, as the bill now provides. It might be relevant 

evidence for the employer, but it would not be sufficient by itself.

Mr. Sarbanes. Of course, the bill says it is prima facie evidence.

That does not make it sufficient in and of itself, it only establishes an *

initial basis which subsequently has to be undone.

Mr. Meiklejohn. And we would not change that provision.

Mr. Eilberg. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Sarbanes. I take it you would change that provision?

Mr. Meiklejohn. Not the prima facie evidence provision.

Mr. Sarbanes. On the statem ent, on the signed statement?

Mr. Meiklejohn. That is correct; yes. I beg your pardon.

Mr. Sarbanes. You would or would not?

Mr. Meiklejohn. No; we would not change the prima facie 

evidence provision.

Mr. Sarbanes. Then I do not understand the thrust of the suggestion. And I will yield.

Mr. Eilberg. Would the gentleman yield? And I will not take the 

time away from him. I simply want to supplement that. Mr. Meiklejohn, what affirmative requirements or responsibilities in your 

opinion should be placed on the employer? In other words, what 

specifically should he do under your idea that is not provided for in 

the bill? And 1 am trying to follow up on Mr. Sarbanes question.

Mr. Meiklejohn. I think, maybe I did no t answer Mr. Sarbanes 

completely. The responsibility we would put on the employer would be 

the affirmative responsibility of making inquiry.

Mr. Sarbanes. Of what?

Mr. Meiklejohn. Of making inquiry, whatever kinds of inquiries .

he would be able to make.

Mr. Sarbanes. What kind of inquiry are you thinking about?

Mr. Meiklejohn. Wei1, this is the kind of inquiry tha t he would 

check with various agencies like the Social Security Administration, >

or he might check with the Immigration Service or he might check with 

various other governmental organizations.

Mr. Sarbanes. Now, do you believe that the kind of inquiry you 

are going to require of him is going to ease the problems set out in 

sentence 2 of the last paragraph on page 5, or rather exacerbate it?

Mr. Meiklejohn. I do not believe it would exacerbate it. Congressman; no.

Mr. Sarbanes. It would no t ease it.

Mr. Meiklejohn. Well, I think it would. I think it would ease it.

Mr. Sarbanes. Well, you criticize the approach in the bill requiring 

that you get a signed statement, which then only serves as prima 

facie evidence, so that if the employer tries to play fast and loose
2C3

with this thing, he will be subject to citation, civil penalties and 

criminal penalties. First you say that this requirement is not enough, 

that you want more than that, and then you say in the next sentence 

regarding the signed statemen t tha t there is considerable justification 

for the contention that the bill in its present form discriminates 

unfairly against the foreign born, particularly against MexicanAmericans. And then you suggest a process that goes well beyond that 

set out in the {legislation. And as far as 1 can perceive how it would 

work. This process would only intensify this feared discrimination.

* Mr. Meiklejohn. Well, the recommendations that we made here

are based upon discussions tha t we have had with representatives of 

the organization of the foreign born, and one of the principal features 

of this bill that they have objected to goes to the statement tha t would 

be required of the prospective employee.

Mr. Sarbanes. Well I understand that. But you go further in 

saying not only that you want tha t statement from the employer 

but that you do not think the statement is an adequate check on his 

part.

Mr. Meiklejohn. That is correct.

Mr. Sarbanes. In order to comply with the law, therefore, you 

want him to do not only the statement but other things as well. And 

I am asking you whether, if he does other things as well with respect 

to the people upon whom he feels he has to make a check, it will not 

intensify the problem which the organizations representing the foreign 

born are concerned about?

Mr. Meiklejohn. The only way I can answer you-----

Mr. Sarbanes. I mean I recognize the problem, I just sec your 

approach as only intensifying it rather than ameliorating it.

Mr. Meiklejohn. In our discussions with those organizations they 

have indicated that that is not the case, tha t they do not feel that it 

would have that result.

Mr. Sarbanes. Would you require the employer to do this with 

respect to every employee?

Air. Meiklejohn. I think to a great extent employers do do this 

with regard to their employees. They do make inquiry as to their 

qualifications in some way or another. Most employers do not hire 

» people just on the basis of a guy walking in off the street.

Mr. Sarbanes. Well, do you think they should be-----

Mr. Meiklejohn. That is most responsible employers do not.

Mr. Sarbanes. You heard the testimony I assume of the Justice 

< Department and the Labor Department before?

Mr. Meiklejohn. I did hear part of it, yes.

Mr. Sarbanes. Do you support their proposal that a citizenship 

check should be required and run on every prospective employee?

Mr. Meiklejohn. A citizenship check?

Mr. Sarbanes. Yes.

Mr. Meiklejohn. Essentially.

Mr. Sarbanes. Do you support that?

Mr. Meiklejohn. Uh huh.

Mr. Sarbanes. You think that every employee seeking a job ought 

to have to prove his citizenship, or that there ought to be a check of 

citizenship?

49-7 69— 75- 14
204

Mr. Meiklejohn. I think if you are going to say that it is illegal 

for an employer to hire an illegal alien, you are going to have to, you 

will probablv have to do that. And 1 do not believe you can escape it 

if you are going to make employment of illegal aliens illegal.

Mr. E ilberg. Mr. Cohen.

Mr. C ohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Meiklejohn, I would like to just direct a couple of questions to 

you. 1 believe you stated earlier in response to a question from the 

chairman tha t if the law prohibits the employment of illegal aliens 

tha t most employers would automatically comply. And I ask you this 

question: Is this true from your experience with the minimum wage 

law?

Mr. Meiklejohn. Yes it is. M Mr. Cohen. We have received testimony tha t most, if not all of 

the illegal aliens who are working, let us say, in a State like Texas 

are, in fact, receiving a minimum wage as a result of the passage of 

tha t law?

Mr. Meiklejohn. It does not follow tha t they are all receiving 

a minimum wage. It does not follow. What I said was tha t most 

employers endeavor to comply with the law.

Mr. Cohen. Has that been true of the minimum wage law with 

regard to employment of illegal aliens in Texas, for example?

Mr. M eiklejohn. No. No.

Mr. Cohen. You would contradict the testimony given to us last 

time?

Mr. M eiklejohn. I would say that in certain occupations there 

is a greater degree of violation than there is in others.

Mr. Cohen. So it does not necessarily follow simply because 

the law prohibits-----

Mr. Meiklejohn. I did not mean to imply that this would be 

an automatic matter, tha t it would apply equally everywhere.

Mr. Cohen. Your experience has been, notwithstanding the fact 

that Congress passes an act such as the minimum wage law does not 

necessarily mean tha t there is going to be compliance?

Mr. Meiklejohn. 1 guess, Congressman, if everybody had complied there would not be any need to pass the law* in the first place.

Mr. Cohen. Then your statement is not quite as categorical as 

you made it to the chairman, tha t it automatically lollowed tha t 

there would be compliance?

Mr. Biemiller. In most instances.

Mr. Meiklejohn. In most instances, yes.

Mr. Cohen. Th at does not apply, however, to minimum wage 

law, right, from your experience?

Mr. Biemiller. Well Congressman, under the minimum wage law 

there are violations, and the inspectors of the Labor Department 

have to check constantly. Every year millions of dollars are collected 

from unscrupulous employers who have not met their standards.

Now, on the other hand, we do have evidence that minimum wage 

law or no, many illegals are hired below the minimum wage. They 

are not paid the minimum wage, they are simply given money under 

the table, it is not ever registered, there is no social security involved, 

there is nothing involved. This is the kind of thing that we are concerned 

about. And it is t ha t kind of employer tha t we certainly feel should
205

not be allowed, if an inspector from Immigration comes in and says 

you have X, Y, Z on your payroll here, to say, “No, wait a minute, 

they said they were legals.” This is what we are trying to get at.

Mr. Cohen. I would like to follow up on the line of questioning 

by Mr. Fish and Mr. Sarbanes. And I am a bit confused about your 

statement on page 5 tha t back in 1973—and I will direct it to you, 

Mr. Meiklejohn. 1 am referring to our subcommittee hearings on 

illegal aliens, page 69, and let me quote to you. It says:

« An arg um en t ha s be en m ad e ag ai nst II . R. 982 th a t th e bil l di sc rim in at es

un fa irly ag ai nst th e foreign bor n and par ti cula rl y ag ai nst M ex ic an Am erican s. 

Th is is ba se d on th e ob liga tion s th a t th e bill plac es on an em pl oy er to ob ta in 

pr im a facie proo f th a t he ha s m ad e bo na fide in quir y to th e em pl oy ee to ob ta in 

as to w he th er he is an ali en , and if an alien, w he th er he is law fu lly adm it te d to

* th e U nited Sta te s. We be lie ve th is re qu irem en t is not un fa ir, b u t on th e co ntr ary

is ne ce ss ar y to en ab le th e bill to ope ra te eff ec tiv ely . I t see ms to us no mor e discr im in at ory th an th e in quir y as to citiz en sh ip to de te rm in e th e ri ght to re gi ster 

an d to vo te.

Mr. Meiklejohn. I think I recognize th at statem ent.

Mr. C ohen. You recognize th at statement? Is t ha t your statement? 

Mr. Meiklejohn. Yes, sir. 1 think I recognize tha t statem ent.

Mr. Cohen. It seems somewhat in contradiction to the statement 

on page 5.

Mr. Meiklejohn. Well, I would say tha t it is now 2 years later. 

Mr. Coiien. The passage of time vitiates-----

Mr. Meiklejohn. With the passage of time, you know, you can 

do a little thinking in the meantime.

Mr. Cohen. I will come back to the question Mr. Biemiller mentioned earlier tha t it may in many instances make a difference as to 

what one’s name might be, so you would support the notion tha t if 

we are to put the burden upon an employer he has to require identification of every citizen for citizenship or alien status, on everyone, not 

just based upon white Americans?

Mr. Meiklejohn. Basically tha t is right.

Mr. C ohen. 1 have to come back to the question about the elimination of the word knowingly. Would your organization support the 

elimination of the word knowingly and arrive at a conclusion, for 

example, th at any employer who employs an alien, who is determined 

9 to have illegally entered into this country would be guilty of a crime?

Mr. Meiklejohn. Yes.

Mr. Cohen. So, notwithstanding whatever inquiries he might have 

made, he would be guilty of a violation? So you would reduce this 

* law to what we call, in legal jargon, malum prohibitum instead of 

malum in se? It would be like a speeding violation. If I were to rent 

a car at an agency, notwithstanding the defectiveness of the speedometer, if I would be found violating the speeding law by let us say 

going 35 in a 30-mile-an-hour zone, notwithstanding the fact tha t I 

did not intend i t and took the precaution to see t hat my speedometer 

was registering at 30, 1 would still be in violation and subject to 

criminal penalties?

Mr. Meiklejohn. Well, I do not think tha t we would elimina te 

entirely the matter of intent, and I do not believe th at the matter of 

intent would be eliminated in its entirety in those laws tha t you are 

referring to either.
206

Mr. Cohe n. H ow could we s tru cture a la w th at says any emplo yer 

who employs an illegal alien is guilty of a crime if we do not rely up on 

good faith, or inq uir y or inte nt?

Mr. Meik lejohn. It is m y con ten tion here, Congressman, th at th e 

inclusion of the word knowin gly has for its purpose the adding of an 

add itional lim itation on the exten t of responsibility of the emplo yer , 

th at it is prima rily designed to make it very, very difficult to— or, 

it is no t so designed bu t the effect is—to make it very difficult to 

hold an employer responsible.

Mr. Cohe n. Wou ld it be helpful if we said an y employe r who in 

bad fait h employs an illegal alien?

Mr. Meikl ejoh n. Somethin g of th at kind would perhap s help, 

bu t it is our feeling th at the word knowingly here—because there is 

a specific require me nt th at the violation be “know ing”—prov ides *

a very large loophole. If th at loophole can be closed by some such 

phr ase as you suggest, th at might be very helpful.

Mr. Cohe n. I guess m y time is up, Mr. Chairma n.

Mr. E ilberg. Sir. Do dd.

Mr. Dodd. Tha nk y ou, Mr. Chairma n. It is nice to see b oth of you 

here.

I guess th at m ost of my questions have been asked bu t I do have a 

conc ern, on page 5 of your testim ony, dealing with the word know ingly 

and the in tent of the employer at the time the illegal alien is h ired .

I would like to get ba ck to a point th at Mr. Biem iller m ade earlie r 

with regard to the uni on acti vities, no t so mu ch in the closed shop, 

bu t where under the union constituti on certain articles require th at 

members of the union be U.S. citizens. Ca n you foresee any possibilit y where the union itself in its hiring practices might also be 

subject to this same kind of leg islation, where again, know ingly h irin g 

or tak ing into union membcrsliip an illegal alien would be subje ct to 

this same kind of penalt y?

Mr. Meik le jo hn . Well, I am afraid I am no t quite clear ab ou t 

yo ur question.

Mr. D odd. Well, assu me you are soliciting membership in a plant, 

and the constitu tion req uir ed th at a memb er of th at union be a 

U.S. citizen, and you unk now ingly accepted the membersh ip of a 

person who was an illegal alien within the union. ,

Mr. M eikl ejoh n. Ve ry few of our constituti ons I believe would 

lim it membersh ip to citizens, because our unions are int ern ation al 

unions. Many of the m have members in Ca na da and function as, in 

effect, inter natio na l unions. I t would be a very serious m atter to impose on unions a req uiremen t th at only citizens could be the ir 

members.

Mr. Dodd. All rig ht. Assuming in this country , in an effort to try 

to solve this problem whi ch plag ues the lab or marke t tremendo usly, 

and in an effort to p ro tect th e A merica n worker fro m j ob loss as a re su lt 

of hiring illegal aliens, usin g th at as our premise, can you foresee a 

sit ua tio n wherein the un ion in it s h irin g should also be subje ct b asically 

to the ten ets of this law?

Mr. M eikl ejoh n. Well, we had some discussio n of this earlier, 

and we ind icated th at we did no t see th at this was an obligation th at 

should be pu t upo n unions, bu t th at if you wa nt us to look int o it 

more we could do th at.
207

Mr. Dodd. I recognize you are not the employer.

Mr. E ilberg. Would the gentleman yield at tha t point?

Mr. Dodd. Certainly.

Mr. E ilberg. We have nothing but sympathy and understanding 

for the position of labor. But the same question occurs to me. What 

obligation, if any, should the unions undertake to require proof 

of legal status? Should any obligation be placed upon labor unions?

Mr. Meiklejoiix. I think Mr. Biemiller indicated to that, that you 

have a very different situation so far as the unions are concerned than 

you do with the employer.

Mr. Eilberg. He differentiated the construction trade and the 

other unions, and 1 am asking the general question whether it should 

be routine when application is made for union membership that some 

inquiry should be made of the legal status of that individual by the 

union? Can you respond or do you want to think about that?

Mr. Biemiller. We would be glad to furnish you with a statement 

on that.

Mr. E ilberg. All right. We would appreciate that.

Mr. Dodd. Mr. Chairman, I want to make clear that it is merely 

an inquiry on my part as well in an effort to try to satisfy some very 

strong reservations tha t I have about requirements tha t people 

carry identification cards. I have some real serious constitutional 

questions on that. But I would like to sound you out on something 

tha t just strikes me, and it revolves around tha t very point. As a 

practical matter I am tremendously concerned about the fact tha t 

people who may have a so-called foreign last name, or who may speak 

with an accent are going to be avoided like the plague by an employer 

because of this very problem, particularly if we eliminate language such 

as knowingly without intent. I can visualize where there would be a 

situation where the employer is just not going to want to jeopardize 

and place himself in a situation where civil suits may be initiated 

against him or possibly criminal penalties. So in order to protect 

himself, he will say that 1 am just not going to take the chance, the 

guy may be all right, he may not be lying to me, but why put myself 

in that position? And I do not know. Do you see that kind of a problem 

without getting into that massive identification system? Tha t is what 

the alternative seems to be.

Mr. Meiklejoiix. I think there is probably danger of that. If you 

are going to make it an offense for the employer to employ an illegal 

alien, there is some danger of that.

Mr. Dodd. Do you see the danger increased by eliminating the-----

Mr. Meiklejoiix. No.

Mr. Dodd. The language of knowingly?

Mr. Meiklejoiix. No; we do not.

Mr. Eilberg. Would the gentleman yield again on that point?

Mr. Dodd. Sure.

Mr. E ilberg. 1 do not want you to feel tha t I have a fixed point of 

view, and we are just trying to structure a bill that is practical and 

will work and be effective, but if we are talking about the southwest 

area, is it not true that people say applying for a job to pick a harvest, 

generally all the names would have a Spanish-American sounding 

name? 1 mean, it would be rare to have a name like Smith or Chesterfield. Most likely they would all have similar sounding Spanish names. 

Is tha t a fair generalization?
208

Mr. Meiklejohn. I would think tha t is probably true.

Mr. E ilberg. Do you have anything else?

Mr. Donn. No. T hat is fine, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Russo.

Mr. Russo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. T have a problem with my 

voice today, but I do have some questions that I would like to present.

First of all, you suggest that we use injunctive relief after the 

citation has been issued, and 1 assume after the second proceeding.

I wonder why we should not use it in the first case? We may be able to 

give the employer the contempt of court citation the first time around c 

rathe r than doing it the second time and spinning our wheels by just 

issuing a citation. I say this because I am for slightly stronger penalties 

than are contained in the provision myself, and I see the injunctive 

relief step probably as something to be used initially. *

Mr. Biemiller. We have no quarrel with putting in an injunctive 

proceeding immediately. We have done tha t with various kinds of 

civil rights legislation and I think it has been effective.

Mr. Russo. Throughout the testimony we have had before this 

committee everyone seems to indicate tha t the bill should be stronger, 

and tha t we should require the employer to do something more. And 

I think one of the things tha t we have to bear in mind is something 

tha t the chairman said earlier, tha t it is something we have to get 

through the House of Representatives and then the Senate and finally 

signed by the President, and hopefully the end results will be an 

effective answer to the illegal alien problem. If we accept strong 

measures as suggested by some of the previous witnesses tha t have 

testified, then we may lead to a requirement under this law tha t could 

be very troublesome. For example, Mr. Dodd referred to, some type of 

documentary identification, a record of citizenship for all employees, 

whether they are Americans or illegal aliens, and it is going to open up,

I think, a Pando ra’s box for all of us. We are going to have to develop a 

national passport or visa, and I fear th at if we make things so stringent 

we are going to have more problems with this bill than we anticipate 

at the present time. Ilow do you feel about the documentation for all 

employees to eliminate the discrimination against ethnic groups and 

people who have accents?

Mr. Meiklejohn. We would have the same reservations with 

regard to a general work permit tha t 1 guess many of the members of A

the committee would have, because tha t is what you seem to be 

talking about. Such documentation would amount to a general work 

permit. If it were the social security card it would convert that card 

into an entirely different kind of a document from what it is now. TM

Mr. Russo . Well, the problem you would have with discrimination—

Mr. Meiklejohn. The social security card is not meant to be an 

identification card now.

Mr. Russo. When would the employer be required to take some 

affirmative steps? It would seem to me that if somebody walked in 

who had a name like Miller or Smith and had no accent you would 

not ask him for anything. Yet if he walked in with a name like Russo 

or something else and had a foreign accent, they would request 

identification. How would you eliminate the discrimination? That is 

the problem I see in having a very, strong measure in this bill.

Air. Meiklejohn. I do not think you can eliminate it entirely.
209

Mr. Biemili.er. What worries us, and I am sure you can understand, Mr. Congressman, is the kind of employer who just repeatedly 

goes ahead and hires illegals. We had this horrible example a few 

years ago that some of you will remember of an individual who 

became Treasurer of the United States who was at least twice—if 

1 am not mistaken, three times—found guilty of hiring illegal aliens, 

and yet nothing happened. This is the kind of problem that we are 

worried about. I mean, I agree tha t you do not want to make life 

miserable for the scrupulous employer, but unfortunately, there are 

a lot of unscrupulous employers in the United States who do hire, 

and rchire and rehire illegal aliens. Mr. Russo. Tha t is why 1 think it is important that we provide 

stronger measures for penalties in the initial step rather than giving 

them a citation.

Mr. Biemili.er. Tha t is why we think the injunctive process would 

be very helpful. Mr. Russo. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. One or two more questions, if I may.

Mr. Meiklejohn mentioned before the use of the Social Security 

Administration as a place for the employer to check. Possibly, tha t 

might be a way. There are some thousand offices, I understand, in 

the United States. 1 am not tha t familiar with the internal structure 

sufficiently to know how much trouble it would be to check with 

the Social Security Administration, but I want to get clearly on the 

record tha t you are opposed to any national identification card, or 

the establishment of a national work permit system through the use 

of the Social Security; is tha t a correct statement?

Mr. Meiklejohn. I think that is a correct statement; yes.

Mr. Eilberg. Is that correct?

Mr. Biemiller. Right, Mr. Chairman. May I inject something 

here?

Mr. Eilberg. Yes, sir.

Mr. Biemii.ler. If my memory serves me right, we still have an 

annual registration of aliens in the United States. Now, a legal alien 

will go and register, and the Immigration Service has those records. 

And if somebody shows up w ho is not on the list, but who is an alien, 

then you have got a real suspicion. And I think tha t is another way 

you have got for at least a kind of a check to make.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Biemiller, it will distress you as it distresses me 

to know’ that perhaps the responsibility rests more with us, but to 

my knowledge there has not been a single prosecution by the U.S. 

Government under the alien registration system.

Mr. Biemiller. This may be a phase of this problem that is worth 

looking into.

Mr. Eilberg. We thank you for that.

You suggest the deletion of the provision that states th at employers 

will be determined to have made a bona fide inquiry, if they obtain 

a signed statement in writing from the employee that he is authorized 

to work. Do you have any particular problems with the first proviso 

which exempts the employers who have made a bona tide inquiry?

Mr. Meiklejohn. 1 think we answered Congressman Sarbanes 

tha t we did not.
210

Mr. Eilberg. And one more question. We heard a good deal in the 

last Congress about the shortage of agricultural labor in the Southwest, or alleged shortage. Does the current II-2 program provide 

adequate procedures for admitting aliens for temporary labor when 

American workers are unavailable?

Mr. Biemiller. This raises a very fundamental question tha t has 

been thrashed out by the Congress many times. There is still in the 

law a provision whereby contract workers can be brought in under a 

showing that there is no local labor available. In Florida, for example, 

Jamaicans and other West Indians come in to work on the sugar 

crop, but it is a very carefully regulated program with adequate 

wages.

Now, in the Southwest, you will find most of the difficulty there 

is simply a question of wages. Where the wages have been raised substantially, the problem is not nearly as acute. And I think part of the 

answer here rests with the question of decent wages being paid.

There was a program for many years, which started during the 

Korean war, called the bracero program, involving the importing of 

Mexican labor. We managed to do away with that program about 10 

years ago, and w’e are in no mood to see the thing revived. This is 

essentially what Senator Eastland has been trying to do over in the 

other body. This is the price he wants to exact for passing a bill; 

namely, to revive in effect the bracero program.

Now, the difficulty with the bracero program was that in the first 

place there was no real policing of it. Allegedly there was, but practically there was not. And many of the illegal aliens th at we are now 

confronted with in this country were people who came in under the 

bracero program and then rapidly left the farms and beat it off to 

w hatever job they could find.

Mr. Eilberg. Are you saying if there were a carefully regulated 

system, that you might be for it?

Mr. Biemiller. Only if there could be a good provision to show 

that there was not any adequate labor available at decent wages. 

This is the other side of the thing. The kind of thing that we suspect 

some of the plantation owners and large ranch operators are really 

trying to do, is to drive down wages. That is what they are after.

Mr. Eilberg. I think that basically your position is that 11-2 is 

available and could be used and used more?

Mr. Biemiller. Exactly. Exactly.

Mr. Eilberg. All right. Are there any other questions?

Mr. Cohex. Just one other question.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Cohex. What would be your organization’s position on the 

question of amnesty for illegal aliens?

Mr. Biemiller. Well, that raises, of course, a very fundamental 

question. You have to be careful tha t you do not get such an amnesty 

pension that you are in effect saying all right, anybody that is here, 

it is fine, lovely. There is, as I understand it, in existence now a provision tha t involves the stepping of deportation proceedings against 

anyone wdio has been here for 7 years and can show hardship. I think 

tha t that provision possibly might be revamped a bit and w’orked into 

this situation.

Mr. Cohex. Worked up or worked down?
211

Mr. Biemiller. 1 would leave tha t to the good judgment of the 

Justice Department in consultation with you good pet.ple, because 

frankly, I do not see-----

Mr. E ilberg. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Biemiller’s statement 

said that he would go back from 1948, and he is not making 

a concession.

Mr. Biemili.er. No. I said I would also take this more recent 

7-year provision and see if it can be adapted.

Mr. Eilberg. Which did not appear in your statement.

* Mr. Biemiller. But 1 do not want the blanket thing of 1948 

date extended forward. By a curious coincidence, 1 had something to 

do with passing that law in 1948, and I suppose maybe it is because I 

have a certain pride in the thing, but that is another m atter.

* Mr. Eilberg. Would you be kind enough, Mr. Biemiller, to think 

about hew that 7-year suspension, how that might more properly 

work and how we might include it?

Mr. Biemiller. We will be glad to. In fact, we are in the process 

now of talking with some of our affiliates who have this problem.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Sarbanes, I think I cut you off before.

Mr. Sarbanes. No.

Mr. Eilberg. Are there any other questions from any other 

members?

Well, gentlemen, we thank you very much.

Mr. Biemiller. May I just add that I did not quite finish, I wanted 

to say tha t we have great faith in the members of this panel to be 

fair and honest people. 1 think that we have never had any real 

quarrels with any of you, and 1 am delighted with that, and I think 

between yourselves and the Justice Department you ought to be 

able to work out an intelligent provision here. This does not mean 

we are not willing to give you the benefit of our views too, but I 

want to repeat tha t we think that in good faith we can trust this 

panel to do what is honest and fair.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Biemiller, we appreciate tha t very much.

May 1 also say that this subcommittee feels, as I am sure the 

Congress feels, that the general problem is a very serious one and one 

tha t has got to be dealt with, so that in getting your continuing

* support I hope you will give us the benefit of your thoughts as quickly 

as you can so that we have as much input as we possibly can get.

Mr. Biemili.er. We will be happ y to, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. Thank you very much.

M Our next witness is Mr. Arthur E. Hess, Deputy Commissioner,

Social Security Administration.

Certainly the most difficult and sensitive issue tha t has confronted 

us during the course of our hearings on the illegal alien problem is the 

matter of identification. In fact, the inability of employers to identify 

illegal aliens or to determine who is and who is not eligible to work in 

the United States goes to the very heart of the entire illegal alien 

problem. In the past, the Subcommittee has resisted suggestions th at 

the employer be charged with the responsibility of determining the 

citizenship and alien status of prospective employees.

At the same time, many have suggested tha t the identification responsibility should be placed entirely on the federal government, and 

over the years this Subcommittee has enlisted the assistance of the
212

Social Security Administration in considering this very troublesome 

issue. While the social security account number was not originally 

set up to be used as an identification tool by employers, it has been so 

used by most employers as well as by some government agencies. In 

addition, there is the common misconception on the part of many tha t 

such cards are the equivalent of work permits.

Legislative provisions to restrict the issuance of social security account numbers were contained in the Social Security amendments of 

1972—Public Law 92-603. Specifically, section 137 of this law requires the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to assure th at *

social security account numbers are: “Assigned to all members of 

appropriate groups or categories of individuals by assigning such 

number * * *. (I) to aliens at the time of their lawful admission into the 

United States, either for permitting residence or under authority of 

law permitting them to engage in employment in the United States 

and to other aliens at such time as their status is so changed as to 

make it lawful for them to engage in such employment.”

It is evident that the primary purpose of this provision is to restrict 

the issuance of social security account numbers to noncitizens (tha t 

is, aliens) who are authorized to work in the United States. In order 

to accomplish this objective, section 137 empowers the Secretary of 

Health, Education, and Welfare “to require of all applicants for social 

security account numbers such evidence as may be necessary, to 

establish the age, citizenship, or alien status, and the true identity of 

such applicants”.

In order to implement this provision of law, extensive regulations 

have been issued by the Social Security Administration, and we would 

now like to welcome Mr. Arth ur Hess to the Subcommittee so tha t 

he might describe the operation of this program as well as to respond 

to various suggestions tha t the Social Security Administration assume 

a much greater role in stemming the illegal alien probem.

Before we hear from the witness, I would like to insert into the 

record copies of the pertinent section of P.L. 92-603 as well as the 

regulations which have been promulgated to implement tha t section 

of law. I would also like to insert a copy of a statement prepared by 

INS with respect to the cooperation bv the Service and the Social 

Security Administration concerning this matter.

S ec tio n 13 7 o f P u blic L aw 9 2 -6 0 3 R ela tin g T o I ssu a n c e o f S o cia l S ecu rit y

N u m b e r s

M ET HOD O F IS S U A N C E O F SO C IA L SE C U R IT Y ACCOU N T N U M B ER S »

Sec. 137. Section 205(c)(2) of the Social Security Act is amended—•

(1) by inserting “ (A)” immedia tely a fter “ (2)” ; and

(2) by a dding a t the end thereof the following new sub paragraph :

“ (B) (i) In carrying out his duties under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall 

tak e affirm ative measures to assure th at social secu rity account numbers will, to 

the maximum ex tent pra cticable, be assigned to all members of appropria te groups 

or categories of individuals by assigning such numbers (or ascertaining th at such 

numbers have already been ass ign ed):

“ (I) to aliens at the time of their lawful admission to the United States eith er 

for permanen t residence or und er oth er au tho rity of law permittin g them to engage in employment in the United States and to other aliens at such time as their 

sta tus is so changed as to make it lawful for them to engage in such employm ent;

“ (II) to any individual who is an applica nt for or recip ient of benefits under 

any program financed in whole or in pa rt from Federal fund s including any child 

on whose behalf such benefits are claimed by ano ther perso n; and
213

“ (I II ) to a ny o th er in di vid ual wh en it ap pea rs th a t he c ou ld ha ve b een b u t wa s 

n o t as sign ed an ac co unt num ber under th e pr ov isions of su bc la us es (I) or (I I) 

b u t on ly aft er su ch in ves tigat io n as is ne ce ss ar y to es ta blish to th e sa tisf ac tion of 

th e S ec re ta ry , th e identi ty of s uc h in di vi du al , th e fac t th a t an ac co unt n um ber h as 

n o t al re ad y been as sign ed to su ch in di vi du al , an d, th e fa c t th a t su ch in di vid ual 

is a citiz en or a n on citiz en wh o is no t, be ca us e of his alien sta tu s, pr oh ib ited from 

en ga gi ng in em pl oy m en t; an d, in ca rr yi ng out su ch duties , th e Sec re ta ry is a u ­

th ori ze d to ta ke af firm ativ e m ea su res to as su re th e is su an ce of socia l se cu ri ty 

nu m be rs ;

“ (IV ) to o r on be ha lf of c hi ld re n wh o arc be low scho ol a ge a t th e r eq ues t o f th eir 

pare nts or gu ar di an s; an d

“ (V) to ch ild ren of scho ol ag e a t th e tim e of th eir first en ro llm en t in sch ool.

“ (ii) The Sec re ta ry sh al l re qu ire of ap plica nts fo r so cial se cu ri ty acco unt 

num ber s su ch ev iden ce as m ay be ne ce ss ar y to es ta blish th e age, citize ns hi p, or 

alie n st atu s, an d tr u e i d en ti ty of su ch a pp lica nts , an d to det er m in e which (if an y) 

social se cu ri ty ac co unt num ber ha s pr ev io us ly be en as si gn ed to su ch in div id ual .

“ (iii) In ca rryi ng out th e re qu ir em en ts of th is su bpara gra ph, th e S ecre ta ry 

sh al l en te r in to su ch ag re em en ts as m ay be ne ce ss ar y w ith th e A ttorn ey G en er al 

and o th er officials an d w ith S ta te a nd loca l welf are ag en cies a nd s choo l auth ori ti es 

(inc ludi ng n on pu blic scho ol au th o ri ti es) .”

§ 422.1 04 As sig nm en t of s ocial secu rit y num bers

So cia l se cu rity nu m be rs m ay be as sign ed to th e follo wing:

(a) U.S. cit ize ns, up on re quest ;

(b) Aliens lawfully ad m it te d to th e U nited Sta te s fo r per m anent resid en ce or 

under oth er au th o ri ty of la w per m itting th em to en ga ge in em pl oy m en t in th e 

U nited S ta te s (see § 42 2.1 04 a re ga rd in g pre su m pt io n of a u th o ri ty of noni m m ig ra nt 

alien to en gage in em plo ym ent) ; an d

(c) Aliens who ar e lega lly in th e U nite d S ta te s b u t not under au th o ri ty of law 

perm it ti ng th em to en ga ge in em pl oy m en t, b u t on ly fo r a no nw or k pu rp os e (see 

§ 42 2.1 07 (d) (1) an d (21).

[39 F .R . 10241, M ar. 19, 1974]

§ 422.1 04 a Pr esum ption of au thor ity of no nim mi gran t alien to accept employment

T he no ni m m ig ra nt visa clas sif ications assign ed by th e D epart m ent of S ta te 

sh all be us ed to de te rm in e w heth er a no ni m m ig ra nt ali en is au th or iz ed to en ga ge 

in em pl oy m en t. (See 22 C F R 41.12 fo r th es e classif ica tio ns .) Pe rm iss ion to e ng ag e 

in em pl oy m en t sh all not be pr es um ed in th e case of an al ie n wh o ha s not be en 

issu ed a visa or wh ose visa show s any on e of th e follo wi ng cla ssifi ca tio n sy m bo ls: 

B -l, B-2 , B -l an d B -2 , C - l, C -2 , C-3 , F -2 , H -4 , and L -2 . Holde rs of visas 

bea ri ng oth er cla ssifi ca tio ns will be pr es um ed to ha ve auth ori zati on to wo rk.

§ 422.1 05 Ob tainin g ap plicatio ns fr om immigran ts an d certa in no nimm igrant classes

As a p a rt of th e visa proc es s, U nited Sta te s co ns ul ar offices th ro ughout th e 

world obta in ap pl ic at io ns fo r socia l se cu ri ty nu m be rs from im m ig ra nt s en te ri ng 

th e U nited Sta te s fo r perm anent resid en ce , from fia nces or fiance es of U. S. 

citize ns an d ch ild ren of th es e fiance s or fiancees. The co ns ul ar office als o verifies 

th e age, id en tity , an d ali en sta tu s of th es e in di vi du al s. A fter ve rif ication of th e 

ag e, id enti ty , an d alien sta tu s of th e in di vi du al , th e co nsu la r office fo rw ar ds th e 

ap pli cati on to th e C en tral Office of th e Soc ial Sec ur ity A dm in is trat io n. If in ves tigat io n do es not dis clo se a pre vio us ly as sign ed nu m be r, th e C en tral Office assig ns 

a num ber an d fo rw ar ds a social se cu ri ty num ber ca rd to th e ap plica nt a t th e 

U nit ed Sta te s ad dr es s give n on th e ap pl ic at io n. T he Im m ig ra tion an d N atu ra li zati on Se rvice pe rfo rm s a si m ilar fu nc tion w ith re sp ec t to alie ns wh o en te re d th is 

co u n tr y w ith ou t im m ig ra tion visa s an d who, su bse quen t to entr y, ac qu ired s ta tu s 

as law fu l pe rm an en t re si den ts of th e U nite d Sta te s. T he Im m ig ra tion an d N a tura li zati on Servi ce o bt ai ns fr om ea ch s uc h ali en an ap plica tion f or a so cial se cu ri ty 

nu m b er an d, aft er ve rify in g th e alie ns ’ ag e an d id en ti ty , fo rw ar ds th e ap pl ic at io n 

to th e C en tr al Office of th e So cia l Sec ur ity A dm in is trat io n. If in ve stig at io n does 

n o t disclose a pr ev io us ly as si gn ed nu m be r, th e C en tral Office assig ns a nu m ber 

an d fo rw ar ds a socia l se curi ty num ber ca rd to th e ap plica nt.

§ 12 2.1 07 Eviden ce req uirements

A pp lica nt s for socia l se curi ty nu m be rs are re qu ired to su bm it su ch ev iden ce as 

th e S ecre ta ry m ay re ga rd as co nv in ci ng of th eir age , ci tize ns hi p, or alien st atu s, 

an d tr u e id en tity . An appli cant is als o re qu ired to su bm it ev iden ce to as si st th e
A dm in is tr at io n in det er m in in g th e ex istenc e an d id en ti ty of any pr ev io us ly 

assign ed n um be r( s) . In th e ca se of a no nc iti ze n, ev iden ce is als o re quired t o est ablis h w he th er th e ap plica nt, be ca us e of his alien st atu s, is p ro hib it ed from e ng ag ing 

in em pl oy m en t in th e U nited Sta te s. A soc ial se cu rity num ber will no t be as ­

sign ed un less all of th e ev iden ce re qu irem en ts ar e m et . (F or ve rif ication of age, 

id enti ty , an d alien st atu s of im m ig ra nts an d ce rtai n no nim m ig ra nt classes en te ring th e U nited S ta te s, see § 422.1 05.)

(a) Evidence of age. Up on re qu es t, all ap pl ic an ts for a socia l se cu rity num be r 

ar e re qu ired to su bm it ev iden ce of age to su pp or t th e date o f b ir th alleged. Exa m ­

ple s of th e ty pe s of ev iden ce wh ich m ay be su bm itte d are b ir th or bap tism al ce rtifica te s, school an d ch ur ch reco rd s, censu s reco rds, in su ra nc e policies, m arriag e reco rd s, em pl oy m en t reco rd s, an d pa ss po rts .

(b) Evide nce of iden tit y. Upo n requ es t, all ap pl ic an ts for a soc ial se cu rity num ­

be r ar e re qu ired to su bm it co rr obo ra tive ev iden ce of th ei r id enti ty . C orrob or at iv e 

ev iden ce of id enti ty m ay co ns ist of a dr iv er 's licens e, a vote r re gis tr at io n ca rd , 

a bir th ce rtificate, a pa ss po rt, or oth er sim ila r do cu m en t se rv in g to id en tify th e 

in di vi du al . It is pr ef er ab le th a t th e do cu m en t co nt ai n th e app li can t’s si gnat ure 

for co mpa riso n w ith his si gnat ure on th e ap pl ic at io n for a socia l se cu ri ty n um be r.

(c) Eviden ce of U.S. cit ize nship . Gen erall y, an allega tio n of U.S. citiz en sh ip 

by b ir th will be su pp or te d by th e ev iden ce of age an d id enti ty de sc rib ed in p a ra ­

gr ap hs (a) an d tb) of th is se ction. Add ition al ev iden ce m us t be su pp lie d whe n 

th e ev iden ce of age o r id enti ty d oes nol show pla ce of bir th or whe re s uc h ev iden ce 

of age or id en tity doe s not ag re e w ith th e appli cant’s al le ga tion of bir th in th e 

U ni te d Sta te s. Wh ere a n ap pl ic an t indica tes th at he is for eig n bo rn an d th a t he is 

a U.S. citiz en , he is requ ired to pr es en t do cu m en ta ry ev iden ce of U.S. citiz en sh ip. 

An y of th e fol low ing is ac ce pt ab le ev iden ce of U.S . citize ns hi p:

(1) Cer tifica te of nat ura li zati on;

(2) Cer tifica te of citiz en sh ip;

(3) U.S. pa ss po rt;

(4) U.S. cit ize n iden tif icat io n ca rd (I N S form 1-1 79 or 1- 19 7) ; or

(5) Con su lar repo rt of b ir th (S ta te D ep ar tm en t form FS- 24 0) . If su ch re qu ired 

ev iden ce is not av ailable, an d co urt rec ords do not confirm th e allega tio n of U.S. 

cit izen sh ip, th e Im m ig ra tion an d N at ur al iz at io n Se rvi ce will be co nt ac te d. If th e 

Servi ce ha s no reco rd of th e appli cant’s citiz en sh ip, a socia l se cu ri ty nu m be r will 

no t be assig ned un til sa tisf ac to ry ev iden ce of U.S . citiz en sh ip is fu rn ish ed .

(d) Evidence of alien sta tus— (1) Citizen of c ountr y other tha n Canad a or Me xic o.

W he re th e ap pl ic an t is a foreign cit izen (of a co unt ry oth er th an Can ad a or 

Mexico ), su ch ap pl ic an t is re quir ed to ha ve an Alien R eg is tr at io n R ec ei pt C ar d 

(1- 151 ) or an A rr iv al -D ep ar tu re Rec or d (1-94) an d will be as ke d to pr od uc e su ch 

do cu m en t. If th e ap pl ic an t fails to do so, a socia l se cu rity num be r will not be 

iss ue d an d the Im m ig ra tio n and N at ura liza tion Service will be no tif ied of th es e 

circ um stan ce s. If th e ap pl ic an t pr od uc es an Alien R eg istrat io n Rec eipt Card, or 

pr od uc es an A rriv al -D ep ar tu re Rec or d wh ich co nt ai ns an au th or iz at io n to wo rk, 

a socia l se cu rity nu m be r ca rd will be issued. How ev er, if th e A rriv al -D ep ar tu re 

Rec ord doe s no t co nt ai n auth ori za tion to wo rk an d th e socia l se cu ri ty nu m be r is 

for a wo rk purpose, it will n o t be iss ued an d th e Im m ig ra tion an d N at ur al iz at io n 

Se rvi ce will be no tified of th e circ um stan ce s. If th e ap pl ic an t re qu es ts th e num be r 

for a non work pu rpose, e.g ., an In te rn al Rev en ue S erv ice p ur po se , th e n um be r will 

be iss ued an d th e reco rd will be annota te d. In th e la tt er cas e, if ea rn in gs are la te r 

re port ed to th e A dm in istrat io n, th e Im m ig ra tion an d N atu ra liza tion Se rvice 

will be no tif ied of su ch re por t.

(2) Mex ican or Canadia n cit ize n. If a Can ad ian or Mexica n citiz en ha s an Alien 

R eg is tr at io n Re ce ipt Car d or an A rr iv al -D ep ar tu re Rec ord, th e rul es in p ara ­

gr ap h (d id ) of this secti on ap pl y. If a Can ad ia n or Mexica n citiz en is leg ally in 

th e U ni te d Sta te s w ith a bord er cro ssing ca rd , a bo rd er vis it or’s pe rm it (or, in 

th e case of a Can ad ian citiz en , w ith ou t doc um en ta tion ), b u t doe s no t ha ve an 

Alien R eg istrat io n R ec ei pt C ar d or an A rriv al -D ep ar tu re Rec or d, an d wishe s a 

soc ial se cu rity nu m be r fo r a no nw or k pu rpos e, e.g ., an In te rn al Rev en ue Service 

pu rp os e, th e Adm in istratio n will ass ign a num be r to th e ap plica nt an d issue a 

num ber ca rd , ex ce pt th a t th e reco rd will be an nota te d an d, in ad ditio n, th e 

Im m ig ra tion an d N at ura li zati on Service will be no tif ied if ea rn in gs are re po rted 

to th e ea rn in gs record.

(3) Fa ilu re to sub mit evidence. If th e ap pl ic an t does not co mpl y w ith a re qu es t 

fo r ev iden ce or ot her in fo rm at io n re ga rd in g alien st atu s w ith in a reas on ab le tim e, 

th e A dm in is trat io n will ag ain att em p t to co nt ac t him. If th er e is still no r espo nse, 

th e Im m ig ra tion an d N at ura li zati on Service will be no tified.
215

(4) In va lid or expir ed docum ents. The A dm in is trat io n will im m ed ia te ly no tify 

th e Im m ig ra tion an d N at ura li zati on Service whe n an ap plica nt pr es en ts in va lid or ex pired Im m ig ra tion an d N atu ra li zati on Se rvice doc um en ts . In val id do cu ­ m en ts ar e forged do cu m en ts purp ort edly iss ue d by th e Im m ig ra tion an d N atu ra l­ iza tio n Se rvice or pr op er ly issu ed do cu m en ts wh ich were alt er ed su bs eq ue nt to issu e. An ex pired do cu men t is on e wh ose te rm of val id it y ha s ex pire d.

(5) Notice to alien ap plican t. An ali en who ap plie s for a socia l se cu ri ty nu m be r 

will be ad vi se d th a t in fo rm at io n obta in ed by th e So cia l Sec ur ity A dm in is trat io n in co nn ec tio n w ith his ap pl ic at io n for , an d issu an ce of, a social se cu ri ty nu m be r m ig ht be t ra nsm it te d to th e Im m ig ra tion an d N at ura liza tion Se rvice. If a nu m be r is to be issued for no nw or k pu rp os es , th e appli cant will be ad vi se d th at th e

* Im m ig ra tion an d N atu ra li zati on Se rvice will be no tif ied sh ou ld ea rnings be

re port ed to his ea rn in gs reco rd .

§ 422 .10 8 Cr im inal pen alties

A pe rson m ay be su bj ec t to cr im in al pe na lties fo r fu rn ishi ng false in fo rm at io n

> in co nn ec tio n w ith ea rn in gs re co rd s or for wrong ful us e or m is re pr es en ta tion in co nn ec tio n w ith soc ial se cu ri tv nu m be rs , purs uan t to se ction 208 of th e Socia l Se cu rity Act an d sections of T it le 18 of th e U nited Sta te s Cod e (42 U.S.C. 408 ; 

18 U .S .C . 1001 an d 1546 ).

139 F .R . 10242, M ar. 19, 1974]

§ 422 .11 0 In di vidu al 's request fo r change in records

Fo rm O A AN- 70 03 , “ R eq ues t fo r Cha ng e in Socia l Sec urity R ec or ds ” shou ld be co m pl eted by an y pe rson wh o wishe s to ch an ge th e nam e or oth er pe rson al id en tify in g in fo rm at io n pr ev io us ly su bm itte d. Th is form m ay be ob ta in ed fro m an y loc al socia l se cu rity office or fro m one of th e sour ce s note d in § 42 2.1 03 (b). Th e co m pl et ed re qu es t fo r ch an ge in reco rd s m ay be su b m it te d to any office of th e So cia l Se cu rity A dm in is trat io n, or, if th e in di vi du al is in th e Ph ilipp ines, to th e V et er an s’ A dm in is trat io n Re gion al Office, M an ila , Ph ili pp ines . If th e re qu es t is fo r a ch an ge in na me, a ne w socia l se cu ri ty num ber ca rd will be iss ued to th e pe rson mak in g th e re qu es t be ar in g th e sa m e num ber pr ev io us ly assig ne d. 

§ 422 .11 2 Em plo yer ide ntifica tio n num bers

(a) Sta te an d local governments. (1) In th e case of a S ta te which ('li ter s in to an 

ag re em en t w ith th e Sec re ta ry of H ea lth , Edu ca tion , an d W elf are unde r section 218 of th e Social Sec ur ity Ac t, th e Bur ea u of D at a Proc essin g and Ac coun ts, in co nf or man ce w ith § 404.1 240 of th is ch ap te r, will assig n an id en tifica tion nu m be r to th e S ta te (if S ta te em ploy ee s ar e co ve red under th e ag re em en t) an d to each po lit ic al su bd iv isio n in clud ed in th e ag re em en t. Simila rly , in th e case of such an ag re em en t with an in st ru m enta li ty of tw o or more Sta te s (i nte rs ta te in st ru ­ m en ta li ty ), th e Bur ea u of D at a Pr oc essin g an d Acc ou nts will assig n an iden tif i­ ca tio n nu m ber to su ch in te rs ta te in st ru m enta li ty . T he Burea u of D at a Pro cessing and Acc ou nts sen ds to th e appro pri ate official of th e S ta te or in st ru m enta li ty a Fo rm O A R-S 14 , “ Notice of Id en tify in g N um ber Assig ned Und er Agree men t M ad e P u rs u an t to Se ction 218 of th e Social Sec urity A ct ,” fo r ea ch nu m be r

» assig ne d. (2) If wages fo r co ve red tr an sp o rt ati o n serv ice (as det er m in ed unde r section 210(k ) of th e Soc ial Se cu rity Ac t, as am en de d) ar e pa id by a S ta te or po litical su bd iv isio n of a Sta te , which ar e su bj ec t to ta x und er (he Fed er al In su ra nc e C ontrib utions Act, th e In te rn al Rev en ue Se rvi ce C en te r will assig n an iden tif ica-

•> tion num ber to su ch S ta te or po litica l su bd ivision for th e pu rp os e of re po rtin g su ch w ages. In t he se case s th e p ro ce du re s fo r iss ua nc e of id en tifica tion nu mbe rs by In te rn al Rev en ue Se rvi ce C en te rs to S ta te or po lit ical su bd iv isio ns ar e th e same as th e pr oc ed ur es f or issuing iden tifica tion nu m be rs to e mpl oy er s oth er th an S ta te an d loc al go ve rn m en ts. See para gra ph (b) of th is se ction for th e referenc e to su ch 

proc ed ur es.

(b) Em ploy ers other than Stat e an d local governments. In th e case of all em ploy ers 

an d oth er en tities who are re quir ed to ha ve an id en tifica tion nu m be r, oth er th an St at es , po litica l su bd ivisi on s, or in te rs ta te in st ru m en ta lities , su ch nu m be rs ar e iss ue d by In te rn al Rev en ue Se rvice Cen ters . The ap pro pri ate pr oc ed ur es for iss ua nc e of iden tif icat io n num be rs m ay be fo un d in 26 C F R 31.601 l( b ) - l.

§ 42 2.1 15 Ea rn ings rep orted w ith ou t a num ber

If an em pl oy er re port s an em pl oy ee ’s wages w ithout a social se cu ri ty nu m be r, th e B ur ea u of D ata Pr oc essin g an d Acc ou nts w rit es to th e em pl oy er rega rd ing ea ch of th e inco m pl et ely re port ed wage ite ms. T he em pl oy er is as ked to fu rn ish
216

the missing number or other identifying information. When an employer is unable to furnish th e employee’s nu mber or satisfactory identifying information and 

does furnish an address for the employee, the Bureau of Da ta Processing and 

Accounts writes to the employee and requests him to furnish the necessary inform ation so th at the earnings reporte d may be properly posted to his account.

If self-em ployment income is reporte d without a number, the Bureau of Da ta 

Processing and Accounts writes to the self-employed individual to obtain the 

missing number. In some cases, at the request of the Bureau of Da ta Processing 

and Accounts, the distric t office or bran ch office contacts the employer or. selfemployed person to obtain the acco unt number or other identifying inform ation 

and to inform him of the importance of using the number when reporting wages or 

self-employment income. Where wages are involved the district, office or branch 

office may also need to conta ct the employee. Earnings items which are not 

identified arc maintained in file and are available for cred iting to the proper 

accounts upon receipt of correct identifying information.

§ Earnings reported under incorrect name or number

If an employer reports an employee’s wages under a social secu rity number or 

name different from that shown on the employee’s social security card and the 

Bureau of D ata Processing and Accounts is unable to identify the employee from 

its records, the Bureau of Data Processing and Accounts writes to the employer 

regarding such unidentified wage items. Where an employer is unable to furnish 

the corre ct inform ation but does furnish an address for th e employee, the Bureau 

of Da ta Processing and Accounts writes to the employee requestin g him to 

furnish the necessary information so t hat the earnings reported may be properly 

posted to his account. Where a self-employed individual repo rts his self-employment income under an incorrect name or num ber and the Bu reau of Da ta Processing and Accounts is unable to associate such repo rt with an acco unt in its records, 

the Bureau of Data Processing an d Accounts writes to the self-employed individual 

to obtain the necessary identifying information. In some cases, at the request of 

the Bureau of Data Processing and Accounts, the district office or bran ch office 

con tacts the employer or self-employed person to obtain the corre ct name or 

num ber and to inform him of the impo rtance of using the correct name or n umber 

when reporting wages or self-employment income. Where wages are involved the 

distric t office or branch office m ay also need to contact the employee. Earnings 

items which are not identified are maintained in file and are available for crediting 

to the prop er accounts upon receipt of correct identifying inform ation.

§ 422.125 Statements of earnings: resolving earnings discrepancies

(a) Requesting a statement of earnings. An individual may o btain a statement of 

earnings recorded in his social security account by mailing to the Social Security 

Administration, Post Office Box 57, Baltimore, Md. 21203, a completed Form 

OAR-7004, “ Request for State me nt of Earnings,” or in lieu of a Form OAR7004, a signed written request showing his social security num ber and date of 

birth.

(b) Statement of earnings, Form OAR-7014. Upon receip t of such request or

Form OAR-7004, the Adm inistration will forward to the individual, without *

charge, a Form OAR-7014, “S tatem ent of Earnings Recorded in Your Old-Age 

and Survivors Insurance Account,” containing the requested information. The 

Form OAR-7014 will show the total of earnings credited to date , the total for 

each of the last 3 complete calendar years, the total credited since the last complete year, and the total credited for each of the periods of 1937 thro ugh 1950, R

and 1951 through the year preceding the first year for which an annual total is 

shown. See paragraph (e) of this section for information regarding a more detailed 

earnings statem ent.

(c) Insured Status Reply, Form OAR-7014a. Where the individual asks for a 

sta tem ent as to his insured sta tus , the Administration will forward a Form 

OAR 7014a, “Insured Status Reply .” The Form OAR-7014a shows the same 

earnings information as the Form OAR-7014 and, in addition, conta ins a sta te 

ment as to the insured sta tus of th e individual based on the earnings inform ation 

recorded in his account. Where the individual is not fully insured for retirement 

benefits, according to such information, the Form OAR-7014a shows the number 

of quarters of coverage he requires and the number of qua rters of coverage he 

has required.

(d) Earnings information for recent periods. Because of the time it takes to 

receive and record reports, and because earnings are repo rted qua rterly, semiannually, or annually, pursuant to the repo rting procedures governing the par-
217

ticu lar reporting entities, the total earnings credited to an individual’s account 

may no t include all he has earned in recent months or, in some cases, in the 

curre nt and preceding calen dar years.

(e) Detailed earnings statements. (1) A more detailed statem ent of earnings 

will be furnished upon reque st, without charge, where it is required for a purpose 

rela ted to title 11 of the Social Security Act. (2) If the more detailed sta tem ent of earnings is requested for a purpose not rela ted to title II of the Social Security Act, there will be a charge according 

to the following schedule of fees:

Type I—Earnings, period of employm ent or self-employment, and the

names and addresses of reporting employers:

* First calen dar year or any part thereof requested______ . . . ________ $3. 2.5 Each additional calendar year or any p art thereof requested_______ 2. 25

Type II —Yearly totals only: First calen dar year requested__________________________________ 2. 50 Each additional year requested_________________________________ . 25

* Type II I—Calendar quarters of em ployment: Calendar q uar ter of first emp loym ent with a specified em ployer------- 3. 25 Calendar q uarter of last employm ent with a specified employer_____ 3. 25

Calendar quarter of first and las t employment with a specified employer____________________________________________________ 6. 50

If the individual requests th at the information be certified by the custodian of 

the records there will be an additional charge of $5.

(f) Request for revision of earnings records. If an individual disagrees with a 

sta tem ent of earnings credited to his social security account, he may request a revision by writing to the Bureau of Da ta Processing and Accounts, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Md. 21235, or by calling at or writing to any social secu rity district office or branch office or, if the individual is in the Phil­ ippines, by calling at or writing to the Vete rans’ Adm inistration Regional Office, Manila, Philippines. Upon receipt of a request for revision, the Social Security 

Adm inistration will initiate an inve stiga tion of the individual’s record o f earnings. Form OAR-7008, “State ment of Employment for Wages and Self-E mploy­ ment,” is used by the Social Security Adm inistration for obtaining information from the individual requesting a revision to aid the Adm inistratio n in the investig ation. These forms are available a t any of the sources listed in t his paragraph. If an individual receives a form OAR -7008 from the Bureau of Da ta Processing and Accounts, the completed form should be returned to th at office. In the course of the investigation the district office or branc h office, where a ppropriate , contacts the employer and the employee or the self-employed individual, whichever is applicable, for the purpose of obtainin g the information and evidence necessary to reconcile a ny discrepancy between the allegations of the individual and the records of the Adm inistration. See Su bpart I of Pa rt 404 of this cha pter for requirements for filing requests for revision, and for limitation on the revision of records of 

earnings.

(g) Notice to individual of determination. After the investiga tion has been

.<■ completed and a determ ination affecting the individual’s earnings record has been made, the Social Security Adm inistratio n will notify the individual in writin g of the sta tus of his earnings record and inform him at the same time of the determ ina­ tion made in his case and of his right to a reconsideration if he is dissatisfied with 

— such determination (see § 422.140).

■ (h) Notice to individual of adverse adjustment of his account. Written notice is

given to an individual or his survivor in any case where the Social Security 

Adm inistration adversely a djusts the individua l’s self-employment income. Where, subsequent to the issuance of a state ment of earnings to an individual, an adverse adj ust me nt is made of an amount of wages included in the statem ent, written notice of the adverse adjustment is given to th e individual or his survivor. Written notice of the adverse adjustment is also given to the su rvivor if the statem ent of earnings had been given to such survivor. The individual or his survivor is re­ que sted to notify the Social Security Adm inistration promptly if he disagrees, 

and he is inform ed th at the adjus tment will become final unless he notifies the Adm inistration of his disagreement (if any) within G months from the date of 

the letter, or with in 3 years, 3 mon ths, and 15 days after the year to which the 

adjus tment relates, whichever is la ter. [32 F.R . 13653, Sept. 29, 1967, as amen ded at 35 F.R . 7891, May 22, 1970; 

35 F.R . 8426, May 29, 1970]
218

§ 42 2.1 30 Claim procedure

(a) General. The Social Sec ur ity Adm in istratio n pr ov id es facilities fo r th e 

pu blic to file cla im s an d to obta in as sistan ce in co m pl etin g th em . An ap pro pri at e 

ap pl ic at io n form an d re la ted fo rm s for use in filing a cla im fo r m on th ly be ne fits, 

th e es ta blish m en t of a pe rio d o f di sa bi lity , a lu m p- su m death pa ym en t, or enti tl em ent to ho sp ital in su ra nc e be ne fit s or su pple m en ta ry m ed ical in su ra nc e 

be ne fits can be ob ta in ed from an y dis tr ic t office, br an ch office, co nta ct st at io n, 

or re si de nt st at io n of th e Socia l Se cu rity Adm in istratio n, from th e Di vis ion of 

Fo re ig n Cl aim s, Po st Office Bo x 1756, Balt im ore, Md. 212 03, or fro m th e V et ­

era ns’ A dm in istrat io n Reg i )na l Office, M an ila , Ph ilipp ines. See § 404 .60 8 of th is 

chapte r fo r offices at wh ich ap pl ic at io ns may be filed . See § 405.1 02 of th is ch apte r

for co nd itio ns f or e nt itle m en t to ho sp ital insu ra nc e be ne fits an d §4 05 .202 et seq . *

of th is ch apte r for in fo rm at io n re la ting to en ro llm en t und er th e su pple m en ta ry 

med ical in su ra nc e be ne fit s pr og ra m .

(b) Su bm iss ion of evidence. An indi vidu al wh o files an ap pl ic at io n for m on th ly 

be ne fit s, th e es ta bl ishm en t o f a pe rio d of disa bi lity , a lu m p- su m death pay m en t, 

or en ti tl em en t to ho sp ita l in su ra nc e be ne fits or su pple m en ta ry med ical in su ra nc e 

be ne fits, ei th er on his ow n be ha lf or on be ha lf of an ot he r, m ust es ta bl ish by 

sa ti sf acto ry ev iden ce th e m at er ia l allega tio ns in his ap pl ic at io n, ex ce pt as to 

ea rn in gs show n in th e Soc ial Se cu rity A dm in is tr at io n’s reco rd s (see Subpar t II 

of P art 404 of th is chap te r fo r ev iden ce re qu irem en ts in nond is ab ility cases an d 

S ubpart P of P art 404 of th is chap te r for ev iden ce re quirem en ts in di sa bi lity 

ea ses). In st ru ct io ns, re por t form s, an d form s fo r th e va riou s pr oo fs ne ce ssary ar e 

av ai la ble to th e publi c in dis tr ic t offices, bra nc h offices, conta ct st at io ns , an d 

re si de nt st at io ns of th e Social Sec uri ty A dm in istrat io n, and th e V et er an s’ Ad ­

m in is tr ati on Re gion al Office, M an ila , Ph ili pp in es . Th es e offices as sist in di vi du al s 

in pre pa ri ng th ei r ap pl ic at io ns and in ob ta in in g th e proo fs re quired in su pp or t of 

th eir ap pl ic atio ns .

(c) Determinations an d notice to ind ividua ls. In th e case of an ap pl ic at io n fo r 

be ne fit s, th e es ta bl ishm en t of a pe riod of disa bi lity , a lu m p- su m dea th pa ym en t, a 

re co m puta tion of a prim ar y in su ra nc e am ou nt, or en ti tl em en t to ho sp ital in ­

su ra nc e be ne fits or su pple m en ta ry med ical in su ra nc e be ne fits, th e Social Sec ur ity 

A dm in is trat io n, af te r ob ta in in g th e ne ce ss ar y eviden ce , will m ak e a det er m in at io n 

as to th e en titlem en t of th e in di vi du al claimin g or fo r wh om is cla im ed su ch 

be ne fit s, an d will no tif y th e ap pli cant of th e det er m in at io n an d of his ri ght to a 

re co ns id er at io n if he is diss atisfie d w ith th e de te rm in at io n (see § 422.1 40). Also see 

§ 4 04.15 20 of th is ch ap te r for a disc us sion of th e resp ec tive roles of S ta te agencie s 

and th e A dm in istrat io n in th e m ak in g o f di sa bility det er m in at io ns an d § 404 .152 1 

o f th is ch apte r for in fo rm at io n re gar di ng in itia l det er m in at io ns as to entitlem en t 

or te rm in at io n of en titlem en t in dis ab ility cases. See section 1869(a) of th e Socia l 

Sec ur ity Act fo r de te rm in at io ns unde r th e hea lth in su ra nc e fo r th e aged pr og ra m 

an d se ct io ns 1816 an d 1842 of th e Act for th e rol e of in te rm ed ia ries , ca rriers, an d 

S ta te ag en cies in pe rfor min g cert ain fu nc tion s under s uc h pr og ra m , e.g ., pay m en t 

o f claims p urs uant to an ag re em en t w ith th e Socia l Sec urity A dm in is trat io n.

§ 4®%-ld5 Deports by benefic iaries

(a) A re ci pi en t of m onth ly be ne fits an d a pe rson f or w hom a pe rio d of di sa bi lity X

ha s be en es ta bl ishe d ar e ob ligat ed to re port to th e Social Sec urity A dm in istrat io n

th e oc cu rren ce of ce rt ai n events which m ay su sp en d or te rm in ate be nefits of 

whic h m ay cause a ce ss atio n of a pe riod of di sa bi lity . (See §§ 40 4.419 et seq. an d 

404.1531 < f thia ch ap ter . ■

(b) A pe rson who files an ap plica tion fo r be ne fit s rec eiv es oral an d w ritten inst ru cti ons about ev en ts wh ich m ay c au se a s us pe ns ion or t er m in at io n, an d also ap ­

pro pri ate form s an d in st ru cti on ca rd s fo r re por ting su ch ev en ts. P urs uant to sec ­

tion 20 3( h) (1 )(A) of th e Act, under ce rtai n co nd iti on s a be ne fic iary mus t, w ith in 

3 m on th s and 15 d ay s aft er th e close of a ta xa bl e ye ar, su bm it to th e Soc ial Se cu ­

ri ty A dm in is trat io n an annual re port of his ea rn in gs an d of any su bst anti al se rv ­

ices in se lf-e m ploy m en t pe rf or m ed du ring such ta xa bl e ye ar . The pu rpos e of th e 

annual re port is to fur ni sh th e So cia l Se cu rity A dm in istrat io n w ith inf or m at io n fo r 

m ak in g fin al adju st m en ts in th e pay m en t of be ne fits for th a t ye ar . An in di vi du al 

m ay als o be re qu es te d to su bm it oth er re po rts to th e Social Sec ur ity A dm in is tration from tim e to tim e.

§ 422.1 40 Recon sidera tion of in it ia l deter mination

An y p a rt y wh o is diss atisfie d w ith an in iti al det er m in at io n w ith re sp ec t to en ­

titl em ent to m ont hl y be ne fits, a lu m p- su m dea th pa ym en t, a pe riod of disa bi lity , 

a revision of an ea rnings reco rd , w ith resp ec t to any oth er ri ght und er ti tl e II
219

•of the Social Security Act, or with respect to entitlement to hospital insurance 

benefits or supp lementary medical insurance benefits, or the am ount of hospital 

insurance benefits, may request t ha t the Social Security Adm inistration reconsider 

;such determination . The information in §404.1520 of this chapter as to the 

respective roles of State agencies and the Social Security Adm inistration in the 

making of disability dete rmin ations is also applicable to the recon sideration of 

initial determinations involving disability. After such initial determination has 

been reconsidered, th e Social Security Adm inistration will mail to each of the 

parties written notice of the reconsidered dete rmination and inform him of his 

right to a hearin g (see § 422.210). Regulations relating to the details of reconsideration of initial determination s with respect to rights under title II of the Act or 

with respect to e ntitlem ent to hospital insurance benefits or supplementary medical 

insuranc e benefits may be found in §§ 404.909-404.916 of this chapter.

S U B P A R T C---- PR O C E D U R ES O F T H E B U R E A U O F H E A R IN G S A ND A PP E A L S

§ 422.201 Material included in this subpart.

This subpart describes in general the procedures rela ting to hearings before an

Adm inistrative Law Judge of the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, review' by the 

Appeals Council of the Adm inistrative Law Judge’s decision or dismissal, and 

court review. It also describes the procedures for requestin g such hearing or Appeals Council review, and for institut ing a civil action for court review'. For regulations rela ting to hearings under Pa rt B of title X VIII where an individual enrolled 

under the supp lementary medical insurance plan is dissatisfied with the carrier's dete rmination denying a reques t for payment, or with the amoun t of payment, or when he believes t hat the reques t for pay ment is not being acted upon 

with reasonable promptness, see Subpart II of Pa rt 405 of this chapter.

[36 F.R . 18948, Sept, 24, 1971]

§ 422.203 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge

(a) Right to request a hearing. (1) After (i) a reconsidered or a revised determination of a claim for benefits or any o ther right under title II of the Social Security 

Act, or (ii) a reconsidered or a revised determination as to entitle ment to benefits 

under Pa rt A or P art B of title XV III of the Act, or (where the amoun t in co ntroversy is $100 or more) as to the am ount of benefits und er Pa rt A of such title 

XV III. any pa rty to such a determ ination may, pursu ant to section 205, 221, or 

1869 of the Act, as applicable, file a w ritten request for a hearing on the dete rmination. After a reconsidered determ ination of a claim for benefits under Pa rt B 

•of title IV (Black Lung benefits) of the Federal Coal Mine He alth and Safety 

Act of 1969 (30 U.S.C.)

Liaison With Social Security Administration—P repared by INS

Representatives of this Service (INS) and the Social Security Administration 

(SSA) have h ad many consultations in an effort to effectively impleme nt PL 92-603 

rela ting to the Social Security amendm ents of 1972, en acted on October 30, 1972. 

On March 19, 1974, SSA issued its final regulations implementing Section 137 of 

the aforementioned Act. These regulations proh ibit the issuance of Social Security 

Account Numbers to foreign-bom applicants unless there is a clear showing th at 

the foreign-born applicant is a United States citizen or an alien who is en titled to 

work in the United States. Such applica nts are required to present suitable documentation in support of their applications and doubtful cases are now being 

referred to INS for resolution. The following procedures were placed into effect:

A. Local Social Security office will screen Form SS-5 and, if app licant is foreign 

born without docu mentary evidence th at he is a citizen or an alien authorized by 

INS to be employed in the U nite d States, forward copy to Central Office (RA&I).

B; RA&I will search master index and immigrant and nonimm igrant records an d 

SS-5 cases resolved will be forwarded to Social Security Adm inistration headquarters in Baltimore.

SS-5 cases not resolved will be forwarded to INS field office.

C. Field office will search local records and if resolved return SS-5 to Central 

Office RA&I for forwarding to Social Security Administration headqu arte rs. If 

no record is located SS-5 case will be referred for investigation.

Investiga tions will accord a high prio rity and endorse results of investigation 

•on SS-5 and retu rn to Central Office RA&I for forwarding to Social Security 

Adm inistratio n headquarters.

49-7 69— 75------ 15
D. SS-5 cases with undocum ented claims made to U.S. citizenship will be 

handled expeditiously. If not resolved by checks of Central Office and Dep artment of S tate records, information will be phoned to INS field office with results to be called back within one day. If U.S. citizenship is verified, no response is made to Social Security, since an account number will be issued if an adverse 

reply is not received from INS within five working days. Based upon a pilot study conducted join tly by SSA and INS in a four-month 

period in 1973, it was predicted tha t 55,000 applications out of the estim ated to tal of 137,150 referred for screening would become investigative cases. The average general investigation case requires 8.3 hours to complete. As these referral cases are somewhat easier to complete, it was estim ated t ha t it would require six hours to complete each case. One investigator works an average of 202 hours per m ont h and can complete approxim ately 34 cases each month. Therefore, to sta y current 

with the expected monthly referrals would require the full-time efforts of 134 investigators. As of August 30, 1974, a total of 1549 investigations were completed with the following results: 333 applicants were foun d to be in a lawful s tatus, 2G6 illegal aliens were located and 950 presumably illegal aliens had absconded and were no t located at the addresses given. These results were not unan ticipate d as SSA procedures require th at the applicants be informed th at their cases were 

being referred to INS for resolution. It became obvious th at this caseload could not be absorbed without serious imp airm ent to other vita l investigative programs and a consequent overall diminution of the INS enforcement mission. Additional investigative positions 

were req uested in the 75 and 7G Budget requests, bu t to da te no additional investigative positions have been authorize d. The SS-5 program was not accorded a priority in the Service’s Operational Priorities, which became effective September 30, 1974, and at the present time 

the applications are not being forwarded to our field offices. However, a search continues to be made of the INS C entral Office indices and the results are return ed to SSA. As of Jan uar y 10, 1975, a total of 39,544 applications were referred by SSA to INS. After record checks were completed, 2,564 applications were r eturned to SSA marked “Employment Authorized” and 25,831 were returned marked 

“E mployment Not Authorized.” The balance are awaiting record searches. If additional manpower is provided, we will again resume the full procedures including investigations of all applicants where record checks reflect th at the 

applicants are not authorized to be employed or where no record is located.

TESTIMONY OF ARTH UR E. HESS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY WALTER D.

RUBENSTEIN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR BUREAU OF

RETIREM ENT AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE

Mr. Hess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am accompanied, as I was 

last time, by Mr. Walter D. Rubenstein, Deputy Assistant Director 

of the Bureau of Retirement and Survivors Insurance.

1 have a very brief statement, and if it is all right with you I will 

read it verbatim. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased 

to have been invited here again today concerning the issuance of 

social security numbers to aliens. During the testimony before your 

committee 2 years ago, we proposed, and have since implemented, 

many of the cooperative procedures needed to carry out our 

commitments.

As you will recall, the Department of State’s consular offices were 

to have an alien immigrant complete our application for an SSN 

(social security number) at the same time he applies for his visa and the 

Department of State would check evidence of age, identity and alien 

status at tha t time. It was anticipated tha t this would result in a large 

number of aliens having SSN’s issued to them when they enter the 

United States, based upon good evidence presented during the visa 

precess.
221

Since Ju ly 1, 1973, the St at e Dep ar tm en t has bee n havin g indiv idu als com plete appli catio ns for an SSN du rin g the visa process, 

thus receiving the eviden ce for bo th the SSN and vis a all at the 

sam e time. This process is lim ited , however , to tho se individuals 

coming to the Un ite d St at es for pe rm an en t residency , the reb y excluding such categories a s st ud en ts, e xchange visitors, political refugees 

and others who come here for other than pe rm an en t residency. To 

give you an id ea of t he volu me of these cases, I might say, as an aside, 

th at for the fiscal ye ar 1974 the re were 321,000 im migr an t visas with

* acc om panying social secu rit y acc ount nu mbe r appli cat ion s plus S.900 

fiance visas, so we are dea ling with ju st ab ou t a th ird of a million 

nu mbe r th at were issued in the fiscal y ear in th at new w ay.

During previous tes tim on y we proposed, and ha ve since imp leme nte d, a procedure wh ere by referrals to IN S are ma de (1) when the 

alien ap plican t for an SSN can pro vide no evid ence, (2) when the 

alien wan ts the SSN for wo rk bu t is no t pe rm itted to work, (3) when 

the e videnc e pro vided is o bviou sly altered or phony, an d (4) w hen the 

alien who is not p ermitted to work s ecures a n um be r fo r a reason othe r 

th an wo rk and su bs eq ue ntly earnin gs are repo rte d to his earnin gs 

record. These procedures wer e inten de d to pe rm it the issuance of 

SS N’s to aliens for valid rea son s bey ond work, th at is, bank acc oun ts, 

stud en t reg istrat ion , dr iv er ’s licenses, and so forth , while keeping 

within the in te nt of the st at ute . As stated earlier , the se procedures 

were on an inte rim basis a nd su bjec t to later ev alu ati on and review.

Th e regula tions, imposing ev ide nti ary requ ire men ts for SS N’s and 

which imp lem ented section 137 of Pub lic Law 92-603, were pub lish ed 

first un de r “N otice of Proposed Ru lem aking” in 1973 and in final in 

the Federal Register on M ar ch 19, 1974. We have fou nd th at the 

foreign-born ind ividual who is no t totally f am iliar wi th the Am erican 

lan guage was often disadv an tage d whe n at te m pt in g to ob tai n an 

SSN . Eithe r b ecause of difficu lty in com mu nication, or sim ply becau se 

of nonprep are dness , such indiv idual could ge t confuse d and sim ply 

ab an do n the SS-5 ou t of despair, or un intentiona lly give erroneous 

inform ation ; both sit ua tio ns res ult ing in referral to IN S.

Fr om M arc h 19, to Se ptem be r 1, 1974, the Social Se cu rity Adm inistra tio n refe rred ove r 20,000 aba ndoned alien appli cat ion s to INS. Of

* the firs t 2,916— 14 perce nt— which IN S inv est iga ted , th ey foun d th at 

em plo ym ent was autho riz ed in 1,545—53 perce nt— of the cases. In 

addit ion , IN S informed us soon therea fte r th at in less th an one-thir d 

of the cases was the inf orma tio n furnished of an y value to the m. Th e

> “ab an do ne d” catego ry was the lar gest and lea st fru itful cat egory of

referrals from IN S stan dp oint.

Several mo nth s ago, we were notified of significant shifts in IN S 

priorities, including a dee mp hasis on the SS-5 referral pro gra m, because of manpo wer and bu dg etary res tric tions. Th e Social Secur ity 

Ad mi nis tra tio n staff had su bseque nt co ntac t with IN S staff con cerning the im pa ct of the shift of priorities on our join t agree me nt. As a 

res ult of the conta ct, the Social Security Ad mi nis tra tio n proceed ed to 

im ple me nt procedural cha nge s we alr ead y had un de r active con sidera ­

tion as the result of our surve y of the abandoned appli cat ion s. Th e 

proced ure would involve those situa tio ns whe re an ind ivi dual apply ­

ing for an SSN does no t have the ap prop ria te evidence wi th him at 

the time. Inste ad of SSA offices holding the applicat ion pen din g su bmission of the evidence , the appli catio n wou ld be retu rn ed to the
222

applicant, and thereafter instead of having it turn out to be one of 

these abandoned cases that was not fruitfully referred, the applicant 

would be advised to resubmit the application together with the evidence if he wished to pursue his request for a number.

Since INS was not able to followup on the information which we 

formerly provided and because of the futility of pursuing the abandoneds, INS was in complete accord with our change. This change has 

since been implemented and has significantly reduced a fruitless timeconsuming workload for both IN S and SSA, while still preventing the 

issuance of SSN’s to those aliens who do not produce valid evidence * 

of their immigration statu s. Other categories will continue to be 

referred to INS.

Since 1952—you will recall we went over this in my previous testi- *

monv—under section 290(c) of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act, we have, upon request, provided information to the Attorney 

General about aliens who have been issued SSN’s. Since implementation of section 137 of Public Law 92-603, we have worked even more 

closely with INS to establish the best possible procedures to effectuate 

the law. As an aside, that runs about 50,000 a year. When an individual 

who is foreign-born alleges U.S. citizenship or alien statu s in applying 

for an SSN—after entry into the United States—cannot present 

corroborating evidence and where none is available, we have verified 

his allegation with INS. When a negative reply was received from 

INS, no SSN was issued until his status could be established. I’m 

sorry that all of my text here is in the past tense. Actually it should be 

in the present tense because this procedure continues to be in effect.

If the individual is an alien, he is required to present his Alien 

Registration Receipt Card, his Arrival-Departure Record, or other 

INS documentation before his SS-5 is processed. Where an alien is 

not eligible to work, but needs an SSN for other reasons, our records 

are annotated. If earnings are later reported to his record, we promptly 

notify INS. I should point out though there is approximately a 9- 

month lag between the time that earnings arc first earned by the 

individual and the time that they are finally posted to his record, so 

even though I say we promptly notify INS, I do not mean to imply 

that th at is a concurrent notification with the payment of the wages 

by the employer. Thus, while we have been assisting the INS in its „ 

efforts to identify illegal aliens, we want to avoid imposing any undue 

hardships on legally admitted aliens. We must also adhere to the legal 

requirements tha t social security records be kept confidential.

In addition to the pledge of confidentiality to winch we have always %

tried to adhere, and which is founded on provisions of the Social 

Security Act and our regulations, we now have the Privacy Act of 

1974, Public Law 93-579, recently enacted to insure even greater 

confidentiality of records. The purpose of the act is to provide certain 

safeguards for an individual against an invasion of personal privacy.

We are currently evaluating our exchanges of data with other Federal 

agencies in addition to other disclosures, to determine how implementation of Public Law 93-579 will impact on our furnishing of 

information to INS, both under our procedures implementing section 

137 of Public Law 92-603 and under section 290(c) of the Immigration 

and Naturalization Act.

And I might mention here, having taken up the subject of our 

regulations on confidentiality and the intent and impact of other
223

privacy legislation, the testimony of the previous witness inferred 

tha t one possibility would be that an employer could check with 

social security to secure corroborating information tha t he would need. 

And the chairman pursued this question and pointed out, as I emphasize here too, an employer just cannot call up social security and 

get information about anyone. This is confidential information. 

Moreover in many of these instances we would not have corroborating 

information anyway as to citizenship because we have issued in the 

neighborhood of 200 million social security account numbers over the 

lifetime of the program, and we have never had occasion to ask in 

connection with the application for account number what the individual’s citizenship is. We ask for his place of birth as p art of the 

identifying information, but of course, there are literally tens of 

millicns of American citizens who were born abroad and hence have 

given a foreign place of birth on their application for the social 

security number, which is not indicative at all of their citizenship 

status.

In conclusion, since the procedures and requirements for evidence 

of age, identity, and citizenship or alien status were implemented, 

it is considerably more difficult than it has been in the past for aliens 

who are not permitted to work in this country to obtain an SSN. 

However, the general issue of the employment of illegal aliens remains 

a matter of concern, as evidenced by the recent creation of a new 

Domestic Council Committee on Illegal Aliens. The President established this Cabinet level committee on January 6, with participation 

by HEW, Labor, State , the INS, Justice, Treasury, Agriculture, 

Commerce, OMB, and White House staff to develop, coordinate, and 

present to the President, policy issues t hat cut across agency lines so 

that better programs can be developed for dealing with the national 

problem of illegal aliens. This committee is just beginning its consideration of various issues and approaches and will be conducting 

an in-depth analysis on the basis of information which will be gathered 

by staff of its member agencies and departments.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared testimony. I will be 

happy to answer any questions you still may have. Thank you.

[The prepared testimony of Mr. Hess follows:!

St a t e m e n t by Ar th u r E. H ess, D epu ty C o m m is sio n er o f Socia l S e c u r it y ,

S o cia l S ec u r it y A d m in is t r a t io n , D epa r t m e n t o f H ea lt h, E d u c a tio n, 

a n d W el fa r e

Mr. Chairman anti Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to have been 

invited here again today concerning the issuance of social security numbers 

(SSN’s) to aliens. During the testimony before your committe e two years ago, 

we proposed, and have since implemented, many of the cooperative procedures 

needed to carry out our commitm ents.

As you will recall, the Dep artm ent of State ’s consular ofFi/es were to have an 

alien immigrant complete our application for an SSN at the same time he applies 

for his visa and the Depar tment of State would check evidence of age, identity 

and alien status at th at time. It was anticipated th at this would result in a large 

number of aliens having SSN’s issued to them when the y enter the United States, 

based upon good evidence presented during the visa process.

Since July 1, 1973, the Sta te Depa rtment has been having individuals complete 

applications for an SSN during the visa process, thus receiving the evidence for 

both the SSN and visa all at the same time. This process is limited, however, to 

those individuals coming to the United States for perman ent residency, thereby 

excluding such categories as studen ts, exchange visitors, political refugees and 

others who come here for other tha n permanent residency.
During previous testimony we proposed, and have since implem ented a procedur e whereby referrals to IN S are made (1) when the alien applicant for an 

SSN can provide no evidence, (2) when the alien wants the SSN for work b ut is not 

per mitted to work, (3) when the evidence provided is obviously altered or phony, and (4) when the alien who is n ot permitted to work secures a number for a reason oth er than work and subseque ntly earnings are repo rted to his earnings record. 

These procedures were inten ded to permit th e issuance of SSN ’s to aliens for valid reasons beyond work, i.e., ban k accounts, student registration, driv er’s licenses, 

etc., while keeping within the intent of the sta tut e. As sta ted earlier, these procedures were on an interim basis and subject to later evaluation and review. The Regulations, imposing evidentiary requirements for SSN’s and which implemented section 137 of P.L. 92-603, were published in the Federal Register on March 19, 1974. We have found th at the foreign-born individual who is not totally familiar with the American language was often disadvan taged when attem pti ng to obtain an SSN. Either because of difficulty in communication or 

simply because of nonpreparedness, such individual could get confused and simply abandon the SS-5 out of despair, or unintentionally give erroneous information; 

both situa tions resulting in referral to INS. From March 19 to September 1, 1974, the Social Security Administration 

referred over 20,000 abandoned alien applications to INS. Of the first 2,916 (14 percent) which INS investiga ted, they found t ha t employment was authorized in 1,545 (53 percent) of the cases. In addition, INS informed us soon therea fter th at in less tha n one-third of the cases was the information furnished of any 

value to them. The “ab andone d” category was the largest and least fruitfu l 

categ ory of referrals from IN S’ standpoint. Several months ago, we were notified of significant shifts in INS priorities, 

including a deemphasis on the SS-5 referral program, because of manpower and bud getary restrictions. The Social Security Administration staff had subse quent 

contact with INS staff concerning the impact of the shift of priorities on our joint agreement. As a resu lt of the contact, the Social Security Administration proceeded to implement procedural changes we alread y had under active consid­ eration as the result of our survey of the abandoned applications. The procedure would involve those situatio ns where an individual applying for an SSN does not have the appropriate evidence with him a t th e time. Instead of SSA offices holding the application pending submission of the evidence, the application would be return ed to the applicant. He would be advised to resubmit the application together w ith the evidence. Since INS was not able to followup on the inform ation which we formerly 

provided and because of t he futility of pursuing the “abandoneds,” INS was in complete accord with our change. This change has since been implem ented and has significantly reduced a fruitless time-consuming workload for both INS and SSA, while still prev enting the issuance of SSN’s to those aliens who do not produce valid evidence of their immigration statu s. Other categories will continue 

to be referred to INS. Since 1952, under section 290(c) of the Imm igration and Nationality Act, we have, upon request, provided inform ation to the Attorney General about aliens who have been issued SSN ’s. Since imple mentation of section 137 of P.L. 92-603, we have worked even more closely with INS to establish the best possible pro­ cedures to effectuate the law. When an individual who is foreign-born alleges Un ited States citizenship or alien status in applying for an SSN (after en try into the United States) can not present corroborating evidence and where none is available, we have verified his allegation with INS. When a negative reply was received from INS, no SSN was issued until his statu s could be established. If the individual is an alien, he was required to present his Alien Registration Receipt Card , his Arrival-Departure Record, or other INS documentation before his SS-5 is processed. Where an alien was not eligible to work, bu t needed an SSN for other reasons, our records, were annotated. If earnings were late r reported to his record, we would promp tly notify INS. Thus, while we have been assisting the INS in its efforts to identify illegal aliens, we wan t to avoid imposing any 

und ue hardships on legally admitted aliens. We must also adhere to the legal 

requirem ents th at social security records be kept confidential. In addition to the pledge of confidentiality to which we have always trie d to adhere, the Privacy Act of 1974, P.L. 93—579, was recently enacted to ensure even greater confidentiality of records. The purpose of the Act is “to provide 

certain safeguards for an indiv idual against an invasion of personal privacy . . .” We are currently evaluating our exchanges of data with other Federal agencies
225

in addition to other disclosures, to determine how implementation of P.L. 93-579 will impact on our furnishing of information to INS, bot h under our procedures 

implementing section 137 of P.L. 92-603 and und er Section 290(c) of the I&N 

Act.

Since the procedures and requirements for evidence of age, i dentity, a nd citiz enship or alien sta tus were implemented, it is considerably more difficult than it 

has been in the past for aliens who are not per mitted to work in this country to obtain an SSN. However, the general issue of the employm ent of illegal aliens 

remains a m atter of concern, as evidenced by the recent creation of a new Domestic Council Committee on Illegal Aliens. The Presiden t estab lished this Cab inet 

level committee on Janu ary 6 with participation by IIEW, Labor, State, the 

INS, Justice, Trea sury, Agriculture, Commerce, 0M B and White House staff

* to “develop, coordinate a nd present to the Presiden t policy issues tha t cut across 

agency lines so that be tte r programs can be developed for dealing with the nation al

, problem of illegal aliens.” This Committee is ju st beginning its consideration of various issues and approach es and will be conducting an in-depth analysis on 

r

the basis of information which will be gath ered by staff of its member agencies

and depa rtments. Mr. Chairman, this concludes m y pre pare d testim ony. I will be happ y to answer 

any questions you may still have.

Tha nk you.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Hess, we thank you for a very enlightening 

statement, and we are very happy to have had it.

Your s tatem ent does not touch as I recall on what has happened 

to your exercise of the provision of the law on the registration of 

schoolchildren. It does not touch on that subject at all. I think we 

discussed at our last meeting the eventuality of everybody having 

a social security card.

Mr. II ess. We have not proceeded with the registration of schoolchildren beyond what our current practice has been for many years, 

and tha t is beginning at the ninth grade, from the ninth grade on in 

high school. If there is a request by the school to enumerate, we will 

cooperate with that. We will, of course, also provide on an individual 

request basis a social security number to a child of any age who asks 

for the number, either for purposes of work, for purposes of a bank 

account, or whatever the reasons may be.

The authority we have in Public Law 92-603 was permission to 

proceed with the enumeration of all schoolchildren, h ut we have not 

done tha t for two reasons. One, there have been in the last 2 years 

serious questions of policy raised as to the matter of privacy and 

general public policy dealing with the issue of universal enumeration; 

and two, it has also been a question of resources. We are engaged in 

new and extensive enumeration efforts with the State welfare departments, also pursuant to this law, and we have completed the cate-

> gories of the aged, blind, and disabled in connection with the ESSI 

program and we are starting with the AFDC enumeration, but we 

do not have the manpower nor do we have as a policy m atter the 

ability to go ahead with the systematic enumeration of schoolchildren.

Mr. Eilberg. So we are in no way-----

Mr. II ess. We are nowhere close to that.

Mr. Eilberg. At the present time we are not close to universal 

identification of all persons by social security card number?

Mr. Hess. Tha t is correct. I would say though I think because of 

the fact that so many young people by the time they reach about 

9th or 10th grade seek part-time employment, or have other reasons 

to want to have the social security card, tha t we have most of the 

population over the age of about 15 or 16 enumerated. But there is 

a very large group of younger people who are n ot in our records.
226

Mr. E ilherg. Now, Mr. Hess, I would like to go back at this moment 

to your previous testimony and read you two statements or two 

parts from it. Referring to your testimony of March 7, page 63, do 

you happen to have that?

Mr. Hess. Yes, 1 do.

Mr. Eilherg. Well, it is on page 63 of that, and I would call your 

attention to the bottom of the page in which you say:

No matt er how stringently the social security number issuance processes arecontrolled, unless an employer insists on seeing evidence of identity and citizenship, in addition to the social secu rity number, there is no way for the employer 

to know th at the social se curity number th at he is shown is th e number assigned 

to the person presenting it, and is not a bogus, borrowed or stolen one.

Do you recall that statem ent?

Mr. Hess. Yes I do.

Mr. E ilherg. Do you still believe that is a correct statement today?

Mr. Hess. Yes, 1 think that is correct. We have always in our 

informational literature suggested that the employer ask to see the 

card, but that was largely because we had lots of problems with 

transposition of numbers and incorrect earnings reports. Our experience 1 think over the years is t hat many people have memorized 

their social security numbers, many of them, some of them have even 

had them tattooed on their arms, but many of them simply present 

the number to the employers. Unless they have an organized policy 

in their employment of wanting to see the primary documentation, 

they have gotten in the habit of simply taking the person’s number 

ana accepting it.

1 would say also even if they see the card, if it is a situation where 

an individual has established a false identity, there is no way of 

knowing that the card tha t the individual is carrying and presents 

actually was issued to him, or tha t our record backup for th at card 

necessarily has the correct personal identifying information tha t 

relates to his true status. We have whatever he gave us or whatever 

the person gave us to whom that number wits issued.

Mr. Eilberg. And also you went on to say 2 years ago, and [ 

would like to get your present reaction to your state ment immediately 

following that, which 1 will just read.

The social security numb er is not a reliable mechanism to use as a work p ermit 

or identification card, nor was it ever so intended and, therefore, should not be »

relied on as an indication th at the job applicant is employable under Federal 

and Sta te law.

Mr. H ess. Yes. That still continues to be my view.

Mr. Eilherg. Mr. Hess, we are under—pressure perhaps is not * 

the correct word—but many people are pressing upon us the idea 

that we should adopt legislation which would restrict the issuance 

of social security cards or numbers onlv to those who are authorized 

to work and penalize employers who hire an individual who is not 

in possession of such a card. Would the Social Security Administration 

vigorously oppose such a national work permit system or national 

identification system?

Mr. II ess. Well, I would like to defer to the testimony of the 

Acting Attorney General who was before you, Deputy Attorney 

General Silberman and the administration position with respect to 

any issues tha t have to do with the desirability of the bill or the 

provisions of the bill. We do not have a position independent of theadministration point of view on this.
227

I would say that }>ersonally I would, and on behalf of (he Social 

Security Administration, we would, he very reluctant to see a numbering system which was designed essentially for recordkeeping purposes converted into a documentation system that would, in effect, 

mean that the carrier of this document or the holder of this number 

is bearing prima facie evidence of some status under law. It would, 

J suppose, in the last analysis, if that were to la* taken seriously, it 

would drive us to having to recontact everybody who has a social 

security number and perhaps adjudicate certain evidence with respect 

to that number. Or if one did not want to go back and review all 

existing numbers, it would certainly require us to do things with 

respect to future enumeration which 1 think would be technically 

r

feasible, but which might cause people to go underground. Jt would

increase the counterfeiting of numbers and cause people to go underground to get false identities, and to that extent degrade the number 

system for the purposes for which it was really created, and that is 

for us to keep the earnings records of the individual straight in connection with his potential benefit rights.

Mr. Eieherg. Mr. Hess, you mentioned a position of Acting 

Attorney General Silberman as expressed before this subcommittee. 

I have had occasion since to be in the presence of Attorney General 

Levi who takes another point of view, and we are inviting him to put 

his views on the record. So 1 thought that would be interesting to 

you as well as to the members of the committee.

Mr. H ess. All right. Good.

Mr. Eieberg. Now, I have taken more time than I should.

Mr. Fish.

Mr. Fish. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Hess.

't ou know , Mr. Hess, we are advised by the Immigration Service 

that there are between 4 and 12 million people presently in the United 

States who are not here legally. So for the sake of argument, let us 

split the difference and assume it is about halfway between 4 and 12 

million. If we could identify these people we would not need to have 

thi- legislation or these hearings, so the problem is one of identification.

Xow, on the last page of vour testimony you say that since the procedures and requirements for evidence of age, identity or citizenship

< or alien status were implemented it is considerably more difficult than

it lias been in the past for aliens who are not permitted to work in this 

country to obtain a social security number, and that is very good news. 

And of course, it makes the Social Security card a prime target for

* identification. As we are approaching this from an employment point

of view, we have four categories of people. We have the native-born 

American, the naturalized American, ami the alien admitted for 

permanent residence, or otherwise, entitled to work in this country, 

and the individual that we are trying to identify, the illegal alien. 

Xow, the testimony by General Chapman was to the effect th at they 

are now experimenting with a tamper proof alien registration card. 

And there was some speculation among committee members as to 

whether or not the Social Security Administration, if this proves 

successful, could follow suit and also devise a social security card that 

would be tamper proof, that would perhaps contain a photograph. 

This could go a long way toward meeting the problems you raised 

regarding people, jus t borrowing each other’s card or having two cards.
228

I think that we all agree that the biggest problem of identification is by 

the native born American citizen. With respect to the legal alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. They have an alien registration card. 1 am sure they carry around with them much the same as 

many of us did with our draft cards at different times in our history. So 

I wonder what you think of the possibility? You did not address yourself in the testimony to this, but you must be familiar with General 

Chapman’s endeavors in this field of a tamper proof card, of adopting 

this procedure yourself. Inasmuch as the social security card is issued 

only to the citizens of the United States or an alien lawfully entitled 

to work except for those few categories you enumerated where a card 

is used for some other purpose than working, it would leave only the 

category of the illegal aliens that we are trying to identify. Would you 

care to comment on that?

Mr. Hess. Well, of course, it is technically feasible, although it would 

be quite expensive to produce a tamper proof social security card of 

more durable and more definitive characteristics.

Mr. F ish. May I inte rrup t at this point and say th at General Chapman has identified the first million of illegal aliens holding jobs in the 

United States, and the legislation has been introduced into the Congress recently to create public service employment for a million people 

at the cost of well over $7 billion. So I think when we talk about costs, 

we have got to remember it is relative to the problem we face of a very 

high rate of unemployment in the United States.

Mr. Hess. As I say, it is technically feasible to produce a social 

security or other identification card of this kind. I think the main 

problem is a major policy question which the Congress and the 

administration have to address, and tha t is whether to convert the 

social security numbering system, which was not designed to be a work 

permit or identification type of system, to convert this as a m atter of 

public policy to something else. The atte nda nt consequences would be 

both costly and involve Social Security in many activities tha t it is 

not now formally involved in, including adjudication, or a t least the 

flagging of the identification and potential adjudication of individuals 

who claim to have a s tatu s other than they have, and also the whole 

problem tha t I spoke of before of aggravating the issue of counterfeiting or false identity. The social security card is now often issued on 

the basis of secondary evidence of the citizenship and status the 

individual may have. And we would have the problem, then, I think 

which anyone would be faced with in this kind of a situation of having 

to be responsible for some surveillance, some inspection and surveillance of the documents from which this tamper proof card is to 

be produced.

As I say it is a m atter of public policy, obviously, but my inclination 

is to say tha t there ought to be a lot more atte mp t at this point to 

focus right on the immigration card itself, the presence or the absence 

of tha t card for anv individual particularly in the areas where this 

ty pe of employment is very prominent.

Mr. Fish. If I can interrupt here, I am sure you were here previously when the previous witness testified, and many members of 

the committee raised the question of the problem of the native born 

American who has a foreign name and an accent.
229

Mr. Hess. Which then leads you to say that in the last analysis 

you have to ask the employer to be responsible for determining the 

citizenship of every person he hires.

Mr. F ish. R ight. And when you think in terms of a single document, 

that every native born and every naturalized citizen in the United 

States is entitled to, what else is there other than a social security 

card? What else is there tha t would be customary to carry around, and it would avoid all of the problems of having another national 

identification instrument. I do no t know of any other one myself.

* Mr. Hess. All I can say is I would be reluctant to see social security 

have to undertake not only the administrative problems tha t are 

involved in this kind of a tightening up of the enumeration system 

to the point where it constitutes prima facie evidence of the right 

to work, but also the public relations and privacy burdens tha t 

become associated with the fact tha t the social security card takes 

on a new characteristic. It becomes in effect a universal number.

Mr. Fish. Of course, tha t is what w’e are talking about.

Mr. Eilberg. A universal what?

Mr. H ess. A universal identifier, which then for purposes of protection of the privacy of the individual and many other factors has a 

lot of additional consequences. I t becomes something tha t the Federal 

Government and State governments and many other people want to 

latch onto, in locking the individual into various kinds of checks 

and cross checks.

Mr. Fish. You know what disturbs me, Mr. Hess, when you say I 

hate to have the social security card be prima facie evidence of the 

right to work, you know the requirements in applying for a social 

security number are such matters as one would assume would be 

jus t contrary to what you j ust said, that you do go into the question 

of the person’s legal statu s by requiring certain documents.

Mr. Hess. Of applying for the number?

Mr. Fish. Yes.

Mr. Hess. We go into, yes, we do that.

Mr. Fish. 1 gather from what you said earlier you would hate to 

have the number prima facie evidence of legal status to hold employmen t in the United States, but surely you go into tha t at the time

f the card is requested, do you not?

Mr. Hess. We go into tha t for the purposes in the first instance 

of proper identification of the individual for our own records, and 

then because of the recent provisions of law which require us to

* establish with respect to an alien whether he has a work purpose or 

not, yes. But we have not had to undertake the burden with respect to the vast majority of persons who are American citizens of having 

them bring forth their evidence to us and of establishing social 

security records for those purposes.

Mr. Fish. Thank you.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Sarbanes.

Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. Hess, I want to thank you for your very helpful 

statement. I guess I ought to s tart by saying, and 1 know it is not a 

question that you are going to answer because it really is a matter of 

policy, t hat I really have two questions. One is, following up on the 

previous questions, should we even have an internal passport system?
230

Should we have such a system and what are its implications? Of 

course, they are rather far reaching. And second—even if th at question 

were answered yes should such a system he premised on the social 

security card or some other form of documentation constructed under 

some other system? That is a major question. I t would seem to me to 

pose difficult problems for the Social Security Administration in 

terms of the nature of the relationship it seeks to develop with the 

people holding social security numbers, which is in a sense the relationship of an idly and not in any sense of a policeman; it would 

pose some rather difficult problems for the purposes of the Social *

Security Administration in trying to help people develop their benefit 

program if the Social Security Administration were also tied into 

being a screening or policing mechanism in the society. 4 Mr. IE 1 ess. Yes.

Mr. Sarbanes. Now, let me ask you these questions, I am interested in why. as set out on page 8 of your statement, you would 

issue a social security card to an alien not permitted to work under 

any circumstances? That is point 4 in the first full paragraph of 

your statement.

Mr. Hess. Mr. Sarbanes, we went through some soul searching on 

the i>olicy front and discussed to some extent with this committee 

when we were here before the dilemma that exists for an individual, 

whether he is a student, a visitor, or someone who goes hack and forth 

across the border as part of the normal relations with Canada and 

Mexico, and who for bank account purposes, for purposes of meeting 

other requirements of law, including the Interna! Revenue regulations 

for tax purposes, or in order to register as a student in tfie school 

system or in the university in some State or locality has to have a 

social security number.

Mr. Sarbanes. Wait a second. Are you not, by doing that, in two 

respects going down the very same path that you refrained from 

moving down this morning?

First of all, you yourself stated tha t the purpose for which the system was created and the cards are given is to keep earnings records.

Mr. Hess. That is right.

Mr. Sarbanes. And to determine what benefits are going to he 

paid. And second, you backed off at every point this morning from the >

use of the social security number as an enumerator tha t follows the 

individual in everything else.

Mr. Hess. Right. Right.

Mr. Sarbanes. And yet you yourself in a situation in which I *

take it you are obviously not required to do so, issue numbers to aliens 

who you know at the time you issue the number are not eligible to 

work, and, therefore, do not have a basis for getting a number under 

the rationale of the social security system, which is tied into the 

earnings records.

Mr. Hess. It could.

Mr. Sarbanes. That is geared to the immigration, to the Immigration Service number?

Mr. Rubenstein. They could.

Mr. Sarbanes. Now, I want to make sure tha t I understand this.

There are instances in which an alien seeks a social security card from 

you and in which you know tha t the alien is not eligible to work, you 

know that, and yet you issue the card, is th at correct?
231

Mr. II ess. Yes. And we tell him-----

Mr. Rubenstein. That is the application and data. Tt simply varies 

depending upon what you put on your SS-5, your application.

Mr. Dodd. There is no additional information?

Mr. Rubenstein. No, no additional information.

Mr. Dodd. You mentioned earlier you had a problem where aliens 

were applying for visas, tha t the application was being filled out at 

their point of departure.

Mr. Hess. Right.

-* Mr. Sarbanes. I understand that, and I am raising the question

with you in a limited area here. But, I am quite prepared to extend it 

into other areas that have nothing to do with the subject matter 

before this committee, as to whether or not the Social Security

• Administration, by virtue of its accommodating and cooperating, is

not itself the biggest motivating force for developing a number that 

follows every American around in all aspects of his life?

Mr. Hess. Th at is a legitimate question, and one on which the 

executive branch is focusing right now. We have drafted legislation 

which may be presented to the Congress which addresses itself to the 

proper uses of the social security number and the Department, 

together with the OMB and the White House, is in the process right 

now of reviewing the whole question. And we may have lapsed in a 

number of areas into practices tha t tend to encourage this to become 

the universal identifier.

Mr. Sarbanes.-One final question. Do you have any idea how much 

counterfeiting of social security cards takes place?

Mr. Hess. 1 would like to ask Mr. Rubenstein.

Mr. Rubenstein. We do not know in terms of an actual figure. 

We are aware, and there are several investigations going on right now, 

of what are purported to be counterfeiting rings in several areas 

throughout the country. We have San Antonio, where there is one 

conceivably, and Denver and Indianapolis. We are working with the 

Secret Service in an investigation to find out the extent of all of these, 

and these things have arisen, 1 might indicate, to our knowledge 

relatively recently. And whether there is a tie-in between the tightened 

requirements for social security numbers, whether it is because there 

f

has been a lot of publicity about false identity that has hit the newspapers in the past year or so, it is hard to tell. But, we are certainly 

aware th at there are activities of this sort that are being looked into.

Mr. Hess. Might 1 just add, and it is not necessarily in full ex- 

> tenuation of the circumstances, but as we have looked at the problem,

we have felt that if we had a low-key attitude toward, and reaction to, 

the situation of one who approaches us for a number, and apparently 

has a strong and valid motivation to have that number. If he has a 

strong motivation to have the number and is going to use it for 

illegal purposes, counterfeiting is not only the problem we will have. 

If we drive him underground, he can very easily procure false documentation and present himself at another one of our offices and get a

number issued to him on the basis of a different identity.

And so what we have been trying to do up to this point is to keep 

the enumeration process simple—that is encouraging to the individual 

to deal above board with us. If he has a problem, or if we are going to 

have to (heck his application against INS records, we inform him, 

put him on notice tha t sometimes causes him to withdraw from the
232

process, and tha t is part of the reason for the abandonment cases.

I think word has gotten around, especially along the border, tha t we 

are conducting fairly stringent interviews in these cases, because we 

are hearing of fewer cases where the individual conies in and leaves 

the office in an abandonment.

Apparently, the word is getting out tha t if you go in for a number, 

you will have to go through the works.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of questions.

Mr. Hess, I also thank you for your testimony. Mr. Sarbanes *•

raised the question of the policy and the practice on the part of the 

Social Security Administration of issuing a card to an alien who is 

not entitled to have i t to work under any circumstances.

Mr. Hess. Who is not entitled to work. *

Mr. Cohen. Do you issue cards to individuals at their request and 

then keep records as far as their work is concerned?

I raise the question because you commented earlier that in regard 

to the recommendation of your advisory committee to undertake a 

“positive action program” to issue cards to the ninth graders, tha t 

through the force of other business and other burden, that you have, 

tha t the Administration really has n ot implemented that.

But, I am wondering what the pressures are that might be building 

in terms of requesting the social security card for purposes other than 

work and what your statistics might reveal on the number of cards 

that are issued compared to the number of people actually using them 

for purposes of earnings or for other purposes?

Mr. Hess. Well, 1 am sorry to say we do not have any statistics on 

tha t. Mr. Rubenstein may wan t to amplify this.

But, we have over the years had a good many duplicate accounts 

issued, and a good many accounts issued tha t are inactive, and this 

has frequently been by inadvertence. We have tried to cross-reference 

all of those through identification methods, but they can be issued at 

times through inadvertence on the p art of employers, or the individual 

himself if he says he never had a number.

Mr. Cohen. What sort of information do you collect and put on a 

person’s record that is maintained by the Social Security Administration? Wha t would it include?

Mr. Hess. Personal identifying information, when he applies for 

his account number, his name, date, place of birth, mother’s maiden 

name, father’s name? W hat else is there?

And then the employment information, of course, quarterly earnings *

and employer’s name and sometimes employer’s establishment. But 

until the claim's process, when the person proves his right to a claim, 

at which time we have to ask for other identifying information, tha t 

is essentially all we have on record with respect to the individual.

Mr. Cohen. Other identifying information? Would tha t include 

references to bank accounts and------

Mr. Hess. No.

Mr. Cohen. Master charges, and so on?

Mr. Hess. No, no. Not at all. I should have said we have sex and 

race on the card, and tha t is for statistical purposes.

Mr. Cohen. Well, I raise this question, because you have indicated 

that you were somewhat frightened by the implications of the specter
233

of the Government issuing a social security card, or an enumerator, to 

follow people throughout their lives.

Mr. Hess. It is not that the card gives access to personal information in our records tha t might be harmfully disclosed. First of all, we have a minimum of information and secondly, it is possible to protect that information through statutory and regulatory means. When you get the situation tha t you now have, that many indi­ viduals cannot do business with other public and private organizations unless they grant their number to tha t organization in order to trans- act business, then the next question is what are the standards, legal and other standards, of privacy tha t affect the trafficking of informa­ tion among those organizations where the social security number is simply the key to exchange of information among organizations, and 

• does not involve us at all.

Mr. Cohen. I notice on page 175 of this report that we just 

received that UWR task force found with respect to Canada, tha t there was a great deal more interchange of information and data among the systems th an the public was ever aware and more inaccura­ cies in the files than were generally realized, although there have not been a great proliferation of abuses. And it just raises serious questions in my mind as each of us watch the daily newspapers and to see the kind of revelations tha t have been taking place. In agencies like the FBI, they are gathering information on Congressmen, on the pretext or the false rationale that they are accumulating this information for the protection of the Congressmen or, if at some future time, one 

of us might become appointed or named to the executive branch, they would certainly want to have this information or some recollection 

effort available. I am just wondering in terms of whether this system already reached the frightening implications tha t you are talking about in terms of this accumulation of data and the interchange between 

various systems?

Mr. Hess. Well, of course, the problem of protecting privacy really 

involves legislation and policy tha t imposes upon each and every organization that collects data, a set of standards t hat have to do with what is collected, what is retained, and under what circumstances it is disclosed. As far as the data tha t social security holds, we have a 

i fairly good fence built around our data from a disclosure point of

view. My concern is tha t the social security number lias not already become the key tha t unlocks or permits the traffic among a lot of 

’ data organizations, as Mr. Sarbanes pointed out, but if we then are required to tighten up on the issuance, and assure the adjudication and the continuing maintenance of the number to the point where we become the custodians of a national identifier, we undertake a lot of burdens t hat we do not now have at all. It is not just a question of determining for one time and issuing a number to an individual. We become responsible for the maintenance of tha t identification over the years, and as the individual may atte mp t to change his identity, may on occasion legitimately change his identity, marries, moves, dies—it is the whole question of the potential implication of having to be able to service that number—not just that we issued 

this number to this person 20 years ago.
234

People are going to want to k now: Is this a valid number with respect 

to this particular individual today? And that leads you into demands 

for fingerprinting and photographic identification and all of these 

other things.

Mr. Eii .berg. Let ine just interrupt by asking a couple of questions.

We are running out of time and we want to cover the other members as 

well. But, there are a couple of important points, I think, should be 

made.

If an employer were to come to the Social Security Administration 

today and ask what information do you have on so and so, and I *-

want to find out if he is an illegal alien, I understand from you, under 

the privacy law, that you would not provide that?

Mr. Hess. Even before the privacy law, under our own regulations, 

we would not. •

Mr. E ilberg. All right. Xow, suppose we passed legislation, suppose we passed legislation in the field of illegal aliens directing employers to do that and using your administration as one of those to 

which he might go. What would your legal position be at tha t point?

AV hat would you do? Would you consider that as superceding existing 

law?

Mr. Hess. That would be entirely a question of how the legislation 

is drafted. If it is intended by the Congress to supercede existing law, 

and it did supercede, then of course, the situation would be different.

Mr. E ilberg. Mr. Dodd.

Mr. Dodd. Just a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman.

And f thank you for your testimony, Mr. Hess.

On page 2, the first paragraph, during previous testimony, it was 

indicated tha t you had proposed and had since implemented a system 

of referrals to the INS which is made number one, an alien applicant 

for an SSN can provide no evidence. Evidence of what?

Mr. R ubenstein. Each applicant for a social security card, under 

our regulations today, must provide evidence of his age, tha t he is the 

person who is identified in the age, and citizenship evidence.

Mr. Dodd. What do you use for that?

Mr. R ubenstein. For the person born in the United States, we 

would ask for a birth certificate, or a baptismal certificate. Not born 

in the United States, we would say, give us your evidence of age, which 

would again be your birth certificate or a baptismal certificate or 

whatever records you have from your foreign country.

Mr. Rubenstein. These are for permanent residents, for immigrant 

status, and tha t is done overseas at the State Department, at the «

Consulate, at the time he applies for his visa.

Mr. Dodd. But, in fact, anyone could do it? You would give them 

the Social Security card, but you just would flag it?

Mr. Rubenstein. Well, in tha t partiuclar case, it is done by a 

Consular office.

Mr. Dodd. OK.

Mr. Rubenstein. In the United States, the person needs tha t 

identification.

Mr. Dodd. But a tourist, he goes and takes a tourist card, and 

he could apply for a social security number and he would get one?

Mr. Rubenstein. And he would get one if—you see, we would 

question him if his documentation says he is a tourist.
235

Mr. Dodd. T understand, but normally, assuming he can show 

you a birth certificate that he is a French citizen or a Mexican, lie 

would get a social security card?

Mr. Rubenstein. Right, right. Yes.

Mr. Dodd. So, in effect, tourists, anyone, and 1 am taking too 

much time, and I did not mean to, Mr. Chairman.

Tiie other point is on page 3 you quoted some figures of the 2,000 some which INS investigated, they found employment was authorized 

in 1,500 cases. Is tha t to say in the other 47 percent, they were not

* authorized?

Mr. Rubenstein. No. T have a complete breakdown. In some 

of the cases they could find no reason for their referral. Tha t is, as 

for as they were concerned, this was not even an alien.

* And in some cases, as I said, there were no recordations and in 

roughly 27 percent of the cases, they found a hit, they found an 

alien who should not be working in this country.

Mr. Dodd. They are broken down in there?

Mr. Rubenstein. Yes.

Mr. Dodd. I just was not clear. And the last point I have, just 

on the whole use of the social security card, of course, in the military now, I was in the service when the changeover occurred and we 

went from a service number to the social security number.

Is there a problem with interchange of information? For instance, 

my 201 file, as a former serviceman, which now has my Social Security 

number on it, what relationship does the Social Security Administration have other than having a common number with my military 

file?

Mr. Hess. No relationship.

Mr. R ubenstein. None. In 1943, during World War IT, an 

Executive order was promulgated which said for efficiency, getting 

this war effort marshaled, because everbody has got different kinds 

of numbers, why don’t we standardize, and why does not every 

agency start using the same number, essentially the social security number. Nothing much was done during the war, but tha t was one 

impetus tha t led subsequently to the Armed Forces devising this and then to the Veterans’ Administration moving over and the 

Civil Service Commission and eventually to the Internal Revenue 

® Service saying that we ought to get into this too, because it is almost 

universal.

But, that does not mean tha t there is any interchange.

>, Mr. Dodd. You do not have any access to those files?

Mr. H ess. No. Of course, with the individual’s consent we may get 

data from another agency th at is pertinent to his social security claim.

Mr. Rubenstein. What we do, however, is simply provide the 

service, any agency using the social security number under the Executive order, information to be sure they have the right number on tin 

right individual.

Mr. Dodd. But that is the extent?

Mr. R ubenstein. Th at is the extent.

Mr. Dodd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for taking so 

long.

Mr. Eilberg. That is all right.

Mr. Russo.

49 -76 9— 75------ 16
236

Mr. Russo. It seems that the social security system has grown 

to proportions tha t nobody anticipated initially, and I think tha t 

we ought to review the issuance of the social security card, which 

originally was applied to employment practices where the social 

security card was used to identify somebody eventually seeking a job 

and to report the earnings against tha t number, and it should not be 

used for any other reason.

And if it is going to be used for any other reason, I think that we 

should come up with a card which cannot be duplicated. I can vizualize 

somebody going to Texas and asking for a card and then going to New 

York and asking for another card, and basically, you do not have any 

identification process to see tha t the person in Texas is the same 

person who applied for the card in New York.

And then tha t brings us into the area of photographs and the finger- •

prints, since the social security card is such an important criteria in 

establishing employment perhaps we ought to implement a system 

requiring such items.

Mr. Hess. Well, we have no definitive identifying procedure. Providing the individual does not give us false documentation, if he gives 

us the correct documentation each time, then no matter how m any 

places he takes tha t birth certificate to apply we will n ot issue duplicate numbers. We can check against the master file before we issue any 

number.

Mr. Russo. B ut he could get a different number, and it seems withou t m uch difficulty.

Mr. II ess. No; he should not, unless he presents different documentation, which in effect causes him to allege that he is a different person 

than the person who presented himself in another place.

Mr. Russo. The reason I referred to it here is tha t the Acting 

Attorney General Silberman was talking about some type of document. The item most mentioned is the Social Security card, and if it is 

going to be a main source of identification, maybe you ought to do 

something further to limit the possibility of it being counterfeited.

Mr. Rubenstein. I would indicate in reacting to it, Mr. Hess said 

earlier, we have something like 225 million cards out there. Now, 

either you say we are giving amnesty to everybody up to a certain 

date, or you, in effect, reregister practically the United States in order 

to validate, in effect, everything you have. K

Now, that is the kind of a measure I think you would have to take.

Mr. Russo. Thank you.

Mr. Eilberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Hess. I have a number of 

other questions, b ut we have a quorum call, and so rather than take 

up the time of the Committee I would like to submit them to you and 

1 would ask you respond to them in writing.

Mr. H ess. Yes. We will be very glad to. Thank you.

[Subsequent to the hearing, the following letter was submitted for 

the record:]
D ep artm en t of H e a l t h , E duca ti on, an d W e l f a r e,

S o ci al S e c u r it y A d m in is tr ati o n,

Baltim ore, Md ., March 28, 1975.

S ubc o m m it te e on I m m ig rat io n, C it iz en sh ip , an d I n t e r n a t io n a l L aw, 

Committee on Jud icia ry, House of Representatives, Ra yburn House Office B uil din g,

Washington, D.C.

D ea r M r. C h air m an: This is in response to the Subcommittee’s request for 

information concerning the following questions: (1) Would you please describe the procedures tha t have been established by the Social Security Administration (SSA) in order to determine the true identity of the person applying for a social security account number? An applicant for a social security number is routinely asked to provide proof of age, such as birth certificate or baptismal certificate. In addition, he/she is required to submit corroborative evidence of identity. This may consist of a driver’s license, a voter registration card, a passport, a State identity card, a school identification card, a work badge or building pass, a draft card or military identi­ fication card, a credit card (if the applicant’s signature is shown), a library card (if the applicant’s signature is shown), or any other documents which show the applicant’s picture or signature. Evidence containing the applicant’s picture or 

signature is preferred. (2) Have there been any instances in which false documentation or information has been submitted in order to obtain an account number and card? The Social Security Administration annually receives a substantial number of cases in which false documentation has been submitted to get a social security number. Although no specific figures are available at this time, we are developing these statistics and will provide them to the Subcommittee as soon as they are 

available. (3) Have there been any prosecutions under the stiffer criminal penalties established under Public Law 92-603 for furnishing false information in order to 

obtain a social security account number and card? No, but we are developing some cases for possible prosecution. To date, SSA has decided not to prosecute in seven cases because of insufficient evidence, and the U.S. Attor ney has declined prosecution in all the cases he has reviewed. We will provide you with more specific figures as soon as they are available. (4) What happens when an illegal alien is apprehended and is in possession of a social security card? Is the accoun t number cancelled and the card reclaimed from the illegal alien? Is the illegal alien entitled to social security benefits for which he has paid after his deportation or removal from the United States? Once a social security number has been assigned to an individual, that number remains his/hers. So long as the individual being deported or removed from the United States has a social security card which belongs to him/her, we know of no authority vested in either SSA or the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) that would allow the card to be taken from the alien. However, SSA and INS have agreed that when INS comes into possession of bogus or stolen social 

security cards, they will refer them to SSA. An illegal alien can collect social security benefits after deportation under two 

circumstances: 1. SSA does not have a Form 1-1 57 (Notice of Deportation) associated with the SS-5. Since this form is SSA ’s only way of knowing that an alien 

has been deported, benefits cannot be suspended. 2. SSA has received a form 1-1 57 from INS showing tha t the alien was deported under Section 24(a), paragraphs (3), (8), (9), or (13) of the Immigra­ tion and Nationality Act, and the alien meets one of the exceptions to the alien nonpayment provisions found in Section 202 (t) of the Social Security 

Act. Benefits will not be suspended because of deportation unless and until SSA 

receives a form 1-157 from INS. If an alien is deported and his benefits are suspended, the benefits may be reinstated if the alien is ever lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. (5) It is my understanding tha t social security account numbers and cards are issued to nonimmigrant aliens who are not authorized to work if th ey can establish a valid nonwork purpose for the number. What evidence is required in order to establish a valid nonwork purpose? Is a self-servicing statement that they need it for a bank account or for school purposes sufficient?
A social security number and card will lx- issued to such an alien in the United 

States based on the applica nt’s sta tem ent tha t he needs it for what SSA considers 

to be a valid nonwork purpose. His/her SS-5 will be anno tate d, howevei, to enable 

SSA to notify INS if earnings are ever posted to that social s ecu rity number. If 

an alien with a foreign address applies for a social security number, we ask th at 

he/she supp ly a letter from the bank, school, etc., verifying the need.

(6) During your last appearance before this Subcommittee, you indicated that 

efforts wete being made to establish a compatible computerized system between 

INS and SSA. W hat progress has been made in this regard?

Discussion of policy issues involved in computerized data exchanges between 

SSA and INS have been underwa y for quite some time. To date , however, the 

participan ts have not entered into discussions of the technical aspects of such 

exchanges, and it may well be a matter of years before the d etails can be worked 

out.

(7) A. M r. Hess, when you last ap peared before th e Subcommittee, you indicated 

that an Advisory Council on Automated Personal Data Systems was studying a 

number of issues relating to the use of computers and possible invasions of p rivacy. What were the results of the report issued by th at Advisory Council?

The report of the Advisory Council on Automated Personal Da ta Systems was 

published as Records, Computers, and the Rights of Citizens. A summary of the 

report and of the council’s recommendations is enclosed (Enclosure 1). The major 

results of the report were th at th e Department of Health, Educatio n, and Welfare 

(DHEW) set up a Fair Information Practices Staff under the Office of Management Planning and Technology to direct the Depar tment’s Freedom of Information and Privacy activities. In addition to the De partm ent’s activities, it should 

be noted that Congress recently passed the Privacy Act which imposes strict 

restraints on the exchange or disclosure of personal information.

B. In addition, it is my und erstanding th at a Federal Advisory Commission 

on False Identification has been stud ying some of the very problems we are today 

considering. Are you aware of the work of the commission? And, if so, can you 

advise us as to the sta tus of th eir study?

The Advisory Commission on False Identification has developed a questionnaire which was sent to SSA, to all of the welfare agencies in the 50 States, and 

to the Departme nt of Agriculture.

A copy of t he questionnaire is enclosed. AU questionnaires were to be completed 

and retu rned to the Office of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare 

by March 5, 1975, and the Commission will be meeting again soon to compile and 

evaluate the feedback.

(8) Finally, Mr. Hess, in response to a question that I propounded to you during 

your last, appearance with respect to a national work permit system, you indicated 

th at “it would be a long way down the road before we get everybody enum erated 

and enumerated under circumstances where their identities have checked and our 

records are tig ht.” In your opinion, how far down the road have we proceeded 

at this time, and should we continue further down that road?

As I mentioned in my testimony, SSA has issued over 200 million social security 

cards. During the 1 year in which we have enforced stric t identification procedure-; 

we issued less than 10 million cards. Extensive efforts are underway to enumerate 

young people, and wc foresee th at, in the n ear future, most young people who are 

in the work force will have been enumerated under our provisions requiring 

evidence of iden tity. Because of fiscal constraints, the volume of the potentia l 

workload, and a possible public relations problem, no efforts are underway to 

validate the bulk of current social security number (SSN) holders. I do feel th at 

we should continue our evidence requirements, however.

Prior experience with INS has shown th at use of the social secu rity card as a 

work permit does not appear to work. Thus, considering the impact th at such a 

system would have on the public. I seriously question the desirability of takinggrea ter steps to assure that the bearer of a social security card is the true SSN 

holder and is permitted to work. I do not feel th at social secu rity cards should he 

used as work permits.

Sincerely yours,

Art hu r E. H ers,

Dep uty Commissioner of Social Security.

Mr. Eilberg. And we want to thank you very much for a very 

enlishteninsr morning.

This meeting is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:19 p.m., the hearing was recessed, subject to 

the call of the Chair.]
ILLEGAL ALIENS

W ED N E SD A Y , M A RCH 12, 19 75

House of Representatives,

Subcommittee on I mmigration,

Citizenship, and I nternational Law

of the Committee on the J udiciary,

HaxA>ngton, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:05 p.m. in room 

'2237, R ayburn Rouse Office Building, lion . Joshua Eilbcrg [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Eilberg, Sarbanes, Iloltzman, Russo, and 

Fish.

Also present: Garner J. Cline, and Arthur P. Endres, Jr., counsels; 

Janice A. Zarro, assistant counsel; and Alexander B. Cook, associate 

counsel.

Mr. Eilberg. The subcommittee will come to order, and we 

welcome our colleague from California and member of the Judiciary 

Committee, the Honorable George Danielson.

TESTIMONY OF HON. GEORGE E. DANIELSON, A REPR ESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Danielson. Mr. Chairman, may I have my intern, Miss Carol 

Munroe, sit with me; she has been of great assistance in putting 

together my work today?

I believe tha t my state ment has already been distributed to the 

-committee.

Mr. Eilberg. It has been distributed.

Mr. Danielson. With your permission, I would like to make my 

presentation ad lib. I will be bound by the written word; that will make 

it quicker and easier.

Mr. Eilberg. Without objection, it will be made a part of the 

record.

Mr. Danielson. Fine and dandy.

I know, Mr. Chairman, that tins committee, as well as our full 

committee, has spent a good deal of time and has given a great deal 

of effort to studying and trying to work out a satisfactory, or at least 

acceptable solution to the problems presented by the fact that we 

have among us an extremely large number of aliens who are not here 

legally, or at least who are not here under a status which would permit 

their employment.

I know tha t the problem of illegal aliens is manifested in many 

different respects, but in our current economic situation of high 

unemployment, I submit th at the impact of the illegal alien population 

upon our work force and available jobs is one of our greater problems. 

(239)
240

I make that statement from a fairly substantial personal acquaintance with the problem. The district that I represent has some 470,000 

inhabitants, according to the census. I feel it safe to say tha t I have 

another 100,000 illegals. The district tha t I represent has a population 

of 42-percent Spanish surnamed. I would say tha t among my illegals 

we have probably 80-percent Spanish surnamed. The impact is obvious.

The people within my district who complain to me, and this happens 

almost constantly, that they or their husband, or their father, is 

unable to obtain a job, or unable to retain a job once had because of 

competition from illegals. Nearly all of these complaints come to me * 

from my constituents who are persons with Spanish surnames.

I have found t hat the competition for jobs in my district which is 

impacted by illegal aliens is largely with the unskilled or the lowskilled worker; the workers in a packing plant, the workers in other 

less skilled industries, day labor. The laborers union, for example, is 

one of the primary examples, constantly complaining to me of competition from illegals.

Now, if I have had one, I have had several hundreds—and I am 

sure so have others—letters from constituents who complain tha t 

their husband—this is usually the case, the wife and mother write— 

has lost his job at such-and-such a plant, he was unable to become 

reemployed because they are hiring illegals down there. When I get 

reports of large numbers of illegals working at a given plant, or large 

numbers of them living in a given housing accommodation, it has been 

my policy simply to write a letter to the Los Angeles Office of the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service and give them the facts that 

I have received for their information. Very frequently they have 

conducted a raid, if you wan t to call it that, at such industrial plant 

or such living accommodation, and they pick up all the way from 

25 to 75 illegals at the plants, and oftentimes as many as 15 living in 

one apartment.

This illustrates only some of the magnitude of the problem. I shall 

not impose upon this committee’s time to go in depth into the problem of the numbers of illegals. I am sure you already have that 

information, I don’t know what your guesstimate is of the number 

in the United States; if yott want another I am going to say, there 

mus t be about 5 million; we only have about 8 million unemployed, » 

and we have about 5 million illegals. Not all of them would bo employed, but they are here, and therefore we begin to get a little bit 

of a perspective of the natu re of the problem.

You have tha t information, however, and I want to tell you this I f

supported the Rodino bill last year, during the last Congress; I shall 

support it again. But my main purpose in being here today is to give 

you another little idea which I think might help in your deliberations, 

and hopefully may help in drafting your legislation.

In my opinion, we m ay be making a mistake when we tend to rely 

upon making crimes out of hiring the illegals, making it a criminal 

offense for an employer so to do; and to rely upon criminal sanctions 

as a means of enforcing our immigration laws.

I have spent most of my professional life in law enforcement. I was 

an investigator, I was a prosecutor, I was a private practitioner; and 

I have served on legislative judiciary committees, this is the 13th year.

And although I have worked in criminal law much of my life, I’m
241

totally convinced tha t using the criminal law, the criminal sanction, 

as a lever to enforce a public policy is almost doomed to defeat. Criminal sanctions carry with them the stigma of a criminal con­ viction. Prosecutors are reluctant to prosecute unless you have a massive case, not just an individual case, but a commercial case. A prosecutor is reluctant to prosecute one person on an illegal situation. If you name an alien smuggling case or something like that yes, they will prosecute. But they are not going to prosecute a one-, or two-, or three-person case. And when they do prosecute, juries are reluctant to convict; they hate to impose a criminal conviction and a criminal sanc­ tion on a person who is doing something that is jalum prohibitum 

rather than malum per se.

* And even if there is a conviction, the judges are loathe to impose 

criminal punishment. How often have you seen courts impose criminal sanctions on proforma type crimes, technical crimes? They are crimes all right because the law says tha t they are; but the persons who are convicted are not criminals within the traditional concept of crimi­ nology, and therefore they are never sentenced to jail, or if so, as a token, they’re given 10 days in jail, the sentence is suspended, and they are put on probation for 1 year; and you know what that amounts to, they have had their wrist slapped rather gently. If there is a fine, 

it ’s nominal, minimal. I think I have a bet ter system, and as I told you before, I have supported the Rodino bill, I will support it again. B ut I would like to have you consider an approach tha t I have set forth, attached to the statement. I have put this bill in the 92d Congress, again in the last Congress, the 93d and i t went under the number II.R. 5841 in the 93d 

Congress. I use a different approach which I think would be more effective, more easily applied, and something acceptable to the communities, the law enforcement officers, the judges, the courts, to everybody, and I think it might reach our objective. In the world of commerce, I ’m convinced, there is no greater incentive than money, tha t is the name 

of the game; t ha t’s w hat commerce is all about. Under our current revenue laws we provide tha t any person engaged in commerce may deduct from his gross receipts the expenses of doing 

i business. The expenses of doing business, of course, include wages and

salaries paid to, or for the benefit of employees. In my H.R. 5841 in the 93d Congress—which I will introduce again either today or tomorrow—I simply provide that no compensation

* otherwise allowable—I’ll paraphrase here—may be deducted if the paym ent is made by the employer to persons known by him to be illegal aliens. That would mean if the meat packing plant in my district, which is hiring illegals, would decide to hire illegals, the first thing you know is, they will no longer be able to deduct the wages paid to those illegals from their gross receipts in arriving at their adjusted gross income. In other words, there is no deduction, it is not available 

to them. This is enough, I can assure you, to slow down most employers who 

are hiring illegals. I think most of us have tried enough law suits, and have been in the tax court and other courts often enough, to know th at one of the last things a businessman wants to do is to claim a deduction 

that is not legally his.
242

Second, as a m at te r of rou tin e and tra ditio n, esta blis hed prac tice , 

the In tern al Rev enue Service conduct s au dit s of busines s concern s 

qu ite fre quently, it ’s periodic, you might say, and they are at least 

going to check the payroll which is alleged, at leas t, to go to illegals. 

Und er th e Rodino bill we ha ve a provision th at a pro spe ctiv e employer 

is ex cul pat ed if he goes far enough to at least make an inq uiry and hav e 

the pro spe ctive employee sign a paper th at he is lega lly entitl ed to 

wo rk; and th at’s all th at would be necessa ry under my app roach.

I do n’t thi nk we should go so far as have the pro spectiv e employer 

become so rt of a cou rt to deter mi ne the lega lity of a perso n’s presence 

in the U nited Sta tes. Bu t at least the em ployer should go fa r enough so 

th at h e h as mad e some k ind of a good faith effort to determ ine w hethe r 

or n ot a prospectiv e emp loyee is entitl ed to be emp loye d.

I w ant to urge th at you con sider this as a su pplem entar y am end me nt 

to yo ur bill. I think th at this would be far more effective in reac hing 

our goal than havin g pen al san ctions employed to a prospectiv e em ­

ployer. T will be willing to answer question s on th at.

I am bringing up only two o ther things. I live in an area in so uth ern 

< California where the illegal alien problem is v ery critical. Some of you 

Me mb ers do not live in such an area. I am sure you are all acq uai nte d 

with the fact th at there are illegals, bu t you ca n’t feel it in the de pth 

th at I do.

1 kno w we have illegals in the Detroit area, we’ve got them on the 

east coa st, we get some from Ca nada, we get some from the Antilles, 

we get them from Sou th America, Belg ium, Ja pa n, the Phi lipp ines, 

wherever. Bu t in the area th at I repres ent , the bulk of them come 

across the Mexican border, just as in De tro it the bulk pro bab ly come 

across from Ca na da ; bu t it ’s a big prob lem where T am.

Let me give you a little bi t of a pic tur e of the scale. In 1972 I a,sked 

the Los Angeles Co un ty Su pe rin tend en t of Schools who was compla ining to me about his problem. Could he please give me some figures 

as to what it is costing to educate illegals in the Los Angeles Co un ty 

schools. li e took the assignm ent serio usly and did come back aft er 

some tim e with a lette r which incide nta lly was included in this 

co mmittee ’s rep ort, for the 93d Cong ress, the Rod ino bill, and was 

also in the record at th at time. It’s fair ly well worked out, it ’s a responsible report based upon the fiscal year ending Ju ne 30, 1971. In 

th at fiscal year the Los Angeles Co un ty Superin ten dent of Schools 

told me th at the cost to that school distr ict —it’s more than one district, the cost to those school distr icts in Los Angeles Co unty was at 

leas t $100 million in 1 year. Now, those of you who have to raise taxes 

on a local level to sup port schools and police, and streets, and fire 

de pa rtm en ts, and all the othe r com mu nity services can realize wh at 

a treme ndous bur den it is to pu t an othe r $100 million on the t axp aye rs 

within one cou nty, even tho ugh it is a me tro polita n cou ntv.

Xow, th at was 1971. I respec tfully submit that with the increase 

in the ma gnitude of the prob lem since that time, and with inflatio n 

and increased costs, th at $100 million in this curre nt fiscal year must 

be at least $150 million. We ca n’t afford it, you can’t afford it, nob ody 

can afford it. This is a problem th at must be bro ught to some kind of 

an end.

You know, there is a certa in am ou nt of tim idi ty within the Co ngress as to, “Golly, we d on ’t w ant to be beast ly to those poor illegals,”
243

well, I don’t want to be beastly to them either, but th at’s not ther 

point. We must not be beastly to our own people, to our own work 

force, our own American citizens, and to those aliens who are here as 

permanent residents, legally, and are entitled to work; they also are 

entitled to consideration.

Along with this timidity I have often heard voices on the floor 

comment, “Golly, what does labor think about this?” Well, Mr. 

Chairman, I have in my hand here a letter from Mr. Sigmund Arywitz 

who is the executive secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles C ounty 

r

Federation of Labor. He sent it to me in connection with an entirely

different matter, but it’s current, February 13, 1975. It came in 

connection with some other information and I just happened to make 

a copy because I thought it pertinent to this presentation, 

t In this letter he makes it eminently clear tha t the Los Angeles

County Federation of Labor feels tha t the illegal immigrant, illegal 

alien, work problem must be solved, it is having too adverse an impact 

upon our own work force. I would like permission to file this as an 

illustration, along with my testimony.

Mr. Eilberg. Without objection, it will be admitted.

Mr. Danielson. Lastly, and I allude to this in my statement, I 

have told a few people, I would like to tell this committee again tha t 

not only is it labor, but the aliens compete with others, legally in our 

community, for other community services, fire protection, police protection, streets, social services, and one that’s very pertinent is the 

county hospitals. The county hospitals are supplying medical and 

hospital care to illegals who are found here. Now, than k God our country has a big enough heart so tha t if a person is found within our communities who needs medical or hospital care, without asking whether 

they are illegal or not, we take them off to the hospital and we give 

them tha t care, it ’s the humanitarian thing to do and I ’m all for it.

But there comes a d ay of reckoning. The Los Angeles County Board 

of Supervisors has come to the conclusion, after a very careful audit, 

that, the care and treatment of illegals in the Los Angeles County 

Hospital exceeded $8 million last year. They have filed petitions with 

the Congress, they have contacted HEW, they have done everything 

they can to see if they can get some reimbursement for ibis $8 million. 

They feel that they have discharged the humanitarian responsibility 

* of providing the medical and hospital care, but they didn’t invite the

illegals here, and if the Federal Government were enforcing its laws 

effectively, the taxpayers of Los Angeles County wouldn’t have this 

r

problem, so therefore, “Would you please send us our $8 million?”

Now, I do know, I have been informed, that the Los Angeles County 

Board of Supervisors has instructed the county counsel to see if he 

can’t file a lawsuit against the Federal Government to recover tha t 

money. Much to my amazement—I don’t know what the jurisdiction 

is going to be, you and I have tried a lot of lawsuits, they will probably 

find a way around tha t—but to my amazement this morning, I went 

to a meeting of my own delegation, the California delegation, and here 

is a memorandum which 1 would likewise submit in support of my 

statement.

This is a memorandum to one of our members, Mr. Bernie Sisk, in 

which he is seeking the support of our delegation to sponsor legislation—a copy of which 1 have attached to my statement, H.IL 3609
244

of the 94th Congress, a current bill, which I have cosponsored, and 

we are going to have more. But the purpose of that bill is to change our 

public health laws to require the Federal Government to reimburse 

local counties and so on when they are compelled to pu t out money for 

medical and hospital care for illegals.

Now, along with the bill came a memorandum, as I say, to Mr. Sisk, 

lie lists here the support of the boards of supervisors of, I would guess, 

about 23 or 24 of our counties; they are listed on this memorandum 

dated March 11, 1975, which is yesterday, together with a letter to 

him from the Regional Council of Rural Counties, requesting the same 

sort of action. If I have not already, I request tha t be attached.

Mr. E ilberg. Without objection, it will be included in the record.

Mr. Danielson. Th at’s about the substance of my comments. I ’m 

ready and willing, and hope able, to answer any questions tha t you 

might have. Oh, one more, if I may, and it is in my statement.

During the recent Lincoln’s Birthday recess, I made a special point 

of meeting at one time or another with the city councils of each of my 

12 cities; we had a lot of meetings, a lot of conversation. Without 

exception, from each of those cities the council members informed me 

tha t the problem of the illegal alien is becoming what is probably their 

most urgent social problem within the communities, and they asked 

me, “Please, do something about it.”

One little point tha t may not have been brought to your attention 

here, the criminal problems of illegals. I am not complaining of crimes 

committed by the illegals, though they do commit some now and then. 

I am commenting on the fact tha t they are the unwilling victims of an 

increasing number of crimes being committed against them, at least 

within my district. They are easily identified. My district has its 

fair share of artful dodgers, just as yours have, and they are victimizing 

these illegals through various schemes of theft, and fraud, and loan 

sharking, high interest rates, almost anything you can think of; even 

physical crimes of rape and other types of violence, simply because 

the illegals are apparently afraid to come in and complain to the police 

because of the very fact that by lodging a complaint with the police 

they identify themselves and then are subject to deportation.

I ’have been told by members of the city council of one of my cities 

that this has become so aggravated that it is now one of their major 

criminal law problems. In other words, the illegals are victimized 

because they dare not complain to the police. Along with that, not 

only in violent and dishonest crimes, b ut in housing. Sometimes there 

are 14, 15, 16 living in a one-bedroom apartment. The conditions are 

not sanitary; they are not safe from the fire hazard point of view; 

sometimes they are not fit for human habitation, yet this is going on, 

and the illegals dare not complain for fear of being deported.

I will a t this time respect my previous statement and discontinue, 

subject to any questions you may have.

Mr. E ilberg. Mr. Danielson, we appreciate your coming here 

today; i t is a very generous act on your p art. We know how busy you 

are, bu t realize you are testifying in order to make your contribution 

to this most serious problem.

I have a few questions, but first let me say that the idea of 5841 

is not a novel one, at least as far as this Member is concerned, and 

one that the subcommittee might consider. We run, however, immediately into problems which all of us are familiar with as Members.
245

First, this subcommittee regards the problem as so serious that it 

has made this legislation, its first major bill that we are to consider 

and study. But your bill is referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and while i t certainly seems to be a very brilliant idea, and one tha t we might look at, it ’s not within our subject matter jurisidiction. Trying to deal with it would cause serious jurisdictional problems, in my opinion. And while I am sympathetic to II. R. 3609, which Mr. Sisk and others have introduced, we have the same problem there;

* tha t bill has been referred to Interstate and Foreign Commerce. 

Now, you want to react to that?

Mr. Danielson. 1 appreciate your bringing them up, and I am 

not unmindful of the jurisdictional problems, believe me. On Mr.

* Sisk’s bill, my purpose in bringing it to your attention was not to usurp the jurisdiction of the proper legislative committee, but only to illustrate that the ripple, or side effects, of the illegal alien prob­ lems are now branching out into far more things than just passing laws on illegal aliens. This is having an economic impact and a social impact far greater than just the fact tha t some of them are here.

Air. E ilberg. I understand.

Mr. Danielson. I jus t want to illustrate the point. On the income 

tax matter, I don’t think you could conceivably put tha t in your bill; 

you could put it in, but it would be stricken. I am just trying to a little good-faith agitating to work up a little interest, a little enthusiasm, so that when I beard those who have the jurisdiction and the primary responsibility, I won’t be the only voice in the wilderness. I think I have a good point here, and if I oan infect your minds with this approach, it might spread the disease 

a little hit; that’s what I ’m after.

Mr. Eilberg. I know this subcommittee will consider those ideas, 

and I would urge you to try to excite others.

Mr. Danielson. You might even, Mr. Chairman, you might even 

say, “I sure like that idea, but unfortunately we can’t do anything about it,” tha t will give me one leg up, you know, and th at ’s all I ’m after. I ’m being as sneaky as I possibly can to accomplish what 

I consider a very worthwhile legislative purpose.

* Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Danielson, you indicated your lack of enthusiasm for the use of criminal penalties. I listened very carefully, and I among others have had some experience in criminal law, some expe­ rience with human nature ; and I think that most people want to obey

r the law if they know what the law is.

Mr. Danielson. Right.

Mr. Eilberg. Bu t you ignored the psychological factor. There are 

laws on the books, and if 982 became law, it seems to me it would create a psychological factor because so many people are law abiding and want to be law abiding tha t H .R. 982 would act as a deterrent. I 

don’t think you menioned tha t aspect.

Mr. Danielson. Mr. Chairman, thank you for making that clear.

I did support the bill in the last Congress, and I shall support it again this Congress; I think it is far better than what we have today. I ’m just not optimistic that it will achieve the ends tha t we seek. As you probably know in income tax cases—you have all probably had a few criminal cases on income tax evasion—and you know very
246

well tha t it is most difficult to get a prosecution started, and most 

difficult to get a conviction; if you do the penalty is usually a slap on 

the wrist. I’ll bring it right home, today the press carried a story 

tha t former Secretary Stans is probably turning in a plea of guilty 

on five misdemeanor counts. Why five misdemeanor counts? I can tell 

you why, they probably feel that the burden of trying to get a criminal 

prosecution, a conviction on felony counts makes it nowhere within 

reason, so they settled on a slap on the wrist.

Mr. Eilberg. We understand that.

Mr. Danielson. All right. My point is, you just can’t get a criminal prosecution except in a commercial type case; but civil penalties 

if you can get them, why, they are excellent. In the income tax field, 

why, you oftentimes can’t get a fraud prosecution, or conviction, or 

penalty. But in a civil tax case, why, for heaven’s sake, in a civil tax 

case the court usually will support you all the way down the line and 

you can get something down; it’s the same thing.

I remember years ago when the white slave Traffic Act was an 

important law, in the so-called personal escapade cases. One or two 

people crossing a State line, they just, never got prosecuted. In commercial violations, that was a different case.

Mr. Eilberg. I just want to turn to one other aspect of the bill, 

and then rotate to other members.

Mr. Danielson. Right.

Mr. Eilberg. One problem tha t we face in this legislation which 

the subcommittee has to examine very carefully is the possibility of 

amnesty for illegal aliens. If we get into this area, do you have any 

particular views as to what amnesty should be granted to illegal 

aliens?

Mr. Danielson. Well, I think on tha t point the committee would 

have to do a tremendous amount of soul searching. Obviously the 

length of time tha t the illegal has been in the country is one factor 

you have to consider. There are many situations with illegals in which 

it would be inequitable to deport them at this time, at least it would 

be burdensome to my conscience to do so, but there are also a lot of 

them who came in last night. Where are you going to have the breakoff 

point, what are the ancillary considerations; has there been employment: has there been a responsible tlischarge of family relationships; 

has there been a pattern of good citizen-type conduct, has there been 

criminal conduct? There are so many factors here, Mr. Chairman,, 

that 1 don’t want to give you a curbstone opinion. I do think tha t 

there should be an area, a combination of circumstances in which 

amnesty should be considered. But, th at’s going to be a very difficult, Solomon-like line to draw. Like everything else tha t has a 

cutoff date, if you cut somebody off on March 12, the next person 

could say, “For heaven’s sake, why make it March 12, what is wrong 

with March 11?” We run into this all the time.

I don’t envy your burden if you are going to try to arrive at a fair 

solution on amnesty. I think i t is an objective tha t you should study, 

and if I can help, I will. I ’m not prepared at this time to give you any 

firm recommendation, but I am prepared to tell you that I recognize 

that there are many cases in which amnesty should be considered.

Mr. Eilberg. It has been our practice to recognize members of the 

subcommittee based on seniority. I think today we will vary that,
247

by the time we get to Mr. Russo all the questions would be used up. 

So, Mr. Russo, the floor is vours.

Mr. Russo. Thank you, Air. Chairman.

I do have some questions, and like the chairman has indicated, 

I think it is a novel idea, and something that I personally would 

•consider. I just wonder how you are going to enforce it, and how are 

we going to determine whether an employee knowingly hires an illegal 

alien, which is one of the problems we have with the present bill. 

What action would you require on the part of the employer?

Mr. Danielson. Frankly, I like the provision in the—you know, 

I have not read the Rodino bill this year, is it the same as last year?

Mr. Russo. It is the same as last year.

Mr. Danielson. I think the provision in last yea r’s Rodino bill, 

which is in this year’s Rodino bill, is adequate for my purpose. I 

think the very fact that you put up some kind of a threshold that has 

to be crossed is enough to bring 85 percent compliance. You don’t 

need much, as the chairman says, almost everybody wants to be a 

law-abiding type of person.

I know a lot of these illegals, tha t is, I have met a lot of them, and 

most of them are really, your heart goes out to them, they are sympathy-arousing type people. Most of them aren’t going to lie. If you 

put them to the point of certifying that they are legally here, I think 

you are going to weed out 85 percent with tha t hurdle.

Mr. Russo. Mr. Danielson, you are aware of the three steps we 

have under the bill 982, the citation, and the $500 fine, which is a 

civil penalty.

Mr. Danielson. Right.

Mr. Russo. And then the criminal penalty, which is the last step.

Mr. Danielson. Right.

Mr. Russo. How would you fit your particular penalty in that threestep program, and where would you like to see it used?

Air. D anielson. Well, I think it should be in the beginning, but if 

it didn’t, certainly at the second stage. I think it ought to be right at 

the beginning, the first step.

Mr. Russo. Don’t you feel that on a first offense by an employer, we 

should first issue a warning citation; and then, if it happens again, hit 

him with a stronger penalty?

Mr. Danielson. Well, my opinion is, I don’t think you should need 

to. B ut if in the wisdom of the committee, or the Congress you decide 

to put it in the second step, I won’t have any fight with it. I don’t 

think it ’s th at big a problem. I think putting i t in the first step will do 

the work, and I don’t think i t is an unfair burden on the employer.

Mr. Russo. What steps would you want the employer to take so 

tha t he would be safeguarded against any type of penalties that would 

be imposed?

Mr. Danielson. If I recall, in the Rodino bill, you have a proviso 

in there, the signing of a little certificate saying that a person is legally 

entitled to be employed.

Mr. Russo. Tha t’s prima facie evidence.

Mr. D anielson. Right. Tha t’s enough. You don’t need a big hurdle, 

but you need something to trigger it, but not much. 1 would accept 

that as being enough.

Mr. Russo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
248

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Fish?

Mr. Fish. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Danielson, for your contribution this afternoon,, 

and I hope tha t you will vigorously pursue this with the Ways and 

Means Committee, directing yo ur thoughts, as most of the witnesses 

have, on how you reach employers and make them responsive.

I would like to ask your advice about a suggestion tha t was made 

to us in the testimony a few days ago in the same area where we are 

dealing with the employer, and trying to make him respond. And in 

the testimony of Mr. Biemiller of the AFL-CIO, he suggests tha t * 

enforcement could be strengthened by providing tha t after a citation 

has been served, a civil proceeding should be initiated, and the Federal 

court should be given jurisdiction to restrain and enjoin further vio- A

lations of the law.

So, in addition to the citation and civil proceedings in the very 

first stage in the Rodino three-step, the suggestion was made that 

injunctive provisions be included right from the start. What is you r 

view of that?

Mr. Danielson. Well, I am thinking of my answer as I am giving 

it to you, you are getting fresh meat, Mr. Fish.

I am not adverse to the idea of the injunction, but let’s carry it a 

step further. Suppose you have an injunction, and then you have a 

subsequent violation. The remedy then, the only remedy, is to issue 

a contempt citation, and you are bringing it back into the criminal 

law again. It would probably have the effect of discouraging the employment of illegals by the enjoined employer. He doesn’t want tocome back to court, even to get his wrist slapped, lie doesn’t want to 

come back to court. First, he has to pay out some good money to 

pay his ever-loving counsel—while tha t may be good for lawyers, 

it’s not good for employers.

I think it would have a good effect. I ’m not prepared to give you 

a full answer, Mr. Fish, but I would not be adverse to it. As a curbstone opinion, I think 1 could support that.

Mr. F ish. Thank you very much.

Mr. Danielson. Have you thought about—I don’t think it’s too 

important—the workload impact on the courts? It wouldn’t be that 

much; I don’t think tha t would be too difficult. x

Mr. Fish. Well, as the chairman pointed out, the value of the bill 

is to have it in the statute, and presumably corporate counsel would 

be advising employers what they would run into.

Mr. D anielson. Right, and these would be one-shot cases to prove. *

The injunction, if it were provided for by law, would be so easy toobtain; all you would have to prove is that he has done it; it would 

sort of follow the citation stage. Yes; it would be a very good idea.

Mr. Fish. Thank you.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Sai banes?

Mr. Sarbanes. I don’t have any questions. I want to thank 

Congressman Danielson for his very, very helpful statement. I was 

particularly struck by your point tha t the illegal aliens are exposed 

and vulnerable with respect to things done to them, and therefore 

in absolutely no position to seek any protection. 1 know he has chosen 

to come here because he seeks the work opportunity, but nevertheless, he is exposed to exploitation and to some awfully severe mistreatment, as you pointed out in your statement.
249

Mr. D anielson. Tha nk you, Mr. Sarba nes, he rea lly is. I have 

so man y in my distr ict , 1 see the m so often and talk to them, peo ple 

in busines s and em plo ym ent, and 1 kno w th at is tru e; it is ter rib ly 

true.

, You know, an illegal who has a job some place. Of course, he is 

ge tting paid minim um wag e because, you know , if lie isn ’t, the m in i' 

mu m wage people come in and au dit the books, and if no check we nt 

ou t to Ju an Rod riguez for the pro per am ount, the emp loyer is in 

trouble. But if he is en titled to some kind of a break in working c onditions,

* he is no t going to ge t it ; if he is e nti tle d to time off, h e doesn ’t get it ; 

if he is en titled to an y ty pe of a fringe benefit th at doesn ’t reflect on 

the boo ks of accou nt, he is probably no t going to ge t it. Wh y? Because if he com plains, he is fired and kicked ou t of the country . And

* th at kind of comp eti tio n is a grave bu rden for citizen s anil legal 

aliens.

Th ese people are unable to resist the pressures of unconscion able 

pra cti ce foisted upon them from tim e to time, let alone sta nd ar d 

criminal con duct. You kno w, if we are going to indulge ourse lves in 

feeling sorry— and th an k God , we still do in this co un try , we identify 

with hu man ity —we sh ou ldn’t blind ourselv es to the fact th at sometim es we are makin g a mist ak e in our zeal to pr otec t some peo ple’s 

hu man rights, we som etim es expose the m to dangers th at we do n’t 

even think abo ut. And do n’t forget o ur own citizens, th ey are en titled 

to pro tec tio n, too.

Mr. E ilberg. Tha nk y ou very m uch.

Mr. Danielson . If 1 did no t leave these timeless doc ument s, may I 

do so now?

[The prepared stat em en t with attach men ts of lion. George E. 

Dan iels on follows:]

St a t e m e n t o f I I o n. G eo r g e E. D a n ie l s o n , a R e p r e s e n t a t iv e in C o n g r ess

F ro m t h e Sta te o f C a l if o r n ia

M r. Chai rman and members of the subcommitte e, I am pleased to present my 

testi mon y toda y concerning illega l aliens and II . R . 982.

I will not duplicate the inform ation you have received from other witnesses.

I am sure you realize tha t the problem of illegal aliens is a great one. On my 

most recent district trip, I met with the city councils and civic groups of all of 

the cities in my Distric t, and I was told at each meeting tha t the illegal alien

* problem requires a prompt solutio n, because of the vast numbe r of ilk gal aliens, 

because of the competition the y provide to Americ an citizens and legal aliens for 

jobs and public municip al services, and because of the law enforcement problems 

which have developed.

w The hard fac t of nearly 9 percen t nationa l unemploym ent makes it self-evid ent

tha t we must not have unlaw ful competition with our own work force. Unfortun ate ly, the segment of the popula tion with whom illegal aliens traditiona lly 

compete for jobs is tha t segment suffering most severely from an inflated degree 

of unemploymen t. These are low-skilled or unskilled laborers in the lower economic 

strata where u nemplo yment reaches 20 percent and higher.

It is difficult accurately to measure the costs expended for municipal and other 

govern ment services going to illegal aliens. A letter from the Los Angeles Cou nty 

Superintendent of Schools pointed out that in fiscal year 1971 the cost of education 

to tha t school area, due to illegal aliens, was $100 million. It is reasonable to 

assume tha t in the nearly four years since tha t time the increased number of 

illegal aliens coupled with infla tion and accelerated costs has raised tha t figure 

to perhaps as high as $150 million per year. This presents an intolerable cost tothe local community, already strained by taxatio n.
250

Examining community services futher, the Los Angeles County Board cf 

Supervisors has estimated that the cost of care to illegal aliens at the Los Angeles 

County General Hospital exceeded $8 million in fiscal year 1974. Within the past 

two weeks I have learned that the County of Los Angeles is considering the filing 

of a lawsuit against the Federal government to recover the amount this hospital 

care is now costing taxpayers of the County. The legal theory is that since the 

Federal government seemingly allows the entrance of illegal aliens and does not 

coordinate its enforcement forces to stem the flow, the Federal government must 

then be responsible for the cost of services provided for illegal aliens.

As to the law enforcement problem, I want to make it clear that I am not 

necessarily referring to crimes committed by illegal aliens, who probably are less 

involved in criminal offenses than legals. The fact that they are vulnerable to *

deportation deters them from illegal act ivity more than any other influence.

The municipal offices of my cities, however, say illegal aliens are often victimized 

by criminal conduct because they are reluctant to file complaints with the police 

for fear of detection and subsequent deportation by the authorities. This fact is 

well known to skillful artists of criminal practices such as the charging of usurious 

interest and loan sharking. There are illegal aliens living in places which are too 

crowded, unsanitary, fire hazardous and generally not fit for human habitation.

And th ey are the silent victims of violent crimes and the like. The officials of my 

cities consider this a major police problem, and also a shocking and unconscionable practice of inhumane treatment.

I am aware of the provisions of Mr. Rodino’s bill, H.R . 982, which is the main 

vehicle being studied by this Subcommittee for illegal alien legislation. I supported 

and voted for that bill in the last Congress, and I will continue my support in this 

session. However I feel that I have a more effective approach to the illegal alien 

problem than that contained in H.R . 982.

My approach differs from H.R . 982 in that it does not seek to impose criminal 

penalties on employers. In fact, there are no criminal sanctions at all in my bill.

I seek to achieve the same purpose through the more socially acceptable and 

readily enforceable means of imposing economic sanctions. Under my proposal 

employers would not be permitted to deduct from gross income, as a business 

expense, any compensation knowin gly paid to or for the benefit of illegal aliens.

In September, 1971 and March, 1973, I introduced II.R. 10777 and H.R . 5841, 

respectively, and I will reintroduce the bill in this Congress. Copies of the bill 

introduced in the 93rd Congress have been provided to the Members of the 

Subcommittee for their information and consideration.

I have worked in law enforcement in one capacity or another during the major 

part of my professional life, and in my opinion it is naive for us to continue to 

believe we can modify or establish public policy by making undesirable behavior a criminal offense. Our reliance on criminal law and criminal penalties as 

a lever to implement public policy is unrealistic. It has never worked satisfactorily 

and it never will. Criminal penalties and classifications should be carefully reserved for violent or fraudulent conduct, and not for the purpose of establishing 

public policy. Juries are reluctant to convict of crime, and when they do the 

Courts are reluctant to impose penalties of confinement for offenses not inherently >

or traditionally criminal—offenses malum prohibitum but not malum per se.

Every Committee in Congress continually hears criticism of the Courts for 

not imposing the criminal sanctions provided by our laws. I submit we would 

be wise to recognize that we are wasting time, energy and breath on such criticism 

when we can obtain more effective enforcement through non-criminal sanctions. *

Courts and administrative agencies would be more willing to enforce civil sanctions, which would accomplish the same purposes more efficiently and more 

effectively. I submit that if any employer cannot deduct as a business expense 

the compensation he knowingly pays to an illegal alien, he will then exercise 

reasonable efforts to avoid that sanction by making a good faith inquiry as to 

the legal status of the alien. In the world of business there is no greater incentive 

than money.

EN FO RC EM EN T

One of the beauties and benefits of my bill is that enforcement would be 

reatively simpler than that necessary for the enforcement of H.R . 982. Without 

the criminal sanctions, an employer would be more willing to answer interrogation, the number and extent of investigations already overburdening the Border 

patrol of the Immigration and Naturalization Service would not be increased, 

and police forces and other law enforcement agencies would not need to increase 

their personnel in order to implement the law. Since the payment of wages to
251

known illegals would not be tax deductable under my proposal, the employer 

would deduct such payments only at his peril, and, as a practical matter, would 

not even make them. Periodic Internal Revenue Service audits, already a common 

practice, would bring many of these instances to light. Since self-interests and 

self-preservation are paramount to corporate and individual employers, a real 

motive, a real incentive, to refuse to hire illegal aliens would exist. The problem 

would be much closer to a solution.

I welcome any questions from the Members of the Subcommittee, and I thank 

you.

» [H.R. 8841, 93d Cong., 1st sess.]

A B IL L To amend the Inte rna l Reve nue Code of 1954 to disallow d educ tions from gross Income for salary 

paid to aliens illegally employed In th e United States

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

* America in Congress assembled, Tha t (a) part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of

the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to items not deductible) is amended 

by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

“S EC. 380. SALARY OF CERTAIN ALIENS.

“ No deduction otherwise allowable under this chapter shall be allowed for 

any amount paid or incurred to any alien individual as salary (or other compensation) for personal services performed in the United States if such alien individual 

was known by the taxpa yer (at the time such salary or other compensation was 

paid or incurred) to be in the United States in violation of the immigration laws 

of the United States or in an immigration status under such laws in which employment is not authorized.”

(b) The table of sections for such part IX is amended by adding below the 

last item thereof the following:

“Sec. 280. Salary of certa in aliens.”

Sec. 2. The amendments made by this Act shall apply only to taxable vears 

ending after the date of the enactment of this Act, and only with respect to 

amounts paid or incurred after such date.

[H.R. 3609, 94th Cong., 1st sess.)

A BIL L To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide financial assistance to medical facilities for 

treatm ent of certain aliens

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, Tha t part C of title III of the Public Health Service 

Act is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

“ MEDIC AL TR EA TM EN T OF ALI EN S

“ Sec. 330. (a) If—

“ (1) any alien unlawfully in the Unite d States is provided emergency 

medical tre atment and is unable to pay the cost of such treatment or can p ay 

only a portion of such cost; and

‘ (2) the alien or the medical f acility which provided such treatment is not 

eligible under an y public assistance program for payment of or reimbursement 

for such cost or is eligible under such a program for payment of or reimbursement for only a portion of such cost,

the medical facility which provided such treatment may apply to the Secretary for 

reimbursement for that portion of such cost which is not paid.

“ (b) An application for reimbursement under this section shall be submitted in 

such form, and contain 'such information, as the Secretary may prescribe. The 

Secretary may not approve such an application unless (1) Attorney General has 

determined tha t the alien with respect to which the application is submitted is 

unlawfully in the United States, and (2) the Secretary finds (A) the treatment for 

which reimbursement is sought was given for a medical emergency, and (B) the 

medical fa cility which provided such treatment is unable to recover from the alien 

or any public assistance program its costs in providing such treatment for the 

alien.

4 9 —7 6 9 0 — 71 ■17
252

“ (c) The amount of any pay ment under this section for the cost of emergency 

medical tre atm ent shall be determined by the Secretary, except th at no pa ym ent 

may exceed the value of such tre atm ent as determined und er regulations of the 

Secretary .

“ (d) The Secretary shall tak e such action as may be necessary to make an alien 

for whom a paymen t is made und er this section eligible for tre atm ent and care 

as authorized by section 322(c).” .

March 11, 1975.

Memo to Mr. Sisk.

Fro m: Gwen.

Re: Delegation sponsorship of legislation to reimburse hospitals for medical care 

rendered to indigent illegal aliens.

As you know, we introduced bills on this subject in the 92nd, 93rd and 94th 

Congresses, which were referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

The revised bill, H.R . 3609, was referred to the House Inter sta te and Foreign 

Commerce Committee and presumably it will be sent to the Subcommittee on 

Health and the Environment. A copy of the bill is atta che d and as you will note, 

the following California members are co-sponsors: Krebs, Bob Wilson, McFall, 

Van Deerlin and Anderson. Oth er California members, Hawkins, Rees, Ketchum 

and Mrs. Burke, have indicated th at the y would like to be added to the bill, b ut 

we have held up action pending the results of your request to the delegation.

You have received formal resolutions of supp ort for H.R. 5307 (the 93rd 

Congress bill) from the Boards of Supervisors of the following California counties:

Butte Mendocino San Diego

Colusa Modesto San Joaq uin

Contra Costa Orange Santa Clara

Fresno Placer Sonoma

Kings Riverside Tulare

Lassen Sacramento Tuolumne

Los Angeles San Benito Yolo

Mad era San Bernardino

Also, a resolution of support was received from the Regional Council of Rural 

Counties (copy attached) covering the counties of Alpine, Amador, Butte, 

Calaveras, El Dorado, Madera, Mariposa, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Sierra 

Siskiyou, Teham a, Trinity and Tuolumne.

Regional Council of R ural Counties,

Sacramento, Calif., October 30, 1974-

Congressman B. F. Sisk,

House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Congressman Sis k: At a regular meeting of the Regional Council of 

Ru ral Counties held on October 23, 1974 the Council voted unanim ously to go *

on record in supp ort of H .R. 5307 “ To provide for the reimbursement of medical 

tre atmen t facilities for emergency tre atm ent given to aliens unlawfully in the 

Un ited Sta tes.” Provision of these services has been an ever increasing tax burden 

to local government. *

Sincerely,

Robert P. Mahan,

President.

Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO ,

Los Angeles, Calif., February 13, 1975.

Mr. Leonard Chapman,

Commissioner, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Commissioner Chapman: I am w riting to you on behalf of the Los Angeles 

County Federation of Labor, AFL -CIO , to express our shock and amazement 

at the apparent practice of th e Los Angeles office of Immigration and Naturalization Service, in giving employers advan ce information of impending raids to 

discover illegal aliens employed on those premises.
253

A specific incident deals with the High Tide Swimwear Company a t 3131 South 

Broadway in Los Angeles. There had been a strike at this establish ment and a 

large number of illegal aliens were employed as strike breakers. The union involved 

in the strike, the Inte rna tional Ladies Garment Workers Union, protested , and 

asked th at action be taken. The strike was ended and the union members returned 

to work. Some time later the employer was notified th at a raid would be made so 

the employer could cooperate. The employer cooperated very well. No illegal 

aliens could be located on the premises, except seventeen union members who ha d 

been on strike. This is an appa lling situation .

In fairness I whould say th at my office has had a good relationship with the 

Los Angeles office of the Service, and Mr. Joseph Sureck, the Dis trict Director

* has tried to be helpful within the limitations of his budget.

I am concerned th at if the employers are told when there will be a raid no useful 

purpose could possibly be served. I am asking on behalf of more tha n 400 A FL - 

CIO unions in Los Angeles Cou nty, affiliated with this organizatio n, th at there 

be a very clear policy determ ination th at employers are not to be given advance

*■ warnings that the Imm igration Service will be visiting them . I would also urge

th at ev ery effort be made to prov ide adequate staffing in your local offices so th at 

your Service’s mission could be carried out.

I am sure we agree on the economic evils entailed in the employm ent of illegal 

aliens in this country and are in accord th at stro ng efforts must be made to 

eliminate this threat to our economic stan dards.

Very t ruly yours,

S lB M U N D A R Y W IT Z, 

Executive Secretary-T reasurer.

Mr. Eilberg. We have a witness list, and I wish to thank Mr. 

David Carliner, Esq., for allowing an out-of-town witness to testify. 

We appreciate that, Mr. Carliner.

Our next witness will be Dr. John II. Tan ton, chairman of the 

Immigration Study Committee for Zero Population Growth.

TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN H. TANTON, CHAIRMAN, IMMIGRATION 

STUDY COMMITTEE FOR ZERO POPULATION GROWTH

Dr. Tanton. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I have 

with me today Melanie Wirken, the political director for Zero Population Growth.

I certainly appreciate the chance to appear before you this afternoon. My interest in population problems dates back about 15 years, 

and my interest in immigration about 5 years. I am a physician and 

practice in a small town in northern Michigan.

♦ If 1 may, I would like to submit our statement for the record, and 

only highlight some of its points.

Mr. Eilberg. Without objection, the statement will be admitted 

into the record.

Dr. Tanton. The main point we would like to call to the committee’s 

attention today is the demographic effect of immigration on the 

United States. Demographic factors, questions of population growth, 

have perhaps not entered very importantly into the establishment of 

migration policies of the United States in the past.

We recognize from other witnesses that illegal immigration has 

important job impacts on the United States, and that minorities and 

teens in particular bear the brun t of those impacts because tha t is 

where competition is the greatest and our current level of unemployment the highest.

I would like to talk a little bit about the demographic impact of 

illegal immigration on the United States. It is of interest tha t this
254

subject is receiving attention elsewhere, too. Canada has just published their four-volume study on immigration and the impact on 

population growth in tha t country. They are looking at immigration, 

looking at the question of how large they want Canada to get, and 

where immigration fits into future growth. This is the green paper 

stage; this has been for years the subject of debate, and it is becoming 

now more intense.

Two days ago I received the two-volume study from Australia in 

the mail, the population stud y of Australia; once again, another 

country looking at its population growth, both from native sources 

and immigration, and trying to make decisions as to what the future 

holds, and what actions they should take to perhaps change the 

direction in which they are going.

Tha t is necessary because the leadtime in dealing with population 

problems is extremely long. Once a growing population reaches 

replacement levels of fertility, where the births roughly equal deaths, 

it takes about 70 years for a population to stop growing. A country 

must plan tha t far ahead if they have a certain population growth 

they want to achieve.

Now, it has been commonly said tha t the United States has reached 

zero population growth, bu t that is a misinterpretatio n. We have 

arrived at what has been called replacement fertility, where the average 

family size is about two children per woman. If replacement fertility 

is retained for 50 years or so, we will eventually reach the point of zero 

population growth where births equal deaths; and during tha t period 

we will experience an estimated 30- to 40-percent increase in our 

population.

Mr. Fish. Dr. Tanton, inasmuch as you are stating this fact, something on which we have been led to believe the contrary from previous 

reports, le t me see if I can understand you.

In your testimony you point out tha t the total fertility rate has 

gradually declined to the present rate of 1.8.

Dr. T anton. Correct.

Mr. Fish. Meaning the average American couple is having less than 

the 2.1 children necessary to replace themselves.

Dr. T anton. That’s correct.

Mr. Fish. So, the 1.9 means we have reached zero growth.

Dr. Tanton. That is a very important point, tha t is n ot correct, 

I would like to clarify that, if I can.

We have in the United States a t the present time a very large number of young people who were born after the second World War, the 

so-called baby boom. The peak year for births was 1957, 18 years ago. 

So, those 18-year-old youngsters now are just coming into their reproductive years. And even if they all limit themselves to, say, two 

children per family, the population will continue to expand for 50 

to 70 years and grow 30 to 40 percent during that period of time; tha t is 

the fundamental demographic fact called the phenomenon of momentum. Jus t like driving a car 70 miles an hour and you put on the 

brakes, you are going to go quite a way before you finally stop.

The Bureau of the Census has worked out these projections, they 

have census projections which assume, first of all replacement fertility, two children per family, and zero net immigration; and the 

figures show th at between 1975 and 2000 under those conditions the
255

U.S. p opula tion will grow by 38 m illion people; by the year 2020 i t will grow oy 58 m illion pe ople, a po int th at I rea lly wan t to try and bri ng 

across to this co mm itte e.

Mr. Fish. And th at is all due because of the large perce nta ge of 

population in the ea rly 20 ’s?

Dr. T anton. T hat is due to the age stru ctur e of the population , the ma ny yo ung people, even if they only have two children, will 

keep the popula tio n growing for m any ye ars. So, here are the figures, 38 million addit ion al Americans by the ye ar 2000 if we have rep lac em ent ferti lity and zero ne t immigra tion. 

OK.Now, as a sidelight to this larg e nu mbe r of teens we have com ing along , the average age of imm igr ants, illegal immi grants, too, is in the early 20’s. We have a high unem plo ym ent ra te am ongst teens at the presen t tim e; we ha ve a very larg e gro up of teenag ers who will be coming into the job m ar ke t each ye ar for the ne xt 10 years or so be­ cause 1957 was the pe ak year for birth s. So, we are going to have a ve ry big problem in this co un try try ing to pro vid e larg e nu mbers of jobs for teens, the ve ry group th at is im pa cte d mo st by illegal 

immig rati on.

Mr. Fish. Tha nk y ou very much.

Dr. T anto n. Legal immigra tion brings ab ou t 400,000 persons a ye ar into the Un ited St ates . Th e Com mission of Populat ion Gr ow th and the Am erican Futu re proje cte d th at legal immigra tion wou ld add 16 million person s to our n um bers by the y ea r 2000, and the re are reas ons to think th at is a low estim ate . So, here we have 38 million th at are going to be added from na tiv e po pu lat ion gro wth or na tu ra l increase, and 16 million from legal im mi grati on; a total of 54 million more people in the Un ite d State s ove r the ne xt 25 years. And those are no t spe cul ative changes, those are ine vitable ad di­ tions at rep lac em ent ferti lity and our presen t immigra tion policy. In 25 yea rs we will increase the po pulat ion of the Un ited St ates by 

25 percent. Now, maybe 3 or 4 years ago Am eric ans would hav e look ed at th at sit ua tio n and said, “I t looks like a bou ndless increase, bu t we are the horn of plen ty and can tak e care of it ,” bu t I think the experienc e of the last ye ar or two is beg inning to make ma ny of us look at the lim ita tio ns of how ma ny people we can provide for. We are alread y locked in to pro viding for 25 percen t more than we have now with our cu rre nt rep lac em ent fer tility and cu rre nt levels of legal 

migra tion. Now, if you tak e 800,000 as a figure for illegal migrants per year, and tak e into accoun t the fac t th at illegal person s from the less- deve loped cou ntries ha ve higher bi rth rates th an the persons from developed countries; and if you proje ct 800,000 persons per ye ar to the turn of the ce ntury, it comes ou t to at lea st an addition al 40 million persons. The AFL -C IO has an even larg er estim ate th an that. Th ey project th at by 1985 we could have 35 million illegal person s in this co un try 

if pre sen t trends con tinue. So, let’s sum those figures up, 38 million from na tura l inc rea se; 16 million legal im mi grati on; and 40 million from illegal immigration.
256

We are talking about 94 million additional people in a country tha t 

now has a population of about 220 million.

The potential of illegal immigration is one of the “sleepers,” in 

this whole question, of adding to the population growth of this 

country. I think that we are going to have a very significant problem 

providing for the growth of 54 million persons natural increase and 

from legal migration, and to provide for additional persons of an 

illegal source. I think it is going to stretch things beyond the tolerance 

point. Now, tha t is the demography of developed countries, the 

United States in particular.

Now, let’s talk a little bit about the demography of less-developed 

countries for which we might take Mexico, as an example.

Mexico has about 58 million persons at the present time. I t has an 

annual average increase of about 3.3 percent a year. It has roughly 

46 percent of their populace under 15 years of age—as compared to 

24 percent in the United State s—46 percent, represents a tremendous 

number of young persons coming into the job market there in the 

next few years. In the face of this, it has an unemployment rate 

estimated from 20 to 40 percent.

The rate of natural increase of Mexico last year was 1.8 million 

persons, as opposed to 1.2 in the United States. Mexico had a 50- 

percent larger increase in its population than the United States did, 

and yet there is only a quarter of people.

Now, these same type figures could be repeated throughout Latin 

America and the Caribbean, and this brings us to the point I want to 

make, tha t we are just beginning to see the tip of the iceberg at 

the present time. The changes tha t are going to take place in the 

population level in Latin America and the Caribbean, just to mention 

one region in the world, are going to make the problem of illegal 

migration we face today seem mild in comparison to the future. And 

we believe it follows from that th at this committee should be legislating 

not for the problem as it exists today, but as it is very shortly going to 

become.

The measures tha t are proposed, are not going to be sufficient to 

deal with the problem as it is going to exist 4 or 5 years down the line.

Another perception that we have come to is tha t it is probably 

through illegal migration tha t the citizens of developed countries are 

most directly going to experience the population growth of the lessdeveloped countries. Why is that? Some of the types of measures tha t 

are being talked about here, the use of social security number, the 

universal ID card; greater restriction on the issuance of visas; greater 

policing of the borders; more INS personnel to protect us against 

illegal aliens; these are all measures which I think all of us loathe to 

think about and propose; but as we look at the magnitude of the 

situation, what’s down the line, we can see there is very few alternatives. And the necessity of adopting such measures in the developed 

countries is going to be the way we are going to most directly experience what is happening in the less-developed countries as a result of 

their population growth.

The concerns of groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, 

which we share, are valid and real, and they must be addressed. We 

have to ask ourselves, what are the alternatives to what is proposed, 

and also, what will be the social and the human liberty cost, the civil
257

liberty cost of not adequately addressing the situation, and letting 

it continue.

There are basically three types of measures tha t could be contemplated to deal with the illegal immigration problem. The first, 

and the one we think we have to emphasize in the long run is to 

prevent admission. Once the illegal enters the country you encounter 

all the civil liberty type problems, resulting from searching for and 

trying to remove illegals from the country. Preventing admission, 

better policing, or better patrolling of the border, means better 

control of visas, an updating and upgrading of the quality of the 

documents, and computerized IRS files, where demographic checks 

can be made on whether a person is entitled to be employed in this 

country.

The second general category of measures tha t could be taken 

includes trying to reduce the incentives, and that is basically what 

the Rodino bill is about, trying to make jobs less available. But we 

emphasize also our responsibility from the standpoint of self-interest, 

if nothing else, to try to improve the conditions in the less-developed 

countries, and we will touch on that more in a moment.

Mr. Eilberg. I would ju st caution you again, please recognize the 

fact tha t this subcommittee has limited jurisdiction; and as much as 

we would like to think of these other subjects, it would be most 

helpful if you would try to confine yourself to the subjects within the 

subcommittee’s jurisdiction.

Dr. Tanton. The third general area is the question of detection of 

illegal aliens once they are here, which becomes necessary because 

they were admitted in the first place.

To deal with the specifics of the proposal before us, we support the 

Rodino bill which adopts criminal penalties for persons who knowingly 

employ illegal aliens, and are attra cted to the suggestion of injunctive 

relief which was made before this committee several days ago. It 

would not address the problem of self-employed illegals, I don’t 

know where tha t fits in, in terms of the quantity of the problem, but 

perhaps it is something that deserves some thought.

Now, as mentioned earlier today, we agree tha t most employers 

operate in accordance with the law, which is probably a strong deterrent for the hiring of illegal aliens. We wonder, though, if the method 

for determining the alien, asking an illegal person to sign a document 

tha t says he is entitled to work is sufficient. If his drive to migrate 

to this country was so strong to cause him to make the trip, one 

wonders if he would not take the additional step to sign the paper 

tha t says he is entitled to work, as opposed to the obvious alternative, 

which is to go back home again, to conditions he ju st left.

I find it difficult to see how requiring the illegal alien himself to 

come forth and in essence sign a document saying, “Yes, I am an 

illegal alien, I am not entitled to work, therefore you shouldn’t 

give me a job” will not solve the problem. I think it stretches credibility to think tha t under the circumstances these persons would be in 

a position to do tha t because tha t must negate the very thing they 

came to the country for, which is to find a job.

And tha t brings us to the terribly difficult problem of some sort of 

universal ID card, social security number as the way to identify the 

person; or having computer-readable border documents, or some sort
258

of document that the employer can call, or send to his local Immigration and Naturalization Office and have it verified tha t the person is 

entitled to be in this country and to work.

In our statem ent we discuss at some length the whole question of 

the social security card, and I won’t get into that. You will perhaps 

have some questions tha t you want to ask about that.

We feel tha t the existing border documents, such things as the Green 

Card, and visas, and passports should be made computer readable.

The size of the problem of processing these documents at the border 

is very large, as you know, there are 250 million border crossings a 

year in the United States. If you miss on one-tenth of 1 percent, tha t 

is what, 250,000 persons. If you miss on 1 percent, it ’s 2.5 million 

people.

To think tha t we could have a system tha t is based on mechanical *

shuffling of papers at a border and process 250 million documents a 

year, and come up with anything better than one-tenth of 1 percent 

error, I think, is visionary; and tha t is obviously not good enough in 

view of the illegal immigration problem tha t we have.

If one looks at the load which consular offices around the world are 

having, something needs to be done there; but again, tha t is outside 

the purview of this committee.

We feel tha t INS is going to need additional personnel and have 

raised the question in terms of the INS budget, whether or not this 

committee perhaps might have some oversight function for the INS 

budget, so th at you people, being the ones that know the most about 

the INS operations could give some insight to the budgetary process, 

rather than having it totally removed from your area of interest.

One related factor to this question of improving the prospects 

of the less-developed countries does fall under the jurisdiction of 

this committee, and tha t is the whole question of the “brain drain.”

I am aware tha t it has been around for two decades, and it has been 

discussed, perhaps, to death on both sides of the issue; but ZPG has 

studied this, and in particular taken notice of some recent studies 

tha t were done by other committees in the House, and we have come 

to believe tha t the drain of personnel, especially from the lesser 

developed countries, is one which is markedly reducing their prospects 

for development and advancement.

When the “brain drain” was first started after the Second World *

War it was a transition from the developed nations of Europe to 

Canada and the United States. It has now changed so that the major 

portion of this flow comes from less-developed countries of the world. *

And if we are going to do anything about trying to help these countries 

address their population problems, help them do anything about 

getting some economic development, it is probably essential to do 

something about population growth. We have to make some improvement in the lives of people.

I think we should sta rt to reevaluate this whole question of brain 

drain and the dilatory effect it is having on less developed countries, 

and try to decide where the United States true interests lie in this 

matter. Do they lie in bringing talented people into this country so 

tha t we can develop further and so the gap between the developed 

and less developed countries increases even further; or are our best 

interests perhaps served in the longer run to help these nations
250

develop both thr ough fore ign aid, bu t ab o to ena ble them to keep 

the ir tal en ted people at hom e so th at they can help in the basic 

efforts tow ard develop me nt; and this in tu rn w ould lessen population 

problem s, it would increase the ir economic capa city so th at the re 

would be more jobs and more at trac tio n for the ir peop le to sta y home. 

As long as this disp arity exists betw een the develop ed and less developed countries, tne re is a treme ndous drive for people to migra te, 

and it ’s no t going to be enough of a measure for this Nat io n to say,

• “S tay ou t.” We hav e to addre ss the problem and try to do som eth ing 

to help these people solve the very dire con ditions th at hav e brou gh t 

the m to such a sad stat e of affairs th at they are willing to leave their 

hom es and families, and their associates, and mov e to an othe r nation

• to try and find em plo ym ent .

Well, in conclusion 1 would like to ju st stress th at I think this com ­

mittee must begin to take the dem ograph ic fac tors into accou nt in 

add ressing the problem of migra tion, bo th legal and illegal. I think 

the re is a real sleep er in this thing, and in the long ru n dem ograph ic 

fac tors ma y be some of the mo st im po rtan t fac tor s th at must be 

considered.

And secondly , I would urg e you strongly to legisla te no t ju st for 

the pro blems as they exist tod ay, bu t for the pro ble m it is going to 

become, obviously, a very few years d own the fu ture as the i nevit able 

dem ograph ic changes in the less develop ed countrie s come to the 

fore.

I th an k you for yo ur tim e. I will be glad to ans wer any question s 

th at yo u m igh t hav e.

Mr. E ilb erg. T ha nk you very much, Dr. T an ton, for you r view from 

an othe r p oin t of view.

Keepi ng with the practic e we are engaged in today, giving members 

a chan ce of asking question s, I would like to st art w ith Ms. Ho ltzma n, 

if I ma y.

Ms. H oltzman. T ha nk yo u, Mr. C hairm an.

You said we had to addre ss the hu man lib erty costs of no t in ­

stitut in g a universal ide ntification sys tem for all res ide nts of this 

country .

Wo uld you id ent ify th ose hu man lib erty costs?

4 Dr . T anto n. I am of the opinion th at one of the m ajor prices b eing

paid for population gro wth in the Un ite d St ates toda y is fu rth er 

con striction s on our indiv idu al libe rties. I see th at in my own dai ly 

w

life. And I think if we do n’t ad eq uatel y add ress the illegal alien

problem , we are going to ha ve ma ny ten s of millions of persons a dded

to this countr y, mo stly in th e urba n areas.

Ms. H oltzman. Well, I un de rst an d you are ma kin g th at arg um ent. 

But when you say th at hu m an lib ert y is going to be at sta ke if we 

don’t issue these ide ntification cards, I wan t to know if you are tal kin g 

ab ou t anyth ing besides ha vin g more traffic on the streets. W ha t 

civil liberties do y ou think will be affected by an increase in ou r p opula ­

tion here in th e Un ited S tates?

Dr. T anto n. Well, my stat em en t was th at I fel t if we didn ’t ad ­

dress the illegal alien pro blem th at this would be one fac tor th at 

would lead to constric tion of our civil libe rties. I di dn ’t rel ate th at 

specifically to the use of an ID card, th at would be one measure, I 

think, th at should be considered.
260

Ms. H oltzman. So, in other word s, wh at you are say ing is the re 

aren ’t rea lly an y civil libe rties costs th at we will suffer if we do no t 

in stitu te a universal identif ication sy stem ; is th at corr ect?

Dr. T ant on. No; I thin k th at there will be------

Ms. H oltzman. Would you ide nti fy one to this com mittee , please— 

ju st one civil lib erty th at will be affected if we do no t issue ide ntification cards?

Dr. T ant on. I don’t know th at I would attach i t so mu ch to specific 

civil liberties as I do to the pro spect of the coun try as a whole if we 

do not ad eq ua tely addres s the illegal im migra tion p roblem.

Ms. H oltzman. T ha t is a s ep arate question.

Do you think th at we ou gh t to exclude all im migra nts from the 

Un ited State s, legal or illegal?

Dr. T ant on. No, I do not. Th e position we have adopted calls for 

a nu mber of chan ges in the im migra tion law, basically red ucing the 

level of immigra tion to the level of emigration , and would hope to 

delve int o th at point at the tim e yo ur com mittee considers it.

Ms. H oltzman. I was plea sed to see th at you felt it im po rta nt to 

imp rov e the procedures for preven tin g admission of illegal aliens in 

this co un try as a first prior ity . I happen to feel th at is an area in 

which a gr ea t deal needs to be done, and in which im provem ents 

are certa inly w arr anted .

I would like some su bs tant iatio n for your figure of 16 million pro ­

jec ted population growth from illegal aliens as com pared to a pop ­

ula tio n gro wth of 38 million from our own population in this cou ntry. 

T hat seems very d ifficult to believe.

Dr . T anton . The re are thr ee figures.

Ms. H oltzman. According to yo ur testim ony, our presen t population of ove r 200 million only produces an add itio nal popu lat ion of 

38 million, whe reas the 300,000 illegal aliens we have pro duce an 

addit ion al popu lat ion —t hat is alm ost half of th at — 16 million.

Dr. T anton . Let me review the figures, if I may. Th e 38 million 

is the figure for growth from the na tiv e population at rep lac em ent 

fer tility , wi th no immigra tion; this is worked out by the Census.

The 16 million is from 400,000 pers ons per year for the l as t 25 years 

of the centu ry, th at is 400,000 im mi grants for 25 yea rs, th at is 12 

million persons, and the y will rep rod uce them selv es during th at time. 

So, the figure is for im migra nts and the ir surviv ors; and it is da ta 

th at is wo rked ou t by the Commission of P op ulati on an d the Am erican 

Fu ture.

Ms. H oltzman. And wha t are yo ur projection s for emigration in 

thi s period of time?

Dr. T anton . Th e Cen sus Bu rea u uses the figure of 37,000 persons 

a y ear , they ha ve no da ta, b asically, on e migra tion; it was l ast collected 

in 1957. T hat is anoth er area th at is in need of some atte nt io n if we 

are going to try to develop policies th at hav e some populat ion basis. 

We certa inl y need to know how ma ny people are leaving, as well as 

how man y peop le are coming in.

Ms. H oltzman. I have no fu rthe r questions.

Ms. Wir ken . I would like to interje ct a word for Ms. Ho ltzma n. 

We know th at in the pa st she has expressed some pro blem with wh at 

the process is in foreign countrie s whe n people are apply ing for the ir 

tourist v isas, or for pap ers to come to this country . She ha s expre ssed
261

concern tha t maybe that process should be reviewed to minimize 

our margin of error.

I know it’s probably typical for you to invite someone from the 

State Department to come and give you the State Department 

policy on how they work things down in the consul offices. But I 

would like to suggest t hat you instead bring some of the young consul 

officers who have been serving in Latin American countries to explain 

to vou how they have seen it.

We have talked to several in the State Department who have jus t

* returned from countries such as Argentina, they are very concerned. 

They share our concern, share Ms. Holtzman’s concern, and believe 

tha t the State Department should, in fact, make adjustments in their 

policies. I think they will tell a different story than their superiors 

within the State Department would tell.

Ms. Holtzman. Would you elaborate, please, in terms of what 

procedures you think might be improved for screening tourist applications from Latin America?

Ms. Wirken. What I can tell you will only be secondhand from 

what these gentlemen have told us, and it would probably be much 

more effective for them to tell you firsthand.

But in our discussions they have talked about how they may be 

trained in this country about immigration law. Then they are sent 

to a country like Argentina and put on the job almost immediately 

and met with a line that goes around the block of Argentine citizens 

who want to come. F irst of all, the workload is excessive; and second 

of all, the amount of material tha t they can require to make those 

decisions is insufficient. They have to assess within a very short 

amount of time why a person wants to leave Argentina to come to 

the United States. They say they want to go on a vacation, so they 

can take into consideration how much money this person has, is it 

really enough to get him to the United States and back again; what 

is he leaving behind; is he leaving behind a family, or a job, or a home.

They believe tha t much of the information that they get is inad equate to make a good judgm ent on the intent of the parties that they 

are interviewing; and then also the time limit involved is insufficient 

to be able to investigate further. And many times, as you have pointed 

4 out, it ’s just a snap judgment on the part of the young consul officer

who is at his desk and has another hundred people waiting for him.

Dr. Tanton. On the average it would be a 10- to 15-minute process. 

So, tha t is not much time to spend on these applications.

* Ms. Wirken. The people we have talked about have problems, 

and once these same people enter the country, there is no ability by 

the INS to follow up when their visas are up.

They have more concrete suggestions tnan we do because they 

have ju st spent the last couple of years down there. As I say, they are 

concerned, they don’t feel tha t the United States is approaching it 

correctly, they are junior Foreign Service officers. You are in a better 

position to change it than they are, and they would very much like to 

talk to you.

Ms. Holtzman. Do you have any concrete suggestions? I certainly 

would like to hear them, and I am sure the members of the subcommittee would.
262

Mr. Chairman. I yield back whatever time I have.

Mr. Eilbero. Mr. Fish?

Mr. Fish. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to tnank our witness for addressing this question of 

admission because I think that is the most fruitful area where we can 

begin to stem the tide of illegal aliens coming to the United States, 

although it doesn’t address the problem of the 4 to 12 million who are 

currently here.

Also, it seems to me th at those coming in visiting, students, businessmen, these people able to pay their own way, are probably a very 

employable group and disappear. And disappear they do to the tune of 

300,000 to 600,000 a year, I think, according to the testimony of 

General Chapman. »

I would like to say this is a figure of 5 to 10 percent of the nonimmigrants coming into this country. There are 6 million visitors per 

year; and part of the pressure tha t you mentioned on the vice consuls 

comes from our own Government. The Commerce Department is 

encouraging visitors.

And, Mr. Chairman, having been vice consul myself, I doubt very 

much that the pressure—the line was backed up, and I never felt any 

pressure just because there was a line. I never felt just because they 

were in line they were entitled to documentation. I wouldn’t be surprised if we p ut staff in the field—documentation is contributing to 

this problem.

Just so we have the complete record, Doctor, you have testified tha t 

you anticipate in the next 25 years the population increase of 94 

million. Do you see tha t as a calamity, or perhaps just a very serious 

problem?

Dr. Tanton. Well, ZPG has looked at this in considerable length, 

and we believe that the United States has already more people than it 

is going to be able to care for in the long run with its resource base.

Now, this is admittedly a very difficult area in which to try to 

arrive—there are questions such as, what is the carrying capacity of 

the United States and people; it depends on how much flow of resources 

cross international borders; it depends on such things as the oil supply 

in the United States. Looking at the prospects for growth and consumption in resources in the less developed countries in the world now, »

and their expanding population which will want to consume more 

resources and increase their standards of living; resource supplies 

across the world. w We believe it is going to be very difficult for the United States to 

maintain its present standard of living with present population figures, 

much less with further increases of 94 million, tha t is 40 to 45 percent.

This is a very large subject area—what is the carrying capacity 

of the United States, how many people we can take care of. I think 

very few people would say our limit is infinite, that’s obvious today.

But this area needs more study, and it is one tha t should not be left 

until there is general agreement tha t we have too many people in the 

United States. We would still have a great deal of population growth 

tha t we would have to go through, so you have to plan many years 

ahead, and you have to do what Canada is doing, which is to say, by 

the year 2000, or 2020, how many Canadians are we going to be able 

to support, realizing tha t if they are going to achieve the population 

level a t that time, they have to make the decisions now.
263

Mr. Fish. Dr. Tan ton, these figures I haven’t got in front of me, there are just a few in my head, and I am sure they are much better known to you. I am now addressing myself to worldwide population 

growth, outside of the United States. I understand the figures are something like this: It took us from the beginning of time to 1830 to reach population of 1 billion; it took us then only 100 years to reach the second billion; and the third billion 

is with us now, after how many years?

Dr. T anton. 30 years.

w Mr. Fish. 30 years. So, by 1960 we were at the third billion.

Dr. Tanton. We are pretty near 4 billion.

Mr. Fish. 4 billion, and what do you see after that?

Dr. T anton. Trouble.

« Mr. Fish. Doctor, when do we get to five?

Dr. Tanton. Well, the world population supposedly is growing about 2 percent a year, you divide the precent in the growth rate with the number 70, and tha t would give you a doubling time of 35 

years.

Mr. Fish. So, you say tha t we go from four to eight in 35 years?

Dr. Tanton. Th at’s right. That is where the present trends, if they 

don’t collapse, will take you.

Mr. F ish. The way you described the population of our neighboring countries, it doesn’t look like it is going to collapse soon. How are we going to meet this problem outside our own borders? It seems to me we are talking about a high rate of unemployment here right now, and you are talking about doubling of the population of these countries. I t’s not just employment, it is food supplies, an issue we have not gotten into yet. It seems to me tha t is going to p ut more pressures on the borders of the United States and Canada, it’s almost 

a question of isolation of these two nations.

Dr. Tanton. Th at is the very point tha t I am trying to make. The magnitude of that problem of population growth in less developed countries is hard to appreciate; and the problem is going to be as bad as you can envision with the pressures of migrating to countries such as the United State s being as large as you nave just indicated, and 

as difficult to deal with. As a physician I see patients with incurable eye diseases, who are 

* going to lose their vision. And the patie nt always says, “What can you do to keep me from losing my vision,” and sometimes the answer is, nothing can be done for your condition. And unfortunately that 

r

is to some degree going to be the problem in particular portions of

the world.

Mr. Fish. You don’t see any possibility of arresting tha t doubling 

from 4 to 8 billion people.

Dr. Tanton. Not only myself, but the people who have spent the most time thinking and talking about this. Look at the tremendous number of young people in the world tha t are now having from four to six children. Even if you could reduce their family size down to two which would in itself be a fantastic accomplishment, you then have 50 years of population growth before it stops, which is another 30 to 40 

percent increase in tne levels of people. So, even if we could achieve replacement fertility in the world today, which is far beyond the wildest dreams; the whole world population is going to increase by another 30 to 40 percent and keep
growing well into the next century. This is the magnitude of this 

problem, and this is why you have to look so many years in advance, 

you can’t wait until it’s on your doorstep before you do something 

about it, or else it ’s too late.

Mr. Fish. Thank you very much.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Sarbanes?

Mr. Sarbanes. Doctor, I want to be certain I understand the import 

of pages 7 to 11 of your statement. I take it th at you do favor a national 

ID card.

Dr. T anton. Yes. I personally do but ZPG has not taken an organizational stand on this issue.

Mr. Sarbanes. Secondly, I take it that, favoring a national ID 

card, you favor the use of a Social Security card as such a national 

identification card?

Dr. Tanton. I think tha t is probably the best method as it is 

currently widely used.

Mr. Sarbanes. I am interested to know what benefits you see 

growing out of the use of a national identification card tha t makes it 

worth taking the risk which you seem to recognize, or at least you 

prefaced your remarks about such a card with some acknowledgement of the risk. Then you go ahead and get us to the national ID 

card in any event. It is not quite clear to me what gets you there.

Dr. Tanton. I see the illegal alien problem being as large as I 

indicated it is going to become, and do not feel the measures presently 

considered, as much as they are needed, are going to be sufficient 

to address the problem. I think we are going to get to the point where 

individuals are going to have to verify whether or not they have the 

right to work in the country.

Problems like the ones tha t have been talked about in the Southwest with Mexican-Americans being discriminated against could be 

addressed by a person having a card tha t says he has the right to 

work.

Mr. Sarbanes. In other words, you would move the entire country 

and all of its people to a national identification card in order to deal 

with the illegal aliens problem?

Dr. Tanton. Well, I think tha t the country is going in tha t direction, as we have indicated, for many other reasons.

Mr. Sarbanes. And you approve tha t tendency?

Dr. Tanton. I am sorry to see tha t tendency.

Mr. Sarbanes. Inasfar as you are sorry to see it, why do you 

propose to advance it?

Dr. T anton. To use in other areas, you mean?

Mr. Sarbanes. Well, I don’t understand. On the one hand you 

say, “We are sorry to see that developing, and it’s undesirable and 

we have problems with it”—a view I probably share; and the next 

thing I discover, you are plunging ri^ht ahead and end up with a 

national identification card and all its implications and consequences. 

I’m not quite clear what gets you on down tha t path.

Dr. Tanton. Well, first of all, I think we are a long ways down the 

path, and this is one more area in which a national card of some sort 

would be a useful tool.

Secondly, you have to look at this question, can you adequately 

address the problem of illegal immigration without it.
265

The job problem is going to be so great tha t you are going to have 

to be able to positively identify whether a person is entitled to be in 

the country and work, rather than relying on a statement tha t he 

signs and says, “ Yes, I am legally here.”

Mr. Sarbanes. Well, let’s take tha t in two steps. First of all you 

say tha t we may be able to do something about the illegal alien 

problem without using national identification cards. But I take it 

tha t you reject tha t view, you don’t think it’s feasible and you think 

tha t we must use the national identification card in order to be able to 

do something significant about the illegal alien problem.

Dr. Tanton. No. I think tha t is one step that you can take. As I 

mentioned, you take the primary step of prevention of admission 

in the first place; that would solve the problem before it arises, and 

tha t involves such things as be tter staffing and policing-;----

Mr. Sarbanes. Well, are you ready to go to the national identification card in order to do something about the illegal alien problem? 

Are we there fresh out of the starting gate or not?

Dr. Tanton. I feel that the illegal alien problem is large enough 

tha t if something like a national identification card is not adopted 

we will be back here in several years, starting to consider it.

Mr. Sarbanes. So, then at the second step, feeling tha t other 

measures are not sufficient, you have concluded that the benefits of 

doing something about the illegal alien problem are so significant th at 

they outweigh any drawbacks tha t would flow from a national identification system. Is that correct?

Dr. Tanton. On balance, yes.

Mr. Sarbanes. Well, let me ask you this question, and it relates 

to a question tha t Ms. Holtzman asked you. Do you have any basis 

for asserting tha t the amount of freedom or liberty tha t the people 

enjoy in their society is directly correlated to the density of population?

Dr. Tanton. I think density is a poor measure of population 

pressure. A better measure is the relationship between people and 

resources. The Sahelin Zone of Africa, for instance, has two or three 

people per square mile, and the liberties they enjoy are certainly 

different from the Netherlands where there are over a thousand people 

per square mile. So, concentrations of people are a poor measure of 

population pressure.

Mr. Sarbanes. When you say the “resources,” what are you 

thinking of?

Dr. Tanton. The physical resources in terms of food, minerals, 

and energy in a society.

Mr. Sarbanes. With reference to Great Britain, for example, how 

do you relate the exten t of personal freedom and liberty in that 

country with respect to its physical resources for supporting its 

population?

Dr. Tanton. Well, Great Britain in fact is a country that has sort 

of a national identification card. I have not studied the situation in 

Great Britain specifically, b ut I have not heard of any complaints.

Mr. Sarbanes. What card are you talking about?

Dr. Tanton. They have a card to present to their national health 

insurance. Every person in the country, in that country, when they 

go to a physician, if they have national health insurance care, they 

nave to present their card tha t identifies them positively as the person 

tha t is entitled to the card.
266

Mr. Sarbanes. Well, t hat i9 used for the health system, just as we 

have a social security card in order to obtain retirem ent benefits. I 

don’t think you ought to escalate from tha t card to the “national 

identification system” .

As I understand your testimony on pages 7 to 11, we would end up 

with every American having a card witn a number on it, and tha t 

number would then be the pertinent identifier for every one in the 

country—not only every American, but every American and alien in 

the country. His number would then become the pertinent identifier 

for each individual for every purpose in a system that would be totally 

intermeshed and computerized. You did point out tha t one-tenth of 

1 percent error rate on admissions would give you large numbers. Of 

course, I don’t quite share your confidence in computers being errorless. It has been my experience that sometimes mechanical systems •

work even better.

I take it what you envision, eventually, is a society in which there 

is a number for each person, and tha t number is plugged in to every 

recordkeeping system tha t may pertain to him—a t least t ha t is where 

I am being led to as I read through pages 9, 10, and 11; is tha t right?

Ms. Wirken. There has been much discussion in the subcommittee 

about the advantages and disadvantages of a national ID card. And 

there was some testimony on the use of the social security card.

The main purpose of the facts I wanted to give you about regarding 

the social security card was th at it was in fact being used much more 

extensively for identification, both within the Federal Government,

State governments, and private organizations than anyone had so far 

testified.

Mr. Sarbanes. I understand that, but then you use the fact that 

tha t is being done as the next step to arguing tha t it should be done, 

at least as I understand both the statem ent, and the doctor’s response, 

to my question.

Dr. Tanton. The social security number is now used as an identification number for employment. The problem is, these are easily 

counterfeitable and not accurate.

Mr. Eilberg. Dr. Tanton, we could spend a great deal more time 

discussing the questions you have raised. I want to pursue the subject 

tha t you emphasized on pages 7-11, as Mr. Sarbanes just did, the 

national ID card. *

I am going to hand you a list of questions, if I may, and I recognize 

tha t some of these are not within our competence. If you want to 

think about them and write to us after you thought about them, and 

we will also be directing the staff to try to get the answers to these w

questions.

But, it is my impression that you have not thought the subject out 

thoroughly with the national ID card. I am going to read a series of 

questions, and you may respond either now, or later, if you wish, but 

I really d on’t w ant to take too much more time of the committee this 

afternoon.

How do you suggest that the 200 million persons now holding cards 

get the new cards?

Dr. Tanton. Well-----

Mr. Eilberg. Let me finish.
267

Should social security offices be kept open at night and on weekends? W hat would be tne cost of this additional service?

Should employers be forced to pay employees while they are at the 

social security office getting a new card?

If the answer to the above question is "no,” how would you compensate the workers for the time lost from their jobs while they 

are getting the new cards? Certainly, there will be long lines and long 

waiting times.

Would you have the social security people go to the places of 

w

employment? If "yes,” does this include all small businesses, including

one- or two-man operations? If they go to one place, wouldn’t they 

have to go to every place of business?

If the offices are not kept open extra hours, how long a period of 

• time would people have to get their new cards?

During the interim, how would people without the new cards prove 

they have a right to be in this country and hold a job?

What would be the cost of issuing new tamperproof cards to all 

of the people who now have them?

What would be the cost of the new system compared to what is 

presently in use?

What happens if a person loses his or her card while looking for 

a job? If there is a delay in getting a new card—and bureaucracies 

are notorious for unexplained delays—how does this person prove 

he or she has a right to work?

Have you seen a tamperproof card?

Do you know for a fact tha t one has been developed or that one 

is even close to perfection?

How would you prevent persons who now hold cards fraudulently 

from getting the new cards?

What safeguards would you suggest to prevent the new card from 

becoming a national identification card?

Wouldn’t police officers automatically assume that this card must 

be shown for proof of identity?

These are ju st some of the problems, Dr. Tan ton; you may respond 

if you wish.

[Similar questions were presented to the Social Security Administration and their responses are found in app. 4 at p. 448.]

< Dr. Tanton. I would ju st as soon respond in writing.

Mr. Eilberg. What was that?

Dr. Tanton. I would just as soon respond in writing. 

w

[Subsequent to the hearings, the following information was received

from zero population growth:]

Zero Population Growth, 

Washington, D.C., March 27, 1976.

Hon. J oshua Eilberg,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Representative Eilberg: I got in over my head on the issue of a na ­

tional ID card at the Imm igration and Naturaliza tion Subcommittee hearings on 

March 12. The subject has come up several times in ZP G’s consideration of the 

illegal alien question, chiefly in relation to the need for bette r documents, and the 

likelihood under the Equal Protectio n Clause th at any document required for 

aliens would have to be required of citizens as well, to be constitutional. ZPG 

has taken no position on this topic. Our written testimony on the current uses of 

the Social Security num ber for identification purposes was intended to shed 

further light on a question th at had previously been discussed before your 

Committee.

40- 789 0 — 78------ 18
268

Wc seem to have four general possibilities for dealing with illegal immigration, 

each of them only partially satisfac tory , each with their unpleasant or uncomfortable features:

(1) Do nothing, which we believe is clearly unacceptable.

(2) Preven t illegal entry. This means more policing of borders, erection of 

physical barriers at particu larly troublesome points (as where the border runs 

thro ugh urban areas), more scrutiny of visitor and other visas (when few oth er 

countries require them at all), and computerization of some docum ents to aid in 

the processing of the 250 million yearly border crossings.

Such activity runs counter to ideals abo ut open borders, and probably would 

not help our foreign image or relations.

(3) Decrease incentives to mig rate by:

(а) Drying up the job supp ly. We th ink the Rodino Bill helps on the employer side of the question, bu t believe the bulk of illegal aliens would be willing to represent themselves as legal in an a tte mpt to get a job. This brings up 

the whole unhappy question of having some secure do cument th at establishes 

one’s righ t to work of control of b irth certificates (now a state responsibility), 

etc.

(б) Improving the conditions in the less developed countries. A monumental task at which the U.S. has already exerted itself, with mixed success at 

best.

It seems unlikely tha t decreasing incentives will address the illegal alien problem 

completely.

(4) Detection once in th e c ountry. This involves increased inte rnal policing, the 

civil liberties problems th at go along w ith searches for illegals, and the problems of 

adjudicating their deportation.

Of these options, prevention (No. 2) is clearly the least objectionable, and ZPG 

believes this should be the main focus of any new program. We need efforts in th e 

other two areas as well, as none of them alone will be sufficient. If these measures 

do not solve t he problem, then I think we will see some sort of work card /national 

ID card/citizenship card—the illegal alien problem will likely become th at bad, 

for the demographic reasons cited in our testimony. All the more reason for tryin g 

to address the illegal immigration problem in its infancy, and for legislating now 

for what the problem will likely become in the years ahead, rather t han what i t is 

at present. Doing a good job now will help obviate the need for more stringent 

measures later on.

I hav e long viewed ZPG’s program of limiting population grow th as one of the 

main avenues toward maintaining our civil and other liberties—those rights and 

privileges which I believe will be eroded if our numbers rise beyond what our 

resources and social systems can stand. I believe in acting in anticipation of 

problems, in hope of avoiding su ch measures as a universal ID card.

Enclosed are the documents from which the data were draw n on the expected 

growth of the U.S. population from:

(1) Na tural increase (births minus deaths) at replacement fert ility (2 children/ 

family) with zero net imm igration (38 million by 2000, and 58 million by 2020). 

(Census Bureau Series “ X” .)

(2) The growth to be expected from a net immigration of 400,000 yearly (15 

million from 1970 to 2000). (This estimate is likely low, since we now have more 

legal immigrants from the less developed countries, where higher birthrate s 

prevail. There is evidence th at this higher fertility is retained in the U.S.)

I suggest your Committee ask the Census Bureau to prepare estimates of 

population growth from various assumed levels of illegal m igration, based on t he 

best available knowledge of fertility rates for these persons. Using our estimate 

of 800,000 illegals per year, and figuring a somewhat higher fertility than th at fo r 

native Americans, it works out to a n astonishing 40 million by 2000.

Thank you for the chance to appear before your Committee.

Sincerely yours,

J ohn H. Tanton, M.D., 

Chairman, Immigration Study Committee.

Enclosures.
269
270

summary major ZPG immigration 

recommendations

Illegal Immigration

1. Economic development assistance to 

foreign countrie s wh ich are potential 

sources of illegal aliens.

2. Protection of the civ il and Constitutional rights of legal residents, particularly 

minority groups.

3. Crimina l penalties against knowing employers o f illegal aliens.

4 Increased funding for the Imm igration 

& Naturalization Service.

5. Issuance o f Social Security cards only to 

legal residents.

6. Increased penalties for forging or. altering im m igra tio n documents or Social 

Security cards.

7. Discontinuance of migrant worker programs.

8. No amnesty for illegal aliens presently 

in the United States.

l^egal Immigration

1. Un lim ited imm igration of immediate 

families of United States citizens

2. Establishm ent of a world-wide quota 

for all other immigrants, at a level such 

that total immig ration does not exceed 

emigration from the United States.

3. Creation of preference categories only 

for: immediate families of resident aliens; 

refugees and orphans; and workers with 

needed skills.

4 Labor certification requirement for all 

worker immigrants, both as to the need for 

their skills in the United States and the absence of a need for their skills in their 

country of origin.

5. A transition period during which the 

new law is phased into effect.

Temporary Entrants

1. More careful scrutiny of applicants for 

temporary visas to attempt to detect those 

who will overstay their visas.

2. Required return to their country of 

origin for five years before temporary 

entrants can apply to immigrate to the 

United States.

3. Educational assistance to foreign countries in preference to bringing students to 

the United States, and encouragement of 

trainin g in skills appropriate to the needs 

of each country.

General

1. Adoption by Congress of a policy statement on imm igration, which relates im ­

migratio n to national population , resources, em plo ym en t, and edu cation 

policies.

2. Consideration of consolidating all im ­

migration functions in one government 

agency.
271

Z

ERO PO PU LA TION GROW TH has set for th its 

concerns about current U.S. immig ration policy in its 

discussion paper, ZPG and Immigration, Based on this 

analysis, ZPG now offers recommendations for a new im ­

migration policy for the United States. For emphasis, we 

repeat here from the earlier paper our:

general 

principles 

for an 

immigration 

policy

1. Every nation has both the right and the 

obligation to adopt a policy to stabilize, by 

voluntary means, its population at a level it 

determines to be appropriate.

2. Since im m igra tio n can sig nifica ntly, 

affect population growth, an imm igration 

policy must be integrated into any such 

population stabilization policy.

3. - Every nation has an obligation to provide for the social and economic needs o f 

its inhabitants, and must give these needs 

precedence in developing its imm igration 

policy.

4. In developing its imm igration policy, 

every nation must take into account not 

only its own welfare and that of the im ­

migrant, but also that of other nations and 

their citizens, particularly the donor nation.

5 The role of imm igration policy in provid ing a sanctuary for victims of racial, 

religious, or political persecution is a 

desirable one. Consequently, an imm igration policy should provide for accepting 

such refugees

6 While fam ily reunification is a desirable 

go al, an im m ig ra tion polic y ca nn ot 

rea son ably be expected to carry this 

be yo nd the re unitin g o f im m ed ia te 

families (parents, spouses, m ino r children, 

and dependent min or brothers and sisters) 

of legal residents.

7. A ll immigrants must be admitted under 

a numeric lim itation, except for immediate 

families

8. Imm igration laws must be fairly and 

co ns istently drawn. In particular, the 

method used for selecting immigrants for 

admission should be reasonable and 

equitable to all potential immigrants. No 

loopholes allowing circumvention of the 

law should exist.

9. Accurate and comprehensive statistics 

on both imm igration and emigration are 

es se ntia l to the evalu ation o f the 

demographic and other impacts of an im ­

migration policy, and such data must be 

made public.

10. Illegal imm igration must be elim inated Illegal immigrants should be denied 

by law the benefits of legal residency, in ­

cluding the right to employment, public 

assistance, social security, and public services

11. Imm igration laws must be fairly and 

fir m ly enforced Every reasonable precaution must be taken, however, to protect the 

civil rights and liberties of legal residents. 

Illegal entrants must be treated humanely 

while they are being processed to leave the 

country.

Although freedom of individual movement is a widely accepted and com mendable ideal, it is not absolute, and is unlikely 

to be achieved in a world of constantly expanding human population. The age of 

mass international migrations, and of 

emigration as a population control technique. is at an end.

3
272

to

eliminate

illegal

immigration

ZPG believes that illegal imm igration will 

become an increasingly diffic ult problem 

throughout the world Inevitable population increases in the developing countries 

in the coming years can only increase pressure for migration far beyond legally allowed lim its . If this problem is not 

prom ptly and adequately addressed, the il ­

legal resident population may grow to proportions that will make workable solutions 

diffic ult to find 1

First, the United States must recognize 

that the m ain impetus for illegal imm igration is the poor economic conditions of 

most countries, including many in this 

hemisphere. We should make a continuing 

co mmitm en t to foreign aid, inc lud ing 

population programs, which is carefully 

structured to help alleviate these conditions and thus reduce the economic 

motivation to illegally immigrate to the 

United States. Particular attention must be 

paid to Mexico, which presents the main 

problem o f illegal entry. Elim ination of the 

“ brain drain,” as discussed below, would 

be another step toward imp roving the 

prospects of the developing countries.

Second, there is justified concern that 

stringent enforcement of illegal alien laws 

will infringe on the civ il rights of U.S. 

citizens and legal resident aliens, particularly those from minor ity groups But the 

"roundup” measures for which the Im ­

migr ation and Naturalization Service 

(INS) has been criticized are necessary 

only because aliens have entered the country in the first place. The main thrust of 

any illegal alien policy must be towards 

preventing entry, thus minim izing the 

need for detection procedures within the 

country. Every effort must be made to 

avoid harassment of legal U.S. residents 

during detection procedures

Third, since the prospect o f emplo yment 

is the magnet that draws illegal aliens, employers should be effe ctively prohibited 

from know ingly hiring illegal aliens. The 

pr ovi si ons in th e Im m ig ra tion and 

Naturalization Act which exempt employers from penalties for the harboring o f 

illegal aliens should be repealed.’ Criminal 

penalties should be imposed against employers after an initial warning, with out an

intervening civ il penalty. INS files should 

be automated to enable employers to 

quickly con firm the status of prospective 

employees Salaries and other expenses of 

hiring illegal aliens should not be tax 

deductible as a business expense. The 

value-added ta riff should be abolished 

altogether, or be made inapplicable to 

goods manufactured within 150 miles of 

our borders. This will help reduce the concentration of people on the Mexican 

border, which the “ tw in factories" system 

has engendered.

Fourth, documents must be improved in 

quality and their use clarified Social 

Security cards should be issued only to 

U.S. citizens and legal resident aliens. 

Others needing Social Security numbers, 

such as foreign students or visitors, should 

be issued a physically distinctive card, or a 

new type o f card designed fo r this purpose. 

Use of Social Security documents for identification purposes should be discontinued. 

The Department o f Health, Education and 

Welfare (HEW ) should be required to 

notify the INS o f illegal aliens receiving 

assistance under the Social Security Act.

All visas, passports, and border crossing 

cards should be made computer readable, 

as an aid to processing the large volume of 

border crossers, the detection of forgeries, 

and verification o f eligib ility for employment.’ Provisions dealing w ith the forging 

or coun terfeiting of documents used for 

imm igration should be strengthened • All 

entries and exits, whether by sea, land, or 

air, should be documented and inspected 

Better systems for recording the births and 

deaths o f individuals are needed to help 

prevent fraudulent use o f birth certificates 

of deceased persons.

Fifth, the size, effectiveness, powers, 

and funding o f the INS in general, and o f 

the Border Patrol in particular, must be 

substantially increased, for even if job opportunities are dried up, there will still be 

strong pressures to enter the country il ­

legally. Penalties for smuggling aliens 

should be increased.

The screening of vis ito r’s visas must be 

tightened up, to reduce the incidence of 

persons who use this means to enter the 

country permanently. This may require

‘T he AFL-C IO estimates ou r illegal population could 

reach 32 m ill io n by 1985. i f the present situa tion co ntinues uncorrecied See "Ille ga l Aliens A Story of 

Huma n M isery ." AFL-C IO American Federaiiontsi.

August 1974

•U S Im migr ation and N atio na lity Ac t. Section 274 

(a )(4 )

’ In fiscal year 1973. over a quarte r billion persons were 

inspected and admitte d to the United Slates, at over 

1,100 points o f e ntry See 1973 Annual Report o f the Im ­

migration and Natu ralization Service, U.S. Go vernmen t 

Pr intin g Offic e. W ashin gton . D C.

•18 U S.C 1546

4
stationing INS personnel in U.S. consulates abroad, as discussed in the final section of this paper

Illegal aliens currently in the United 

States must not be given legal status, owing 

to the large size of the illegal population, 

the large amount of relative preference 

migration legalizing them would engender, 

and the encouragement that such a move 

would give to further illegal immig ration 

Illegal aliens should be provided with free 

transportation to the border during a oneyear grace period, after which they would 

be subject to deportation, and barred from 

future entry. The INS should be funded for 

studies of illegal aliens, to belter document 

their numbers and characteristics.

On the diffic ult problem of migrant

workers, the current policy of relying 

mainly on domestic labor should be retained. The few remaining programs for 

the importa tion o f unskilled labor should 

be discontinued Americans should decide 

between going with out the products and 

services of society's poorly paid jobs, 

mechanizing them, or raising the pay and 

conditions sufficiently to attract U.S. residents to these jobs The latter course will 

have beneficial effects on efforts to reduce 

poverty in the U.S

These are stringent measures, but if the 

problem of illegal imm igration is not adequately dealt with today, a worsening 

situation will surely demand even more 

stringent measures in the near future.

to

substantially

reduce

legal

immig ration

ZPG strongly believes that the era of 

demographically significant imm igration 

into the U.S. must be brought to a close, 

for the reasons set forth in ZPG and Immigration. To this end, alien imm igra tion 

should be reduced to approximately the 

level o f emigration, so that it makes no net 

addition to our population. Emigration is 

estimated to be about 40,000 per year in 

1974? Mec ha nism s fo r enum era ting 

emigration as accurately as possible should 

be established, for emigration levels will 

change over time. A clear de fin itio n of 

what con stitutes em igr ation must be 

adopted

Within these limits, ZPG recommends 

that American imm igration policy continue to provide for the reunifica tion of 

imm ediate families, the prov ision of 

asylum for refugees, and the protection of 

American labor from foreign competition. 

In addition, it should now emphasize (for 

the first time) the protection of the 

develop ing countrie s fro m the "b ra in 

drain ," and (also for the first time) the role 

of immigration in the continuing growth of 

the U.S. population?

We propose the fo llo w in g wo rldw ide

preference system, covering both the Western

and Eastern Hemispheres:

TABLE I Proposed Preference Categories Ceiling - Worldwide b

1. Immediate family of U.S. citizens? No Lim itation

2. Immediate fam ily o f resident aliens. 34,000

3. Refugees, orphans, and children 

fathered by U.S. servicemen abroad.

10,000

4. Workers with needed skills and their 

immediate families.

34,000c

a

Immediate family inc ludes spouse, min or ch ild ren, parents, and dependent m inor bro thers an d sisters

This expands on the c urr ent definitio n of imme dia te fa mily by adding dependent m inor bro the rs and 

sisters Th e age of major ity should be set at 18

^ h e numbers in this co lumn are the curre nt legal lim ita tio ns on the comparable categories for the 

Eastern Hemisph ere alone.

c Decreasing 6,000 per year fo r fo ur years, to 10,000/year.

‘ Data on em igration are no longer collected The Census Bureau uses an e stim ate o r 37,000 em igrants yearly 

•F or the year endin g June 30. 1974, the U.S. grew in 

population by 1,162,000 fr om the excess of bir ths over

deaths, received 400,000 legal im migrants, and an 

unknow n number o f illegal immigr an ts, variou sly estimated at fro m 650,000 to 1 m ill io n or more. From this 

must be subtracted em igration (see footno te •).
274

This naw system or preference categorlee adopts some of the categories currently used for the Eastern Hemisphere 

(There li currently no preference lyitem 

Tor the Western Hemisphere.) It Includes 

the current first preference In the new first 

preference. The second preference remains the immediate family, as redefined, 

of resident aliens. Workers with needed 

skills, and the ir immediate families, will 

initially be admitted at the same level currently used for the Eastern Hemisphere, 

with a phase-down provision to provide 

time to adjust education priorities both in 

the U S. and other countries Refugees are 

continued at the present level. Special 

refugee bills, as were passed in the Cuban 

situation, would still be possible. The concept of “ fillin g up the quota” with nonpreference imm igrants is discontinued.

Married sons and daughters of U.S. 

citizens, the current fou rth preference, and 

brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens, the 

current fifth preference, are discontinued. 

These two current categories open up 

whole new fam ily lineages to the imm igratio n prefere nce system, through the 

spouses o f the married children and siblings. They thus perpetuate the need for 

imm igration for fam ily reunification. The 

alternative of leaving imm igration open to 

unmarried adult children and unmarried 

siblings would inv ite "divorces of convenience,” much as we now see marriages of 

convenience to qualify for U.S. citizenship.

All workers should be subject to a more 

stringent certificatio n by the Secretary of 

Labor that their skills are needed in the 

United States. In addition, no person 

should be adm itted whose job category is 

on the Slate D epartment’s Exchange-Visitor Skills L ist This is a country-by-country 

listing of skills which the other countries 

“clearly require,” prepared in consultation 

with the countries involved .’ It currently 

applies only to exchange visitors who 

decide they want to remain in the U.S.

Adapted to this new and broader purpose, it should help mitigate the damaging 

effects of the brain drain. The list should 

be expanded to include the developed 

countries o f the w orld as well, for their loss 

of skilled persons to other developed nations often engenders "musical chairs 

migration” from the developing countries

’ Public Law-91-225. Qu oted language is from Ihe Deparlm em of Slate Public Notice 356. the ExchangeVisitors Skills List

to replace theae loat akilla. The migration 

of (kille d persona (the proposed preference category four) should be restricted 

to those persons with exceptional talent 

who require special facilities available In 

the U.S. io make their contributio n to 

mankind. It should not be looked upon as 

a "m anpowe r" program to provide the 

U.S. with skills at the expense of other 

countries.

Refugees should continue to be defined 

as victims of racial, religious, or political 

persecution. The definition cannot be expanded to include those seeking to im ­

prove their economic status, or victims of 

natural disasters, because such "refugees" 

number in the billions. Their numbers 

preclude accommodating any significant 

segment of them.

The solicitation o f immigrants should be 

prohibited.

The overall effect of these changes 

would be a gradual reduction of imm igration, which, over a decade or so, would 

decline to approximately the estimated 

level of emigration. In the course o f this 

tran sition, established relative preferences 

would be honored, the problems caused by 

the brain drain would be addressed, labor 

would be protected, and our tradition .of 

admitting refugees would be continued. In 

addition, the growth of the U.S. population 

would be slowed.

As th e new p ro g ra m re ached 

equilibrium, there would be far less im ­

mediate fam ily imm igration, because few 

new lineages would have been opened up 

to imm igration. Fewer families would 

need reuniting, because fewer would have 

been tom asunder in the first place. Ceilings for workers would total 10,000 per 

year, which, when combined with refugees, 

would give a yearly total of 20,000 im ­

migrant visas, plus those for immediate 

families of U.S. citizens and resident 

aliens. In about ten years, we estimate that 

legal immig ration would stabilize at approximately 25,000 per year This number 

is likely to approximate emigration at that 

time, which may well fall with imm igration. (Some immigrants to the U.S. subsequ en tly re-emigra te. With few er im ­

migrants, emigration may decline.)

Gradual transition from the old practices to the new is provided for in the phasing’ down of the worker immigration. The 

present preference category for married 

sons and daughters of U.S. citizens should

6
275

be continued for relatives of thoee who 

already have resident alien or citizen status 

under the present law, but should be discontinued for the relatives of those who 

become legal aliens after the effective date 

of the new measure.

concernin g

temp orary

entra nts

Tem pora ry entrants Includ e, am ong 

others, visitors of many kinds and students. Persons in the former category not 

uncommonly "Jump" their visas and remain in the U S. to become illegal aliens. 

Students who take part of their training in 

the U S. freque ntly become a component 

of the brain drain. Hence temporary 

entrants must be considered as part o f the 

immigra tion equation.

Visa applicants should be held to the 

original purpose which they declared when 

entering the country. The adjustment Of 

status fro m a nonimmigrant to an im ­

migrant visa should be sharply curtailed to 

valid and exceptional humanitarian cases. 

As mentioned in the section on illegal im ­

migration, the screening of visitor's visas 

must be appreciably tightened up to detect 

potential illegal immigrants. Ad ditional 

consular personnel will be needed, as discussed below.

Student visas should be issued only to 

aliens who have been accepted for fu lltime study in an established nonprofit college, conservatory, seminary, advanced 

technical institute or university that has 

been approved by the Office of Education 

and authorized by the Atto rney General. 

This w ill e liminate a current practice o f unqualified institutions taking on foreign students to fu lfill the ir need for enrollm ent, 

or workers, as in the case of many graduate medical programs. Foreign students 

should be prohibited from working, but be 

given adequate scholarship aid, provided 

they are learning skills which are needed 

in their home lands. Those apprehended

workin g in violation of ths ir vlsai ihbu ld 

be deported and barred from future egtry.

Private and governmental U.S. educational aid programs for the lest developed 

countries should be redirected to assure 

the production of skills relevant to the 

needs of the country being assisted The 

emphasis should be on developing train ing 

facilities in the home country, training native instructors, and education in skills at 

levels appropriate to the country's stage of 

development. Students selected for U.S. 

study should be those most likely to return 

home.

Students and other temporary visitors 

should un ifo rm ly be required to return 

home (as distinguished from some other 

cou ntry) for a five year period before 

becoming eligible for imm igration under 

the proposed preference category four 

(workers with needed skills). Student programs should largely be confined to the 

graduate level, or higher Undergraduate 

programs should be de-emphasized. Vocational trainin g should largely be abandoned.

In the medical manpower field in particular, and other skilled fields in general, the 

U.S. should undertake programs to provide trainin g opportunities for sufficient 

numbers of its own citizens to fu lfill 

skilled manpower needs.

As called for under the section on illegal 

immigration, much better procedures are 

needed to screen applicants for visitor and 

other temporary visas, to end the practice 

of entering the country permanently by 

using these visas as a subterfuge

general The adm inistration of im migration law is 

divided between the Department of State 

(which issues visas overseas), the Labor 

Department (wh ich certifies labor requirements), the Department o f HEW (which 

certifies educational institution s), and the 

Immig ration and Naturalization Service, 

located in the Justice Department (which 

must again screen entrants when they arrive in the U.S. and enforce imm igration

law). Consideration should be given to 

com bining these functions in a single department.

Congress should adopt a policy statement on imm igratio n to guide the Im ­

migration and Naturalization Service and 

other federal agencies in their adm inistration of the law. It should set forth guiding 

principles, the purposes which immigra7
276

lion i t io serve, explain why [he levels and 

categories of im m igra tio n have been 

selected, and relate immigra tion policy to 

other domestic and foreign policies, including those for labor, population, education, and resources.

Increased staffing is needed for the State 

Department consular offices, where personnel is not adequate for today's much in ­

creased workload. Tou rism to the U.S. 

alone is projected to increase to 8 m illio n 

persons yearly by 1976. This would give 

our current 600 U.S. consular officers an 

average visa load of 13,000 per year, or one 

every ten minutes, in add ition to immigrant and other visas, plus their other 

duties • This is clearly inadequate for the 

important jo b o f screening for potential illegal aliens or visa-jumpers. An expen-

•Accordin g io ihe INS, du rin g th e -18 mo nths ending 

December 31. 1974, ap prox im ately 6.000,000 vis ito r’s 

visas were issued, but only about 4,000,000 were turned 

in as required on ex it fro m the cou nt ry Some o f the 2,- 

000.000 gap is due to the vi sitor fa iling to turn the visa 

in. but the INS estim ates that 1,000,000 o f it represents 

illegal im migr ation . (Personal co mmun ication.)

dilu re for additional personnel w ould have 

a high cost/benefit ratio, considering the 

expenses associated with Illegal aliens once 

they gain entry to the country.

The INS also needs increased funding 

and staff. The Border Patrol in the Southwest, in particular, needs significantly 

more personnel to deal with the illegal im ­

migration problem in that area. Addition al 

agents for the inte rior of the country are 

also needed, as many illegals now enter by 

air, or are smuggled to interior locations.

Better statistics, in more available form, 

are also needed, particularly concerning 

emigration, to aid in the evaluation of im ­

migration policy.

Much speedier adjudication of im migration court cases must be provided for, to 

reduce the time persons in violation of 

their status can remain in the U.S.

Co nsultation s should be held with 

Canada and Mexico in an effort to develop 

mutu ally supp ortive migration and border 

policies, and to min imize problems.

conclusion ZPG believes that the time has come to 

phase out demographically significant immigration into the United States. The control of illegal imm igratio n is a necessary 

first step, required before current or new 

laws regulating legal imm igratio n can be 

meaningful. C ontrol o f illegal imm igration 

is also a precondition to stabilizing U.S. 

population, for it is futile to reduce U.S. 

births if they are sim ply supplanted by illegal entrants. The ZPG program accomplishes this reduction equitably, whilehonoring our established commitm ents 

and traditions. It also addresses a number 

of related problems of the present system.

We urge full consideration of the issues 

discussed in this paper and its predecessor, 

ZPG and Immigration, and prompt adoption of the revised im mig ration policy outlined here.

Researched and written by Immigration Study Committee

Zero Population Growth

1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

John H. T anton, Chairman

Adopted by the

Executive Committee

Zero Population Growth

19 January 1975

Washington, D.C.

Suggestions or comments concerning these recommendations are welcome, 

and should be sent to the ZPG Immigration Committee.

I

I

r

i

i

IM tlta nal'c ople i: 1-9, ISC each: 10-99, 12c each: 100 or more, IOC each. I
Zero Population Growth, 

Washington, D.C., Apr il 3, 1976.

Hon. J oshua Eilbero,

Chairman, Jud iciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Nat uralization , and Inter ­ natio nal Laws, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Zero Population Growth was pleased to have the opportu nity to appear before you r subcomm ittee March 19 to discuss our views on illegal immigration and possible ways of strengthening H.R. 982. In the past two years, the ZPG Immigration Study Committee has done a commendable job of researching the im migration issue and exploring its impact on continued U.S. population growth. A summary of our findings and recommenda­ tions have been published in two papers entitled “Im migration: A Discussion Paper’’ and “R ecommendations for a New Imm igration Policy.” We would like to specifically point out, however, th at the organizatio n has not take n a stand endorsing the concept of a national identification card. Rathe r than endorsing such a concept, we would prefer to have th e Social Security Administra­ tion restricted in making Social Security cards (which are often mistaken to be work permits) available to aliens for identification purposes when the alien is, in 

fact, not legally entitled to work in the U.S. We look forward to working with you and the subcommittee on potential solutions for stopping the flow of illegal immigration into the U.S. and commend you for the leadership you have dem onstrated on this extremely complex and 

controversial issue.

Respectfully, Robert T. Dennis,

Executive Director.

Mr. Eilberg. But you understand a little bit now some of our 

concern. Dr. Tanton, notwithstanding the colloquies we have had tha t may have appeared critical, we are grateful for your contribution here 

today.

Dr. Tanton. If I may, I would like to leave these papers tha t we 

published on immigration.

Mr. Eilberg. We will be glad to have them for our files. Thank 

you very much. [The prepared statement of Dr. John H. Tanton follows:]

Statement of J ohn H. Tanton, Chairman, Immigration Study Committee, 

Zero P opulation Growth, I nc.

I am John Tanton of Petoskey, Michigan, an ophthalmologist and Vice President 

of Zero Population Growth, Inc. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, Zero Pop ulation Growth, Inc., has spent considerable time over the p ast two years s tudying the effects of immi­ gration on U.S. population and is pleased to have this opportunity to discuss our 

views with you. Though the House of Rep rese ntatives has conscientioulsy passed legislation similar to H.R . 982 in each of the past two Congresses, the subject of illegal immigration has only begun to be widely discussed in the past few months. As our economy has worsened a nd our unem ployment has increased, i t has become increasingly popular to rela te the rate of illegal immigration to our economic woes. ZPG agrees a reduction in illegal immigration may, in fact, bring some economic relief especially to our minority groups and teenagers who frequently compete with illegal aliens for employment. But we encourage the subcommittee to also consider the other equally valid reasons for taking im mediate and decisive action to eliminate illegal immigration. As an organization focusing on the prob­ lems of unrestraine d population growth, we see mushrooming illegal immigration as a serious obstacle to stabilizing population growth in the U.S. It is worth noting th at Can ada has jus t released its “green pap er” th at seeks to delineate the role of immigration in its population growth and th at Australia has also jus t completed a stu dy of immigration and popu lation growth. It is not true th at we have reached ZPG (zero popu lation growth, where the num ber of births equals the num ber of deaths annually), as has been widely mis­ inte rpreted in the press. What is true is th at fe rtility rates are declining as a result
278

of increased availability to contraceptive inform ation and service, liberalized 

abortion laws, changing status of women, and an increasing awareness of the 

consequences of unrestra ined population growth.

In recen t years the U.8. tota l f ertility rate has gradually declined to its present 

rate of 1.8, meaning that the average American couple is having less than the 

2.11 children necessary to replace themselves demographioally. Even with this 

low fertility rate , however, the U.S. population had a nat ura l increase (births 

over deaths) of 1,300,000 persons in 1974. E ven at replacement fertility (an average 

of two children per family), our numbers will continue to grow for some fifty 

years, during which time they will increase by nearly 30 percent. This is due to 

the large num ber of post-World War II babies who are just now coming into 

the ir peak reproduc tive years, giving much “mome ntum” to our still-growing

S

opulation. Applied to our present population base of abo ut 213 million, this 

uilt-in assured growth, allowing for no net immigration, will give us an add itio nal 

38 million people to provide for by the yea r 2000.

But this is no t the whole population growth story. Our numbers also increase 

from legal and illegal immigration. Legal immigration is currently running at 

400,000 annually. At this rate, according to the Commission on Pop ulation 

Growth and the American Future, legal immigration will add some 16 million 

persons to our numbers by 2000.

Levels of illegal immigration are not accurately known, bu t estimates run from 

800,000 to several millions yearly. If the evidence presented to the subcommittee 

is correct and one million illegal aliens are entering the country annually, our 

popu lation increase is in effect being doubled as a result of illegal immigration.

An indirect effect of immigration on population growth is the fert ility of 

imm igrant women. Insofar as they come from under-developed countries, their 

fertility is high compared with th at of native women. In the U.S. in 1970 the 

num ber of children born to women aged 40 to 44 was 4.4 per women for those of 

Mexican origin and 2.9 for all women. Taking into account the higher birth rate 

of persons from the less developed countries, we conservately estimate that 

illegal immigration of 800,000 persons yearly would contribute some 40 million 

additional persons to the U.S. by the yea r 2000. The AF L-CIO’s higher estimate 

is th at our illegal alien population could reach 32 million by 1985. And the pressure 

for illegal im migration is certain to increase in the decades ahead, as the conditions 

in many of the less developed countries worsen. The incentive for enterin g this 

cou ntry illegally far outweigh the disincentives that now exist. Unemploym ent 

rates in most Latin American countries are high and soar even higher when und eremploym ent is taken into consideration. Private estim ates of unemployment 

rates in Mexico range from 10-14% (in the urban areas only), in El Salvador 

from 20-30% , in Brazil from 8-1 0% , in Colombia from 12-16% and in 

Dominican Republic from 15-20%. When underemployment is tak en into 

consideratio n the rates jump to 15-30% in Mexico, 30-5 0% in El Salvador, 40% 

in Brazil, 17-30% in Colombia and 60% in the Dominican Republic.

The prospect for improved employm ent opportunities in these countries is 

doubtful. One case in point is Mexico. Mexico, which is repo rted to be a majo r 

source of illegal immigrants, now has a total population of 57.9 million, 46% of 

which are u nde r 15 years of age. With a growth rate of 3.3%, the Mexican population is doubling every 21 years. In 1973 Mexico had a nat ura l increase of 1.8 

million persons meaning that i t had a nearly 50% grea ter increase tha n the U.S. 

even though it has only one quarter of our population. Similar statistics are 

applicable to oth er Latin American countries.

Congress m ust be careful not to legislate for the situation th at exists tod ay but 

in its wisdom mu st foresee what inevitably will follow. A continuing combination 

of high growth rates and massive unemploymen t will only increase the pressure 

to enter the U.S. illegally.

A Latin American willing to risk enterin g the U.S. illegally has an excellent 

opp ortuni ty for finding work. Willing to work for minimum wages or less, the 

illegal can still fare better than in his na tive coun try. Once in the U.S., he has the 

oppor tun ity of sending his children to American schools and should he have 

difficulty in finding work, he can benefit from the many social welfare programs 

available to he an d his family. The biggest danger facing these people is tne thr ea t 

of being apprehe nded by the Imm igration and Naturalization Service and sent 

back to their native lands. Even this threat is diminishing as inadeq uate INS 

budgets continue to restrict INS agents from appreh ending and deporting the 

many illegals the y know are here. In some instances foreign women will come to 

this country to have a b aby or will at tem pt to become p regnant once they arrive 

knowing that giving birth to a U.S. citizen child will enable them to remain in the 

U.S.
zn

The magnitude of the illegal immigration problem is unique to the U.S. as a 

result of our prosperity, our poorly patrolled 2,040 mile border with Mexico, 

our close proximity to other Latin American countries, the ease of transportation 

and the prevailing poverty in those countries. After a close examination of the 

issue one can only conclude the problem will worsen in the years ahead and hope 

that the U.S. can solve it before it becomes too large to be solvable.

ZPG commends the subcommittee for assigning priority to the passage of 

legislation dealing with this problem. To refrain from dealing with the issue 

swiftly and effectively will only insure that the increasing flood of illegal aliens 

will further strain our economy, burden our social services and add to our metropolitan crowding and environmental degradation.

Though ZPG supports the concept of H.R . 982 we believe that if passed in its 

present form it will be inadequate to resolve the problem it addresses. We, therefore, recommend the following changes be incorporated into law.

First, criminal penalties should be imposed against employers after an initial 

warning, without an intervening civil penalty, thus making it unprofitable for 

unscrupulous employers to hire illegal aliens. These criminal penalties coupled 

with injunctive relief at the time of the first citation will greatly enhance the 

enforcement capabilities of the bill.

Second. The size, effectiveness, powers and funding of the INS must be substantially increased. An increased budget would allow the INS to automate its 

master index file there by allowing an employer to check on the status of a job 

applicant by making one telephone call to his local IN S office. Increased manpower 

would strengthen IN S’s ability to apprehend illegal aliens thereby serving as a 

deterrent to aliens and would allow the INS to station these additional personnel 

not only at the border but also in the metropolitan areas where most aliens 

congregate.

Third. Action should be taken to make all visas, passports, and border crossing 

cards computerreadable as an aid to processing the large volume of border crossers 

(250 million annually), the detection of forgeries, and verification of eligibility for 

employment. B etter systems for recording and cross-indexing the births and deaths 

of individuals are also needed to help prevent fraudulent use of birth certificates 

of deceased persons.

Fourth. Recognizing the main impetus for illegal immigration is the poor 

economic conditions of most countries, including many in this hemisphere, ZP G 

supports making a continuing commitment to foreign aid, including population 

programs, which is carefu lly structured to help alleviate these conditions and thus 

reduce the economic motivation to illegally immigrate to the U.S. Particular 

attention must be paid to Mexico which presents the main problem of illegal 

entry.

Elimination of the “ brain drain” is still another step which must be taken 

toward improving the prospects of the developing countries and relieving the 

need to enter the U.S. illegally. The House Committee on Government Operations, 

in their report “Scientific Brain Drain from the Developing Countries” concluded 

that “the immigration of scientists, engineers, and physicians from the developing 

countries into the U.S.— a part of the so-called brain drain— though welcomed 

in this country as evidence of return to a nondiscriminatory immigration policy, 

has aroused public concern on other grounds.”

“The root of the concern is the inadequacy of trained manpower in the developing countries despite pressing needs for a great variety of skills, talents, and 

capacities for taking the initiative which development requires. The loss b y these 

countries of scientists and other professionals to the U.S. reduces trained manpower where it is scarcest and most needed and augments it where it is most 

abundant. This can only widen the technological and economic gap between 

the richest country in the world and the poorest ones.”

“ On the one hand, Federal programs in research and development, initiated and 

expanded in pursuit of important national objectives, have greatly increased 

demand for domestic scientific manpower in the U.S. They may also be providing 

incentives for immigration of scarce scientific talent from the poorer countries of 

the world.”

“On the other hand, the long-sustained U.S. foreign aid program has devoted 

substantial sums and given high priority to the education and training of professional manpower in the developing countries as an essential ingredient of 

development. To the extent that these countries suffer an emigration drain of 

the very skills and talents they are attempting to increase, an important part of 

the foreign aid program is undermined.”
280

“The number involved in the immigration from developing countries appear 

at first to be small in scale— thousands, not tens or hundreds of thousands. But 

thousands are significant in the highly specialized fields of science, engineering 

and medicine. Because of the length and rigor of the education and training involved, as well as the scarcity of people having the native talent required, the 

stock of individuals in these fields is small and grows slowly.”

“ The loss of even a small number of scientific professionals by some countries 

can be very significant in relation to the numbers educated and trained each year 

in those countries. According to information for 1962 assembled in the subcommittee staff study, the Dominican Republic sent the U.S. only 78 physicians, but 

they were more than a third of the country’s supply of new physician graduates.

Chile’s 18 engineers emigrating to the U.S. were the equivalent of a fifth of its *

graduating engineers. Israel’s 30 emigrating physicians were more than 40 percent 

of its supply of new M.D.’ s.”

“Second, all developing countries exporting highly educated manpower lose 

the necessarily costly investment in their education and training. If an average 

cost figure of $20,000 (an estimate cited in the subcommittee staff study) is used, •

the 1967 scientific emigration to the U.S. of 7,913 persons represents an investment 

loss in 1 year of more than $150 million by the developing countries.”

“ Moreover, continued emigration of any country’s most gifted has effects 

which go beyond the transfer and use of specific skills. It can damage morale 

on the part of those who remain. It can encourage bright young people to look 

toward emigration instead of national development as a personal goal. It can 

prevent the formation of leadership clusters— in the universities, in business, and 

in government— without whom the essential structural reforms necessary for 

progress in modern industrial societies will never gain momentum.”

Fifth. Documents must be improved in quality and their use clarified. Social 

Security cards should be issued only to U.S. citizens and legal resident aliens.

Others needing Social Security numbers, such as foreign students or visitors, 

should be issued a physically distinctive card, or a new type of card designed for 

this purpose. The use of Social Security numbers for identification purposes should 

be discontinued or a new tamper proof card, carrying the person’s photograph, 

should be adopted preventing the fraudulent duplication and use of Social Security 

cards by individuals not legally entitled to work in this country.

Mr. Chairman, there has been much discussion in this subcommittee regarding 

the possible need for and resulting dangers of a national ID card. But I would 

like the members of the subcommittee to reflect on the possibility that we may 

unofficially already have or be on the verge of having a national ID card in the 

form of our Social Security card. Though Social Security numbers were originally 

assigned to American workers for the purpose of assisting the government in 

recording workers’ earnings, the use of Social Security numbers has become much 

more pervasive.

In the past few years, according to the Social Security Number Task Force, the 

number has come into increasingly wide use as a numerical identifier throughout 

society, to the point where the adult American citizen is beginning to need a number to function effectively even if he is among the very small minority of people 

who never work in covered employment. The SSN may be demanded of him when 

he pays taxes, when he banks, and when he invests. Each year, the probability 

becomes greater th at it will be demanded of him when and if he applies for various 

Federal or Federal/State benefit payment programs, for a drive r’s license, for a 

credit card, for enrollment in a medical insurance program. It may even be *

demanded of him when he applies for a library card, when he registers for school, 

when he donates blood, or when he registers to vote.

In their report to the Commissioner, the Task Force stated that the growth of 

the SSN as a non-program identifier is linked to the growing use of the computer 

in recordkeeping about individuals. Any large-scale computerized recordkeeping 

system needs a way to identify each individual or account in the system uniquely, 

so as to avoid confusing individuals with the same or similar names. This can best 

be done by assigning a number to the individual or account; the computer can 

then make a number-name match for positive identification. And with the growing 

use of the computer to exchange personal data between various organizations there 

is a movement toward the adoption of a standard unique identification code, so 

as to permit the systems of different organizations to “interface” with maximum 

efficiency. Because the SSN is more widely held by adult Americans today than 

any other identification number, it is becoming the standard identification code 

of choice in the computer systems of more and more organizations, public and 

private.
Within the Federal Government, the use of the SSN as nonsocial secu rity 

identifier has its basis in Executive Order 9397, issued on November 30, 1943. Th at Order, which is still in effect, directed all Federal components to use the SSN “exclusively” whenever the component head found it advisable to establish a new numerical identification system for individuals. It also directed SSA’s predecessor agency, the Social Security Board, to cooperate with non-social security Federal uses of the number by issuing and validating numbers for other Federal agencies, on a reimbursable basis if appropriate. The rationale for the Order was t ha t “it is desirable in the interests of economy and orderly adm inistration th at t he Fed eral Government move towards the use of a single, unduplicated numerical identifica­ tion system of accounts and avoid the unnecessary establishment of add itio nal 

systems.” The publication of the Order marked a very significant change in the Executiv e 

Branch’s conception of th e role of the SSN; when the n umber was devised, it was intended to serve the specific, limited purpose of keeping track of th e earnings of people whose work was covered by th e Social Security Act. But while an expanded role for the SSN within the Federal community was sanctioned more than 27 years ago, the number did not come into extensive use as an identifier until the 1960’s, when the Federal agencies began to develop computer-based recordkeeping systems sophisticated enough to make the use of a pre-established num erical 

identifier worthwhile. Since 1961, for example, the Internal Revenue Service has been using the social secu rity number to identify and process the returns of the millions of taxpay ers in the U.S. In addition, the Civil Service Commission controls personnel records with the number, the Federal Aviation Agency identifies pilot records with it; and the Veterans Adm inistration uses it as a hospital admission number. The Treasury Departme nt has requested all intermediaries issuing savings bonds (Federal agencies, banks, etc.) to obtain the social security number of owners 

and co-owrners of bonds. In Jul y 1967, the Departm ent of Defense began using the social security num ber in lieu of the military service number for identifying 

personnel in th e Armed Forces. The Public Health Service, Division of Indian Health, is using th e social security num ber as an identification number in mainta inin g comprehensive hea lth histories for Navajo Ind ians living on Federal reservations. While the use of th e SSN as a Federal identifier is sanctioned by EO 9397, the law and regulations are silent regarding the use of the SSN outside of the Fed eral sector. The present fram ework of law places no restrictions or limitation s on such use, and any public or priva te organization is free to use the number for record­ keeping withou t receiving auth oriz atio n from SSA. For this reason, it is impossible to estimate with accuracy the true dimensions of the num ber ’s use by Sta te and local governments and private organizatio ns. All evidence indicates, however, 

th at such use is widespread and growing rapidly. For State and local governm ent agencies, the use of the SSN as an identifier is logical—not only because the vast majority of adult Americans have an SSN, bu t also because the use of the SSN as a sta ndard identifier makes it easier and more efficient to exchange records between various Sta te and local agencies, and between State/loc al and Federal agencies (many of which, as noted above, are 

using the SSN as sanc tioned under EO 9397). For instance, many State and local agencies are requ ired by law or regulation to coordinate the ir programs with Federal programs or to report to the Federal Government about the scope of their programs and the effectiveness of their use of Federal gra nt money. This has helped to con trib ute to widespread and growing use of the SSN in State/Feder al benefit pay ment programs such as public ass ist­ ance, in State and local income tax collections, in hea lth and mental he alth 

agencies and programs, etc. In the education al field, the SSN is being used by an increasing num ber of colleges, universities, and school systems; two States, Florida and Utah, have built Statew ide edu cational recordkeeping systems for high school stu de nts around the SSN. (Further, possession of the SSN is a prerequisite for entering most institutions of high er education today, since the num ber is required for participation in the “college boa rd” batte ry of aptitude and achie vement tests.) Other known uses of the number by State, local and non-profit agencies and organizations include identification of public library card holders, blood donors, etc. And we und erstand th at in at least one State—Virginia—the State Board of Elections is constructing a central voter reg istratio n based on the SSN.
282

With the preceden t of using the Social Security card as identification so firmly 

established, it only makes sense to give the Social Security Administration the 

resources necessary to switch to a tam per proof Social Security card which can 

be used as evidence of a person’s eligibility to work in the U.S.

Mr. Chairman, the problem of illegal immigration is a complex one which has 

no simple solution as the hearing record demonstrates. To effectively tackle the 

problem will require more than making a single change in our current policy and 

our focus must continually be on prev enting the problem from growing so th at 

we may avoid possible infringement of personal liberties. We commend you for 

your dedication and determ ination in sta rting Congress on its way to reducing 

illegal immigration and urge the swift passage of legislation to remove the economic 

incentives th at lure aliens to this country. But we also urge you to consider wh at *

we believe are the other aspects of th e solution. Some fall within the jurisdictio n 

of the comm ittee and others do not but we are hopeful you and the othe r members 

of th e subcommittee will encourage your colleagues to carry on this investigation 

you have so ab ly started . #

Tha nk you.

Mr. Eilberg. Our next witness is Mr. David Carliner from the 

American Civil Liberties Union. Mr. Gordon, would you care to join 

him at the desk?

Mr. Gordon. I would be glad to.

Mr. Eilberg. We’re delighted having the former general counsel 

of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, somehow these 

hearings are not the same without having you here.

Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

TESTIMONY OF DAVID CARLINER, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERT IES 

UNION

Mr. Carliner. I’m especially pleased to have Mr. Gordon sit at 

my side, since I think he testified on the other side of the issue the 

last time he was here.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is David 

Carliner. I am appearing here on behalf of the American Civil Liberties 

Union. The ACLU has watched this legislation over a number of years 

since it was originally introduced in Congress.

Previously the American Civil Liberties Union felt not compelled 

to testify on this legislation, because we like to think we stick to our 

last in dealing solely with civil liberties issues. We did not believe, 

and do no t now believe tha t any civil liberty is involved in imposing •

sanctions on employers who employ aliens who are illegally in the 

United States. The illegal alien has certain rights under the fifth 

amendment and the provisions of the Constitution, but he may not M

necessarily have a constitutional right to be employed. Perhaps even 

less does the employer have a constitutional right to employ an 

illegal alien.

We are brought here today, members of the committee, because we 

are much concerned regarding the means which have been suggested 

to implement this legislation. As we have learned from recent history, 

means are sometimes much worse tha n the ends and may pervert the 

goals that we are seeking in implementing the legislation. I trust tha t 

I don’t have to elaborate on the discussion the committee had with 

the last witness on the question of a national identity card. That is 

my point of departure.

Mr. Eilberg. May I ask if it is your intention to read your stat ement?
283

Mr. Carlixer. No, Your Honor—Mr. Chairman. You see what I 

do for a living most of the time.

[Laughter.]

Mr. E ilberg. We will accept the stateme nt in its entirety.

Mr. Cari.iner. On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union

I will address my remarks to the specific problems which this bill raises insofar as it deals with identifying citizens, identifying aliens, 

and identifying unlawful aliens in the United States. If I may, 1 will identify myself also as an attorney who has spe­ cialized in the field of immigration law for a period of some 25 years. And I see, not in wholesale numbers as Mr. Danielson does, but I do see aliens in the United States. A great m any of them are here illegally 

and wish to adjust their s tatu s in the United States. So, I believe I have some experience, n ot on a wide scale, perhaps, 

but nonetheless some specific experience with the problems that this 

committee is concerned with. First, with regard to the question of the implementation of the bill, and identifying aliens and citizens in the United States the com­ mittee, of course, does not want to have a bill which is going to be 

ineffective. It is concerned to have an effective piece of legislation. Before an employer can be prosecuted for the purpose of a citation, a fine, or an ultim ate criminal penalty, as we know he m ust be guilty, 

of willful conduct and the only way in which willful conduct can be established on his part is to have some kind of mechanism whereby 

the employer knows tha t the alien he is about to employ is here 

illegally. One document which is proposed to be used for this purpose is a birth certificate to show the alien’s place of birth to be exhibited to an employer. If this is to be the method implementing the bill, 1 respect­ fully submit that this bill will be a license for counterfeiting. The committee, perhaps not with the identical membership sittin g here 

today, but since it has held hearings in various parts of the United States it is aware, officially at least, of the major counterfeiting in­ dustry which has developed on the Mexican side of the border; and 

for all we know7

, on the U.S. side of the border also, counterfeiting 

border-crossing cards and various other kinds of documents which permit aliens to come into the United States, ostensibly legally, but 

not persons entitled to come, who therefore enter illegally. Perhaps Mr. Eilberg who is from Philadelphia may have heard the famous story about the Chinese who were “ born” in Philadelphia in the 1920’s. An employee in the Bureau of Vital Statistics there, in addition to recording the people really born in Philadelphia, was selling birth 

certificates on the side. It developed that there were more Chinese 

born------

Mr. Eilberg. Th at was before the change in the administration, 

Mr. Carliner.

Mr. Carlixer. There were more Chinese born in Philadelphia 

than there could possibly have been parents in the United States. The Immigration Service came across all these American-born per­ sons of Chinese ethnic origins and discovered tha t the registrar had interlined between the lines where he had recorded births contemporaneously. Every half line had a Chinese name. There were official 

certificates, mind you, issued by the authorities there.

49 -7 69 — 73- 19
284

The Immigration Service is aware that false birth certificates have 

been produced in various parts of the United States, perhaps most 

prclifically in Puerto Rico, since they are primarily Spanish-speaking. 

1 suggest to the members of the committee that if a birth certificate 

is going to be the document to exculpate the alien who is in the United 

States, illegally, and who is going to seek employment from an employer who is unscrupulous and who wants to employ him, it is a 

simple enough matter for those aliens now coming across the Rio 

Grande River to buy a birth certificate for relatively little money; 

the people who are not deterred by legislation, and not by fraud, 

are not going to be deterred from obtaining false documents .The 

requirement of a birth certificate will not be particularly useful.

The bill provides also that the Attorney General may prescribe 

under his regulations a form which people will swear to in order to 

establish that an employee is entitled under 274(b), to work in the 

United States.

It seems to me that the sole purpose of this provision—T don’t 

know it for certain—is to lure the alien into a situation where he may 

be prosecutable for filing a false statement under 18 U.S.C., title 1001, 

signing a statement for a governmental purpose, on a Department of 

Justice form.

This may very well have a deterrent effect to the extent that this 

document authorized under a Government regulation, is to be used 

as a means of getting employment. However, it becomes another 

identification card which an alien—and not only aliens—would be 

required to obtain. Mr. Silberman as acting Attorney General, testifying before this committee urged this proposal to provide “equal 

protection for all Americans” because not only aliens would be required to produce this document in order to get a job, but native-born 

citizens, naturalized citizens, aliens and illegal aliens would all be 

required to obtain such a document.

So, this leaves us with some lack of enthusiasm. Obviously we are 

not prepared to have a society in the United States where in order to 

have a job you need to have a document issued by the Department 

of Justice. Without drawing a parallel to the societies which we have 

opposed, it is the kind of society we abhor when we see it in the 

Eastern European countries.

If, as the previous witness indicated the number of aliens is a major 

problem in the United States, the more effective way of keeping 

them out of the United States and prohibiting them from working 

would be to keep them from getting food. Could we therefore require 

a national identity card when a person goes to the grocery store to 

buy groceries, or goes to a restaurant to buy food? Or, as they do in 

Eastern European countries, if you want to have a place to spend the 

night to show that you are in tha t country legally?

This committee has not taken an official position, but the committee 

in hearings on this legislation earlier has been repelled by the notion 

of an identity card. 1 commend the previous members of the committee— not that they need my commendation—but obvioush we all 

share that revulsion, every one of us, the revulsion of having some 

kind of identity card as a condition for employment.

In this connection, I don’t think it should be ignored, that on 

January 20, 1975, 1 think, the Attorney General published in the
285

Federal Register a new regulation, whether by coincidence or not I 

don’t know, relating to citizens’ identification cards. This is a document that has been used for some time rather quietly along the 

borders of the United States to make it easier for American citizens 

who perhaps live in Canada or Mexico and want to go hack and forth 

without having a passport, something to show to make certain that 

they are not confused with the Mexicans, or Canadians, or other 

aliens.

The proposal was expanded somewhat 3 or 4 years ago. There was 

somewhat of a public reaction and it was buried then. Commissioner 

Farrell said then that he had no idea at all that it would be a mandatory 

identification card tha t people would have to carry with them at all 

times.

However, here it is again. It has been announced as a final decision 

on January 20 in the Federal Register, and is available to any 

citizen of the United States who can prove he is a citizen for $10, 

along with his photograph. 1 wonder—this is a question 1 am raising 

out loud—whether, coupled with this legislation, if it becomes law, 

this citizen’s identification card becomes the document whereby a 

person who is a citizen will show to an employer tha t he is eligible to 

work in the United States.

Now, that is very good for citizens. But it doesn’t do much good for 

aliens who are permanently and lawfully in the United States. There 

is no intention on the part of this committee—and it is unconstitutional, of course—to bar an alien from working in this country if he 

is here lawfully. What does he have to prove that he can work? All 

he has is a document called an alien registration receipt card, Immigration Form 1-151; what does it say? It certifies that the person has been 

lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. There 

is nothing on that document, as a lay person would read it—and by lay 

person, I mean anyone who is not an official of the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service or not specifically knowledgeable about the 

rights of aliens in the United States—there is nothing in that document, on its face, tha t tells an employer that that alien has the right 

to work in the United States. All that it says is that he is a permanent 

resident of the United States. The employer must not rely on his 

common sense, or whatever knowledge he has, to infer that tha t document gives an alien the right to work.

Although the overwhelming number of peop'e who have those alien 

registration receipt cards have come here for the purpose of employment, or are members of families where the breadwinner comes here 

for the purpose of employment, there is a significant number of poeple, 

an increasing number who have obtained those alien registration receipt cards by representing to the Immigration and Naturalization 

Service that they will not work. These are people who are the mothers 

and fathers, adults generally, who are out of the labor force. They are 

exempted from the requirement tha t the; obtain permission from the 

U.S. Manpower Administration to obtain an alien employment certification. In order for these people to obtain permanent residence, 

the; must prove to the satisfaction of the Immigration and Naturalization Service that they will not go into the labor force. They thereupon receive their status as permanent residents and their alien 

registration receipt cards.
286

If (hey thereafter go to work a fair question could be raised by the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service whether they obtained their 

permanent residence fraudulently. Not everyone who has an alien 

registration receipt card is therefore ne’cessarily entitled to work, as the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service would view it.

We believe tha t these documents would serve to be an identification 

card of a reprehensible natu re; or—and the Committee recognizes this, 

and former Acting Attorney General Silverman recognizes this—that 

they would act to deter employers who don’t want any trouble by 

employing aliens. To p ut it very simply, if two people apply for a job 

and one man comes to the employer with a valid birth certificate, or 

citizen’s identification card, or impeccable English and satisfies the 

employer that he is truly someone born in the United States; and the 

other person comes to him with an alien registration receipt card, 

showing tha t he is an alien, the employer’s inevitable tendency, I 

suggest, would be to employ the citizen, although it may be discriminatory, and may even be a violation of the Equal Opportunity Employment Law to discriminate against people because of nationality.

Mr. Eilberg. Are you satisfied with the operation of the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission? You mentioned it, and I 

wonder if you have a comment on their work.

Mr. Carliner. Well, I ’m aware of the problem there because the 

Equal Opportunity Employment Act refers to discrimination based 

on national origin. The one case tha t went to the Supreme Court 

on tha t issue, the Farrah case, involving a plant in El Paso where 98 

percent of the people were of Mexican origin but were U.S. citizens, 

the Court held on the facts tha t it could not be shown tha t the employees were being discriminated against because of their national 

origin. They were being discriminated because of their lack of 

citizenship.

Mr. Eilberg. I understand that, but you didn’t answer my question. We have had reference to a case before. I am wondering about 

your judgment, having experience with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission, as to their handling of cases of alleged 

discrimination.

Mr. Carliner. No, I have not had any specific personal experience. 

However, in connection with preparing my testimony here I took a 

quick look at the equal opportunity employment laws. In many 

States there are specific laws which forbid an employer from requiring 

a prospective employee to produce his birth certificate. To the extent 

tha t this legislation would require that, you would have a conflict 

between the two. Of course, the Federal law would supersede perhaps, 

but that is a difficult question. Nonetheless, it raises the issue of what 

it does to employees who are required to produce birth certificates to 

show that they are legally in the United States, and what it does with 

regard to their rights as employees under equal opportunity employment laws.

In any event, I am suggesting that the inevitable effect of legislation 

which has the implementation tha t this bill has, will be either to 

deter the employment of aliens of whatever nature, as well as citizens 

who cannot prove their citizenship in the United States.

The committee is, of course, aware there are many people who are 

citizens in the United States, who were not born in this country,
2S7

because their parents were U.S. citizens. They have no documents unless they received a certificate of citizenship issued by the Immigra­ tion and Naturalization Service—some do, and some don’t—to prove their citizenship. The citizenship of people is a very complex question 

if they were not born in the United States. So, given the unfortunate assumption tha t people who speak with an accent are not American citizens; and the just-as-unfortunate assumption tha t if you are somewhat darker than other people, you might not be an American citizen, there will be this inevitable tendency

* on the part of people to avoid the troublesome prospective employee, 

and to hire the trouble-free employee. I think there is no question whatever if this bill is to be “effective,” that the means raise considerable problems which obviously disturb 

the committee and disturb all of us. Now, at this point, members of the committee, I am going to stop talking for the American Civil Liberties Union and address myself to the larger range immigration problems. There is no doubt whatever that the number of aliens in the United States, number of illegal aliens in the United States poses a question. There are obviously people out of work who were bom and bred here, they paid their taxes all their lives, they have identity with this country, and they see an illegal alien working in their job. That is a substantial problem and something should be done about it. I am not challenging that at all. The thrust of my remarks is not intended to suggest tha t it is n ot a problem which does not require attention. I will say, though, that despite the very voluminous testimony tha t the committee has received over the number of years tha t it has been conducting hearings on it, the evidence is described to me by the Under Secretary of Labor, Mr. Schubert, as “anecdotal”—he was not using the word “anecdotal” in a storytelling way—but anec­ dotal in the sense th at there is no comprehensive economic, or statis­ tical material related to the problem. It is somewhat incredulous to me to read in the testimony by Mr. Brown of the Manpower Administration who testified 2 years ago, in March 1972 at page 65 of the hearings, when the chairman of the committee, then Mr. Rodino, asked Mr. Brown:

« Does the Labor Depar tment know, or does it have any means of dete rmining with some degree of fact how many illegal aliens are prese ntly in the U.S. labor 

market?

Mr. Brown. We have no idea, Mr. Chairman. We have immigration figures in terms of the numbers tur ned out of the country every year, but th at is really the only figure t hat we have a handle on.

Well, 3 years have passed since Mr. Brown said that, and the situation is the same. They still don’t have a handle on w hat those figures are. You have heard ranges of illegal aliens in the United States totaling from 1 million to 12 million, but it is admitted by everyone who makes a guess tha t he really doesn’t know. I think it is interesting at this somewhat late date in the legislative history of this bill, that the Law Enforcement Assistance Adminis­ tration of the Departm ent of Justice has commissioned a study bv a local firm, Linton-Neil, research consultants, to do a feasibility study on how the Department of Justice could establish the number of 

aliens illegally in the United States.
288

It is my understanding tha t the report is to be furnished to the 

Department of .Justice by the end of this month, March; and tha t 

thereafter the Immigration Service is confident enough tha t it can 

do something on that, and is coming to Congress, the Appropriations 

Committee—perhaps your committee hasn’t been officially notified 

of this, or perhaps so—to ask for a million dollars in order to conduct 

this survey.

When General Chapman appeared before this committee, I believe, 

or it has been said that, he said, “if we could count them, we could 

catch them ”. That is a very clever phrase and quite obviously, the 

investigators of the Immigration and Naturalization Service should 

count them. T hat is their job. But there are other ways, obviously------

Mr. E iluerg. Mr. Carliner, we have been over much of this and 

we will be voting very shortly. 1 don’t want, however, to cut short 

your testimony.

You have been a close observer of this subject, but you have not 

yet suggested any proposal that interests this member at least. What 

would you do if you were sitting up here?

Mr. C arliner. Well, the first thing I would do, I suggest respectfully and humbly, Mr. Chairman, before this committee adopts any 

legislation, it should get more information.

In the Post this morning was an article about Oliver Wendell 

Holmes, whom we all revere. He was describing an experience in the 

Civil War and he said, “Men of action act without much information.”

Tha t may be very good in the heat of battle in the Civil War, perhaps—not today—but I think that in an area as sensitive at this, 

before the committee adopts any legislation, even legislation tha t has 

been studied before, much more information is needed than the committee now has. I think that the number of aliens illegally in the 

United States is something that one should know more precisely than 

whether i t’s 1 million, or whether it’s 12 million.

'fhe largest aspect of the problem as the committee is aware, 

are Mexicans who are in the United States illegally. We are told 

tha t the proportions are from 85 to 95 percent. This is a problem of 

great sensitivity between the United States and Mexico. The President 

of the United States has recently appointed a commission to deal 

with this problem. I would suggest th at sometimes inaction is the best 

action, and that the committee defer any legislation on this question 

until there is a result—if there is going to be one—from the studies 

and reports of that commission. That is particularly sensitive. One 

of the proposals—it is not a matter under the jurisdiction of this 

committee—but one of the proposals which has been offered to solve 

the problem, and that “solve” should be put in quotation marks, 

suggests tha t there has to be something done to bring the Mexican 

economy to a further starting-off point.

Mr. Dennis, Congressman Dennis who formerly sat on this committee said, in El Paso, tha t the more he listened to the witnesses who 

gave testimony before this committee, the more he was convinced 

tha t all tha t would come out of the committee was a mud plaster. 

There is no real solution unless the economic differential between the 

United States and Mexico were resolved.

So, what I am suggesting, and I suggest timorously, it is not my 

field, th at the best way of solving this problem is to bring the Mexican
289

eco nomy to such a level whe re the peop le do n’t wan t to come to the 

Un ited Sta tes .

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Carliner, as I have told the other witnesses, we have narrow subject matter jurisdiction, and there is not much of anything this subcommittee could do about raising the level of 

the economy of Mexico.

Mr. Carliner. I realize this committee cannot do that, and it 

may even be very difficult for the United States. But what I am suggesting is related to the problem here because if truly this piece of legislation is a mud plaster; if it isn’t really going to solve anything; it has all the dreadful implications of the mode of life we are going to have in the United States. I would suggest it is better to do nothing than to do something that isn’t going to solve the problem, b ut that will disturb the liberties of other people. T would suggest then, in summary, that the committee defer the action until the reports are in, not only from the commission on United States-Mexican problems, but also from the council which the President has appointed—a council on the problem of illegal aliens 

in the United States. If I may, Mr. Chairman, f would like to touch briefly on the overall problem of illegal aliens because there is an important issue for the aliens who come here, as distinguished from the Mexicans. Most of the illegal Mexicans come here, as you know, by sneaking across the border without inspection. The Immigration Service doesn’t know how many there are until they have caught them, and no one else seems to know' how many are here. The other aliens who are bundled into this category of illegal aliens—T think it is unfortunate tha t they are called illegal aliens because it has an insidious sound—are many students, many thousands of students. Students who come here by and large come from countries where they have less money than students do by and large in the United States. When they come here they realize tha t they don’t have enough money to maintain themselves in this country without working. They seek to get the permission from the Immigration Service to work, but tha t permission ebbs and flows with economic 

cycles. If they are turned down—these students need the money for the tuition—they have to pay for their room and board, they work anyway. Bv working they violate their nonimmigrant status, but they are still full-time students. I think they are different type of alien from the ones who have snuck across the border. And I think to handle them in the gross, wholesale way tha t we handle the other aliens does that student a disservice. It does our foreign relations a disservice. Most of these students go back to their native country. The reason we bring them to the United States, encourage them to come, is to promote international relationships and a friendlier attitude, and to enhance their cultural level. The bill as drafted wull hit them as heavily as it does everyone else. The Immigration Service has a record of everyone who comes into the United States, he gets an arrival and departure card, form 1-94. Unfortunately they don’t have a 

record——

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Carliner. isn’t it true tha t all these students that enter the country come with the full knowledge tha t they have to have sufficient funds to support themselves?
290

Mr. Carliner. They make the representation to the American 

consul when they get. there, that they have enough money to carry 

themselves, generally they do it for 1 year. But, particularly in the 

last 2 to 3 years the cost of living has gone up for everybody. They 

just haven’t appreciated the impact of that. They may well have 

represented it, and the stateme nt may have been false and they 

may have intended all along to come here to work. Those people 

of course are in a different category. B ut some people have been given 

permission by the Immigration and Naturalization Service to work 

part time, but they can work no more than 20 hours a week.

In Washington, D.C., for example, many of them are taxicab 

drivers, and there is no way of controlling the number of hours a 

cabdriver works, lie can work 80 hours a week, there is nobody there 

to control him.

But I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, legislation which treats in 

what I call the “meat ax” way all kinds of people is not desirable. I am 

not saying the legislation does this, the perception of the need is what 

is leading the Congress to adopt the legislation. I think the real 

need arises from the problem of the Mexican aliens who come here 

as visitors and overstay their permission to remain in the United 

States, stay here and work temporarily and then go back home because they want to make a little bit of money before they return 

back home; the others, who want to become assimilated into our 

population, ultimately turn up at the Immigration Service anyway 

to change their status. And what I am saying is that we have a problem tha t derives primarily because of the Mexican immigration, 

which is going to have a great impact on a relatively small number of 

people who want to stay here as nonimmigrants. 1 think tha t some 

descreet approach should be made to distinguish between them.

Mr. E ilberg. Thank you, Mr. Carliner.

Mr. Gordon, with respect to your experience in the field, we are 

glad to have you with us at the witness table; are there any comments you would like to make?

Mr. Gordon. I will help in any way I can.

Mr. Eilberg. Ms. Holtzman?

Ms. I Ioltzman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have some questions 

I would like to ask Mr. Carliner.

It is the thrust of your testimony tha t since the only way one can 

deal with deportation of illegal aliens is through the creation of a 

national identification system and since tha t is not a desirable means 

in your judgment, there is, therefore, no method we can use to identify 

and deport people who are here illegally?

Mr. Carliner. Well, one method which has been urged on the 

committee many times is to enlarge the staff of the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service. I can give personal witness tha t i t is a tremendously overworked organization; th at the people are very conscientious 

and dedicated. There are just not enough of them to handle the 

problem.

In Washington, D.C., for example, there are nine or 10 investigators, 

and considering the number of aliens in Washington who are working 

here without permission, they are just unable to run down their leads.

Mr. Eilberg. Will the gentlelady yield at tha t point?
291

I am pleased to tell her, Mr. Carliner, that we are contemplating an 

immediate study of the INS authorization bill. I have introduced it so that we can act on tha t bill at the same time we act on the illegal 

alien bill; this is anoth er approach.

Ms. Holtzman. 1 am very pleased by the Chairman’s statement 

in that regard. So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying there are ways of 

dealing with the illegal alien problem short of requiring a national 

identification system—which you would oppose, and I personally 

oppose—is tha t correct?

Mr. Carliner. I believe so. I think w hat the bill seeks to do is to 

shift to the private sector, to the employer in the United States the responsibility for eliminating the economic incentive, and responsibil­ ity for locating aliens, in a way. I think he is an inappropriate person to do it for the reasons mentioned by Mr. Danielson and by others.

Ms. H oltzman. I just want to say tha t I agree with your concern 

about the use of birth certificates as a means of identification, not only because of the problems tha t you mentioned—of fraudulently making them, of counterfeiting them—but because in my district there are many people who are naturalized citizens, who do no t walk around with their naturalization papers, and who do not have birth certificates because th ey may have been destroyed during the war in Europe, or for other reasons. To require identification by birth certifi­ cate would be very discriminatory against these naturalized citizens. I think it would be important for the record, if you would state 

some of the risks tha t you think are inherent in the national identification system.

Mr. Carliner. Well, the wav in which the social security card 

has been used to get social security benefits, no one complains about. I ’m not sure you need a card to get anything. Bu t if it becomes a con­ dition for whatever benefits society has, if it means you can’t get a job unless you have a national identification card, then you are deprived 

of employment, which obviously is a fundamental right. To the extent that it is used for tha t purpose, it can be used for all kinds of other purposes, when you are seeking whatever rights you want to have. If you need it, if a policeman stops you when you are going down the street— tha t is just how it would be used, incidentally, by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, whose investigators could stop people who appear to them to be aliens. If they don’t have some kind of a document to prove who they are, then it becomes a basis on which they are to be arrested. That is how the alien registration card is used. I, myself believe it is insiduous. It makes a distinction between 

people who look like aliens, and people who don’t look like aliens. If one wants to go to register in a hotel; if a person is required to 

carry some national identity card, the hotelkeeper, the roominghouse keeper would tend to inquire; it would become the kind of document tha t would require people to carry labels with them. It just boggles my imagination to think tha t you would have to carry a piece of paper 

around that says who you are, in order to get something.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Fish?

Mr. Fish. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
292

Mr. Carliner, in your prepared statement you are ^peaking for the 

ACLU, and you specifically urge that this committee delete that part 

of section 2 of H.R. 9S2 that authorizes the Attorney General to prescribe and prepare forms for identifying persons.

But listening to you further. I’m not sure if we took that recommendation and deleted th at part of the bill, whether the ACLU would 

support 982.

Mr. C arliner. We wouldn’t take any position on it because we are 

not competent to say as the American Civil Liberties Union whether 

there is need for the legislation; and we have no particular views as 

to whether it would be effective.

My personel view is that it would not be very effective. I don't think 

it would be very effective even with that in there; it would have a 

deterrent effect, but it would not be ultimately effective.

Mr. Fish. You are expressing your personal view when you say this 

was shifting to the private sector Government responsibility.

Mr. C arliner. Yes. But since it’s a bill which would, as 1 indicated 

earlier, prohibit an employer from giving work to an alien who is 

illegally in the United States, the American Civil Liberties Union 

would not say tha t that bill violates civil liberties.

Mr. Fish. Most witnesses have urged us to strengthen sanctions 

against the employer, that there is not a sufficient affirmative duty 

on an employer to find that this person is legally entitled to work.

Mr. C arliner. Well, it’s not unusual that we appear in the 

minority.

Mr. Fish. Now, you heard the last two witnesses, and both of 

them commented on the fact that the employment of illegal aliens is 

adversely affecting the youths and minorities in the United States 

who are competing with these people, The witnesses have actually 

drawn our attention to employers taking advantage of illegal aliens. 

They are paid less, which has a detrimental effect on the standard of 

living of the rest of them.

Mr. Carliner. Well, 1 have no doubt, Mr. Fish, that the problem 

exists. To the extent that the aliens are taken advantage of, 1 think 

tha t the remedy there is to see to it that they are not taken advantage 

of, not to send them back to Mexico, or Guatemala, or wherever they 

come from; they would rather be here than to be there. If our concern 

is for them, rather than for us, then it seems to me the solution is to 

protect their rights. I wonder about the labor movement when it 

supports the bill and talks about the illegal aliens jeopardizing people’s 

rights in the United States, why the labor movements fail to organize 

these people. They would like to make more money, just as others do.

In Washington, D.C., which I am most familiar with, most of the 

restaurants have bus boys and dishwashers, all of whom can belong 

to the Hotel Restaurant Workers Union. And in most of the restaurants in Washington these people are aliens; and many ol them are 

here illegally.

Mr. Eilherg. T think we will recess and come right back.

[Whereupon, a t 3:15 p.m. a recess was taken until 3:40 p.m.]

Mr. Eilherg. Mr. Carliner, we apologize to you, but you understand, of course, that the bells rang for a quorum call of the House. 

The subcommittee members had to go to the floor of the House 

to vote.
293

Ju st a few questions remain. Mr. Russo, do you have any questions?

Mr. Russo. I don’t have any questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. Under the name of Mr. Fish, would you answer these 

questions?

Mr. Cook. Mr. Carliner, you heard the previous witness project 

numbers of illegal aliens in the country by the end of the century, and 

he said they might reach 40 million. And your testimony indicates tha t you are opposed to a system of national identification cards as such. But, have you any alternative to ID cards to control the gre at number of illegal aliens in the country?

Mr. Carliner. As I indicated in response to Ms. Iloltzman’s 

question, I think, on the same subject, that the enforcement capa­ bility of the Immigration and Naturalization Service should be greatly strengthened. One aspect of it has to do with controls over the Mexican border where 95 percent of the aliens reach the United States. I know tha t General Chapman is greatly accelerating the efforts of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in tha t area. So far as the function of the Judiciary Committee, its function would have to be through the controls of the Immigration and N aturalization Service on the border areas. But in regard to aliens w’ho come to the United States with inspec­ tion, tha t is people who have airival and departure records, the Immigration Service’s method on tha t is grossly inadequate. The annual figures indicate that in 1973 some 6 million nonimmigrants 

came to the United States, and 4% million left. This seems to suggest 

tha t 1% million people remained. But the fact is th at most people did leave, but the Immigration Service has not developed an efficient way of knowing, of learning who has left the United States. I think it would be a relatively simple m atte r to resolve because no one leaves from our airports without going on an airplane, and there should be some way of getting records of people leaving tha t way; no one leaves from our seaports without leaving on a vessel, and there should be some way of gettin g lecords; and no one can leave on land 

unless he goes through a po rt of entry. So, there are wrays of achieving 

the information on who is still in the United States.

Mr. Cook. Would you impose any sanctions against the illegal aliens tha t are presently in the country—once the borders are made 

more secure?

Mr. Carliner. I believe that raises a rathe r substantial constitutional question. When the Immigration Natio nality Act of 1952 was under consideration, I think there was a proposal to make it illegal for an alien to be illegally within the United States. And there was great concern by Congress whether t hat kind of law itself would meet 

due process considerations. The only language in the statute tha t bears on this makes it illegal for an alien who has previously been ordered deported from the United States, to return to this country without permission from the Immigration and Naturalization Service. He can be prosecuted for being found in the United States. But that has to he joined together with having been ordered deported previously, and having come back 

without permission. 1 answered youi question in this rath er complicated way because I think there would be considerable doubt regarding a law' that made
294

it illegal for an alien to be illegally in the United States—made it 

criminal for an alien to be illegally in the United States, to be here, 

and then put him in jail for it.

Mr. Cook. Thank you.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Carliner, along the same lines, in the event tha t 

we move on II. R. 982, or any other illegal alien bill, what would your

§

)sition be with regard to amnesty for aliens illegally in the United 

bates; would you have a position on amnesty?

Mr. Carliner. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Immigration bills from time 

to time have had in them a forgiveness clause of one kind or another. I 

believe myself, and the Civil Liberties Union believes also, and I 

testified to tha t previously, there should be a statu te of limitation.

For virtually every offense tha t is committed, except for capital «,

offenses, there is a statute of limitation. The traditional one is 3 

years, sometimes it ’s 5 years. I know the Cramton Commission, which 

was appointed to study’ this subject has recommended in effect any’one 

who has been in the United States for 5 y’ears should be able to adjust 

his status.

I would support that, and the American Civil Liberties Union 

would too. This would have the effect to encourage the Immigration 

and Naturalization Service to do more promptly’ what it is supposed 

to do.

Mr. Eilberg. What is the Cramton Commission?

Mr. Carliner. Mr. Roger Cramton was previously’ with the Department of Justice. The Commission studies the problem of illegal 

aliens. I can get a copy of th at report and furnish it to the committee.

Mr. Eilberg. We would like to have that.

Mr. Carliner. There is also section 249 of the Immigration Act 

which has a provision that people who were in the United States as of 

1948, could adjust their status. That should be brought up to date, to 

say, 1965.

Mr. Eilberg. What would you think of the possibility of a 7-year 

statute , based on the fact that, there could not be suspension, deportation for those, generally, who have been here for 7 years?

Mr. Carliner. Yes, although 5 years is more generous. I think 7 

years would surely be a typical number. I think 7 y’ears would certainly 

be an acceptable period of time. •

Mr. E ilberg. Mr. Carliner, 1 am sorry, but we are a bit rushed. We 

may have other questions for you.

Mr. Carliner. I will be happ y to submit any further written 

statement, and I will obtain the Cramton Report for the committee.

[A copy of the Cramton Report is retained in the committee files.]

Mr. Eilberg. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of David Carliner follows:]

St a t e m e n t op D avid C a r l in e r on B eh a l f o p A m eric a n C iv il

L ib e r t ie s U nio n

The American Civil Liberties Union has not been stirred previously to react 

to the proposals to impose sanctions upon employers who hire aliens illegally 

in the United States. Although, we were concerned with the effect which the 

legislation would have upon the emp loymen t opportunities of persons lawfully 

in the United States as aliens, and even as citizens, our judgm ent was th at we 

could not oppose the proposals upon the grounds th at the y viola ted the civil 

liberties of the aliens targeted or of the employers who were to be sanctioned.
295

But when we heard high government officials say th at to be effective the 

legislation requires a piece of paper to be “prescribed by the Attorney General”, 

a work perm it for every one living in the United State s, we became aware th at 

the means have become worse tha n the end.

We are agha st th at a form er Acting Attorney General could urge this Subcomm ittee to ado pt a proposal to make all persons seeking work in the United 

States produce their birth certificates, or an “ap pro priate Immigration and 

Naturalization Service doc ument” and say in its sup port th at this “app roach 

would assure equal tre atm ent for all Americans” .

From the beginning this Subcommittee, although with other members, has 

indicate d its opposition to citizens’ identification cards and to other trappings

* of a police state as a means for dete rring the employmen t of aliens illegally in 

the United States.

The American Civil Liberties Union urges th at this Committe e continue to 

oppose such methods. We specifically urge that, it delete th at part of section 2 

of II.R. 982 which auth orizes the Attorney General to prescribe and prepare

* forms for identifying persons in the United States for the purpose of securing 

employment.

Moreover, the American Civil Liberties Union believes th at despite the hearings which have been held by this Committee over the p ast 4 years, not sufficient 

evidence has been produced to warrant such a drastic change in the mode of 

life in the United State s.

No statistics, reliable or unreliable, on the num ber of aliens in the work force 

have ever been furnished to this Committee, only impressionistic guesses. Before 

adopting legislation in an area which would have sensitive impact, not only in 

the so-called illegal aliens bu t on all aliens and on citizens who have Spanish 

surnames, or names which are associated with Asian and African countries, the 

leas t th at Congress should do is to obtain information as to the number of aliens 

in the labor force.

There should also be an awareness of th e differences among the types of aliens 

who are described as “illegal aliens” . The largest proportion are those aliens 

who enter the United Sta tes withou t inspection across the Mexican border. The 

natur e of tha t problem is interme shed with United States-Mexican relations and 

the nature of the economy on each side of th e border. The dispute whether there 

are sufficient persons with in the United States to perform the work which has 

been undertaken by Mexican Nationals has never been resolved.

The smaller proportions of aliens who are described as “illegal aliens” are those 

who have entered the Un ited States lawfully as stud ents, pleasure visitors, business visitors or in various categories. Many of these persons, students in partic ular, 

may be “illegal” because they have worked without permission, worked full-time 

rather tha n part-time, or have failed to mainta in a full course of studies. Other 

aliens are regarded as illegal even though they may have pending applications to 

become perm anent residents of th e United States.

H.R . 982 makes no distinctions among these categories of aliens.

As written , II.R . 982 will be a license for counterfeiting because the recpiirement 

th at an applicant for emp loyment produce a born in American birth certificate,

* as experience with various Imm igration documents has shown, will sta rt printing 

presses rolling to produce bi rth certificates.

The proposal th at th e De partm ent of Ju stice issue a government form to esta blish proof of citizenship or an alien autho rity to work is, in effect, a nother govern- 

« men t identification card. It is the trap ping of a police state.

Despite the hearings held on this bill, there is no showing th at the economy 

of the United States requ ires this type of police control over the employment 

of aliens.

Mr. Eilberg. This hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m. the subcommittee adjourned, subject to 

the call of the Chair.]

ILLEGAL ALIENS

T H U R S D A Y , M A R C H 13 , 197 5

H o u se of R e p r e s e n t a t iv e s,

S u b c o m m it tee on I m m ig ra tio n,

C lT Z E N S H lP , AND IN TERNATIO NA L LAW

o f t h e C o m m it tee on t h e J u d ic ia ry,

Washingto n, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m., in room 2226, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joshua Eilberg 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Present: Representatives Eilbeig, Sarbanes, Holtzman, Russo, 

Fish, and Cohen. Also present: Garner J. Cline and Arthur P. Endres Jr., counsels; Janice A. Zarro, assistant counsel: and Alexander B. Cook, associate 

counsel.

Mr. Eilberg. The subcommittee will come to order. I would like to welcome Msgr. George G. Higgins, secretary for research of the U.S. Catholic Conference and his associates at the 

table. Monsignor, for the record, would you care to identify your 

associates?

TESTIMONY OF MSGR. GEORGE G. HIGGINS, SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH, U.S. CATHOLIC CONFERENCE, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN E.

McCart hy, director ; donald g. ho hl, ass ociate dir ecto r,

MIGRATION AND REFU GEE SERV ICES; AND STEPHEN SOLIS. MIGRANT SPECIALIST, SECRETARIAT FOR THE SPANISH SPEAKING

Monsignor Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and committee members. My name is Geoige G. Higgins. 1 am the secretary for research of the U.S. Catholic Conference, the coordinating body of the Catholic Bishops of the United States. Present with me are three 

other members of the Conference staff—John E. McCaithy, director, 

and Donald G. Hohl, at mv right, associate director, Migration and Refugee Services, and Stephen Solis, migrant specialist, Secretariat for the Spanish Speaking. We appear here today to present the views of the U.S. Catholic Conference on the problem of the alien who is in this country without proper documentation, the so-called “illegal 

alien.” This House Subcommittee which has studied this matter in depth over the past few years and has twice reported out bills which have passed the House, need not be subjected to still another summation of the problems facing the aliens themselves and our Nation as a whole because of the fact that the number of illegals has increased so 

(297)
298

dramatically in recent years. The Church, of course, is vitally interested in knowing who the illegal alien is, why he has come to this 

country and, now that he is here, what can be done for him and his 

family by enacting legislative reforms which will be equitable and 

humane and will also be effective in preventing a recurrence of the 

problem under consideration.

The alien may be of any nationality and may come from any country 

in either hemisphere. When he comes from the Western Hemisphere 

his motivation is predominantly economic in nature. On the other 

hand, he may have a family in this country whose laws, as they are 

now written, force him to be separated from tha t family for 2% years 

or more. He may also be a political refugee, bu t unless he comes from 

certain defined areas of the Eastern Hemisphere, he can be granted 

at most a haven in “limbo” but cannot be given permanent sanctuary 

in this country. In short, he is the victim of an oppressive political 

and/or economic system in his home country and a victim of discriminatory U.S. immigration laws and practices which foster family 

separation (should he be from the Western Hemisphere) rather than 

promoting family reunification.

Mr. Eilberg. Monsignor, may I just interrupt by telling you tha t 

the subcommittee has made a high priority of II.R. 981, the bill 

concerning Western Hemisphere immigration to this country, and we 

intend to act promptly. I just wanted to give you that information.

Monsignor Higgins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

He may also be the victim of a shortsighted, narrowly conceived 

definition of the term “refugee” as it is currently interpreted under 

our laws. All illegal aliens, however, share one thing in common—they 

soon become victims of discrimination and exploitation in the very 

country where they have sought a normal life in an atmosphere of 

freedom.

In an effort to find a solution to this problem, the sponsors of the 

legislative proposal before us today have, as a first priority, moved to 

penalize the employer of the illegal alien so as to remove the economic 

motive for aliens to take up unauthorized employment. We feel that 

the sick society of the illegal alien must be treated in many ways, not 

merely one, for as outlined above, he suffers from a variety of ills, not 

merely an economic one.

We therefore recommend a comprehensive package of legislative 

steps, to be taken concurrently, which will:

(1) institute an eouitable preference system applicable to both the 

Eastern and Western Hemisphere based primarily on family reunification and the admission of refugees;

(2) grant adjustment of status for all persons regardless of their 

country of bi rth ;

(I realize, Mr. Chairman, this does not fall within the purview of 

your subcommittee.)

(3) increase foreign aid and economic assistance to the countries 

of Latin America in general and Mexico in particular;

(4) create an across-the-board grant of amnesty with the necessary 

residency cutoff date for eligibility and adjustment of status, without 

chargeability against the numerical ceilings.

What is the rationale behind this recommendation in favor of 

amnesty?
299

First of all, T think it must be recog nize d th at because of deficiencies 

over a span of many yea rs in our foreign aid anti economic assistance 

policies with regard to Mexico and othe r Latin American cou ntries, 

because of our failure to pre vent the mass influx of illegal aliens and 

our failure to enforce ex istin g laws— a p rac tice which mak es it econom icall y attrac tiv e for both the illegal alien and the emplo yer to en ter 

into working relationships— the Go ve rnme nt of the United Sta te s 

bears a hea vy sha re of responsibility for the chaot ic situation which 

exists today. Second, with ou t a meaning ful am ne sty pro gram, it is en tirely possible th at the mem bers of this illegal alien society will be dri ven 

furth er underground and th at a pe rm an en t sub cultu re will be cre ate d 

in the Un ited State s. In such a situation it is doubtfu l th at even 

massive expenditu res of time, mo ney , and effo rt on the pa rt of the Im migration Service would ever lead to adequate controls. Wo uld it 

no t be m ore effective for the Im migratio n Service to exp end its energy 

and funds in th e area of p rev ent ion rat he r than in the area of ap preh en ­

sion and deporta tio n? Fin ally, should an across-the-boar d type of am nesty be gran ted, 

the extrem ely serious and troublesome suggestion th at ev ery Ame rican 

citizen be issued a comm on ide ntification card or “interna l pa ss po rt’’ 

so called need no longer be con sidered. Mr. Ch air ma n, as you and the othe r mem bers of the subc om mittee 

are aware, Public Law 92-603, which was ena cted qn Octob er 30, 1972, 

req uir es the Social Sec urit y Ad minist ratio n to scre en all ap plican ts 

for social security car ds as to their eligibility to tak e up em plo ym ent . 

If the card is sought for oth er lawfu l purposes and it is no t used for 

such purp oses, the nam e and add ress of the car dhold er is rep orted to 

the Im migr ati on Service for inv est iga tion. Th us if am nesty were 

granted , for example, to all who are in the Un ited States to da y or as 

of J an ua ry 1, 1973, the effective da te of Public Law 92-6 03, th en the 

social security card would become the proof of the rig ht to take up 

emplo ym ent , regardless of the da te of issuance. It would become th e 

control fac tor, and there would be no need to recall or reissue a single 

card. Throu gh a tig htening up of the regula tions pro mu lga ted under 

Public Law 92-603 and through the expansion of social sec urity 

benefits to those occ upa tion al catego ries n ot yet covered, unautho riz ed 

employme nt wou ld be minimized. As in the case of any law, of 

course-—the Fa ir Labor Stan dards Act, for exam ple, or the Internal 

• Reven ue Cod e— the degree of enf orc em ent is the gage of the law ’s

effectiveness. Th e gra nt of amn esty in conjun ction with the other ab ove-me ntio ned 

ste ps becomes the key to solving the problem of those aliens who are 

here now and pre venting the rec urrence of this problem in the fu ture.

As regards the specific proposals conta ine d in H.R . 9S2, sho uld it 

be agre ed th at san ctions again st emplo yers are a necessary ad junc t 

to ou r proposals, we feel that such san ctions should be applied only 

prospectively. To accomplish thi s end, the suggested wor ding in 

section 274(h)(1) “ * * * employ, continue to employ * * *’’ shou ld 

be change d to read “• * * to hire and emp loy after the effective da te 

of this Act. * * ♦”

49- 76 9— 75------20
300

Th e effect of the present wording of H.R. 982 would be a screening 

by the employer of all the emp loye es within 90 days after the law 

was enact ed. The dismissal of untold numb ers of wor kers from their 

job s in such a short period of tim e would cause, we believe, unb elie vable hav oc among the ir families and in the com munities where they 

live. It would be physica lly impossib le for the Im migration Service 

to mov e such large numb ers of people. Moreov er, in our jud gm ent, it 

is u nco nscionable th at our Go vernme nt should even conside r se pa rating families by forcing a m ass exodus or d eport ati on of litera lly millions 

of men, women, and children .

In the. process of screenin g the new employee, it should be mandator y, not optional, that the emplo yer impure of eve ry ap pli cant as to 

his legal right to tak e up em plo ym ent . Such a r equir em ent is essential 

to avoid any possible discriminat ion in th e screening and hirin g process.

We oppose in the strongest terms the req uir em ent in section 274A 

th at any officer or e mplo yee of the Dep artm en t of H ea lth , Ed ucation, 

and Welfare disclose the name s and addresses of aliens “who such 

officer and employee knows” are unlawfully in the Un ited State s and 

are receiving certain welfare benefits. The very idea th at the Dep ar tment of He alth, Ed ucati on , and Welfare might be turned into an 

inv est iga tiv e or enforc em ent type agency is, in our jud gm ent, 

tho rou ghly rep ugnant.

Lastly, as regards the proposed am endm ents to section 245, the 

adjus tm ent of status provision, we do not feel th at the res tric tion as 

to unautho riz ed em plo ym ent should be included. A some wh at similar 

prov ision was contained in the 1952 act but was dele ted as u nde sira ble 

in the a d of 19G5. Since the gr an t of ad justm en t un de r this section 

is at the disc retion of the Atto rney General, abuses can be controlled 

by the sound exercise of th at disc retion. We furth er suggest th at 

adjus tm ent be mad e ava ilab le to bon a fide refugees regardless of the 

ma nner of the ir en try into the Un ited Sta tes .

Mr. Ch air ma n and members of the com mittee, as we app roach the 

Bic ent enn ial celebra tion of the founding of our country , let us adopt 

as our theme , in seeking a fair and hu man ita ria n solu tion to this very 

serious prob lem, the fam ilia r mott o “L ibert y and Justice For All.”

Tha nk you, Mr. Ch air man and mem bers of the com mittee.

Mr. E ilberg. Th an k you , Monsigno r Higgins.

I hav e a few que stio ns th at 1 would like to ask you, Monsigno r. 

Do you have any idea as to the numb er of ind ividuals who would 

benefit by e ither of the am ne sty p rovisions you have suggested—those 

in the Un ited Sta tes tod ay or those here as of Ja nu ar y 1, 1973?

Mo nsigno r Higgins. I do not. Bu t I will ask Mr. Hold of our 

M igratio n and Refugee Serv ices, if he cares to make wha t I assume 

can be only an educa ted guess. 1 hav e hea rd the wid est variations of 

figures in th at area.

Mr. H ohl. It would be difficult to say, the twro are as we can look 

at are: No. 1, is per hap s the nu mb er of people who are registered on 

the Western Hem isph ere wa iting list, certainly a pro portio n, wh eth er 

it is a big or a small pro portio n, a certain pro portio n of those people 

are in the country rig ht now awaiting the availabi lity of visas. The 

other one, of course, gets us into the problem of how many illegal 

aliens are in the Un ited St ates and we certa inly are in no be tte r 

position than the Im mi grati on Service or othe r branch of th e G overnme nt to make an estim ate on th at . It wmuld be difficult to say.
301

Mr. Eilberg. All right. Now, you advocate across-the-board 

amnesty. Do you take into account, or to what extent do you take 

into account the amount of unemployment in this country? Do you 

also consider the numbers of jobs that are filled by illegal aliens which 

have been estimated by Immigration to be in the neighborhood of 

1 million?

Monsignor H iggins. I might, Mr. Chairman, if you will permit a 

personal note, I might say that my whole background and training is 

in the field of labor and labor economics. I am extremely sensitive to 

the position of the labor movement on the issue which you have 

raised. My own instincts are definitely in the direction of protecting 

the rights of our own citizens and of legal aliens in this country, but 

] weigh against tha t the point raised in our testimony and that is 

what I consider to be the horrendous possibility of our Government 

on very short notice deporting what could be literally millions of 

people. And it seems to me t hat what we are trying to do, however 

successfully or unsuccessfully, is to look for a way to resolve the 

present crisis, and then find whatever ways are necessary to keep it 

from recurring.

But 1 have to depart from all of my friends in the labor movement, 

those of my friends in the labor movement, if there are any, who 

would take a stand against amnesty on the grounds tha t it would 

hurt our own workers because 1 cannot in my own mind live with 

the thought of our own Government just carrying on a massive 

deportation of people who have deep ties in this country today.

Mr. Eilberg. Monsignor Higgins, are you thoughtful of the following considerations. Many people, millions perhaps, have entered 

this country illegally, without thought of, or in violation of, our 

immigration laws, while many, many other people respectful of our 

laws, have made applications for immigration to this country and are 

waiting respectfully in line, let’s say, in the Western Hemisphere, to 

the extent tha t the backlog is in the neighborhood of 2 years now? 

Do you agree with me that there is some injustice to those people 

who have tried to abide by our law? ’Those who are waiting their 

turn and are respectful of our immigration policy as distinguished 

from many who wantonly have ignored our immigration laws?

Monsignor Higgins. Well, 1 think 1 would have to say th at, yes, 1 

am aware of that. 1 would be forced in honesty, to say I do not know 

the answer to it and 1 will not attempt a logical argument to defend 

my position on it. I just am trying to weigh, in the balance, elements 

which perhaps cannot be reconciled. But many of these people who 

came in illegally—you have used the word, Mr. Chairman ‘‘wantonly”—1 suppose that would accurately describe the position of 

some, but they are people with grave economic problems at home. 

Many of them, I suspect, although I would not attempt to prove it, 

were enticed into the country by employers who for their own reasons, 

wanted a large group of illegals here so that they could hire them at 

lower wages, et cetera.

We are dealing with what seems to me to be a terribly human 

problem, and while I would be—and I think my colleagues would join 

me in tins—in favor of very effective efforts to prevent a recurrence 

of this problem, we are struggling with the human problem of what to 

do about it now, that is before us.
302

Mr. Eilberg. Monsignor, you are, I believe, suggesting an acrossthe-board amnesty proposal. As we look at this question, I wonder 

if you would support a case-bv-case approach to amnesty which would 

consider not only the length of residence, but also family situations, 

employment records, police records, and so forth, a selective system 

of amnesty?

Monsignor Higgins. I wonder if I could ask Mr. Hold again to speak 

to that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. II ohl. We had hoped by the suggestion of an across-the-board 

type of amnesty, as it were, to kill two birds with one stone, solve 

two problems. F irst of all, we feel very strongly and have always felt 

very strongly that we need amnesty, and that we need amnesty especially, but not solely, for the purposes of family reunion.

This is the primary basic concern of the Church. If we go into the 

matter of a case-bv-case study, by virtue of relationship, by virtue of 

residence, of perhaps refugee status, et cetera, it probably would take 

care of the vast majority of tiie people with whom we are primarily 

concerned. This does not mean tha t we are not concerned about other 

categories. However, the subcommittee has been faced with the very, 

very difficult problem of a sanction which has imposed a penalty 

against the employer, and the problem of how tha t employer is going 

to identify the prospective applicant for the job.

I think it also lias been at least a recent concern of the subcommittee 

tha t there not be discrimination in this process of screening out the 

applicants for the jobs, so that the employer would not be in violation 

of the law.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to follow up 

on a question the Chairman asked on the selective approach to the 

granting of amnesty because Monsignor Higgins has testified that there 

are deep ties that would be disturbed and tha t millions of people might 

be deported.

What if the ties are not very deep and what if the person happens 

to be single?

Mr. II ohl. If we get into the matter of selectivity—this is the 

reference 1 was making previously—if we say a primary concern is 

not to separate immediate members.of families, we p ut it this way.

Mr. Cohen. Suppose he does not have-----

Mr. Hohl. Then we get down to whether he has been here r number 

of years.

Mr. Cohen. In other words, we find his family is in Mexico and he •

is here.

Mr. IIohl. If we take a selective approach, of course, there are 

certainly going to be lower priorities given the fellow here who is single 

with no relatives in this country, as opposed to one with relatives.

M r. Cohen. Would not that be a more equitable approach?

Mr. Hohl. It could be that way could take care of perhaps those 

with highest priorities—with which we are concerned. The problem of 

administration certainly has to be taken into consideration.

The adjudication of these people, having them come forward,

I understand from the Immigration Service tha t there might be 

extreme difficulties in the selective approach if you give a definition of 

each person who has to qualify by virtue of relationship or as to resi-
303

Hence, etc. From the standpoint of adjudication, this would be more 

difficult than if we had an across-the-board type of thing.

Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Monsignor IIiggins. Mr. Chairman, Mr. McCarthy, the Director 

of Migration Services, would like to add a word on that point.

Mr. McCarthy. I just want to eliminate one little innuendo.

We do not, and are not, in this way condoning illegal immigration. 

We have the problem of people actually here now. It is our feeling 

tha t on the selective process, if H.R. 981 was passed, we would then 

have a workable structure built in and give the Immigration Service 

an area where to work because we would have the family, and relatives 

to identify.

Mr. Cohen. How does it prevent future abuses?

Mr. McCarthy. Well, no, no. If we can break the two things down, 

if we are talking about future abuses, we agree th at it is all economic, 

that if the people were forbidden to work here—and I think Monsignor 

Higgins will go along with this—if people did not have jobs, they 

would not come. These are n ot tourists. They are people who need a 

“piece of the action” dollarwise. It is all an economic problem. The 

problem here is an economic problem and our feeling is, if H.R . 981 

were enacted, as far as internally is concerned if it was a package 

proposition, 9S1, to have these people identified, leam wdio they are.

And you say about selection, every individual, presumably, would 

have to go before an Immigration Officer, as is the case now, and be 

checked out police-wise, public welfare-wise. This is done today in all 

our adjudications.

Mr. Cohen. If I could just respond, Mr. Chairman, according to 

Monsignor’s testimony, it is n ot an economic problem but these are 

people who have come to this country because of being victims (on 

page 2 of his statement)—“ victims of an oppressive political and/or 

economic system in his own coun try.” It is not simply economies.

Monsignor Higgins. No, there are others. Obviously the refugees, 

most of them, are here for political reasons. The greater number 

tha t wre are talking about are people who came here for economic 

reasons.

Mr. Eilberg. Monsignor, it appears to me tha t you place greater 

emphasis on family reunification—and I can’t quarrel with that—

* yet you prefer to have an across-the-board amnesty.

Looking at the comprehensive package which you describe on page 

2, talking about “an equitable preference system applicable to both

* the Eastern and Western Hemisphere”, this subcommittee will give 

serious consideration to that and, hopefully, pass a bill similar to 

981, as we did in the last Congress, “grant adjustment status to all 

persons regardless of their country of birth” and three and four, 

“increase foreign aid” and “create an across-the-board grant of 

amn esty .”

Suppose we were to meet these steps basically—of couise, this subcommittee cannot affect the foreign aid situation.

Monsignor Higgins. I understand that.

Mr. Eilberg. But if w e w ere to provide some amnesty which would 

take care of real family relationships and substantially meet these 

other items or legislative steps, would you then approve 982?
304

Monsignor Higgins. Yes, then I think T would. What we have 

attempted to do was to suggest, without having any final answer to 

the problem, of course, that one single approach is not going to do it, 

that sanctions alone touch upon only one aspect of the problem, and 

we have tried to put it in a larger setting.

I am very, very conscious of the concern of people who are advocating sanctions. I have spent a great deal of time working on the 

farm labor problem. I am fully convinced in my own mind that many 

employers have deliberately enticed or recruited illegals to this country for their own purposes. I am quite sympathetic to the position of 

those who say there has to be a crackdown on that to remove economic 

motives; but are we trying to put that in the broader context.

Mr. Eilberg. This is a technical question which perhaps one of w

your assistants might want to address.

Page 4 of your statement. At the top you suggest a deletion of the 

language in section 274(b)(1), “continue to employ * * *”. Since 

this legislation does not in any way affect the deportability of the 

illegal alien, what impact or what purpose would be served by the 

deletion of tha t language?

Monsignor Higgins. Mr. Hold, would you speak to that?

Mr. IIohl. Your question. Mr. Chairman, was, inasmuch as this 

does not affect the deportability of the alien—was that it?

Mr. E ilberg. Yes.

Mr. II ohl. All right. The assumption here is that the alien—of 

course we are talking about tin* illegal alien, an illegal alien who is 

employed—therefore is deportable for one reason or another, not 

simple because he is taking up employment. So he would be deportable.

And if the employer were required—not required now; we understand 

the language—but the effect of that language is, he is going to check, 

he is going to look over his payroll and if he finds the illegal on there 

he is going to dismiss him from his work. Whether this action is brought 

to the attention of the Immigration Service that an illegal has been 

on the payroll and that he lias been dismissed or whether this person 

is just now without means of livelihood and no means of obtaining 

another job, the effect means that he is going to be out of work and 

he is going to be walking the streets or going to be leaving the country.

Mr. Eilberg. One more question, Monsignor, and then I will pass 

to the others.

On page 4 of your statement, you state tha t the employer should 

be required to make inquiry of every job applicant as to his legal 

right to take up employment. What specific affirmative obligations •

would you impose upon the employer?

Would a simple inquiry be sufficient, or would he be required to 

obtain and record documentation which is submitted by the applicant 

or would he be required to make actual determinations as to citizenship or legal alien status of his prospective employee?

Monsignor Higgins. I suppose you might say we deliberately 

avoided tha t issue. I will be glad to speak to it, but the main purpose 

of inserting that particular paragraph in the testimony was to try to 

reduce to the bare minimum any possibility of the employer using 

this for discriminatory purposes. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I am 

sure there has been a great deal of testimony before your committee 

on this. It is of great concern to many of the Spanish-speaking groups
305

in this cou ntry. Th ey are con cerned th at all S pan ish-sp eak ing citizens, 

legal aliens, and illegal, will be tre ated alike because of the color of 

their skin and this will red ound to the harm of the whole comm unity.

I am no t technically equip ped to argu e strongly one way or anoth er 

on specific ways of doi ng this. I am fam ilia r with the testim ony th at 

has been given before this sub com mittee on the issue and I would be 

willing myself, to leav e th at to the judg me nt of the sub com mittee 

because I do no t claim to hav e the com petence to know precisely 

how you would do it. But we are conc erned ab ou t the principle of 

ma kin g sure th at the emplo yer does not use this as a dodge in some 

wa y which will hu rt a whole catego ry of people by reason of the ir 

color or language or na tio na l origin.

Mr. E ilbekg. Mr. Sar ban es.

Mr. Sarbanes. Tha nk you, Mr. Chairma n. Monsig nor, than k you 

for a very helpful sta temen t.

Le t me ask you wh ethe r you agree with the perception that failure 

to do som ething ab ou t the illegal alien prob lem will begin to, or will, 

jeo pardize the possibility of tak ing some constru ctive acti on with 

res pect to legal aliens, including, for exam ple, points one and two on 

page 2 of yo ur tes tim on y and, in fac t, will jeopar dize the con tinu ed 

dev elo pm ent of a sen sitive and huma ne legal imm igra tion policy in 

accordance with which 1 think we took eno rmo us steps in 1965 when 

we changed the na ture of those laws.

Do you perceive th at intera ction which I am talkin g abo ut and 

which I have seen com me nted about in one place and ano ther?

Monsignor Higg ins . I am not workin g professionally in the im ­

mi gra tion field. 1 can give you only my strong hun ch that this will 

wo rk against an improvem ent, if we allow the illegal alien problem to 

go unresolved. If it gets worse, as it ma y well get worse wi thou t 

adeq uate legislation, th en I am sure it will h ur t our c hance of impr ovin g 

the s itu ation in o ther areas.

B ut Mr. McC arthy and Mr. Hold are professionals in the field. 

Do y ou wish to spe ak to it, Mr. Hold?

Mr. McCarthy. We ca n’t agree with you more. We wan t to solve 

this illegal immigra tion problem. We w an t to solve it as quickly and as 

pe rm an ently as it can be done. We are saying, how can we do it with ou t a com plete disru pti on of millions of families— the Co mmission er says 10 million people? Th at is probably not including their 

depen den ts. We are in a crisis! We agree with you. Bu t we are saying, 

actio n against the illegal per se, shou ld be tied in with other n o il - 

discriminatory ad ministrativ e remedies, to wit the equality on the preference system , the permission for ad jus tm en t of sta tus—once 

you hav e these two item s, you then develop a man age able level of 

the real illegal, we say, a person wi thou t any ties. You the n know 

what you are talkin g about.

These people will come up and wh atev er the judgme nt of the com ­

mittee is, and wha teve r admi nis tra tiv e remedies or relief the y are 

going to provide to this kno wn factor, can be d ete rmine d. Then, the re 

is no question, I do not think , against acti on, aga inst the illegals who 

do no t enjoy any ben efits th at this com mittee will not confer upo n 

them. Bu t as to the illegals in the futur e, then* s hou ld be the str ict est 

con trols and the c ontrols shou ld relate to economic f actors to elimin ate 

the problem.
306

And we are looking at a crisis for years to come. Th e average age in 

Mexico is 15 y ears , the ave rag e salar y is $650 a year, with 50 perce nt 

unem plo ym ent. Across a mud dy stream, $12,000 a ye ar—8 p erc ent 

unem plo ym ent going dow n or up, it does not mean ve ry much. B ut 

yo u’ve got $2.20 an ho ur minim um wage. Th e top is going to blow 

off th e cooker if we do no t do some thing a bo ut it .

The thing is economic. B ut you have to do it with a normal consciousne ss of tak ing care of two separat e item s. Th e people are here 

because, nu mber 1, our im mi grati on laws were no t enforced . Th e 

pro blem is here toda y on yo ur hands, and you ca nn ot depo rt 10 

million people. Let ’s be ho nest with ourselves. We’ve go t to figure some 

wa y to div ide the packag e up in manag eab le sizes.

Mr. Sarb anes. Which pac kage?

Mr. M cC arthy. We are relat ing now to those who wou ld enjoy a 

preferenc e stat us if we ju st eq ua ted our laws.

Mr. Sarb ane s. You div ide those covered by po int nu mb er 4 in 

two dif fer ent categories, 1 assu me by th at sta temen t?

Mr. M cCarthy. I see this is the point for the discre tion of your 

comm itte e. Th is is the co mmittee’s prob lem. We are saying, we have 

majo r problems here, and the m ajor proble m is fa mily reu nity, and the 

pro ble m descend s in a dow nw ard course as it relates to the single 

ind ivi dual who has been here 7 years and can ad just un de r our existing laws, the susp ension of depo rta tio n. Tho se who have been here 

less th an 7 yea rs, 1 assume the comm itte e in their jud gm en t which one 

of these single area s they can find within their willingness and Godgiven ho nesty to det erm ine wha t relief should be pro vid ed. Bu t a 

major inter est, our majo r interest is on families. Th ese are people 

who in an y oth er co un try outside the West ern He misph ere would 

enjoy this preference. A person born in China, Ital y, or Greece comes 

int o this co un try and ma rries and there is no problem. He has all 

kin ds of preferences for him. A person comes from Mexico, Pa nama , 

Ce ntral America, and the re is no preference for him.

Mr. E ilbe rg . Mr. Fish.

Mr. Fis h. Th an k you very mu ch, Mr. Ch airma n.

Mo nsignor, than k you for bein g with us tod ay.

I think we all agree o n the issue of family reunification, how importa nt it is. Yo ur stress is v ery un de rst an da ble. We have h ad testim ony 

how eve r, from the IN S to th e effect th at from 5 to 10 perce nt of the 

visitors to the United States each y ea r get “l os t.” If you h ave 6 million 

vis itors, this is a sizable nu mbe r of people and I think th at it is really 

a problem, to which we should add ress ourselves.

Th ese peop le are eit he r stud en ts or busines sme n or at lea st they 

have the mo ney to come to th is country , the passage money . I would 

guess th at they are largely ad ult s, young and mid dle-aged adults, 

and hig hly empl oyable. I do no t think we r eal ly add ress th at p roblem 

because they are also more th an likely single, or at lea st they do no t 

have ties in the Un ited St ates. And I ju st w ondered if th at is a p rop er 

assumption . We ha ve no t yet got ten the figures from General Ch apma n 

th at I ask ed for at the tim e th at he testified. Does yo ur con cept 

of the am ne sty e xte nd to this gro up as well?

Mo nsignor H igg ins. Well, I will address, or try to answer the 

questio n and throw it ou t to the professional staff peop le if they care 

to comm ent on it.
307

From a realistic point of view I think I would be inclined to say 

yes, I would like as much amnesty as is feasible and I have been around long enough to know tha t that is a very flexible term, for th ereason I believe it would be a monumental job to try to find and deport all these people. On the other hand, I do not want to leave the impression for the moment tha t I am unconcerned with the problem of the man who deliberately overstays his visa and is a single' 

man or woman and who takes advantages of tha t situation. Whether it can be controlled or not, I do not know. General

* Chapman would have to answer that question. It seems to have been going on for a long time. This is one of the reasons we indicated in our summary tha t we think our Government has some responsibility for this. We helped to create this problem, I think. But we let it get out of hand, and then in the process, lots of human problems were 

created. I was here the day General Chapman testified to tha t pointful response to a question from one of the members of the committee and I jus t would not want to have his job to try to stop that. lie did n ot 

seem to me to give any indication tha t they were in any position really to control it. I remember one of the members of the committee pushed him hard on that. But since we have let it go on for such a long time because apparently not only in the case of those who overstayed their visas, but the whole border problem, etc., now we are faced with a crisis and we are concerned about the terrible human problems tha t 

are involved in that crisis. We are also concerned about stopping it or controlling it. I do not 

have any answer; 1 would have, obviously much less sympathy for one who deliberately overstayed his visa, who was not coming over here for sheer economic necessity the way many other illegal aliens 

have. But whether it is a practical solution for our Government, once 

the crisis is upon us in such a large scale, to tr y to find all these people and to deport them, I would not know. I get the impression that the 

Immigration Service is already over its head.

Mr. Fish. Monsignor, at the bottom of page 3 in your testimony, 

you start a paragraph stating “The gran t of amnesty in conjunction with the other above-mentioned steps becomes the key to solving the problem of those aliens who are here now and preventing the recurrence 

of this problem in the future.”

May I ask you how amnesty would prevent the recurrence of the

• problem in the future. How would you trea t the argument that, the 

very fact that amnesty was granted to all those here illegally would encourage others to expect amnesty a few years later again; if they 

come in would we be encouraging more people to forge documents, to falsify the bona tides to their inten t to be here for a temporary stay?

Monsignor Higgins. There are two questions here. The first question 

is, our statement says, amnesty in conjunction with the other pro­ posals. I think what we are suggesting there is, amnesty plus controls, whether it is through the use of a non-negotiable social security card, 

or some other means, sanctions to control a situation, we are not 

talking about amnesty alone.

Your second question is a question tha t I do no t think anyone can 

answer. The only answer I would attempt is th at we would have to get-
308

very serious abo ut it, and I (io not thi nk we hav e been serious up to 

now. We hav e allowed a pr et ty free and easy app roach to the e ntry of 

illegals. I know cases myself whi ch I could not prove in a court bu t 

which 1 am satisfied in my own mind about, where emp loyers in 

California on the farm s have brou gh t in illegals to bre ak strike s. We 

have let th at go on over a long period of time. Ma ybe we could no t 

control it at the time. I do n’t know. Mavbe the Im migr ati on Service 

was not equ ipp ed to do it, but for whate ver reasons, it has hap pen ed.

1 assum e if this cu rrent crisis can somehow be hu manel y resolved, th at 

there will be widespread supp ort for a much more serious type of »

control on the situ atio n, because 1 do not think myself, as Mr. Mc- 

( 'arthy has ind icated, that we can let this thing go on. I think we would 

hav e endless crises in this c ountry if we did not bring this under some 

pro per control. *

But the com mittee is taking wh at we would like to think , per hap s 

wrongly, is the hum ane appro ach to it. But the problem is here, to a 

large ex ten t, because we, eit he r throug h negligence or because we 

tur ned the o ther way and let it g et ou t of h and, and now we are faced 

sud den ly with a crisis.

Bu t if I may interr upt for a mo me nt on this very point, T won der if 

we can perha ps come back to th at a little later. Mr. Fis h------

Mr. Fish. 1 have one more que stio n.

Monsignor H iggins. Yes, sure ly.

Mr. Fis h. You used the word “h um ane” as far as the appro ach is 

concerned. I think you could, in justification, use “moral'’ also. I 

wan t to ask you also, because you mu st hav e considered this, the 

mo rality of illegal aliens hold ing down jobs in the Uni ted State s and 

through the am nesty being pe rm itt ed to con tinue to do so, jobs of a 

category , we are told by witnessess, in direct comp etition with minorities and yo uths who are either Am erican citiz ens by birth or na turalization , or aliens, lawfully ad mitted and entitl ed to work. Somebody 

is going to get hurt.

Pre sen tly we are told th at there are millions of illegal aliens holding 

jobs here th at would otherwise be available to those legally ent itle d 

to work.

Monsignor H iggins. I said, I thi nk before you entered the room,

Mr. Fish, in response to a v ery e arly que stio n, th at because of my own 

bac kgroun d over a period of 35 years here in Wa shington in the labor •

field, in the general field of la bor relatio ns, and allied area s, I am extrem ely conscious of this pro blem and I have great, grea t symp ath y 

for the position take n, for example, by the lab or u nions on this m atter. »

Bu t I am finding it difficult to reconcile the two things. W ha t do we 

do ab ou t the prob lem which has snow balle d and has faced us with the 

crisis?

1 just find it hard to conceive of our co un try so lving it by expelling 

great masses of these people. 1 would thi nk that once we can work ou t 

some resolution of the sta tus of the people who are now here, it would 

be far easier for the labo r movem ent people to do wh at the y have no t 

been able to do until now, to my knowledge, and th at is to organize 

these people. Tha t is one of the problem s th at the tra de unions are 

faced with.

1 ra th er imag ine th at before yo ur hearing s are concluded you ma y 

hear tes tim ony in this form from some unions who are attempting to 

do this and a re leaning tow ard s amnesty as a solutio n to the ir problem.
309

Btit, speaking to that point, T won der if T could raise the point which I 

did not put in the testimo ny but which 1 feel ver\ str ongly abo ut. On the one hand, Mr. Ch airma n, or Mr. Kish, you hav e indicated and correctly, this enormous problem of the possibility and may be the rea lity of job s being tak en by illegals, and at the same time we h ear of groups—1 will not men tion an y; b ut you are fam iliar w ith them —who are say ing th at we must hav e a Bracero pro gra m or we must hav e special visa s for area s in which there is no t sufficient lab or; and I sus pec t th at if it were no t for th at , the insi sten ce on th at , th at this 

pro blem would have been acted on legislatively by now. Very powerful grou ps in this country are saying, with 8 percent unemplo ym ent , 20 percen t unem plo ym ent in some areas, th at we have to hav e a Bracero program , or special visas, to tak e care of sho rtag es of labor. I have jus t been amazed th at that proposal would come up in a 

tim e of recession. Very serious, deep recession. Our position would be very str ongly again st the resto ratio n of any 

Bracero pro gram or any ad dit ion to the use of special visa s for special 

categories. In Flo rida the y are still usin g special visa s for certa in c ane workers. 

Two or three weeks ago 1 was in Florida , and rea d dram atic stories in the local pap ers saying th at the re are twice as ma ny farm workers available in Florida as the re were a year or two ago, and as a resu lt, wages have gone down almost 50 percen t. There is a g rea t ove rsupply of fa rm workers because of th e recession. People who left the farm labor mark et and went into the city to tak e low-paying jobs, lost those jobs 

in the recession and now are bac k on the farms. The same thing is happening in California, so we would tak e a strong 

position again st the res toratio n of anyth ing like the Bracero program 

or again st the visas.

Air. E ilbe rg . Mr. Russo?

Mr. Rus so . Th an k you , Mr. Chairma n. Monsignor, I am sorry 1 was late bu t 1 hav e reviewed the testimo ny.

Monsig nor Higgins. Since yo u are from Illin ois and I am too, Mr. 

Rus so, we will forgive you. Mr. Rus so . 1 have a couple of com men ts, and then some questions. It is not the subcom mittee’s feeling th at we have all the answers 

to the illegal alien question, we are trying to find as many solutions as we possibly can. You are aware of all the work th at they have done in the last two Cong resses to get this passed, and it seems to me one of the prob lems of our Go vernme nt— being a F res hm an Con gressman—is th at we only reac t whe n there is a crisis con frontin g this 

cou ntry. The illegal alien problem has a tremendo us effect on unemployment, 

revenu es to the Governm ent, schools, and social sec uri ty benefits. It seems to me tha t we need all the help we can get, especially from 

a Governm ent agency. I just do n’t quite understand why you would 

not wa nt the He alth, Ed uc ation and Welfare De partm ent to help us. On page 4, you indicated yo ur displeasure with the term inology we 

use in section 274A, where we would have an officer/employee let us know the nam es and addresses of illegal aliens th at he knows of. Why 

would n’t you wan t that add itio nal help?

Monsigno r H iggins. It str ike s me, Mr. Russo, as being a rather 

hea rtle ss tu rn of e ven ts to tu rn a h um an ita ria n agency, the one overall
310

agency in (he Government that is supposed to be concerned with 

helping people, welfare and health services, or whatever, to turn them, 

in a time of crisis, into an investigative agency. It is like making the 

social worker an agent of the Internal Revenue Service or whatever.

I cannot prove it, I cannot argue it even logically, but it just 

strikes me th at it would be a bad turn in the affairs of our Government 

to turn tha t particular agency into an investigative agency.

Mr. Russo. But you are aware of the problem facing the Immigration Service, th at it does not have at this point, enough manpower to 

do the job? I imagine that in time, we will address ourselves to tha t 

problem. Until we do, we will seek whatever help we can get.

It is not that we want to deport everybody, but our first obligation 

is to the American people and then we can consider the illegal aliens.

Also, just one question on why you feel the restriction as to unauthorized employment should not be included in section 245.

Monsignor IIiggins. I will ask Mr. Ilohl to speak to that, if he 

would.

Mr. Hohl. This particular section of the law, while certain sta tuto ry 

requirements are spelled out, is a provision of the law which is left 

to the discretion of the Attorney General which means delegation to 

the officers of the Immigration Service. Flexibility is needed. This 

is the whole point. Flexibility is needed in this type of provision.

We have had extreme difficulties with this section of the law prior 

to 1965—this is in the administration of it—as to who would qualify 

and not qualify, and under what conditions and so on. We just 

feel tha t by leaving the present flexibility in the law, tha t it would 

be far easier for the Immigration Service to administer it on a caseby-case basis, and since it is discretionary tha t any abuses tha t may 

arise in an individual case can certainly be taken care of through the 

just exercise of the Attorney General’s discretion.

But to tie their hands with this additional restriction, I just do not 

think tha t it is a good move. Th at’s all.

Mr. Russo. Monsignor, how do you feel about a 5- to 7-year 

period for amnesty rather than outright amnesty as of 1973?

Monsignor Higgins. Our suggestion gives two alternatives, either 

as of the date of the law, the enactm ent of the law, or going back to 

the other law which would probably bring about a period of 3 years. 

Three years would strike me as being a flexible, reasonable arrangement, going back to the date of the law referred to.

Mr. Russo. January, 1973, I believe it is.

Monsignor Higgins. Yes, I realize, of course, that your subcommittee, if at some time it wants to respond to this issue of amnesty, it 

is going to have to struggle with the question of the cutoff date, but 

we have suggested that as a possible alternative.

Mr. Russo. I have no further questions. Thank you, Monsignor.

Monsignor Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Russo.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Cohen. Jus t a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman.

Perhaps preempting the next witness, I will read anyway from a 

statement th at he will offer. It says,

As long as the United States continues to offer wages which are generally 

higher than those in other countries, or at least as long as aliens continue to 

believe that to be true, the poverty in countries like Mexico will continue to push 

aliens to the United States and there is little the government can do to stem the 

flow.
311

And then the witness will testify as to how we ran at least stem 

the pull force of the employer in this country because I guess the 

thrust of his testimony will be tha t you will always have illegal 

aliens pushing to get into this country because of the poverty in oth er 

countries.

This is what troubled me a little bit about the so-called “bla nket 

amnesty” approach that you advocate. On the one hand you suggest 

a lack of enforcement of our laws is the principle for the crisis we are 

now confronted with, and yet a t the same time, you would adama ntly 

oppose an agency such as HEW from reporting to lawful authorities 

that someone who is here illegally is taking advantage of the welfare 

benefits paid for by the taxpayers of this country for those who are 

supposed to legally receive them.

So I think they are inconsistent positions, on the one hand, that 

-the lack of enforcement of our laws creates a problem, and yet w*e 

■suggest another means of trying to control the problem and you 

■advocate a strong position against it. I simply feel tha t “blanket 

amnesty” is about as inequitable as blanket deportation, and one 

which I, frankly, could not support.

Monsignor Higgins. Could I respond to your first observation? 

On HEW, as I said in response to another question, I am not prepared 

to argue the thing logically. I have a deep feeling tha t tha t is n ot the 

right agency to use as a policeman. Th at’s all. Our Government 

obviously has to have enforcement police and officers.

Mr. Cohen. How abo ut Social Security?

Monsignor Higgins. Through the use of the card system, yes. 

We are playing around with tha t idea. Your committee has heard a 

great deal of testimony, I know. I think that is an accepted practice 

in the United States. The social security card is not thought of as an 

internal passport so to speak. We have become accustomed to it as a 

normal way of doing business in the United States, and it seems to me 

there is an area in which improvements could be made and tha t 

there is a potential there. But the internal passport frightens me— 

I won’t say “frightens” me, but I do not like it. HEW just strikes 

me, as being, of all the agencies of Government the one tha t we just 

should not ask to turn them out, while it is mainly concerned with 

giving service to people, to turn around and be the one that-----

Mr. Coiien. There are people who are lawfully entitled to it.

Monsignor Higgins. Yes, but 1 have no answer to it. As you say, 

it is inconsistent. 1 said as much myself when 1 said that I could not 

argue it logically..

Mr. Cohen. Thank you. Th at’s all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. A couple more questions, Monsignor.

We are concerned with fairness and doing the right thing. On 

page 4 of your statement, you object to the provisions of H .R. 982 

which would prohibit adjustment of status of those aliens who accept 

employment in violation of their s tatus.

This provision, as you know, was added specifically to deter nonimmigrants from accepting authorized employment. Should such 

individuals be permitted to adjust their status when they have totally 

disregarded the conditions placed on their nonimmigrant admission?

In other words, 1 am talking about fellows who are admitted as 

visitors who know they are not allowed to work, who overstay deliber-
312

atelv, violating the provisions of our law. Do you think that this is 

morally right, Monsignor, to grant them amnesty?

Monsignor Higgins. Could I ask Mr. McCarthy to speak to that?

Mr. McCarthy. What is actually happening today, the Immigration Service is acting the way you suggest they act. They are acting 

the way 1 suggest they act. They are denying the application for 

adjustment of status where people are malingering, stretching out 

things, finding angles, they are denying them.

The only question we have, by putting it in the law this way, when 

a case comes up with family and something else, the guy’s hands are *

tied. Where it is an equitable case he cannot do it and we are saying 

if you want to strengthen it in the idea of the committee in its report, 

fine. As far as putting it right into the law, you are tying the Immigration Service’s hands in what we consider equitable cases.

Mr. Eilberg. You are saying, two wrongs make a right.

Mr. McCarthy. Xo, no. 1 am not saying-----

Mr. Eilberg. And you are not really answering my question.

Mr. McCarthy. 1 am answering-----

Mr. Eilberg. 1 am asking you whether this is morally right, 

someone entering our country with bad faith, knowing full well he 

does not intend to stay on a visit and yet he-----

Mr. McCarthy. 1 cannot agree with you more.

Mr. Eilberg. What did you say?

Mr. McCarthy. I cannot agree with you more.

Mr. Eilberg. 1 think you have answered my question. 1 would 

also be interested in knowing whether youi organization supports 

the idea or the concept of imposing penalties on those employers who 

“knowingly” hire illegal aliens?

As you may know, the AFL -CIO suggested removal of the work 

“knowingly.”

Monsignor Higgins. I am familiar with the debate and have heard 

some of tlie testimony and read other parts of it. My own disposition 

would he to be very strict with the employer on this issue, but I 

don’t know the legalities of it. 1 am told there are sound legal opinions 

tha t raise questions as to how it should be worded.

I must bow out at this point because I do not know enough a baut 

the hnv to know how it should be worded. But I have no compunction myself, as a matter of principle, about being very strict with the 

employer who is deliberately using illegals, and my own impression is, 

and I suspect in this area most of us—1 am not saying members of the 

committee- but most of us outside the committee, are working on *

strong hunches because there is so little hard information.

My own impression is that a good many employers not only have 

knowingly used them hut have deliberately used them.

And 1 know of cases where I wouhl be quite prepared to believe 

that this is the case.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Fish.

Mr. Fi sh. Monsignor, if you propose being strict with employers, 

how would you handle ti e case of a union which knowingly is accepting as members persons they suspect or know to be illegal aliens?

Monsignor Higgins. They are already hired?

Mr. Fish. Not necessarily. It could he a closed shop situation. I am 

thinking of the other cases, going o ut to organize, knowing that they 

are illegal aliens.
Monsignor H iggins. I would think if they would do that, a good 

part of our problem would be over. They have not done it. If they 

had done it, we would be further ahead. I do not consider using the 

unions as a means of stopping this, as a feasible way of doing it. 

Unions only organize people who are already hired. They cannot go 

out and organize unemployed masses of people hiding as illegals.

Again, that may be an inconsistency on my part but it does n ot 

seem to get to the crux of the problem. If they are here and hired, 

then it seems to me th at by definition that is what the union ought to 

be doing. Th at’s organizing. I think they can hold themselves responsible for not having done as much of it as they should have over 

the years. Some are doing it now.

Air. Eilberg. As 1 said, Monsignor, the AFL-CIO has suggested 

the removal of the word “knowingly” from its legislation. It occurs 

to me th at by doing so it might increase employment discrimination. 

The employer may feel, “ I don’t know whether this fellow is an illegal 

or not. If he looks like an alien * * * 1 am not going to hire him. 

There is no guilty knowledge required on my part so I am not going 

to take a chance, 1 am not going to hire him.”

How do you feel about what I just said? Do you have any response 

to their recommendation and would it increase the possibility of 

employment discrimination against ethnic and minority groups?

Monsignor Higgins. I assume much would depend, Mi. Chairman, 

on whether the employer was required to ask the same questions of 

all new employees. If he had to go through the same process to eliminate any danger of discriminating because of color or race or national 

origin, that might eliminate it.

If I thought that by going the route that has been suggested, by 

tightening it up, that this would lead more or less, inevitably, to discrimination among certain groups, then I would more or less be opposed to it.

But it seems that it is possible to combine fairly strict requirements 

with nondiscrimination ami I assume others have testified on this and 

will—the Spanish-speaking groups feel very strongly on this.

Mr. Eilberg. Thank you, Monsignor.

Ms. Holtzman?

Ms. Hoi.tzman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to ask 

you whether you favor, in your amnesty proposal, permitting everyone 

who is in this country illegally to be granted amnesty—every immigrant that is here illegally?

Monsignor Higgins. Th at’s what we’re advocating, across-theboard amnesty, as of whatever the cutoff date is. And there has been 

much discussion as to whether or not that is fair and consistent.

My position is that whatever unfairness would be involved in this 

general amnesty has to be weighed against what we do about getting 

these people out in great, great numbers.

Since the situation is here at a crisis stage, I am a little more concerned about where we go from here, rather than weighing all of the, 

of the difficult niceties, in the question of unfairness.

I just happen to think, and I think our committee does, that in 

weighing it in the balance, there is more to be said for getting this 

problem behind us and then working up whatever strict requirements 

are needed to control the pioblem in the future.
314

There is a problem of the cut-off date, and I am sure—well, one of 

my colleagues has just said, we would naturally exclude such classes 

as criminals, narcotic law violators, subversives, et cetera. I assume 

tha t is not the question to which you are referring.

Ms. Holtzman. 1 was concerned about whether you would have 

any exceptions. 1 am pleased to see you recognize the need for some.

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. 1 do not want to prolong this unduly, but this subcommittee, in previous Congresses, has had the opportunity to go 

down to the Mexican border and visit a detention center and speak * 

to illegal aliens wdio had been seized and were about to be returned.

1 recall one visit when 1 was present with about 100 detainees who 

were about to be returned to Mexico. I might say I was much impressed with their appearance and their character.

These were no t criminals and they were obviously looking for work 

but had been caught.

But, Monsignor, I questioned them—we questioned them, Chairman 

Rodino and myself—as to what their intentions were had they not 

been caught. And almost every man—and this may surprise you— 

indicated that he did not wish to stay in the United States. Their 

intention was to stay here for a limited time, make some money and go 

home. So I say to you, sir, here you would gra nt amnesty to all these 

people when, in our limited experience, but experience nevertheless, 

most of those people do not wish to remain.

Monsignor Higgins. I can only respond again by hunch. Off the top 

of my head.

Number one, I would say, Mr. Chairman, if amnesty were granted 

to them, they could still go home, but I tend, from my limited experience in dealing with this problem, to question people when they say 

they intend to go home. I t is like the Irish who came here, my people 

being of Irish descent, they came here after the potato famine. I am 

sure many of them thought they were going home. Very few of them 

did. Most of the Italians who came from little farms in southern I taly 

thought that they were going over only to work on the railroads for a 

few years, but were certainly going to go back and buy a farm.

Very few did. I just question it. But tha t is just a hunch on my part.

I do not think our history bears it out tha t they do that.

Mr. Eilberg. Monsignor Higgins, the subcommittee really wants • 

to thank you very much for your valuable contribution-----

Monsignor H iggins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. E ilberg [continuing]. And bringing those knowledgeable people • 

together to work with us year after year and who have been very 

helpful. We certainly appreciate the guidance, friendship and assistance of your organization over the years.

We will take your views and give them our consideration.

Monsignor Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Eilberg, and members of the 

committee. Thank you.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Manuel Fierro, President of the National 

Congress of Hispanic-American Citizens.

Mr. Fierro, we welcome you, and I think it would be helpful before 

you begin your testimony if you would identify the membership or 

groups tha t you represent. I understand you represent a number of 

groups. You may not have a listing of names and addresses of your 

membership, b ut it would be helpful to give this subcommittee some 

information on whatever organizations you represent.
315

TESTIMONY OF MANUEL FIERR O, PRES IDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS 

OF HISPANIC-AME RICAN CITIZENS

Mr. Fierro. Very good. Mr. Chairman, 1 submitted the list of 

the board of trustees because most of those on the board of trustees 

are representatives of national organizations or local organizations 

who represent such groups as the Latin-American Manufacturers 

Association, LULAC, League of Latin-American Citizens, Puerto 

Rican organizations, the American G.I. Forum, Image, National 

Association of Spanish-Speaking Government Employees, SER, and 

so forth.

There is a member of all the major groups on the board of trustees, 

but 1 can additionallv subm it to you the actual representation on the 

board and also the affiliations of the numerous organizations throughout the country tha t are affiliated with us.

Mr. Eilberg. We would like to have that. Also—and this may be 

difficult for you to answer—but how many Spanish-American 

citizens would you say you represented here this morning?

Mr. Fierro. I would approximate around 3 to 4 million Spanishspeaking individuals.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Manuel 

D. Fierro. 1 am the president of the National Congress of Hispanic 

American Citizens, a national, nonpartisan citizens lobby for the 

Spanish speaking.

On behalf of our 25-member national board of trustees and the 

95 national and local participating Spanish-speaking organizations, 

1 want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to 

express our concerns and to make some recommendations regarding 

the Rodino “illegal alien” bill (H.R. 9S2).

It is clear to us that the only group tha t profits from the influx 

of illegal aliens into this country and the group which is the major 

stimulus for the illegals’ movement across the border are the big 

farmers, industrialists, and businessmen who employ them. Exploitation of this vast supply of cheap labor is a time-honored practice in 

the Southwest. As a result, employers of illegal aliens have been able 

to maintain low wages and poor working conditions, break strikes 

and labor organizations among citizen employees, discharge workers 

with impunity, and manipulate the immigration laws to bilk both 

the illegals and the domestic work force. These employers are not 

just innocent beneficiaries of the illegal immigration, they are habitual 

exploiters of illegal aliens.

As long as the United States continues to offer wages which are 

generally higher than those in most other countries, or at least as long 

as aliens continue to believe that to be true, the poverty in countries 

like Mexico will continue to “push” aliens into the United States, and 

there is little tha t the Government can do to stem the flow. Efforts to 

reduce the influx of illegals have not proven successful. While the 

number of apprehensions has gone up sharply recently, this probably 

reflects an increase in the number of illegal entrants rather than an 

improved enforcement of the immigration laws. The Government can, 

however, control the forces in the United States which act as a “pull” 

on the illegal aliens. The most effective means w’ould be to crack down 

on the employers who induce the illegals to enter and who profit from 

their presence.

49-769— 75------ 21
316

The three-step employer penalty provisions in the II. R. 982 are 

cumbersome and ineffective in dealing with the illegal alien problem.

The most effective way to discourage employers from hiring illegal 

aliens is to make them liable for criminal penalties for hiring illegals.

If the purpose of immigration laws is to protect the domestic work 

force, it is logical to exercise the most stringent control a t the place of 

work. Therefore, we strongly urge tha t penalties for violations be 

substantially strengthened by providing for criminal penalties, following a hearing, for the first violations as well as subsequent ones. We 

further recommend that once criminal proceedings have been initiated, »

tha t the Federal courts be given jurisdiction to restrain and enjoin 

further violations of the law.

These recommendations are not without failings. Stringent penalties 

on employers will force them to carry out part of the INS’s function, 

at the expense of fairness and objectivity, compound the problems of 

discrim mation.

Under the proposed legislation, employers will be able to require 

prospective employees to sign papers indicating tha t they are either 

American citizens or aliens permitted to work in the United States.

The forms will be provided by the Attorney General and will constitute 

“prima facie” proof of the employers’ good faith efforts to comply with 

the statute. It is easy to see, however, tha t unless the INS keeps a 

closer surveillance of employers than it has in the past, such a procedure could degenerate into a mere formality. The employers could 

simply require their employees to sign these papers before they sta rt 

to work—the way most employees have to sign withholding statements or give their social security numbers—without explaining the 

significance of the forms, or without making any effort to determine 

whether their employees are being truthful when they sign.

The illegals, often illiterate in both English and Spanish and badly 

in need of work, would probably sign the forms anyway, even if they 

knew what they meant. Unless the employers are forced to look beyond 

the signature and determine whether or not the employee is being 

truthful, the signed stateme nt might simply become a way for the 

employer to evade the impact of this law.

On the other hand, to require the employers to obtain some kind of 

proof of citizenship or permission to work in the United States would 

undoubtedly work a hardship on citizens, particularly people who do * 

not have drivers’ licenses, passports, or birth certificates. If an 

employer weren’t sure that a prospective employer was telling the 

truth, he might not hire that person for fear of prosecution. This #

would have a detrimental, adverse effect on the employment of 

Mexican Americans as well as those labeled as foreign-born. H.R. 982 

in its present form abets discrimination against Mexican Americans 

and foreign-born persons, and will encourage employers to deny 

Mexican Americans an equal employment opportunity on the basis 

of national origin.

Mr. Chan-man and members of the committee, I cannot overemphasize the seriousness of this fact, particularly in light of the long 

and well-documented h istory of job discrimination and other forms of 

exclusion experienced by Mexican Americans, and other Spanishspeaking groups in this country.
317

A feasible alternative to this dilemma, which we strongly recommend 

to this committee, is to include specific language in H .R. 982:

(1) tha t would prohibit an employer from discriminating on the 

basis of national origin;

(2) and where discrimination on the basis of citizenship has the 

effect of discrimination on the basis of national origin, a lawful 

immigrant admitted for perm anent residence who is domiciled in or 

residing in this country may not be discriminated against on the basis 

of citizenship.

< Testimony presented before this committee by the Dep artm ent of 

Justice and other organizations and individuals have pointed out 

tha t in its present form, H.R. 982 will lead to violations of title VII 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on

< the basis of national origin.

Testimony presented before this committee by the Departm ent of 

Justice and other organizations and individuals has repeatedly pointed 

out that H.R . 982 will abet discrimination against American citizens 

on the basis of national origin, a clear violation of title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964. Our proposal, however, would guarantee 

tha t the rights of American citizens are protected and that they 

would provide for equal opportunity in employment.

In order to provide for effective enforcement and policing of our 

laws, we strongly urge the committee to consider a provision in this 

legislation that would allow interested third parties to bring suit 

against employers who hire illegal aliens. It is the unskilled MexicanAmerican and unions who are hu rt the most severely by the entry of 

illegal aliens. Allowing such parties to bring suit would be effective in 

checking abuses by the INS which might otherwise continue its 

policy of lax enforcement of the immigration laws.

Additionally, we urge the committee to deal with the problem of 

green card commuters, as well as aliens entering on tourist visas. H.R. 

982 fails to deal with the controversial problem of commuter aliens. 

These aliens, usually from Mexico or Canada, were once issued an 

immigration visa for permanent residence in the United States, but 

they continue to live in their native country while entering the United 

States daily or seasonally to work, using the so-called green card 

(Form 1-151) to cross the border.

4 The special status accorded these aliens has aroused considerable

criticism in some parts of our community. Critic’s ma intain tha t this 

special status subverts the labor certification program begun in 1965, 

and th at it is contrary to the spirit of congressional policy of providing 

equitable treatment of all potential immigrants. In a recent Supreme 

Court decision, the Court upheld the INS’s handling of commuters 

on the grounds tha t Congress has tacitly accepted the present status 

of commuters by failing to legislate against the INS ’s questionable 

interpretation of the immigration laws. This decision essentially 

throws the commuter problem back into the hands of Congress.

Therefore, we urge this committee to seriously consider another 

provision tha t would prohibit green card commuters from working in 

a place of employment when a managcment/labor dispute and/or 

strike is in progress.

A related problem is the 72-hour tourist visa (1-186). Aliens seeking 

employment often use this visa to gain entry into the United States,
318

bu t stay for many days or weeks beyond the 72 hours. The INS has 

been extremely lax in policing the use of these visas, and should revise 

its procedures for regulating their use. One solution would be to date 

the visas and require that they be turned in at the border when the 

visitor leaves. Appropriate action could be taken if a person tries to 

leave after overstaying the permitted period.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, one other area of 

deep concern to us and which we strongly support and recommend to 

the committee, is to include in H.R. 982 provisions that will provide 

that certain aliens illegally in the United States may have their status > 

adjusted to those of permanent residence. Many of these illegal aliens 

have established their roots in this country, contributed to the growth 

of many of our communities, and established themselves as law-abiding 

residents in this country. It would be an injustice to uproot and dis- * 

rup t the lives of these families and their children. Let us not repeat 

the same mistakes we have made in the past.

We recommend that similar language as contained in S. 3827 be 

included in H.R. 9S2 th at would provide aliens who are in the United 

States illegally with the o pportunity to apply for adjustments of status 

to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. The 

requirements and conditions should be:

1. Th at the alien be eligible to receive an immigrant visa and tha t 

he be admissible to the United States for perm anent residence.

2. Th at the alien has been physically present in the United States 

for 3 years on the date of enactment.

3. Th at he be physically present in the United S tates on the date of 

enactment.

Adjustment should be made without regard to numerical limitations 

and should not affect the number of available visas to the country. 

Adjustment should be available for 2 full fiscal years following the 

enactment, and tha t provisions should be included to permit those 

adjusting their status to accept or continue their employment. Consideration should be also given to an illegal alien who applies for adjustment of status unsuccessfully.

Mr. Eilberg. Excuse me, sii, your prepared statement said 1 full 

fiscal year.

Mr. Fierro. Th at was changed from 1 to 2 years because of the 

regulations; it would take a considerable length of time before they ►

would be put in the Federal Register.

Mr. Eilberg. All right.

Mr. Fierro. So, tha t was the reason for the change. »

Provisions which should also be considered for inclusion in the 

amendment are: preapplication counseling, clear acceptance criteria, 

a 2-week postponement of notice of deportation to allow alien established in the community, time to arrange his affairs before leaving, 

legal counsel, and reasonable shelter pending deportation for unsuccessful applicants.

I would like to make one final recommendation regarding section 5 

of H.R . 982. Because the act will not become effective until at least 90 

days after its enactment, this interim period could be used by INS to 

initiate a crackdown as the Operation Wetback-type operation designed to clear out aliens who would be eligible for adjustment under 

our proposed amendment. There should be a specific exemption from
319

this provision of deportation hearings, or actions resulting in voluntary departure, where the alien involved makes a claim th at he or she 

would be eligible for ad justm ent of status. The amendments we have proposed, we believe, strengthen the bill and make it a far more effective instrument for dealing with the illegal alien problem and will lessen much of the chilling effect this legislation would have on equal employment and establish a more uni­ versal and equitable application of its provisions. Without these revi-

<

sions that we have suggested, this organization and those whose views 

wre represent cannot justify its support for H.R. 9S2. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Fish.

~ Mr. Fish. T hank you, Mr. Chairman. 1 thank the witness.

If I understood the part of the thrust of your testimony it wras th at

to overcome the possible increase in discrimination by employers in view of this legislation, you would ask us to include specific language 

in II.R. 982 t ha t wTould prohibit employers from discriminating on the 

basis of national origin?

Mr. F ierro. Yes

Mr. Fish. And what would be the sanctions there? Does this 

anticipate a-----

Mr. Fierro. The employers’ sanctions?

Mr. F ish. Yes, against the employer, should he discriminate. Many 

people have testified on the issue tha t I ’m sure concerns you, and that 

is the employer, faced with our bill, w’ould simply, you knowr

, just not 

hire people who might raise a question because of the way they spoke 

English or because of their name.

Mr. Fierro. Yes.

Mr. F ish. H ow would you reach him, ju st by putting in a statement 

saying-----

Mr. Fierro. Well, I think-----

Mr. Fish [continuing]. You cannot discriminate on the basis of 

origin?

Mr. Fierro. The employer comes under the jurisdiction of the 

Civil Rights Act, specifically title 7.

Mr. Fish. Wouldn’t he anyway?

Mr. Fierro. Well, I think to a degree he does, but we w ant specific 

language in the bill to strengthen this provision, because right now 

because of the Espinoza v. Farah case tha t was heard in the Supreme 

Court, it upheld tha t an employer could discriminate based on

• citizenship. What we are trying to do is to build in some protective 

devices for us.

On the other hand, in a given situtation, the employer could go out and hire all illegal aliens and not hire any American citizens, which again, he can do that, according to the Supreme C ourt decision. The employer can discriminate based on citizenship. But being under the protective cover of title 7 and the recommendations that we made, 

if employee has been discriminated on the basis of national origin or citizenship, the employer is subjected to penalties or, you know, wages or loss of wages, or even assuring an employee of a job as a 

result of that.

Mr. Fish. One other question: Wha t you’re really proposing here 

is a form of limited amnesty, isn’t it?
320

Mr. "Fierro. In terms of the adjustment of status, yes. I would 

rather use adjustment of status than amnesty, for tha t matter. One 

ofjthe concerns tha t our board and organizations specifically wanted 

me to express to this committee is that we are concerned basically with 

the families who are in this country, not necessarily the individual 

persons tha t have come into this country illegally, but the families.

You and the chairman have indicated there are some people tha t 

are single and who have come here simply to get a job and go back.

What we are concerned about is the uprooting of families that have *•

been here over 3 years and have established roots in the community, 

who have their children in schools, and so forth, and who are contributing to this country.

Mr. Fish. Well, I sympathize with tha t point of view myself, sir, ■*

but when you describe the aliens tha t you would permit to have an 

adjustment of status, on the top of the second-to-last page you list, 

and the first requirement is—

(1) That the alien be eligible to receive an immigrant visa and 

tha t he be admissible to the United States for permanent 

residence;

So, you would have to look back to his country of origin and be sure 

there is no backlog, no waiting list?

Mr. Fierro. No, no.

Mr. Fish. No?

Mr. Fierro. No. At the bottom of t hat state ment it says that—

. . . this adjustmen t of status should be made witho ut regard to numerical 

limita tions an d should not effect the number of a vailable visas.

Mr. Fish. Then, you narrow yourself down to things like medical 

or security or other grounds for exclusion. An alien would have to be 

free from the statutory grounds for exclusion?

Mr. Fierro. No. Th at’s why we indicated there tha t they would 

be admissible to the United States for permanent residence.

Right now, the immigration laws do state, who are “desirable aliens” 

versus “undesirable aliens.”

What we’re saying here is that there are provisions that provide 

for that, in terms of being admissible to the United States.

Mr. Fish. Th at’s what I understood.

Mr. Fierro. Obviously, if a person has a criminal record in his 

country, country of origin, I think there, would be a question of his 

admission to the United States.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Sarbanes. , *

Mr. Sarbanes. I want to th ank the witness for some very thoughtful 

suggestions in the statement, to which I think we are going to have to 

give some very careful attention.

I take it you do perceive that the illegal alien problem is of a dimension that it poses some rather serious threats to the status of the 

legal aliens with respect to employment opportunities or public 

services?

Mr. Fierro. Yes. ,

Mr. Sarbanes. And I would guess also from your testimony to at 

least some American citizens, is that correct?

Mr. Fierro. That is correct. I think that even in your previous 

bill, H.R. 981, and IT.R. 982, there are strong possibilities of in-
321

fringing one w ay or a no ther on the civil rig hts a nd civil lib erties of o ur 

American citizens. I think th at ’s been indic ate d p reviously, even by th e 

De pa rtm en t of Ju sti ce, and wh at we are concern ed abou t are the 

violations again st ou r civil rights and our civil libe rties th at thi s bill 

poses, so th at wha t I am proposing are prote cti ve measures th at will 

protec t our comm unity and our Am eric an citizen s from the misuse of 

this law on us, because there are n’t an y provisions in the prese nt bill 

th at would protect us.

Mr. Sarb ane s. I un de rst an d th at point, bu t I guess yo u also, from 

the th ru st of your test imony, perc eive t hat the nu mbe r of illegal aliens 

is, in itself, posing a pr oblem for legal aliens.

Mr. Fier ro. I t w orks a hards hip on our comm un ity because of the 

po ve rty th at curre ntl y exists in ma ny of ou r com munities in the 

South west and the fact th at the wages are qu ite depressed alread y 

man y emp loye rs do pre fer to hire illegal alien s in ord er to reduce the 

wages------

Mr. Sarb ane s. I take it those employers in effect, bypas s pers ons 

who are legally in thi s co un try e ith er as Am erican citiz ens------

Mr. Fier ro. Yes.

Mr. Sarbanes (continuing). Or as legal res iden t aliens, and the 

employer goes to illegal aliens because i t serv es his economic purposes.

Mr. Fier ro. T h at’s r igh t.

Mr. Sarb ane s. Therefore, it leaves those ot he r groups as it were, 

“o ut in the cold” w ith resp ect to e mp loy me nt opportunities .

Mr. Fier ro. T h at’s co rrect. I didn ’t p oint o ut in o ur testim ony, but 

I think one of the p rob lem s we have to overcom e is the lack of enforcem en t on the par t of th e Im migr ati on Office. If thi s law, for example, 

would be imple me nte d in 90 day s, or wh ate ver, I thi nk th at the 

Im mi grati on know s tho se emp loyers who have in the pa st hired illegal 

aliens, they kno w who they are, so in mo st case s the y should focus on 

tho se who hav e been ha bitu al emp loyers of illegal aliens, thore would 

be a trem end ous effect for car rying ou t some of the provisions of this 

law.

But again, IN S ha s Con tributed also to the illegal alien of this 

country , to a grea t exten t.

Mr. Sarbanes. Tha nk you . T hat’s all, Mr. Ch airma n.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Coh en.

Mr. Cohen. Tha nk you, Mr. Ch air ma n. 1 just hav e one question,

I guess.

You were refe rring to the Espinoza, case. W ha t is your feeling ab ou t 

the holding of th at case? W ha t do y ou feel t hat case does o r savs?

Mr. Fier ro. Well, I disagree with the decision. I ’m not a la wyer in 

terms 'of giving y ou a legal opin ion on th at , but wha t i t does do, to my 

understandin g, is th at it does pe rm it an emp loyer, to discrim inate on 

the basis of citizenship.

Mr. C ohen. Do yo u feel t hat th at is wrong?

Mr. Fier ro. Yes.

Mr. Cohen. T hat if a person is no t a citizen , the e mp loy er should 

no t be allowed to discrim ina te in hir ing prac tice s?

Mr. Fier ro. I th in k it h as to go fa rthe r th an th at , Mr. Coh en. On 

the othe r hand , le t’s rev ers e the situ atio n and you only hire illegal 

alien s ou t in the field or legal aliens who are no t citiz ens.
322

Mr. Cohen. What if we pass a law prohibiting that? Isn’t th at the 

purpose of this act here, to pass a law prohibiting the hiring of illegal 

aliens?

Mr. Fierro. Right.

Mr. Cohen. And penalize employers for doing so?

Mr. Fierro. Right.

Mr. Cohen. Why do you have to go beyond that to say tha t to 

pass a law which, in essence, would overrule the holding of the Supreme Court, which says that an employer can, in fact, discriminate 

m his hiring practices on the basis of citizenship?

Mr. Fierro. What I ’m saying is that an employer discriminating 

on the basis of citizenship can get out of the impact of the law because 

of the confusion tha t he has created, because lie is discriminating on 

the basis of citizenship, you are discriminating on the basis of natural 

origin; and if you’re discriminating because you don’t want-----

Mr. Cohen. Th at’s not what the Supreme Court says in that case.

Mr. Fierro. For example, if you’re in the Southwest, and all they 

want to do is hire “Anglos,” because of the fact they are citizens and 

there is not going to be any bother in filling out the forms and or 

gettin g caught if they hire illegal aliens, so you’re only hiring American 

citizens there.

These legal aliens who are here on a permanent basis, the United 

States did give them a permission, by issuing that permanent residence card, you know, so that they are entitled to the same protections under the law.

Mr. Cohen. The Cou rt was saying you could draw a distinction 

between national origin, the employer was not to discriminate based 

upon national origins since 96 percent of the employees were Mexican 

Americans.

Mr. Fierro. Th at’s correct.

Mr. Cohen. He was not discriminating on the basis of national 

origin. They distinguish between tha t and citizenship.

Mr. Fierro. The ruling of the Court did not go far enough because 

it left the meaning of an employer that could discriminate on the 

basis of citizenship. It doesn’t cover the whole impact of tha t law.

Mr. Cohen. Let me come back to your testimony, then. You are,

I guess, opposed to any sort of requirement tha t individuals, illegal 

aliens be required to show or demonstrate some identification of their 

origin or citizenship?

Mr. Fierro. It is my understanding tha t what is proposed in the 

law right now is, there would be forms issued by the Attorney General, ft

bu t that if the question were asked of everyone, whether they are 

citizens, or aliens permitted to work in this country, if they were asked 

the question, everyone, we would have no problem with that. But I 

think there are problems with the social security card tha t we can 

visualize and problems with issuing a work permit—civil libertarians 

will tell you that.

Mr. Cohen. What would your recommendation be to this committee in terms of requiring everybody across the board to present some 

sort of identification? What would your recommendation be?

Mr. Fierro. I don’t think i t’s a m atter of just identification.

Mr. Cohen. Not identification, but of legal status in this country, 

either as an American citizen or as a legal alien. How would he do that?
323

Mr. Fierro. I think by issuing standardized employment forms; 

tha t would require everyone to fill them out.

Mr. Cohen. Isn’t tha t just the same thing as having employees 

signing a statement saying, “Yes, I am an American citizen” or a 

legal alien? Can you point out how really ephemeral the effect of 

tha t law would be?

Mr. Fierro. If you were to come back to social security cards, for 

example, one of the opinions of our members was, “Let’s recommend 

the use of the social security card” and the reason for tha t is, it ’s 

being used all over the place for bank accounts and every conceivable 

thing, even though and in spite of the fact that on the card it says, 

that this “shall not be used for identification purposes.” In some 

States, they use it even for you to vote. I think the concern of our members was that the Social Security 

Administration right now has been so lax in the administration of 

their policies and regulations and there has been so much fraud in the 

use of those cards, that it would take a considerable amount of time 

before, everybody is issued one.

Mr. Cohen. What do we do in the meantime? I guess I ’m looking 

for a recommendation from the people you represent. What’s their 

recommendation? We’re going to impose a penalty on employers the 

first time. We know the bill provides a three-step penalty structure, 

but the first violation would result in a warning. What is it in your 

judgment that the employer should have to do? And what is it the 

person seeking employment should have to do?

Mr. Fierro. If we’re going to impose these penalties on employers 

on the employer through regulations, by INS, in terms of an employer, you know, what would be the considered proof of citizenship, 

whether it be birth certificates or the social security card? I think 

tha t through regulations issued by the INS, in terms of the employer 

as to what would be required of him, or at least the minimum in 

terms of citizenship or permission to work, I think tha t I would 

much rather leave it up to the regulations to deal with that, versus 

subjecting it to the committee in terms of approval versus a recommendation tha t we use the social security card or any other kind of 

formal work permit, and I think tha t administratively, it can better 

be worked out than through legislative concerns.

Mr. Sarbanes. May I ask?

Mr. C ohen. I yield.

Mr. Sarbanes. You may not have to go th at far. If we accept the 

premise tha t there are bad-faith employers at work—and I accept 

tha t premise-----

Mr. F ierro. Yes, sure.

Mr. Sarbanes [continuing]. Who are knowingly engaging in tha t 

practice because there is no penalty, you may develop some kind of 

requirement of a simple bona fide effort by the employer which, in 

effect, would let a lot of people go through because they weren’t 

really acting in bad faith. The bad faith types are the ones who are 

knowingly engaged in these practices as a constant course of 

conduct-----

Mr. F ierro. Yes.

Mr. Sarbanes. They don’t do it unintentionally or by accident, or 

once in a while, it is the pattern in their way of doing business; and
324

those are the ones, as I un de rst an d yo ur testim ony, who are really 

cre ating the problem.

Mr. Fierr o. Exactly. I think we’re no t adv ocating h ere th at we’re 

try ing to set ou t or reg ula te some laws th at are going to affect every ­

body in this cou ntry. W ha t yo u’re really trying to hi t at are those 

people who are really the ha bitu al exploite rs of illegal aliens. T hat’s 

where the im pa ct should be, those th at hire 10, 20, or 100 in the ir 

plan ts or factories. I think th at’s the crux of the problem. I do n’t 

think we ought to mak e our whole com mu nity or co un try subje cte d 

to these kinds of procedures when we know and IN S know s who 

these ha bitual employers are of illegal aliens. T hat’s where this law 

should impac t, and no t to subject every body to a sit ua tio n th at is 

going to cause a hards hip on the Go vernme nt and on a lot of other 

people.

Mr. E ilb erg. Ms. Ho ltzma n.

Ms. H oltzman. Ju st to follow up th at point. I rep resent a dis trict 

in Now York which has a som ew hat different kin d of problem from 

th at in the Southwest. I am concern ed th at in an effort to deal with 

those people who are persi ste ntly engaging in the pra cti ce of hiring 

illegal aliens, encouraging an d perha ps wor king with people to bring 

illegal aliens into this co un try , th at in an effo rt to dea l with those 

people we are going to subject eve ry citizen of this co un try and every 

lawful alien in this country to an intole rab le burde n. T hat trou bles me 

enormo usly b ecause, while the per cen tage of illegal, Spa nish -spe aking 

aliens in the Sou thw est m ay b e fairly high, in New York mo st of the 

Spanish -speaking people are U.S. citizen s.

Mr. Fier ro. Rig ht.

Ms. H oltzman. And to imp ose imm ediate crim inal pen alties m igh t 

make an employer very re lu ct an t to hire anybody who speaks E nglish 

with an accent.

Mr. Fier ro. Yes.

Ms. H oltzman. And I ’m ve ry troubled ab ou t th at , no t only with 

res pect to Spa nish -spe akin g p eople in New York, but also w ith respec t 

to all of the various people of foreign origin who are na tur ali zed citizens 

or are otherwise here law fully. I ’m v ery conc erned a bo ut discrimination 

again st them. I am very concern ed, of course,- a bo ut a system th at ’s 

going to require a n ati onal id en tity ca rd.

Mr. F ier ro. Yes. We ’re reco mm end ing th at those two provisions 

in ter ms of pro hib itin g the emplo yer from discriminat ing on the basis 

of na tio nal origin and the other, in terms of citizenship . I thi nk th at 

those two pro tective devices, would lessen the im pact th at this law.is 

going to hav e on them.

No m at te r how y ou look at it , this law will discrim inate unfairly on 

nation al-origin people, no m at te r how you look at it. But if you are 

going to pass a law th at is going to deal with illegal aliens, we wan t 

some p rot ectiv e m easu res in the law th at will at le ast lessen the im pact 

th at this law will hav e on us and on foreign-born citizens.

Ms. H oltzman. T hen, the que stio n is, which is the gre ate r burde n 

to bea r? Is th e c ost of ha vin g illegal aliens here g rea ter th an th e cost of 

discriminat ing again st Am erican citiz ens and residen ts?

Mr. Fier ro. L et m e say this: I think illegal aliens are good for the 

Un ite d State s; i t’s good for busin ess— it ’s always been good, yo u kn ow, 

and they have enco uraged it. Ad minis tration aft er ad mi nis tra tio n has
325

encouraged it. When they had the Bracero program and was cut, they 

increased the amount of tourist visas and the visas on permanent 

residents. The INS came in and did that. They gave out more commuter cards. So here i t is, administration after administration, when 

there have been restrictions to allowing this cheap labor in our 

country, they have gone through administrative procedures to increase it one way or another.

Ms. II oltzman. What troubles me, though, is I don’t think that 

simply inserting a nondiscrimination provision such as the one you 

suggest is going to be an adeq late bar against discrimination by an 

employer who is faced with the immediate imposition of criminal 

penalties if he makes a mistake.

Mr. Fierro. You can go back and deal with the supply theory of 

H.R. 981, you can deal with a supply theory in terms of curtailing or 

having more quotas lowered, restricting some of the quotas and 

what-have-you. What we’re talking about here is stopping-the-demand 

kind of strategy, the employer who is demanding tha t supply. So tha t 

you have two theories that you ’re working under, the supply and 

demand theories and you either use one or the other, or you continue 

to let the problem as it is today.

Our community today, is very devisive about this issue. It has split 

our community wide open because there are a lot of relationships, 

a lot of blood lines that are affected by this.

At the same time, you have the problem compounded by, “Do 1 get 

a job or do I continue to sit here and allow this preposterous problem 

to continue and live in poverty?” Th at’s our decision, and it ’s a very 

critical and deep-rooted decision that has to be made and has been 

made.

Ms. H oltzman. My point is tha t an American citizen might face 

that problem of unemployment now because of competition with 

illegal aliens who are getting lower wages. If the bill is passed, through, 

an American citizen with an accent is going to face the same problem 

of unemployment because of discrimination arising from this act.

Mr. F ierro. Let me tell yo u: Discrimination is nothing new to us at 

all, in the Southwest or in any other part of this country—it ’s nothing 

new to us. What we’re saying here is that if this law is going to pass, 

we want at least some protective measures that will cushion the effeot 

that such a law will have on us, so the impact on discrimination is not 

going to be any different. It’s not going to change the discrimination 

patterns and practices that we have experienced for so long. It might 

make it a little easier for a guy to discriminate, but it ’s no different.

Mr. Sarbanes. J want just to repeat what 1 said at the outset: 1 

think vour testimony here today has been extremely thoughtful because 

it recognizes the extremely difficult posture in which the community 

you’re representing is placed, and 1 sympathize and understand the 

problem.

On the one hand, American citizens and legal aliens are losing job 

opportunities because employers are exploiting the availability of 

the illegal aliens.

Mr. Fierro. Right.

Mr. Sarbanes. They arfe just being bypassed entirely. On the other 

hand, an effort to do something about that situation and open up 

employment opportunities raises the specter of discrimination by
326

employers against those citizens and legal aliens, and 1 understand 

tha t problem, too. I think you are trying to make some very’ constructive suggestions and 1 appreciate it very much.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Russo.

Mr. Russo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a problem with some of the statem ents that you make in 

here. I can appreciate the problem tha t you like harsh penalties, and 

when I first got into this act, I felt the same way as you do, that we 

should n ot give the employer too much of a chance because he probably knows he is hiring illegal aliens, and we should “ sock it to him” 

the first time around; but as you get into it, you find that the laws of 

this country require tha t we protect everybody, that you protect the 

most culpable and you cover the least culpable, and th at’s the person 

who really’ doesn’t know that he has hired an illegal alien, or has been 

duped by an illegal alien by saying tha t he is a citizen. We have to 

take that into consideration.

So, if y’ou have very harsh penalties the first time around, you are 

going to encourage discrimination, which is what y’ou don’t want to do. 

in your statement there, on page 2, y’ou realize yourself in your sta tement that “stringent penalties on employers will force them to carry 

out part of the INS ’s function, at the expense of fairness and objectivity * * * ” which is going to happen when you have criminal 

felonies, as Ms. Holtzman indicated. Somebody who is looking at 

the possible jail time for his first offense, any body w’ho has a foreign 

name or who has an accent, whether he is Spanish, Italian, or whatever, he is probably very, very’ careful about hiring. He probably 

won’t even hire him if there is any way he can avoid it. The way the 

job market is today, he can hire anybody, so why take a chance. So, 

you can’t have strong penalties and not have discrimination.

And on page 3, you talk about 982 in its present form as being very 

discriminatory against Mexican-Americans, and really, I don’t know 

how you can say that if you understand 982. It’s probably set up in 

a way to give the employer the least amount of opportunity to discriminate by saying, first we are going to warn you; second, we are 

going to fine you, and then if you are one of these types of individuals 

who has the practice of hiring illegal aliens, then we’re going to give 

you the criminal penalty.

Based on tha t system, I don’t think it’s a cumbersome system; I 

think it ’s a system th at we have to use to knock out the discrimination 

problem tha t we’re all faced with up here.

Mr. Fierro. I think the dilemma that you’re seeing here and the 

dilemma tha t this committee has is no different from the dilemma as 

I pointed out in terms of ou r own community having to make a decision. A person in the community in El Paso or any other place, is 

having to make a decision whether to make a decent living, or to 

support the passage in laws that are going to protect him in terms of 

what’s happening today.

I think as you pointed out and as I have indicated, there are flaws 

in the law. I think if you have sanctions or not, you are either taking 

responsibility for the enactment of some legislation that will get at 

the root of the problem or begin to get at the problem or do we have 

a three-step procedure th at really allows employers to get under that. 

INS isn’t going to be enforcing those laws—they never have in the
327

past. Th at’s why we recommend in there the provisions for a thirdparty suit, because we have encountered problem after problem with 

the INS in their operation wetback-type of practices tha t they have 

conducted periodically in the Southwest, in California and Texas.

Mr. Russo. I really appreciate a lot of the comments you have in 

there, like Mr. Sarbanes, but the problem we have as a committee is, 

how do we avoid discrimination against legal aliens in this country? 

Mr. Fierro. There is no way you can avoid it.

Mr. Russo. But you can minimize it.

Mr. Fierro. Th at’s what I’m trying to do—minimize that 

discrimination.

Mr. Russo. I have no further questions.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Fierro, your state ment here today has indeed 

been most thoughtful, and I think you have made a significant contribution today.

I have a few questions which I would like to ask until the bells 

ring. I ’ll ask your permission to excuse us and submit the balance of 

the questions to you for your written response.

Mr. Fierro. Very well.

Mr. Eilberg. With regard to title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 

would you advise the subcommittee why, in your opinion, title VII 

of the Civil Rights Act will not be able to effectively deal with the 

national origins employment discrimination that you suggest will 

flow from the enactment of H.R. 982. Has EEOC failed in its efforts 

to ban employment discrimination based on national origin?

Mr. Fierro. I think it has, to a great exten t because of their 

backlog; their cases are so backlogged righ t now it is difficult to get 

relief for any person who files a national origin complaint to EEOC. 

One thing tha t I should have recommended is, there should be some 

temporary or immediate relief to a person who files a suit based on 

the basis of national origin, because right now it is very difficult to 

get any relief to a person having to wait 6 months or a year, or 18 

months, to get relief from an employer who continues his policies and 

practices of discrimination based on national origin. Th at’s the 

dilemma tha t we find ourselves in also, that there is no way out, 

really: No matter what way we turn, there are obstacles in the way. 

We’re trying to minimize these. And I would recommend some temporary relief, or immediate relief, a restraining order, or whatever, 

restraining tha t individual from continuing to violate title VII.

Mr. Eilberg. Now, this subcommittee doesn’t have jurisdiction 

over tha t legislation. Can you think of anything else tha t we might do 

in this legislation?

Mr. Fierro. You can amend the legislation, can’t you?

Mr. Eilberg. No; we can’t. The Congress can amend it, but the 

appropriate committee has to deal with it and tha t’s not this 

committee.

Mr. Fierro. Well, if you get this on the floor, why can’t it be done 

on the floor? I’m just saying tha t I’m trying to give you some suggestions th at will protect us, because again, there are a lot of loopholes 

in this legislation tha t you are proposing. We are favorably inclined 

to this legislation, but we want some of those suggestions to be 

included.
328

Mr. E ilb erg. Mr. Fierro, would you check y ou r records to see how 

man y of your people have been discrim inated aga inst? How many 

have been filed and how mu ch dela y has there been? W ha t are the 

charges ?

Mr. Fier ro. I would be delighted to do that.

Mr. E ilb erg. Th e sub comm itte e would like very much to know 

the ans wer to th at questio n.

Th e bells have rung, and I am going to subm it a lis t of questions 

to you . If you could respond to them at yo ur ear liest convenien ce, 

we would very much appreciat e it. *

Mr. Fier ro. Th an k you.

[The prepar ed stat em en t of Mr. Fierro follows:]

St a t e m e n t of M a n u e l D. F ie r r o , P r e s id e n t, N a tio n a l C o ng res s of *

H is pa n ic A m er ic a n C it iz e n s

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Manuel D. Fierro,

I am the President of the National Congress of Hispanic American Citizens, a 

national, non-partisan citizens lobby for the Spanish-speaking.

On behalf of our 25 member national board of trustees and the 95 national and 

local participating Spanish-speaking organizations, I want to thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you to express our concerns and to make some 

recommendations regarding the Rodino “illegal alien” bill (H.R. 982).

It is clear to us that the only group that profits from the influx of illegal aliens 

into this country and the group which is the major stimulus for the illegals’ 

movement across the border are the bid farmers, industrialists, and businessmen 

who employ them. Exploitation of this vast supply of cheap labor is a timehonored practice in the Southwest. As a result, employers of illegal aliens have 

been able to maintain low wages and poor working conditions, break strikes and 

labor organizations among citizen employees, discharged workers with impunity, 

and manipulated the immigration laws to bilk both the illegals and the domestic 

work force. These employers are not just innocent beneficiaries of the illegal immigration, they are habitual exploiters of illegal aliens.

As long as the United States continues to offer wages which are generally higher 

than those in most other countries, or at least as long as aliens continue to believe 

that to be true, the poverty in countries like Mexico will continue to “push” 

aliens into the United States, and there is little that the government can do to 

stem the flow. Efforts to reduce the influx of illegals have not proven successful.

While the number of apprehensions has gone up sharply recently this probably 

reflects an increase in the number of illegal entrants rather than an improved 

enforcement of the immigration laws. The government can, however, control the 

forces in the United States which act as a “pull” on the illegal aliens. The most 

effective means would be to crackdown on the employers who induce the illegals 

to enter and who profit from their presence. _

The three-step employer penalty provisions in the H.R. 982 are cumbersome 

and ineffective in dealing with the illegal alien problem. The most effective way 

to discourage employers from hiring illegal aliens is to make them liable for 

criminal penalities for hiring illegals. If the purpose of immigration laws is to 

protect the domestic work force, it is logical to exercise the most stringent control *

at the place of work. Therefore, we strongly urge that penalties for violations be 

substantially strengthened by providing for criminal penalties, following a hearing, 

for the first violations as well as subsequent ones. We further recommend that 

once criminal proceedings have been initiated that the federal courts be given 

jurisdiction to restrain and enjoin further violations of the law.

These recommendations are not without failings. Stringent penalties on employers will force them to carry out part of the INS’s function, at the expense of 

fairness and objectivity, and compound the problems of discrimination.

Under the proposed legislation, employers will be able to require prospective 

employees to sign papers indicating that they are either American citizens or 

aliens permitted to work in the United States. The forms will be provided by the 

Attorney General and will constitute “ Prima Facie” proof of the employers 

good faith efforts to comply with the statute. It is easy to see however, that 

unless the INS keeps a closer surveillance of employers than it has in the past,
329

such a procedure could degenerate into a mere formality. The employers could 

simply require their employees to sign these papers before they start to work— 

the way most employees have to sign withholding statements or give their social 

security numbers—without explaining the significance of the forms, or without 

making anv effort to determine whether their employees are being truthful when 

they sign. The illegals, often illiterate in both English and Spanish and badly in 

need of work, would probably sign the forms anyway, even if they knew what they 

meant. Unless the employers are forced to look beyond the signature and determine whether or not the employee is being truthful, the signed statement might 

simply become a way for the employer to evade the impact of the law. On the 

other hand, to require the employers to obtain some kind of proof of citizenship 

or permission to work in the United States would undoubtedly work a hardship 

on citizens, particularly people who do not have driver’s licenses, passports, or 

birth certificates. If an employer were not sure that a prospective employer was 

telling the truth, he might not hire that person for fear of prosecution. This would 

have a detrimental, adverse effect on the employment of Mexican Americans as 

» well as those labeled as foreign born. H.R. 982 in its present form abets discrimination against Mexican Americans and foreign-born persons and will encourage 

employers to deny Mexican Americans an equal employment opportunity on the 

basis of national origin. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I cannot 

overemphasise the seriousness of this fact, particularly in light of the long and 

well-documented history of job discrimination and other forms of exclusion experienced by Mexican Americans, and other Spanish speaking groups in this 

country.

A feasible alternative to this dilemma, which we strongly recommend to this 

committee, is to include specific language in H. R. 982:

(1) T hat would prohibit an employer from discriminating on the basis of national 

origin.

(2) And where discrimination on the basis of citizensnip has the effect of discrimination on the basis of national origin, a lawful immigrant admitted for permanent 

residence who is domicile in or residing in this country may not be discriminated 

against on the basis of citizenship.

Testimony presented before this Committee by the Department of Justice and 

other organizations and individuals have pointed out that in its present form, 

H.R . 982 will lead to violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which 

prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin.

Testimony presented before this Committee by the Department of Justice and 

other organizations and individuals have repeatedly pointed out that H.R . 982 

will abet discrimination against American citizens on the basis of national origin, a 

clear violation of Title VI I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Our proposal, however, 

would guarantee that the rights of American citizens are protected and provide for 

equal opportunity in employment.

In order to provide for effective enforcement and policing of our laws, we 

strongly urge the Committee to consider a provision in this legislation that would 

allow interested third parties to bring suit against employers who hire illegal aliens. 

It is the unskilled Mexican American and unions who are hurt the most severely 

by the entry of illegal aliens. Allowing such parties to bring suit w'ould be effective 

in checking abuses by the IN S which might otherwise continue its policy of lax 

enforcement of the immigration laws.

Additionally, we urge the Committee to deal with the problem of green card 

commuters, as well as aliens entering on tourist visas. H.R . 982 fails to deal w ith 

A the controversial problem of commuter aliens. These aliens, usually from Mexico

Canada, were once issued on immigration visa for permanent residence in the 

United States, but they continue to live in their native country while entering the 

United States daily or seasonally to work, using the so-called green card (Form 

1-151) to cross the border.

The special status accorded these aliens has aroused considerable criticism in 

some parts of our community. Critic’s maintain that this special status subverts 

the labor certification program begun in 1965, and that it is contrary to the spirit 

of Congressional policy of providing equitable treatment of all potential immigrants. In a recent Supreme Court decision, the Court upheld the IN S’s handling 

of commuters on the grounds that Congress has tacitly accepted the present 

status of commuters by failing to legislate against the IN S’s questionable interpretation of the immigration laws. This decision essentially throws the commuter 

problem back into the hands of Congress.
330

Therefore, we urge this committee to seriously consider provisions tha t would 

prohibit green card commuters from working in a place of employment when a 

management/labor dispute and/or strike is in progress.

A related problem is the 72 hour tourist visa (1-186). Aliens seeking employment 

often use this vis a to gain entry into the United States, but stay for m any days or 

weeks beyond the 72 hours. The INS has been extremely lax in policing the use of 

these visas, and should revise its procedures for regulating their use. One solution 

would be to date the visas and require that they be turned in a t the border when 

the visitor leaves. Appropriate action could be taken if a person tries to leave after 

overstaying the permitted period.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, one other area of deep concern 

to us and which we strongly support and recommend to the committee, is to 

include in H.R . 982 provisions that will provide that certain aliens illegally in the 

United States may have their status adjusted to those of permanent residence.

Man y of these illegal aliens have established their roots in this country, contributed to the growth of many of our communities and established themselves as 

law abiding residents in this country. It would be an injustice to uproot, and dis- «

rupt the lives of these families and their children. Let us not repeat the same 

mist akes we have made in the past.

We recommend that similar language as contained in S. 3827 be included in 

H.R . 982, that would provide aliens who are in the United States illegally with the 

opportunity to apply for adjustments of status to that of an alien lawfu lly admitted for permanent residence. The requirements and conditions should be:

1. Tha t the alien be eligible to receive an immigrant visa and that he be admissible to the United States for permanent residence.

2. That the alien has been physically present in the United States for three 

years on the date of enactment.

3. Tha t he be physically present in the United States on the date of enactment.

Adjustment should be made without regard to numerical limitations and should

not effect the number of available visas. Adjustment should be availab le for one 

full fiscal year following the enactment and that provisions should be included to 

permit those adjusting their status to accept or continue their employment. 

Consideration should also be given to an illegal alien who applies for adjustment 

of status unsuccessfully. Provisions which should also be considered for inclusion 

in the amendment are: pre-application counseling, clear acceptance criteria, a two 

week postponement of notice of departation to allow alien established in the 

community time to arrange his affairs before leaving, legal counsel, and reasonable 

shelter pending departation for unsuccessful applicants.

I would like to make one final recommendation regarding Section 5 of H.R . 982.

Because the Act will not become effective until at least 90 days after its enactment, this interim period could be used by INS to initiate a crackdown as Operation Wetback t ype operation designed to clear out aliens who would be eligible for 

adjustment under our proposed amendment. There should be a specific exemption 

from this provision of departation hearings, or actions resulting in voluntary 

departure, where the alien involved makes a claim that he or she would be eligible 

for adjustment of status.

The amendments we have proposed, we believe, strengthen the Bill and make *

it a far more effective instrument for dealing with the illegal alien problem and will 

lessen much of the chilling effect this legislation would have on equal employment 

and establish a more universal and equitable application of its provisions. Without 

these revisions that we have suggested, this organization and those whose views -

we represent cannot justify its support for H.R. 982. *

Thank you.

Mr. Eilberg. The subcommittee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, the subcommittee adjourned at 12 o’clock subject to 

the call of the Chair.]
ILLEGAL ALIENS

< W ED N ESD A Y , M A R CH 19 , 19 75

H ouse o f R e p r e s e n t a t iv e s,

Subcom m it tee on I m m ig ra tio n,

• C it iz e n s h ip , an d I n ter n a tio n a l L aw

of t h e C om m it tee on t h e J u d ic ia r y,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursu ant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 

2226, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joshua Eilberg [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. Present: Representatives Eilberg, Holtzman, Dodd, Fish, and 

Cohen. Also present: Garner J. Cline and Arthur P. Endres, Jr., counsels; 

Janice A. Zarro, assistant counsel; and Alexander B. Cook, associate 

counsel.

Mr. E il b e r g . The subcommittee will come to order.

It has been almost 4 years now since this subcommittee undertook 

its investigation of the illegal alien situation in the United States.

On two occasions the committee and the House of Representatives 

have overwhelmingly approved legislation to combat this serious 

national problem. At the same time, it has been my firm belief that 

legislation alone is not the complete answer and tha t additional funds 

must be provided to the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 

order to stem the problem.

Over the years, we have witnessed nn increase in funds appropriated 

to the Service, bu t they are certainly far short of tha t which is needed 

to prevent the surreptitious entry of untold numbers of aliens in the 

Southwest and to remove those illegal aliens who are currently working

* in our major cities. Each year the Service’s request for additional personnel and equipment is drastically reduced by the Department of Justice and the 

, Office of Management and Budget prior to the submission of IN S’s

budget request to the Congress. In sending these emasculated requests to Congress, the administration has consistently failed to recognize that the inadequate funding 

of the Service has intensified the illegal alien problem over the years. 

Apparently, it is OMB’s belief tha t the illegal alien legislation is the 

total answer to the problem.

In addition, I should note t hat the American taxpayer would receive 

a good return on his tax dollars when we realize tha t illegal aliens are 

having a substantia l impact on the American economy, including: 

the ta ki ng of jobs, the drain on welfare and public services, and the 

effect on our balance of payments deficit. Indeed, additional INS funds 

would be a small price to pay when we consider the tremendous costs 

(331)

49-769—75------22
332

incurred by Federal, State and local governments as the result of the 

illegal alien problem.

Likewise, in addition to its law enforcement functions, INS is 

responsible for providing fast and efficient service to the public. 

Understandably, this task becomes increasingly difficult as a result of 

the manpower which must be devoted to controlling the illegal alien 

problem, but certainly U.S. citizens and legal residents alien should 

not receive inadequate service as the result of the illegal alien problem 

in this country.

When I assumed the chairmanship of this subcommittee, one of * 

my priority concerns was to insure the close and careful oversight of 

those agencies responsible for administering the Immigration and 

Nationality Act. In order to accomplish this objective, we held 

numerous hearings during the last Congress to receive testimony 

from officials of the Departments of State and Justice as to the 

discharge of their respective functions under this act.

However, in order to effectively meet our oversight responsibilities, 

we must be provided with the proper tools—that is—authorization 

auth ority over the Immigration and Naturalization Service. In fact, 

following a year-long investigation of the law enforcement problems 

on the Southwest border, the House Committee on Government 

Operations specifically recommended tha t:

The Committee on the Judiciary should consider the development of legislation 

to require annual and other periodic authorizations for programs of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to the end that legislative oversight will be 

maintained and adequate resources will be made available for control of illegal 

alien traffic.

This authorization would enable this committee—which is the 

committee primarily concerned with the operation of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act—to recommend the appropriate funding levels 

of the Service. In addition, it would establish a mechanism for communicating the various priorities which this committee attaches to the 

different activities of, and functions performed by, the Service.

Consequently, I have introduced Il.R. 1276, a bill which would 

require specific authorizations of appropriations for the Service. If 

this legislation is adopted, a procedure would be created whereby 

the Appropriations Committee, in determining the Service’s needs, 

would consider not only the administration’s request but also the *

funding targets set by this committee.

In my judgment, such an approach would assist this subcommittee 

in considering remedial legislation and would greatly enhance our oversight capacity.

I might summarize by saying tha t in one sense this hearing this 

morning is a continuation of our oversight auth ority over the Immigration and Naturalization Service and is pointed in the direction of 

the illegal alien problem and the legislation we are now considering.

It is obvious from this hearing and the number of members here tha t 

there are many members of this subcommittee who feel that one tool 

that is necessary is authorization over the INS. I just wanted to set 

the tone, so to speak, of the hearing this morning.

It is our pleasure this morning to have with us the Commissioner 

of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. We are delighted to 

have you with us. We welcome you, General Chapman, and any 

members of your staff that you would like to have with you

[A copy of H.R. 1276 follows:]
333

94t h C O N G R E S S 

1st S ess ion H. R. 1276

IN TH E HO US E OF REP RESE NTATIV ES 

J an ua ry 14,1975

Mr. Eilberg introduced the follow ing bi ll; which was referred to the Committee on the Judicia ry

A BILL

To require tha t all authorization of approp riations for the De partments of Justice and L abor for administering the Imm igra tion 

and Nation ality Act, with respect to any fiscal ye ar beginning after Ju ne 30, 1975, shall he specifically made by Act 

of Congress.

1 Be it enacted b/J the Senate and House of liepresenta2 t'wes o f the United States of Ame rica in Congress assembled,

3 That this Act may be cited as the “Imm igratio n and

4 National ity Authorization Act of 197 5” .

5 Sec. 2. Section 404 of the Imm igra tion and Nationa lity 

G Act, as amended, (8 U.S .C. 1101, note) is amended to read

7 as follows :

8 “S ec. 404. There are authorized to be app ropriated to

I
334

2

1 the De par tment of State such sums as may be necessary to

2 car ry out its functions und er this Act. No appropriatio n shall

3 he made to either the De partm ent of Justice or the De part4 men t of Labor to carry out any function under this Act for

5 any fiscal yea r beg inning after Ju ne 30, 1975, unless such

6 appropriation is specifically authorized by Act of Congress

7 which is approved afte r the date of enactm ent of the Immi8 gration and Natio nality Authorization Ac t of 1 975.” .

*

R
335

TESTIMONY OF HON. LEONARD F. CHAPMAN, JR.. COMMISSIONER,

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED

BY JAMES GREENE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. AND SAMUEL BERNSEN, GENERAL COUNSEL

Mr. Chapman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great pleasure 

to be here and to provide you and the members of the committee with an up-to-date report on the Immigration and Naturalization 

Service. I am accompanied by Mr. James Greene, who is the Depu ty Commissioner of the INS and Mr. Sam Bernsen, who is the General 

Counsel of the Service. It has been jus t about a year since I appeared before your committee to give a similar report. And it has certainly been a very 

eventful year. I have continued my inspection trips to INS field offices, and during 

the year visited nearly all of the more than 30 district offices in the 

United States, plus our European offices. There are just a few districts 

and Border Patrol Sectors I have not been to yet, and these will 

be covered in the next 2 to 3 months. And, I should say tha t I continue to be impressed with the dedication and the loyalty of the hard-working INS employees I have met. 

And I met several thousand of them. I am convinced tha t they are doing an excellent job in the face of staggering workloads with the 

resources available to them. During my little more than 1 year as Commissioner, we have 

been taking a hard look at the management and organizational 

structure of the Service, with an eye toward strengthening it. As you 

know, just over a year ago, we reorganized our Central Office, the 

management struc ture, resulting in the streamlining of operational 

procedures and improved communications with our field offices.

Last month we announced the proposed appointment of three new 

regional commissioners, with two incumbent regional commissioners 

moving to the Central Office to head the enforcement and examinations functions. The third is moving to a new and enlarged region.

And this month, we have announced the realinement of regional 

boundaries to equalize more nearly the personnel and workloads and 

to bring them into comformity with the s tanda rd regional boundaries 

for other Federal agencies.

We are also restructuring the regional management organization 

along the lines of the Central Office. Each will have a regional commissioner, a depu ty regional commissioner and three associate commissioners, responsible for enforcement, examinations, and management, as we do here in the Central Office. In addition, each region has been instructed to staff a small planning 

and evaluation group to aid them in long-range planning and to seek 

ways to improve performance through better efficiency.

I believe tha t the proposed changes in the senior officials will benefit our management. Fresh ideas and methods of operation will be 

introduced into key positions of INS, and this new thinking should 

help to revitalize our approach to accomplishing our many objectives.
336

The regional realinement is also expected to improve overall 

management. Each of the regions will be more manageable entities 

enabling regional officers to implement closer controls and to monitor 

all activities more closely.

I am sure the committee is aware that the Immigration and Naturalization Service is almost literally overwhelmed by the responsibilities assigned to it.

The illegal alien problem certainly illustrates the worst and most 

glaring deficiency in our capabilities. And I would like to repeat for 

this committee, that given some means of turning off the magnet that 

draws people here—that is the passage of legislation such as the 

Rodino bill together with increases in the Service—we can open up 

jobs for unemployed Americans and legal resident aliens.

I believe there are signs that the contribution we can make to 

alleviating unemployment is becoming recognized. We have been 

granted some very welcome increases for fiscal 1976.

In the budget tha t Congress is now considering, the President has 

requested 750 additional positions and $29.7 million in increased 

funding. Some $22.9 million of this represents money for new programs, while the balance will be eaten up by unavoidable cost 

increases—or just plain inflation.

Included in this increase is $5 million for alien detention and travel, 

which will result in mere apprehensions by enabling us to hold temporarily and then remove frem the country those illegal aliens we 

locate. Included in the 750 positions are 213 Border Patrol personnel.

I believe we are making progress, but there is a great deal more 

tha t is needed if we are to begin to fulfill our responsibilities to the 

public and to this committee.

It is quite evident that over the past several years, the Service has 

been attempting to carry at least an 8-ton load in a 5-ton truck. The 

results have been about what could be expected.

So this past year, we have attem pted to fit our load onto the truck, 

through a system of priorities. Whenever we have added a ton, we 

have had to take one off. And we have instructed our field offices as 

to what areas of responsibility they should direct their major efforts 

to, and those tha t m ust be sacrificed.

Mr. Chairman, I will now7

 briefly cover each of the major functions 

of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and attempt to give 

the committee a rundown on our accomplishments, our objectives, 

and our problems in each of these areas and set forth the benefits 

that will result from the requested increases in the fiscal year 1976 

budget.

With your permission, sir, we will use some charts to better illuminate the test.

[The charts referred to follow:]
337

o NEW, SECURE DOCUMENTATION 

o R&D ANTI-SMUGGLING DEVICE 

o PRIORITIES - AIRPORT INSPECTION

ADJUDICATIONS

65 74

801,000

1,450,003

APPLICATIONS RECEIVED

o PRIORITIES - ELIMINATE BACKLOGS 

® B-2 VISITOR EXTENSIONS
33S

NATURA LIZ AT ION

65 . 74

104,000

131,COO

PERSONS NA TURALIZED

© REDUCTION IN TR AVEL NEEDS'

© ELIMINATIO N OF UNNECESSARY COURTS

RECORDS PROGRAM

1-3,300,000 

INDE X SEARCHES

*

©IN QUIRIES FROM PUBLIC 

© AL IEN ADDRESS REPORTS

« AU TO MA TION OF INDE X
339

APPREHENSIONS

800,000

ILLEG AL ALIEN S 

APPREHENDED

©PRIO RITIES - HIGHER PAY JOBS 

©BORDER PATROL LIN E WATCH 

© R&D - SENSOR SYSTEMS

INVESTIGATIONS

198,000

INVESTIGATIONS COMPLETED

»

©MARRIAGE FRAUD 

©INTER-AGENCY COOPERATION
340

Mr. Chapman. T o be~in with, our Service functions, which are composed of inspections, adjudications, naturalization and information 

and records, and first taking inspections, Mr. Chairman, the purpose 

of this function is to determine the eligibility of persons who present 

themselves for entry into our country. Of course, we try to facilitate 

the entry as expeditiously and courteously as is possible. We accomplish these duties by an inspection process at the various airports, 

seaports, and land ports of entry. Almost 270 million persons were 

inspected in fiscal year 1974.

The total inspected represents a 45 percent increase over the last 10 

years and a small increase over 1973. Of this number, 528,706 persons 

were denied entry, an increase of 40 percent over the preceding year. 

This reflects our efforts to improve the quality of inspection and to 

deter the potential violators before they enter the country.

Our proposed budget for fiscal year 1976 does not include any 

personnel increases for this inspection activity. However, it is our 

position that an effective immigration inspection on our Southwest 

border where the problem is the greatest requires a 50-percent immigration presence. And, to move toward this goal, wo have redeployed 

some inspectors to tha t border already.

To aid in our inspection effort, the fiscal year 1976 budget includes 

$4.7 million and 215 personnel to begin implementing a secure alien 

documentation system. The budget also provides for a research and 

development fund. These budgetary items will help us in utilizing the 

present work force in a more effective and efficient manner.

I might divert here to show the committee one of our research and 

development projects tha t we are working on. Actually, it is a little 

black box tha t incorporates technology already developed by the 

Army Engineer Development Center at Fort Belvoir. They put together 

for us this little box, which can be placed on an automobile or a truck 

and it will reveal whether there is anyone hidden inside, either the 

car or in the truck, under the hay or whatever the load is. I think we 

can illustrate by putting our hands on the table here, or at least I hope 

so. There, the little light went on. It works on the accoustics principle 

and it will detect the heartbeat of a person hidden inside a car or 

hidden under the load of a truck or concealed in a moving van, or 

whatever.

I should add tha t we are continuing to find an ever increasing 

number of fraudulent, counterfeit, and altered documents for entry 

into the country. As a matter of fact, counterfeit documents are so 

available now and easy to get that the bottom has fallen out of the 

market and the price has fallen some 50 percent in the last year for a 

counterfeit document. Hence, I believe it is imperative tha t we continue to tighten our inspections so as to turn away the growing number 

of illegal aliens attem pting entry in this manner.

I turn now to adjudications, our examinations process, and there are 

over 25 different types of applications and petitions for benefits 

received for Service adjudication under the immigration and nationality 

statutes. These applications are of varying complexity and therefore 

require significantly different periods of time for completion.

Factors such as agency checks, interviews, and investigations affect 

the time necessary for a prudent adjudication—however, the maximum 

time required for the disposition of any adjudicative matter should be 

3 months.
341

Receipts of applications and petitions neared 1.5 million in fiscal year 1974, an almost 90-percent increase for the 10-year period. At the end of fiscal year 1974, our adjudications backlog reached the level of 155,000. This represents an increase of 25 percent over the 

previous year. What we are particularly concerned about is the increase in the incidence of fraud. Without adequate personnel and without timely review of cases, there is a high likelihood tha t fraud will increase. W e

* are requesting 25 additional personnel in fiscal year 1976. This will enable us to interview 25 percent of the applicants applying for benefits where such interviews are now not mandatory, and will allow 

us to discover fraud that we believe is now occurring.

• Our priority, then, is to reduce our backlogs. Some of the actions tha t we have taken during fiscal year 1975 such as eliminating exten­ sions of stay for B-2 visitors will help us move in tha t direction. Now, as to naturalization, we are the agency responsible for en­ couraging and facilitating the naturalization of applicants who meet the s tatutory requirements. Our duties include examining and investi­ gating the applicants for naturalization and making a recommendation to a naturalization court as to their eligibility for naturalization. There were 131,655 aliens naturalized in fiscal year 1974, which represented a 13-yearhigh and an increase of 26 percent over the last 

decade. In line with the continued increases in the number of applications submitted and petitions filed, there was a pending backlog of 47,533 petitions at the end of fiscal year 1974, which was up some 17 percent over the previous year. In this area, there is the m atter of issuance of certificates of citizenship to eligible persons, which is also rising steadily. For fiscal year 1976, our budget contains an increase of 30 personnel for these functions, which should help in reducing backlogs 

and providing better service to the public. We have taken a number of steps to improve our efficiency for this activity: for instance, 82 low-volume courts have agreed to relinquish their naturalization function; we are training paralegals, reducing the travel of our own naturalization examiners, and have suspended special procedures. These actions in conjunction with our proposed increases 

» in personnel should enable us to prevent arrearages from developing

any further. Now as to records and information, among our duties under the 

- law is the responsibility for maintaining various records of entry, departure, and naturalization of aliens as well as a registration record 

of all aliens who are residing in the United States. Our records capability is crucial to both our enforcement and service efforts. The total number of items requiring an index search reached 13,300,000 in fiscal year 1974, an increase of 21 percent over fiscal year 1965. By the end of fiscal year 1974, our field offices had almost 

7 million active files. Last year, there were over 7,700,000 information inquiries received, almost 700,000 new files prepared ami 4,500,000 alien address reports 

received. Our problem is tha t we are unable to provide fast and effective responses to requests for files. For file requests from our field offices
342

to the central office, delays of up to 3 months for location of a file were 

not uncommon. Our adjudication and naturalization examiners had 

to wait an average of 3 weeks for another office to locate a requested 

file.

A program to complete the automation of our master index is continued in the fiscal year 1976 budget. The completion of this project 

will immediately assure rapid and accurate search of our 7 million 

active immigration files. We hope that with our proposed increase of 

90 records personnel tha t our response time will be improved appreciably. What we are sure of is tha t these additional personnel will 

enable our central office to respond to requests for records checks on a 

24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week basis.

This concludes my review, sir, of the service aspects of our Agency. ,

Jus t as significant—perhaps more so, considering the current state 

of the economy—is the enforcement responsibility charged to INS.

This is especially important now because between 60 and 80 percent 

of the apprehensions of illegal aliens away from the immediate border 

results in the availability of a job for an unemployed American or 

legal immigrant.

It should be stressed tha t we are not talking about menial jobs at 

below-minimum wages. We find aliens working regularly at highly 

paid jobs requiring skills and often college education.

Some recent apprehensions of this type which we have made in 

major cities include in New York a Greek plumber earning $12 an 

hour, and two Greek painters making $9.71 an hour; in Chicago 41 

Polish women earning $3.75 an hour on a cleaning crew; an East 

Indian electronic engineer in Houston making $17,000 a year; a 

Mexican plan t manager in Laredo making $20,000 a year and a 

Jamaican welder in Boston earning $10 an hour; and an agricultural 

field foreman, a citizen of Jamaica in Mississippi, earning $16,640 a 

year; in Florida, a citizen of Mexico earning $12,480 a year; in Florida, 

a veterinarian and a citizen of India who was a Florida Department 

of Agriculture meat inspector earning $1,950 a month and he is an 

over-stayed student; and again in Florida, a citizen of India earning 

$17,500 a year; at the University of Maryland; a doctor, a citizen of 

Paraguay, who is the resident obstetrician in a hospital earning 

$30,000 a year; in Pennsylvania, a doctor, a citizen of Venezuela, 

earning $50,000 a year. These are examples and they are typical.

In Chicago last month 77 percent of the 559 illegal aliens we apprehended were employed; 92 percent were earning over $2.50 per hour 

and 20 percent were earning over $4.50 per hour. *

So enforcement of immigation laws and removal of illegal aliens 

after they are apprehended is extremely important. The two operations 

primarly concerned with the location and apprehension of illegal 

aliens are the Border Patrol and our investigations unit.

And I will discuss each of these as follows, starting with the Border 

Patrol, Mr. Chairman, this is the principal uniform force guarding 

our land borders. Its goal is to prevent the illegal entry of persons into 

the United State s and to apprehend them if they do enter. This 

mission is accomplished through a variety of techniques including: the 

physical presence of officers on the border, otherwise known as linewatch; by traffic check; by farm and ranch check; and city patrol.

To support these personnel, we have installed a number of sensor 

systems along the southwest border to enable our officers to quickly
343

identify intrusions and thus apprehend illegal entrants as soon after 

the surreptitious e ntry as is possible.

The Border Patrol is confronted by an enormous task and overwhelming odds on our southern boundary. On a border tha t is 1,900 

miles long, we have only 1,600 patrolmen. The number deployed in the 

immediate border area at any one time is only about 200, or 1 agent 

for every 10 miles. L ast year, the Border Patrol apprehended about 

635,000 of the almost 800,000 illegal aliens we located. This is a 630- 

percent increase since fiscal year 1965, and a 27-percent increase over

* fiscal 1973.

In achieving this level, we responded on the average to only 69 

percent of our sensor alarms. One indication of the effectiveness of our 

patrol efforts is the dramatic increase in smuggling of aliens.

* Our Border Patrol agents arrested 8,073 smugglers of aliens in 

fiscal year 1974 in the act of smuggling 83,000 aliens. The fiscal y ear 

1976 budget requests an additional 213 personnel for the Border 

Patrol. This is one of the largest increases we have ever received, 

amounting to about 12 percent additional to the authorized force, 

and it is very welcome.

Once these agents are effectively deployed, we know from past 

workload statistics that each agent averages some 500 apprehensions 

in the course of a year.

This, coupled with the deterrent effect created by their presence 

on the border, will substantially improve our enforcement posture. 

However, the great difficulty in assessing the effectiveness of our 

enforcement is th at we are dealing with a large unknown factor which 

appears to be growing each year.

Now as to investigations: The investigations’ activities consist of 

the gathering of facts about a wide variety of cases ranging from 

immigration fraud to the criminal immoral, narcotic or racketeer 

elements for the initiation of both criminal and administrative 

prosecutions.

In addition to this “fact gathering” role, the Investigations Division 

is charged with apprehension of illegal aliens in urban areas bv use of 

the “Area Control Illegal Status” program. Although some 198,000 

investigative units were completed during fiscal year 1974, the backlog of investigative cases grew 22 percent to some 65,000 cases.

* In addition, there are more than 65,000 pending complaints and 

other cases relating to 123,600 illegal aliens. The fiscal year 1974 

completions represented an increase of 130 percent for the decade.

« There were nearly 17,000 fraud cases completed during fiscal year

1974, an increase of 13 percent over last year. About 14,000 fraud 

cases are still pending investigation and an undetermined number 

could be added to that if the manpower were available to pursue 

them. Our proposed budget for fiscal year 1976 does not include any 

increases for this activity.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Commissioner, I wonder if you could comment 

on tha t point, why there has been no request for additional investigators to conduct these activities?

Mr. Chapman. 1 will comment on it in a moment. There is a substantial request for funds to support detention anti deportation and 

travel of aliens th at we do apprehend, and those funds will enable us 

to exploit the full apprehension capability of our investiagtive force.
344

Mr. Eilberg. So, these funds will also be used for investigators?

Mr. Chapman. Yes, sir; well, they will be used to detain and move 

the aliens that the investigators are now capable of apprehending and 

will continue to be in 1976.

Mr. Eilberg. But, you don’t feel tha t we need additional money 

for investigators right now?

Mr. Chapman. If we had additional investigators and additional 

alien travel and detention money over and above that tha t is included 

n the budget request, we would definitely be able to do more investigating and more apprehending because the number of aliens th at are «

there tha t could be apprehended is very large.

Mr. Eilberg. I just have one final question. Why have you not 

requested additional money for investigators?

Mr. Chapman. The Service has so requested, b ut the requests were •

not approved. I believe I should go on to point out, as well, tha t the 

real problem, as I see it, is to turn off the magnet, the attraction that 

brings these millions of aliens here and tha t is the opportunity to get a 

job. And Mr. Rodino’s legislation, which we, of course, are sponsoring 

and supporting, we believe it would, or something like it, would do 

that. And until such time as there is a means of turning off tha t 

attraction, tha t magnet, we are running a sort of a revolving door, so 

tha t no matter how many we apprehend, whether at or near the 

borders or in the cities, others come in or the same ones come back.

So, we believe tha t both things are necessary; both tha t kind of 

legislation and increased capability to enforce it.

Mr. Fish. Would the chairman yield?

Mr. Eilberg. Yes.

Mr. Fish. General Chapman, while we are on the subject of the 

additional positions requested here, I understand th at fiscal year 1976, 

your budget request is for 750 additional positions?

Mr. Chapman. Total, yes.

Mr. Fish. Total? Well, I would like to just break tha t down, if 

I might, with you. 213 Border Patrol, is tha t correct?

Mr. Chapman. 188 of them are actually Border Patrolmen and 

the other 38 are clerical and some maintenance and radio operators.

Mr. Fish. 188?

Mr. Chapman. 188 are actually Border Patrolmen.

Mr. Fish. What is the clerical figure? *

Mr. Chapman. The difference between tha t and 213, which is 25.

Mr. Fish. 25 clerical?

Mr. Chapman. Clerical and maintenance and support.

Mr. Fish. And then I believe you said 215 personnel to begin 

implementing a secure alien documentation system?

Mr. Chapman. That is correct, sir, plus or including some $4.7 

for the expenses involved. .

Mr. Fish. No, I am just talking about personnel at this point. I 

will get to the funding later on at another time.

Mr. Chapman. Th at is 215 personnel.

Mr. Fish. And under your adjudication responsibility, you are 

requesting 25 additional personnel?

Mr. Chapman. Yes, sir.

Mr. Fish. And under naturalization, it was 30?

Mr. Chapman. It is 30.
345

Mr. Fish. And records, you have 90?

Mr. Chapman. That is correct.

Mr. Fish. I get a total of 573.

Mr. Chapman. Well, there are 177 in the detention and deportation 

program.

Mr. Fish. 177 in detention? Tha t is new personnel?

Mr. Chapman. These are all new personnel, additional personnel, 

750 of them total.

Mr. Fish. Well, that final figure of 177 then gets us into the heart 

of the matter of the need for personnel to move illegal aliens that you 

can apprehend, is tha t not so, sir?

Mr. Chapman, Yes, sir; that plus the increased moving funds.

Mr. Fish. So, really the only thing we are short of then is additional people in the Investigative Division, which I understand it the 

division charged with the apprehension of illegal aliens in urban 

areas?

Mr. Chapman. In the cities. We have a force of approximately 900 

who are responsible for conducting thorough investigations as well as 

apprehending illegal aliens. They are charged with covering virtually 

the entire nation away from the borders, including the major cities 

where most illegal aliens are now’ residing and working at desirable 

jobs.

With the increased funds for alien detention and travel, requested 

in the 1976 budget, they will devote a greater part of their time to 

apprehending and removing these aliens.

In an effort to create a more effective investigation program, we 

created task forces in major cities to concentrate on the evergrowing 

marriage fraud business. And i t is a substantial and lucrative business. 

We are investigating marriage fraud rings and individual marriage 

fraud cases every day. I might remark to the committee about a 

lady we arrested in Miami n ot long ago, who had married fraudulently 

six husbands and each of her daughters had married three husbands. 

She had a common-law husband with twro children for which she 

was drawing Aid-to-Dependent-Children benefits. And for each of 

the 12 marriages they had registered for and were drawing welfare. 

In addition, she had been given a rent-free public housing apartment, 

which she had sublet and on which she wras collecting rent. Th at is 

an extreme example, and I must give her high marks for enterprise, 

but it is an example of the many marriage frauds that are nowr

 being 

used as a means to gain entry into this country on a permanent basis.

We are also emphasizing programs concentrating on interagency 

cooperation such as with the Social Security Administration, IRS 

and elements of the Justice Department. Our New York City Office 

has been designated as Pro ject Control Office, as you know, Mr. Chairman, to coordinate Service investigations relating to Nazi War 

Criminals.

And now’, with respect to detention and deportation, which we 

already briefly touched on, the Detention and Deportation Division
346

is charged with the detention, transp ortation and removal of deportable aliens located in the United States.

In fiscal year 1974, approximately 740,000 aliens were expelled. 

This represented an increase of 26 percent over fiscal y ear 1973 and 

611 percent since fiscal year 1965.

In the course of apprehending and removing these aliens, over 

286,000 were admitted to custody in Service and non-Service facilities, 

that is a decrease of 2 percent over fiscal year 1973. There is a direct 

Jink between the amount of money available for alien travel and 

detention and the level of investigations “area control” operations 

which are aimed at removing employed illegal aliens in the urban 

areas.

When funds for detention and removal are not available, “area 

control” activities must be trimmed back so we don’t pick up more 

illegal aliens than we can afford to remove. The increase of 177 

positions requested for this function in the fiscal year 1976 budget 

will allow for a significantly increased removal program. We are 

estimating it to be 952,000 expulsions or almost 200,000 more aliens 

expelled in 1976 than in fiscal year 1975.

In addition to increases in personnel, our budget request provides 

for new detention space and funds for “interior repatriation.” Interior 

repatriation provides for the effective removal of Mexicans to the 

vicinity of their homes in the interio r of Mexico far from the immediate 

border so as to combat the so-called “revolving door” phenomenon.

Mr. Chairman, in the past 14 months we have taken several steps 

to improve and strengthen our overall management of the Service, 

as I mentioned in my opening comments. Some are noted on this 

chart, Mr. Chairman.

To review briefly, these include: Central Office reorganization; 

Regional Office reorganization; and Realignment of regional 

boundaries.

Our Central Office reorganization included the establishment of an 

Office of Planning and Evaluation. Its functions, among others, are 

to provide for the evaluation of Service policies, to plan for the longrange needs of the Service as well as to assess the current utilization 

of resources, and to conduct special studies to better integrate mission 

objectives with our activities. This group has also acted as a liaison 

for monitoring new developmental efforts such as the alien documentation project, the design of an illegal alien study, and a proposed 

research and development endeavor.

In addition, we have implemented a management by objectives 

system, Mr. Chairman, in accordance with Dep artm ent of Justice 

directives to establish goals for various INS programs. This system 

will enable us to evaluate performance in respect to stated goals each 

fiscal year, and allow regional and district offices to become more 

intim ately involved in the development of resource requests.

Next, as to the regional geographical reorganization, the shift of 

our boundaries conform with the Federal regions and to b etter equalize 

the workloads and span-of-control in our four regions, we have divided 

and have had approved the new geographical boundaries tha t the 

committee will see on this chart. The spacing there indicates the new 

regions and the colors indicate the old regions.
347

Now , thi s arr angeme nt equ aliz es the numb er of employees in each 

region and equ aliz es the spa n-o f-c ontro l arr angeme nts in ou r regions 

in a way to cope wit h to da y’s pro ble ms th at a re facing o ur fou r region al 

commissions. We expect to pu t this new arr angeme nt into effect early 

in fiscal y ea r 1976.

We h ave also t aken ac tion over the past ye ar to inform the Am eric an 

public and the Con gress as to the scop e, ch ara cte ris tic s and economic 

impac t of the illegal alien po pu lat ion on the Americ an soc iety . Th is 

has been don e in the hope th at pub lic know ledg e of the seriousness 

of thi s problem will resu lt in actio n tak en to resolve it.

As you can see from the review of our activitie s, we have some 

streng ths and man y weakn esses in our capa bility to perform our 

dutie s and can y o ut our r esp onsibilities.

Ce rta inly one of the grea t stre ng th s in the Im migr ati on Service 

is the de dic ati on of the more th an 8,000 employe es. In conc lusion,

I can promise thi s comm itte e th at all of us in IN S will conti nue to do 

ou r very be st to ca rryo ut all of ou r t asks to the limit of our capabi lities.

Mr. Ch airm an , th at com pletes ou r sta temen t, and we will be more 

than pleased to at te m pt to ans wer an y que stions y ou h ave .

Mr. E ilb er g. Th an k you very mu ch for a very full and com plete 

sta temen t. I ale rt the o the r mem bers of the c ommittee that we hav e a 

ra th er am bitiou s program of spe ake rs this morning and I am hopeful 

that we can limit our questio ns and, hope fully , if the re are addition al 

questio ns, th at we can submit the m to the Com mission er for answer 

in writing , otherwise we will have to hav e a no the r meeting.

Gen eral, 1 am going to ask you a few questions, if I ma y and the n 

give add itio nal questions, if I ma y, for your wr itten reply.

Mr. C hapman. Certainly.

Mr. E ilb erg. Fir st, I have a letter dated Ja nu ar y 27 to you, sir, 

signed by some 40 odd org ani zation s, startin g with The American 

Ba ptist Home Mission Society, Th e American Council for Im migra ­

tion and Na tur ali zatio n, Th e U.S. Co mm itte e of Refugees, and so on, 

dealing with the Servic e’s presen t o peration al priorities, and indica tin g 

the distress of these org ani zation s because of the grea t emphasis 

placed upon enfo rcemen t fun ctio ns of the Service and the dee mphas is 

of the Service functions.

We are told in this letter, which I will make a pa rt of the record, 

th at the average visitor has co ntac t with the Service in one of our 

prima ry conta cts : insp ection at the air po rt, adjud ica tio n of ap pli cations, req uesting of info rma tion , apply ing for naturaliz ation. I might 

add in those connections, th at in my own city of Phi lad elp hia an d my 

own dis trict, I have had su bs tantial com pla ints from people in my 

distr ict and in the city of Philadelph ia, so I know whereof t his gro up 

speaks. a

The lette r suggests your ope rat ion al prio ritie s curt ail these fun ctions 

and the lette r goes on to say:

Your Operational Priorities will curtail each of these functions. We deplore the 

50% reduction in manpower in the Public Information Section, which is the 

primary source of information to the public. With a 50% redu ction in personnel, 

service which, i i our opinion, is alre ady in ade quate will be further reduced.

The lette r goes on to tal k ab ou t the redu ced rat io of inspecto rs to 

passengers at airports, which will result in eno rmous bac klogs and 

cer tainly result in a neg ativ e first imp ression of the Un ite d St ates .

49 —76 9— 75------ 23
As I said, I will place this in the record. 

[The letter referred to follows:!

Janu ary 27, 1975.

Re Operational Priorities, 

lion . Leonard F. Chapman, Jr.,

U.S. Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization,

Washington, D.C.

Dear C ommissioner C hap man: We, the undersigned agencies, note that on 

September 24, 1974, you announced the establishment of Operational Priorities 

for fiscal year 1975. We have read this document with interest and concern. We appreciate the financial situation confronting the Service, but feel compelled to 

express our dissatisfaction with the priorities. We are particularly distressed b y the great emphasis placed upon enforcement 

functions of the Service and the de-emphasis of the Service functions. The average 

visitor or immigrant to the United States has contact with the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service in one of four primary contexts:

(a) Inspection at the airport. (b) Adjudication of an application through which he is applying for a 

benefit under the Immigration and Nation ality Act. (c) Requesting information from the Immigration & Naturalization 

Service.

(d) Applying for naturalization. You r Operational Priorities will curtail each of these functions. We deplore the 

50 percent reduction in manpower in the Public Information Section, which is the 

primary source of information to the public. With a 50 percent reduction in personnel, service which, in our opinion, is already inadequate will be further reduced.

We have been told that the reduction in the number of contact representatives 

has already shown beneficial results, that the lines in your Information Offices 

have become shorter, and tha t the contact representatives who could be eliminated 

from the floor can be used to answer the backlog of mail and telephone calls.

Our interpretation of the shorter lines is different. There is a point of no return 

waiting for information. When the public enters an information area and notes 

the inadequate staffing, the reaction is a withdrawal which may give a superficial 

impression of reduction of demand, but in reality is an expression of frustration.

Only through personal encounter can various alternatives to solve any particular problem be adequately and fully explored. The information given telephonically and in correspondence will necessarily be inadequate since it will not deal 

with the full range of possible alternatives. The reduced ratio of Inspectors to passengers, at airports, will result in enormous backlogs and will certainly result in a negative first impression of the United 

States. In the explanation of the changed priorities which is distributed by your office, 

it is of this change stated that one of the purposes is to make it clear to the public 

that the Service needs more funds in order to give adequate service. Among the low operational priorities are applications for adjustment of status 

under Sec. 245. In some districts adjudication of these applications has fallen far 

behind and there is a waiting period of a year or more. This is especially unfair to 

the applicants whose application is based on a labor certification because during 

the waiting period they must remain in the position for which the certification 

was obtained and they are in a vitrual state of peonage during the long waiting 

period. They cannot leave for cause and in the present state of the economy, their 

employment may be terminated and they may find themselves confronted with immigration problems which could have been avoided if their application had 

been acted upon within a normal period of time. The inadequate number of inspectors abroad slows down the processing of 

prospective immigrants and refugees. Since only through naturalization do persons become fully assimilated into the 

mainstream of American life, naturalization should be made as easy and rapid as 

possible. Citizenship education textbooks, visits to military installations and other 

such public relations efforts should be increased rather than eliminated. The 

current backlog in processing naturalization applications is highly undesirable, 

and a further de-emphasis of naturalization would only worsen the present 

situation.
349

We believe th at the Imm igration and Naturalization Service is both a public 

service and a law enforcement agency. To over-emphasize the law enforcement 

aspect imposes a burden upon those person who seek entry into th e United State s, 

lawful benefits under the Imm igra tion and Nation ality Act, and natu ralization. 

The priorities demonstrate th at the Service is not concerned with the law abiding 

alien, bu t only with the evad er of the law.

We urge you to re-evaluate operational priorities a nd to effect a more balanced 

policy.

Sincerely yours,

American Bap tist Home Mission Societies; Amercian Civil Liberties 

Union; American Com mittee on Italia n Migration; American 

Council for Emigres in the Professions; American Council for 

Judaism Philanth ropic Fun d; American Council for Nationalities 

Service; American Federation of Jews from Central Europe; 

American Fed eration of Musicians; American Irish Immigration 

Committe e; American Jewish Committe e; American Jewish Joint 

Distribution C ommittee; Board of Global Ministries of the United 

Methodist Church; Christian Church (Disciples of Christ); 

Church World Service, National Council of Churches of Christ; 

Dominican American Civic Association; Hias and Council 

Migration Service of Philadelphia; ll ot Adoption Program; 

Immigration Council of Southern California; Internatio nal 

Institut e of Boston; Internatio nal Institute of Buffalo; Inter ­

natio nal Insti tute of Connecticut; Int ern ational Institut e of 

Milwaukee County; Intern ational Union of Electrical Radio and 

Machine Workers, AFL-C IO; Italian Welfare League; Iuliu 

Maniu American Roman ian Relief Founda tion ; Japa nese American Citizens League; Jewish Counseling and Service Agency of 

Metropolitan New Jersey; Luthera n Imm igration and Refugee 

Service; National Chinese Welfare Council; National Council of 

Jewish Women; Nationalities Service Center, Philadelphia; New 

York Association for New Americans; Order of AHEPA ; Polish 

American Imm igration and Relief Com mittee; Polish National 

Alliance of the U.S. of N.A.; Tolstoy Foundation; Travelers Aid 

Internatio nal Social Service of America; Travelers Aid Society of 

Metropolitan Chicago/Im migrants’ Service League; United HIAS 

Service; United Sta tes Catholic Conference, Migration and 

Refugee Services; Un ited States Committe e for Refugees.

Mr. E ilbe rg . Sir, thi s is n ot offered to y on in a manner of criticism , 

but we h ave a d ras tic s itu ation whi ch has develope d and is dev eloping 

at this mo me nt in this sph ere , which is un de r yo ur juris dic tio n, and 

I won der if you can give us an y rea ctions to this letter at this tim e? I 

assume you are aware of the lette r?

Mr. C hapman. Oh, yes, I am certainl y fam ilia r with the pro blem. 

I t goes ha ck to the rem ark s I made in my statem en t conce rning the 

8 tons of load on a 5-ton tru ck. We are simply overwhelmed with the 

ma gnitude of our ta sk and we h ave some 8,000 d edica ted employees tha t 

are ju st s tre tch ed too thin try ing to do too many thin gs an d no t able 

to do h ardly any of them well.

So, I cam e to the conclusion th at we h ad to tak e dr astic actions to 

reduce th e task to th e m ost im po rtan t ones that could be d one pro perly 

and well, an d th at was our pr io rit y program, in doing so; however, it 

is no t corre ct th at we have dee mphasized serv ice in order to imp rove 

law enforcement.

On the co ntrary, most of ou r ste ps are alo ng the line of imp roving 

service to the mo st Americ ans an d legal alien visitors th at we cuold. 

Fo r example, with res pect to th e inspectio n at airports, the previous 

pro ced ure was to detail ou r ad judi ca to rs to the airp or ts to conduct
350

inspections along with the inspectors, with the result that our adjudications were not being done and the backlogs were getting larger and 

larger.

So, it is true that we have removed the adjudicators from airport 

inspections and directed them to concentrate on adjudications, which 

is their primary function, with the result tha t it is taking longer for 

the average passenger load of airplane passengers to move through our 

inspections. But the time required is not excessive, Mr. Chairman.

It amounts on the average now to less than an hour for a full planeload and considerably less than tha t if they are all U.S. citizens. *

Mr. E ilberg. General, you have indicated that the primary 

problem is the economic incentive and the draw that the United 

States has for the citizens or residents of other countries to come to the 

United States, you suggest an excellent solution to this problem would * 

be the passage of 982, or some form of it. Is it not also true that the 

Service, and 1 am not blaming you, sir, has not exercised foresight 

and tha t you might say that in years past there has been a lack of 

resources for the Service, and perhaps inefficiency in some areas?

How did this develop and how do you look back upon the problem 

now?

Mr. Chapman. Well, I really can’t second-guess what has gone 

on or not gone on in the past, Mr. Chairman. 1 would just say it is 

(piite clear tha t the capabilities of the Service have not kept abreast 

of the dramatic increase in the magnitude of the task with respect to 

illegal aliens, with respect to services.

Mr. Eilberg. Now, is it not so tha t the Service did present the 

OMB and the Appropriations Committee with major increase 

requests and this is not only a relatively recent request, but under 

prior administrations?

Mr. Chapman. Yes; it is true tha t the Service has requested major 

increases over the years that have not been approved, and last year, 

for the first time, Congress did not approve the requested budget 

increase.

Mr. Eilberg. So tha t at least part of the blame here, aside from 

the Congress, should rest with OMB is that not correct?

Mr. Chapman. Well, sir, I wouldn’t use the word “blame” . Tha t 

is where the decisions are made, of course.

Mr. Eilberg. You would agree tha t this committee and the * 

Immigration Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee works 

every day with immigration and refugees and was and is in the best 

position to know and appreciate the problems the Service faces? Do 

you agree?

Mr. Chapman. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eilberg. With world economic problems as they are, isn’t it 

conceivable there will be an even greater desire of aliens to come to 

the United States in one way or another? Isn’t that the current situation? I sn’t it true the situation will grow worse unless we take some 

drastic steps.

Mr. Chapman. I am certain tha t is true, sir. If we had a problem 

today of a magnitude of perhaps 6 million to 8 million illegal aliens 

in tlie country, of whom probably 1 million are working, and if we
351

don’t find a means of turning off this flow, this attraction that brings 

them here, and the means of increasing our capability of dealing with 

it, 1 am sure we are going to have twice tha t many in another few 

years and three times tha t many shortly thereafter.

The opportunities in the United States and the pull of the U.S. 

opportunities on the one hand and the push of the poor conditions in 

their homelands is just overwhelming; it is just an inexorable influence.

Mr. E ilberg. Commissioner, it is my feeling that we cannot necessarily put all our eggs in one basket. I don’t think, while 982 offers 

what may be a very viable solution, it is not the total solution. We 

should look to all possible ways to combat the problem.

It is therefore, and for that reason, tha t I introduced II.R . 1276, 

which would confer authorization power on this subcommittee, 

namely, a subcommittee which deals with your problems, sir, on a 

daily basis. I am going to pu t the question to you this way, General, 

if I may.

This bill, 1276, which seeks to confer line-item authorization on this 

committee for your budget, would this bill, assuming it is passed, be 

helpful to the Service?

Mr. Chapman. Well, of course, sir, the committee sponsors, originates, and supervises the immigration and naturalization laws and our 

Agency exists to administer, implement, and enforce those laws in our 

country. And it is always helpful, and it must be helpful for the 

committee to review and detail our capabilities and limitations in 

doing that.

Now, whether, as in this oversight to this committee, and I can 

assure the chairman to continue to cooperate at these oversight hearings or any other hearings to the best of our capabilities and limitations 

and as to our duties-----

Mr. Eilberg. General, may I ask you-----

Mr. Chapman [continuing]. But as to whether the additional steps 

should be taken of enacting the line-item authorization procedure, 

that is a matter for the Congress.

Mr. Eilberg. All right. My question was, and I am fully aware of 

the chain of command, and I do not wish to pu t you on the spot or 

embarrass you in any way—but, my question was, in your personal 

opinion, if we at this committee had this power, do you think it 

would be helpful to your Service?

Mr. Chapman. Based on my Defense experience, I would have to 

say, yes; I do think it would be helpful.

Mr. Eilberg. I than k you for tha t answer, General. I have one 

more subject and then I will yield to my colleages.

In my opening statement I indicated my interest in maintaining 

close oversight of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. One 

of my priority oversight concerns is the investigation of alleged Nazi 

war criminals by the Service, which is receiving increased public at ­

tention lately. Has this matter ever been discussed before the Appropriations Committee and do you propose to bring it to the attention 

of th at committee?

Mr. Chapman. To my knowledge, it has never been discussed 

before Appropriations. I would have to turn to Mr. Greene and ask 

him.
352

Mr. Greene. I do not believe it has ever been discussed at all 

there.

Mr. E ilberg. I am concerned with the possibility that there might 

not be enough attention or personnel or time being focused on 

those problems, Mr. Greene, and I for one would be very hopeful 

that this time, tha t this year, very shortly, as you testify before the 

Appropriations Committee, tha t you would demonstrate your need for 

additional help, if you feel you need additional help, to get this problem behind us.

Mr. Greene. Mr. Chairman, we are going to and have been according this Nazi war criminal program the highest priority. And what 

we will have to do is siphon off investigators from other functions, 

because it is going to get the attention it requires, and necessarily 

it will decrease our efforts in other areas. So, to carry our full responsibility, we should have more people.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Greene, wouldn’t it be better if you got more 

help rathe r than siphon off some from other areas, which are very 

short handed?

Mr. Greene. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eilberg. Commissioner, we have been following your investigation into the matter of alleged Nazi war criminals presently in 

this country. It seems to me tha t very little has been accomplished 

in the past several years. We consider this to be a very important 

issue.

Would you advise this subcommittee as to what progress has 

been made since your last appearance on June 25, 1974, last year, 

with regard to these investigations? How many people do you have 

currently working on these investigations?

Mr. Chapman. I should say, Mr. Chairman, tha t those are allegations.

Mr. Eilberg. All right.

Mr. Chapman. With respect to Nazi war criminals, we, as Mr. 

Greene has said, conducted and will continue to conduct a major 

investigative effort on this subject. There are allegations against 

some 89 total alleged Nazi war criminals. Of them, we have determined tha t 17 are, in fact, deceased, and 17 we cannot identify and 

11 we found absolutely no proof other than an unsupported original 

allegation and 2 are not in the United States and 1 has been granted 

political asylum.

That leaves 41 tha t are now being actively investigated. Of them, 

41 are either naturalized citizens or legal permanent residents. In 

eight cases we have tracked down every lead tha t we have and 

found no substantive evidence to support the allegations, so we have 

laid eight cases aside as currently inactive.

The remaining 33 are under active investigation, both here in this 

country and throughout the country, and in collaboration with the 

Sta te Department overseas.

Mr. Eilberg. General, can you tell us how many of your personnel 

are assigned to these 33 cases at the present time?

Mr. Chapman. There are two full-time investigators in charge of 

the overall project in our New York office, and they are actively
353

supervised by our Chief Investigator there and by the District Director. And in all of our districts around the country, wherever there 

is a lead that turns up, it is given the top priority for the investigative 

section of tha t district.

Mr. E ilberg. But, you do agree that more help is needed in order 

to clean this job up.

Mr. Chapman. I think we need to put more people on it, sir, and 

we are going to do so.

Mr. Eilberg. Finally. General, Congresswoman Holtzman was 

unable to stay. She had a number of questions in this same area of 

Nazi war criminals. I am going to submit these to you on her behalf 

so that you may answer them for the record.

[The questions of Hon. Elizabeth Holtzman are in app. 2 at p. 427.]

Mr. Eilberg. 1 yield to Mr. Fish.

Mr. Fish. Thank you, M r. Chairman.

At the outset, I would like to concur with your opening remarks of 

the need for authorizing auth ority in this committee, and I commend 

you for introducing H.R . 1276. I am confident, that it would be 

helpful to the Service if we had this authority.

An answer to a question almost parenthetically raised by the chairman interests me. You sta ted tha t there are probably 1 million illegal 

aliens working here. It is my impression that the 1 million jobs that 

were identified in a single page entitled “INS Estimate of Jobs Which 

Could be Created by Enacting H.R. 982,” my opinion was tha t only 

the first million jobs had been so identified by the Service.

Is my recollection not correct?

Mr. Chapman. Mr. Fish, we really don’t know. We are confident 

that there are that many at least. That estimate was compiled by 

my district directors, who are on the scene in 30-some urban areas, 

districts, throughout the country. We are confident tha t there are 

that many in those kinds of occupations.

Now, how many more there are, we just don’t know. We believe 

there well may be more, but we simply don’t know.

Mr. Fish. One of the categories you discussed this morning in 

your responsibility, was recordkeeping. I wonder if you would care 

to comment on a recommendation by the Government Operations 

Committee in the last Congress in the interim repo rt on INS regional 

operations dated December 18, 1974, which referring to the alien 

reporting system, the annual reporting, said:

“The ultimate value of the annual reporting requirement is questionable, since such a large effort is required for sorting and storing 

the cards and INS makes little use of the information.”

And the recommendation is made:

“The annual reporting requirements should be reassessed for its 

value and the use of the information obtained.”

Would you care to comment on that?

Mr. Chapman. Th at refers to the requirement in January of each 

year for aliens in this country, aliens with permanent residencies 

or tourists aliens, to turn in a postcard of their current address. Those 

cards do come in. They are used for a number of good purposes, both
354

by ourselves and other government agencies, who use the information 

for research and statistical and other purposes.

If we can progress with our automation projects, as we would like 

to, we would be able to handle those cards with greater speed and with 

much more effect thereafter. So, it is my overall opinion that the 

requirement to report on the part of all aliens is a sound principle 

and should be continued, and I think it is up to us to make bette r use 

of them largely through automation.

Mr. Fish. I would like to address myself to two areas. One has to -w

do with the fact that no additional investigators are included in the 

750 additional positions in fiscal 1976. Our Chairman alluded to this, 

and has alluded on many occasions to this fact, including the issue 

of siphoning off investigators you presently have for any special *

assignments.

I understand there are presently 900 in the Investigative Division, 

is that correct?

Mr. Chapman. That is correct.

Mr. F ish. Would you tell us what your request was, either originally 

to the Department of Justice or to 0M B tha t was not responded to 

in the fiscal 1976 budget?

In other words, how many would you really like to have to do the 

job?

Mr. Chapman. Mr. Fish, I am sure you appreciate tha t I support 

the President’s budget. The President’s budget did not request any 

more investigators. It did request, however, substantial alien travel 

and detention funds to enable the investigators that we do have to 

exercise their maximum apprehension capability.

Mr. Fish. Well, I will get on to that in a minute. I understand that 

figure is $5 million, which I don’t find very impressive either. But, 

we are examining the President’s budget now, Mr. Chapman. I 

understand you support it, but we plan to rewrite it, and I would 

like to know for the good of the Service and for the good of the people 

of this country, how many investigators you need to do that job that 

you and 1 know needs to be done, and which I know you want to 

do.

So, 1 want to know how many more investigators would you like?

Mr. Eilberg. I am asked whether this is not a fair question by •

Mr. Fish. It is, in the Chairm an’s opinion, a fair question, although 

it might be somewhat embarrassing to the witness.

Mr. Fish. Well, let me pursue this a bit further— -

Mr. Cohen. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Fish. Just a minute. We have now spoken about the fact that 

there are 1 million jobs being held and over 50 percent of them are 

light and heavy industry jobs, held by people not entitled to them, 

yet on page 15 of your report, in talking about the detention and deportation program, you say tha t: “Next year you anticipate 200,000 

more aliens will be expelled than there were this y ear.’’

Well, now, I was hoping to read 1 million; 200,000; with the revolving 

door policy may mean you are standing still.

Mr. Chapman. Well, sir; of course each time we apprehend an 

alien working in a good job, we immediately call the local State or
355

city employment service and in most cases, they find an American 

immediately to take over that job. So, it is no longer available to the 

alien.

Mr. Fish. Can I yield to the gentlemen from Maine a minute and 

then I still have an answer 1 hope I am going to get.

Mr. Cohen. Well, 1 thank the gentleman for yielding. I was simply 

going to point out that while many of us recently signed a loyalty 

oath to the Republican President, but we still feel that we have to express our own disagreements from time to time when we feel it is in 

the best interest of the country. 1 certainly appreciate your delicate 

position of wanting to support the President, hut what Mr. Fish was 

saying was in addition to supporting the President, do you feel tha t 

more money is necessary to really achieve the goals, rather than 

simply just stating your reaffirmation for the President’s budget?

Mr. Fish. Well, thank you. So, we have a state of fact here, where 

it is my understanding that last fall you sought $50 million for personnel and moving money to get about the job of the problem of illegal aliens holding jobs in this country. It is my understanding now 

your testimony is tha t $5 million has been added for alien detention 

and travel.

So, we are doing to one-tenth of the job we hope to do, then, and in 

addition we are not going to have any of the very necessary people 

who are charged with doing this job. And getting this job done has 

always been a question of personnel and money, right?

And so, we need the investigators and you are not going to get any 

more of them, right?

Mr. Chapman. It is personnel, money and legislation, Mr. Fish. I 

referred in the statement to the Rodino bill or some means of turning 

off the opportunity of getting a job in this country, which is what 

attracts those millions of people here, and I would add tha t-----

Mr. Fish. Well, it is also a much healthier economic climate than 

Mexico?

Mr. Chapman. Yes, sir, and than many other countries.

Mr. Fish. But, that really isn’t what we are considering here.

Mr. Chapman. The $50 million that 1 referred to last fall had to do 

with enforcement of Mr. Rodino’s legislation, as well as increasing 

our capabilities. There is nothing in this budget to implement and 

enforce the provisions of that legislation, should it become law.

And my statement last year was, if we did have that legislation and 

had something on the order of $50 million and a couple of thousand 

additional officers to implement and enforce tha t bill as well as giving 

us some other capabilities, that we could open up to 1 million jobs. 

And I am confident that is so.

Mr. F ish. A couple of thousand more officers, you say?

Mr. C hapman. Th at related primarily to enforcing that bill as 

well as other capabilities.

Mr. F ish. Well, you say it seems apparent that if there was more 

than $5 million in the detention and deportation side of the budget 

and an increase in investigators, the probabilities would be that a 

greater increase than 200.000 would he your forecast for next year in 

deportations?
356

Mr. Chapman. Yes, sir.

Mr. Fish. Thank you.

Mr. Chapman. On that order of magnitude, sir.

Mr. Fish. Thank you.

Mr. C hapman. Not all of them, as I point out, will be apprehended 

at work. Some of the 200,000, of course, we will try to find them looking 

for jobs, or they may be families, women and children.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Dodd.

Mr. Doon. 1 just have a couple of questions. I realize, Mr. Chair- w

man, you want to move this along.

Mr. Commissioner, on page 11 of your testimony you talked about 

the Border Patrol apprehensions and you make reference to the 

sensor system. It is my understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, a

from information I have received, that in addition to the sensor 

system, the observors are still using a rather old and maybe rathe r 

good system of detection as well, namely, dragging barbed wire or 

fencing along the border and then flying a plane over it at a later 

date to check for tracks. It is an old Indian system, is that accurate 

and does it work well.

Mr. Chapman. It is both. We have Border Patrolmen that are the 

world’s leading tracking experts. It is called “sign cutting” in the 

Service. They follow tracks as well through smoothed-out bands over 

or across the favorite entry routes, watching for tracks. They do that 

both from the ground and from the air.

And I might say, parenthetically, tha t there is included in the 1976 

budget a request for one helicopter.

Mr. Dodd. To be used in this?

Mr. Chapman. For us to experiment, yes, in this regard. The helicopter has several advantages and one of which we think will be that 

since it will carry five or six people and a pilot, tha t we will be able to 

move in with one or two Border Patrolmen, who can then land and 

pick up two or three aliens tha t they spot from tracks or by sight 

out in the middle of the desert somewhere.

Mr. Dodd. In addition to the sensor system, and tha t system, is 

there any other systems at all that you use at these Border Patrol 

points where you do have a heavy previous instance of heavy 

immigration? •

Mr. Chapman. There is some fencing in place now, which has 

been in place for years, at the cities, and then in addition, there is 

the project tha t is included in the budget to begin the issuance of the 

new counterfeitproof, alterproof and impostorproof, and machine *

readable border crossing card, which is an alien identification card, 

which will be of immense help to us. The money is in the budget for 

the first year for that new card.

Mr. Dodd. Also referring here to the inspections, I guess it is under 

inspections that the fraudulent documents tha t you mention in your 

testimony are reviewed. You have a tremendous problem in detecting 

fraudulent documents.

What would you suggest in addition to the border crossing guards?

What sort of documents would you suggest to alleviate this problem?

Do you suggest the Social Security cards are being fraudulently manufactured, or is it passports or is it what?
357

What are the documents you are having the difficulty with?

Mr. C hapman. Passports, visas, birth certificates, marriage licenses, 

alien identification cards, border-crossing cards, the use of nonexistent or fraudulent social security numbers, and the like. Our 

alien identification card project will, if the Congress approves the 

funds, will solve over about a 3 year period the whole problem 

of the counterfeit border-crossing card and the alien identification 

card.

Consequently, the Visa Office—and we developed this new card 

in conjunction with the Visa Office—and they will begin in 1976 to 

issue the new visa which uses all the same technology as our new card 

here, and works slightly the same way. So you drop it in the same 

slot for a machine reading and the like. And tha t should solve the 

visa fraud aspect.

There still remains then fraudulent documents of all kinds tha t are 

used to support entry into the country or support a request for a 

social security number or whatever. It is in tha t area tha t our investigators work and there is also the marriage frauds, too.

Mr. Dodd. I brought this up, I think, once before when you were 

testifying earlier, but what is being done in the international community? Obviously, there is a problem tha t we are suffering from 

probably more so than any other country in the world, a problem of 

illegal aliens here, but is any effort being made at all in the international community with the United Nations, or whatever, to work 

out some kind of a system of use of passports or birth certificates 

tha t would alleviate a lot of this problem?

Are we in close contact with the Mexican Government, for example, 

and what are they doing? Is anything being done to the aliens to deter 

him? Is there any punishment at all for the illegal alien coming back 

to Mexico?

Mr. Chapman. Well, sir, there are two different questions there.

Mr. Dodd. I realize tha t. I just wanted to get a general response.

Mr. CH\PMkN. The first one falls within the province of the 

Passport Office of the State Department, and there is an active 

international effort in this regard. Mr. Greene may be able to elaborate 

on that.

Mr. Greene. Yes, the ICAO group, which is a subsidiary of the 

United Nations, with regard to international air transportation, has 

a card and has been studying this problem for a number of years. 

Mrs. Knight has presented her card and she has a newly designed 

passport which is almost counterfeit proof.

And the Inter-Pol organization took cognizance of this two years 

ago when I presented a pape r to them tha t there should be a tightening 

up of the control of international travel documents to frustrate 

criminals traveling abroad. They did take it under consideration and 

it was submitted to apparently all the members of that organization.

Mr. Chapman. As to Mexico, I don’t believe I know the answer 

to that. Do you?

Mr. Green e. Well, there truly hasn’t been too much done with 

regard to fraudulent documents in Mexico. Fraudulent documents 

are quite prevalent. And a number of our documents are issued in 

Mexico. They have a ruling of their courts down there th at the issuance
358

and counterfeiting of American documents is not a violation of 

Mexican laws. We have asked them on numerous occasions to help 

us control this.

Mr. Dodd. What about illegals leaving this country and returning 

to M exico?

Mr. Greene. I understand, under their most recently passed 

immigration law, that it is a technicality, a legal technicality, to 

leave the country, but they do not enforce it. Every Mexican returned 

to Mexico is turned over to the Mexican Government. He is turned 

over and they get the data as to how they left the country. They 

are supposed to go through a court with a document in possession.

Mr. Dodd. And is this also an activity our State Department is 

pursuing, namely, communication and conversation with the Mexican ,

Government?

Mr. Greene. There is and has been a group set up recently to zero 

in on the relations with Mexico on all of these problems of illegal 

entry and movement of migrants and the cooperation of the two 

governments to stop this.

Mr. Chapman. The committee, Mr. Chairman, may be interested 

in seeing some examples of our new card here. Could I pass them 

around?

And I emphasize tha t this card is actually counterfeitproof. It is 

impostorproof, that is, one individual cannot use somebody else’s 

card.

It is a card that identifies definitely the person to whom it was 

issued. It is tamperproof or alterproof and it is machine readable.

You drop it in a slot and it is machine readable.

Mr. Dodd. Mr. Chairman, 1 have additional questions that I will 

submit in writing.

Mr. Eilberg. I appreciate that very much, and without objection 

they will be submitted for the record. [See app. 2 at p. 427.]

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, too, General. I notice from the first two rows of the 

audience today that you had a good proportion of the INS Service 

with you, or at least that is what it appears to be from here.

I noticed in your statement that you indicated that you have been 

deploying inspectors to the southwest border. I add a rueful note tha t 

I surmise those are taken from the northeast border to fill those 

particular slots?

Mr. Chapman. No. we did have a plan to move 90 inspectors from >

the northern border, the entire northern border for the obvious reason 

that people are entering fraudulently with counterfeit or other kinds 

of documents through the southern border by the tens of thousands 

of numbers a year, and we know that. They admit tha t when we 

apprehend them, whereas, Congressman, the number coming through 

the northern border is very small in comparison.

Despite that fact, though, two-thirds of our border inspectors are 

on the northern border and one-third on the southern border, which 

is a situation that has grown up historically through the years.

So, our proposal was to move about 90 from the northern border to 

the southern border. The Congress mandated that we not carry out 

that plan, and we have not done so this year.
359

Mr. Cohen. With respect to mandates, I would not ask you to 

respond to this now, but there have been two reports issued to the 

Government Operations Committee with recommendations and I have 

them here, but I don’t want to take the time now. But, I would like 

you in writing to furnish the committee with what your response has 

been to those recommendations and what vou propose to do.

Mr. C hapman. Fine. [See app. 2 at p. 427.]

Mr. Cohen. Going to the question previously about the Nazi war 

criminals, and I am not being facetious when I ask this question, but 

I would like to know does your Agency have any cooperation either 

with the CIA or FBI in years past in connection with investigating 

war criminals? Because it certainly seems to me that if we can spend 

money for the CIA to be dredging up submarines from the bottom of 

the ocean, we would certainly want to utilize their services as well 

when it comes to determining whether the Nazi war criminals are 

still at large.

I would also raise the question that since we have been finding 

out that there have been activities carried on by the FBI and CIA 

during the past 15 years concerning dissident groups, I would certainly 

suggest that the American Nazi Party might fall within that category, 

which would warrant the FBI investigating them as well.

Mr. Chapman. As to whether we have been in touch with and 

asked the FBI or CIA to help us in the Nazi war criminal allegations,

1 will have to turn to Mr. Greene.

Mr. Greene. We do check with the FBI and the CIA with regard 

to what information they might have concerning someone we have 

under investigation.

Mr. Cohen. Have you made-----

Mr. Greene. We have not asked them to make investigations 

for us. We would go through the D epartment of State, which we are 

doing in these cases.

Mr. Cohen. Have you called upon the FBI or CIA with reference 

to the 41 people1

 tha t are currently under investigation?

Mr. Greene. For information?

Mr. C ohen. Yes.

Mr. Greene. Yes, sir.

Mr. Chapman. Tha t is for information, but not for active investigation.

Mr. Greene. That is correct.

Mr. Chapman. Not active investigation on their part.

Mr. E ilberg. Would you yield?

Mr. Cohen. Yes.

Mr. E ilberg. At an informal meeting yesterday, attended by the 

Commissioner, Mr. Greene, Mr. Bernsen. Mr. Fish, and myself, 

we explored this subject. One conclusion that came out of that meeting 

was an indication tha t the Service would intensify its efforts with 

the State Department, which has perhaps been dragging its feet in 

this area. Greater help by the State Department would help perhaps 

solve some of these problems.

Mr. Cohen. I was just inquiring to determine whether the FBI 

or CIA had branched off into this as well.
360

Mr. Chapman. Just last night, Mr. Chairman, after tha t meeting,

I did contact the new head of security—•—

Mr. Greene. The Bureau of Consular Affairs.

Mr. Chapman. Yes, in the State Department and he expressed 

his complete and energetic cooperation.

Mr. Eii .berg. I appreciate tha t very much.

Mr. C hapman. And, to my knowledge, I am confident tha t he will 

exercise energy on that.

Mr. Cohen. With respect to the interagency cooperation tha t 

you touched upon, you make reference to the Social Security Administration, to the Internal Revenue Service, but what about IIEW?

Mr. Chapman. With respect to welfare and aid to education and 

the like?

Mr. Cohen. Right.

Mr. Chapman. We have been in touch with them on tha t general 

subject, but mainly we have been working with the Social Security 

Administration, which is, of course, in HEW. The welfare, as you well 

know, is administered by the States employing a good deal of Federal 

money, obviously.

Mr. Cohen. YVell, we have had people testifying before this committee who have raised objection to the notion of calling upon the 

HEW to report illegal aliens who might be receiving welfare payments, 

and I am ju st wondering what has been your experience with IdEW?

Do you intend to call upon it in the future?

Mr. Chapman. We do bring the subject to their attention, yes, but 

it is worth noting th at in California-----

Mr. C ohen. Do they bring it to your’s, tha t is what I am asking?

Mr. Chapman. Well, it is worth noting that in California in December the California Superior Court Judge rendered a decision th at an 

alien was entitled to welfare payments unless he was known to be 

deportable.

Mr. Cohen. Not to take this matter up too long, b ut there was an 

article that appeared in the Washington Star, I believe, Monday, 

dealing with the payment received by certain Customs officers, the 

overtime payment, and perhaps you could provide us something later 

on in writing concerning that whole issue?

Mr. Chapman. Customs and Immigration officers? Th at is right, 

sir. Those payments are made according to law.

Mr. Cohen. Well, the question is as to a possible revision of the 

law. 1 don’t want to get into it now, but I would like to receive something on that. [See app. 2 at p. 427.]

Finally, with reference to the Rodino bill, Mr. Chapman, you used 

the phrase quite often this morning tha t “We’ve got to turn off the 

magnet that draws people here.” .

One way would be to strictly enforce this law and have employees 

penalized for hiring illegal aliens. The question I ask is do you feel it 

is really strong enough? You know, an employer goes through a 

three-step provision before he actually can receive any serious criminal 

penalities. Is tha t going to be enough to discourage the habitual 

offenders?

I assume tha t your Service is aware of some of the more habitual 

offenders who intentionally employ illegal aliens, knowing them to
361

be illegal aliens, as opposed to the person acting in good faith. Do you 

feel that the three-step procedure is really going to be a turning-on of 

the magnet, that is drawing the people here?

Mr. Chapman. 1 think it is going to have a major effect all right. I won’t say that it is going to remove 100 percent and remove all the illegal aliens in this country who are working, but we believe tha t it will constitute a statem ent of national policy, which most employers 

will voluntarily and automatically enforce. We will be able to then work on those who knowingly do not do so, 

which will dramatically reduce the scope of the parameters of our problem. Instead of our investigators trying to find an unknown number of individual illegal aliens, then our investigators and our judges and our examiners will be able to use the terms of the bill with respect to some tens of thousands, perhaps, of employers. So we th ink 

it will have a major effect, yes.

Mr. Cohen. Tha nk you, that is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. Commissioner, we are deeply grateful for your appearance today with your knowing and able assistants, and for your dedication and candor under some rather rigorous examination. Thank you very much for your appearance. We look forward to 

continuing to work with you.

Mr. Chapman. Tha nk you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee.

Statement by Leonard F. Chapman, J r., Commissioner, Immigration and

Naturalization Service

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure for me to be here today to provide you with an up to date report on the Immigration and Naturalization Service. I am accompanied today by Mr. James Greene, Deputy Commissioner, and Mr. Sam Bernsen, General Counsel. It has been ju st abo ut a year since I appe ared before your committee to give a similar report. And it has certainly been a very eventful year. I have continued my inspection trips to I&NS field offices, and during the y ear visited nearly all of the more than 30 district offices in the United States, plus our European offices. There are jus t a few districts and Border Patrol Sectors I have not yet been to, and these will be covered in the next two to three months. And, I should say that I continue to be impressed with the dedication and the loyalty of the hard-working I&NS employees I have met. 1 am convinced th at the y are doing an excellent job in the face of staggering workloads with the resources available to them. During my little more tha n one year as Commissioner, we have been taking a hrad look at the managem ent and organizational structure of the Service, with an eve tow ard s tren gthenin g it. As you know, just over a year ago, we re-organized the C entral Office manageme nt structure, resulting in the stream lining of operation­ al procedures and improved communications with field offices. Last mon th we announce d the proposed appointment of three new regional 

commissioners, with two incum bent regional commissioners moving to the Central Office to head th e enforcement and the examinations functions. The t hird is moving 

to a new region. And this month, we have announced a realig nment of regional boundaries to equalize more nearly the personnel and workloads and to bring them into con­ formity with standard regional boundaries for other Federal agencies. We are also restructuring the regional managem ent organization along the lines of the Central Office. Each will have a regional commissioner, responsible for enforcement, exam inations and management, as we do at headquarters. In addition, each region h as been instructed to staff a small planning and evaluation group to aid them in long range planning and to seek ways to improve performance 

through better efficiency.
362

I believe the proposed changes in thesenio r officials will benefit our management. 

Fresh ideas and methods of operatio ns will be introduced into key positions of 

INS, and this new think ing should help to revitaliz e our approach to accomplishing 

objectives.

The regional realignment is also expe cted to impro ve overall management. Each 

of the regions will be a more manageable entity enabling regional officers to implem ent closer controls and to mon itor all activities more closely.

I am sure the comm ittee is awa re tha t the Immigration and Naturalization 

Service is almost lite rally overwhelmed by the responsibilities assigned to it.

The illegal alien problem cer tainly illustrates the worst and most glaring 

deficiency in our capabilities. And I would like to repeat for this committee, 

that given seme means of turning off the magnet that draws people here— that is 

passage of legislation such as the Rodino Bill together with increases in the 

Service— we can open up jobs for unem ployed Americans and legal resident aliens.

I believe there are signs tha t the cont ribution we can make to alleviating unemployment is becoming recognize d. We have been gran ted some very welcome 

increases for fiscal 1976. In the budget tha t Congress is now considering, the 

President has requested 750 add itional positions and $29.7 million in increased 

funding. Some $22.9 million of this represents money for new programs, while 

the balance will be eaten up by una voidab le cost increases— or just plain inflation.

Included in this increase is $5 million for alien detention and travel, which will 

result in more apprehensions by enabling us to hold tem porarily and then remove 

from the cou ntry those illegal aliens we locat e. Included in the 750 positions are 

213 Bord er Patrol personnel.

I believe we are making progress, but there is still a grea t deal more that is 

needed if we are to begin to fulfill our responsibilities to the public and this 

comm ittee.

It is quite evid ent that over the past several years, the Service has been attem pting to car ry at least an eight-ton load in a five-ton truck. The results have been 

abou t what could be expected. So this past year, we have attempte d to fit our 

load onto the truck, through a system of priorities. Whenever we have added a 

ton, we hav e had to tak e one off. And we have in struc ted our field offices as to what 

areas of responsibility the y should direct their major efforts, and those that must 

be sacrificed.

Mr. Chairman, I will now cover briefly each of the major functions of the 

Imm igration and Nat uralization Service, and give the committee a run-down on 

our accomp lishments, our objectives and our problem s in each of these areas and 

set forth the benefits that will result from the reque sted increases in the fiscal ye ar 

1976 bud get.

IN SP ECTI O N S

The purpo se of this function is to determine the eligib ility of persons who 

present themselves for entry into our country . Of course, we try to facilitate 

the entry as expeditio usly as is possible. We accom plish these duties by an inspection process at the various airpo rts, seaports and land ports -of-entry. Almost 

270 million persons were-inspected in F Y 1974.

Th e tota l inspected represents a 45 percent increase over the last 10 years and 

a small increase over 1973. Of this number, 529,706 persons were denied entry, 

an increase of 40 percent over the preceding year. This reflects our effect to improve the quality of inspection and to deter the potential violators before they 

enter the coun try.

Our proposed budget for F Y 1976 does not include any personnel increases for 

this inspection activ ity . How ever, it is our position that an effe ctive immigration 

inspection on our Southwe st Border where the problem is the greatest requires a 

50 percent immigration presence. To move tow ard this goal, we have redeployed 

some inspectors to the borde r alread y.

To aid in our inspection effort, the F Y 1976 budget inlcudes $4.7 million and 

215 personnel to begin impleme nting a secure alien docu mentation system. The 

bud get also provides for a research and development fund. These budge tary 

items will help us in utilizin g the present workforce in a more effective and efficient 

manner.

I shou ld add that we are cont inuing to find an ever increasing n umber of fraud ulent, counterfeit and altered documents for entry into the country . Hence I 

belie ve it is imp erative that we cont inue to tighten our inspections so as to turn 

aw ay the growing number of ille gal aliens attempting entry in this manner.
363

There are over 25 different types of applications and petitions for benefits 

received for Service adjudication under the Imm igration and Nationality statutes. 

These applications are of varying complexity and therefore require significantly 

different periods of time for completion. Factors such as agency checks, interviews, 

and investigations affect the time necessary for a pru den t adju dicatio n—however, 

the maximum time required for the disposition of any adju dicativ e ma tte r should 

be 3 months.

Receipts of applications and petitions neared 1.5 million in FY 1974, an almo st 

90 percent increase for the ten yea r period. At the end of F Y 1974, our adjudications backlog reached the level of 155,000. This represents an increase of 25 pe rcent over the previous year.

Wh at we are particularly concerned abo ut is the increase in the incidence of 

fraud. Without adequate personnel and without timely review of cases, there is a 

high likelihood that fraud will increase. We are reque sting 25 additional personnel 

in FY 1970. This will enable us to interview 25 percent of the applicants applying for benefits where such interviews are not man dato ry, and will allow us to 

discover frau d that we believe is now occurring.

Our p riority, then, is to reduce our backlogs. Some of th e actions we have taken 

during FY 1975 such as elim inating extensions of s tay for B-2 visitors will help 

move us in that direction.

N A TU R A LIZ A TIO N

We are the agency responsible for encouraging and facilita ting the natu ralization of applicants who meet the sta tut ory requirements. Our duties include 

examining and investigating the applicants for natu ralization and making a 

recommendation to a naturalization court as to th eir eligibility for naturalization . 

There were 131,655 aliens natu ralized in FY 1974 which represented a 13 year 

high and an increase of 26 percent over the last decade.

In line with the continued increases in the num ber of applications subm itted 

and petitions tiled, there was a pending backlog of 6,402 petitions at the end of 

FY 1974, up some 17 percent over the previous year. In this area, there is the 

ma tte r of issuance of certificates of citizenship to eligible persons which is rising 

steadily, also. For FY 1976, our budget contains an increase of 30 personnel for 

these functions, which should help in reducing backlogs and providing better 

service to the public.

We have taken a num ber of steps to improve our efficiency for this activity: 

for instance, 82 low volume courts have agreed to relinquish their naturalization 

function; we are train ing para-legals, reducing the trave l of our naturalization 

examiners, and have suspended special procedures. These actions in conjunction 

with our proposed increases in personnel should enable us to prevent arrearages 

from developing any furl her.

REC ORDS

Among our duties under the law is the responsibility for maintain ing various 

records of entry, departure and naturalization of aliens as well as a registration 

record of all aliens who are residing in the United States. Our records capability 

is crucial to both our enforcement and service efforts. The tota l number of items 

requiring an index search reached 13,300,000 in FY 1974, an increase of 21 percent 

over FY 1965. By the end of FY 1974, our field offices had almost 7 million active 

files. Last year, there were over 7,700,000 information inquiries received, almost 

700,060 new files prepared and 4,500,000 alien address reports received. Our 

problem is that we are unable to provide fast and effective responses to requests 

for files. For file requests from our field offices to the Central Office, delays of up to 

three months for location of a file were not uncommon. Our adjudication and 

naturalization examiners had to wait on an average of three weeks for another 

office to locate a requested file. A program to complete tin1 auto mation of our 

master index is contained in the FY 1976 budget. The completion of this project 

will immediately assure rapid and accurate search of our 7 million activ e immigration files. We hope with our proposed increase of 90 records personnel tha t our 

response time will be improved appreciably. What we are sure of is that these 

additional personnel will enable our Central Office to respond to requests for 

records checks on a 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week basis.

Th at concludes my review of th e service aspects of our agency. Jus t as significant—perhaps more so considering the current sta te of the economy— is the 

enforcement responsibility charged to INS.

That is especially important now because between 60 and 80 percent of the 

apprehensions of illegal aliens away from the immediate border results in the 

availability of a job for an unem ployed American or legal imm igrant.

49-7 69— 75----- 24
364

It should bo stressed th at we are not talking about menial jobs at below minimum wage. We find aliens regularly working at highly-paid jobs requiring skills 

and often a college ed ucation.

Some recent apprehensions of this type which we have made in major cities 

include in New York a Greek plumber earning $12 an hour, and two Greek 

painters making $9.71 an hour; in Chicago 41 Polish women earning $3.75 an 

hour on a cleaning crew; an Eas t Indian electronics engineer in Houston making 

$17,000 per year; a Mexican plant manager in Laredo making $20,000 a year a nd 

a Jamaican welder in Boston earning $10 an hour. These are examples, but they 

are typical.

In Chicago last month 77 percen t of the 559 illegal aliens we apprehended were 

employed; 92 percent were earning over $2.50 per hour and 20 percent were *

earn ing over $4.50 an hour.

So enforcement of immigration laws and removal of illegal aliens after they are 

appre hended is extrem ely important. The two operations primarily concerned 

with the location and apprehension of illegal aliens are the Border Patrol and our *

Investigations unit.

B O R D E R PA TRO L (A P P R E H E N S IO N S )

Startin g with the Border Patrol, this is the principal uniform force guarding 

our land borders. Its goal is to prevent the illegal entry of persons into the United 

States and to apprehen d them if they do enter. This mission is accomplished 

thro ugh a variety of techniques including: the physical presence of officers on the 

border, otherwise known as linewatch; traffic check; farm and ranch check; and 

citv patrol.

To supp ort these personnel, we have installed a number of sensor systems along 

the Southwest Border to enable our agents to quickly identify intrusions and thus 

apprehend illegal entrants as soon after the surreptitious entry as is possible.

The Border Patrol is confronted by an enormous task and overwhelming odds 

on our Southern boundary. On a border th at is 1,900 miles long, we have only 

1,600 patrolmen. The num ber deployed in the immediate border area at any one 

time is only about 200, or 1 agent for every ten miles. Last year, the Border 

Patrol apprehended abo ut 635,000 of the almost 800,000 illegal aliens we located 

This is a 630 percent increase since FY 1965, and a 27 percent increase over 1973.

In achieving this level, we responded to only 69 percent of our sensor alarms.

One indication of the effectiveness of our patrol efforts is the dramatic increase in 

smuggling of aliens. Our Border Patrol Agents arrested 8,073 smugglers of aliens 

in FY 1974 in the act of smuggling 83,000 aliens. The FY 1976 budget requests 

an additional 213 personnel for the Border Patrol. This is one of the largest 

increases we have ever received, amounting to about a 12 percent addition to the 

authorized force.

Once these agents are effectively deployed, we know from past workload sta ­

tistics th at each agent averages some 500 apprehensions over a year.

This coupled with the deterren t effect created by their presence on the border 

will su bsta ntially improve our enforcem ent posture. However, the great difficulty 

in assessing the effectiveness of our enforcement is th at we are dealing with a *

large unknown facto r which appears to be growing each year.

IN V E ST IG A TIO N S

Investigations’ activities consist of the gathering of facts about a wide va riety &

of cases ranging from imm igration fraud to the criminal immoral, narcotic or 

rac ketee r elements for the initiation of bo th criminal and administrative prosecutions. In addition to this “fact-gathering” role, the Investigations Division is 

charged with the apprehension of illegal aliens in urban areas by use of the “Area 

Con trol Illegal Sta tus ” program. Although some 198,000 investigative units were 

completed during fiscal year 1974, the backlog of investigative cases grew 22 

percent to 65,000 cases. In addition, there are more than 65,000 gending complaints 

and other cases relating to 123,600 illegal aliens. The FYr 1974 completions 

represen ted an increase of 130 percent for the decade. There were nearly 17,000 

fraud cases completed during fiscal year 1974, an increase of 13 percent over last 

year. About 14,000 fraud cases are still pending investigation and an undeterm ined 

num ber could be added to th at if the manpower were available to pursue them.

Our proposed budget for FYr 1976 does n ot include any increases for this activity.

We have a force of 900 who are responsible for conducting thorough investigations as well as appre hend ing illegal aliens. They are charged with covering virtu-
363

ally the entire nation away from the borders, including the major cities where most illegal aliens arc now residing and working at desirable jobs. With the increased funds for alien detention and travel, requested in the 1976 budget, they will devote a grea ter part of their time to apprehending an d removing these aliens. In an effort to create a more effective investigation program, we create d task forces in majo r cities to concentrate on the evergrowing marriage fraud business. We also are emphasizing programs concentrating on inter-agency cooperation such as with the Social Security Administration, IRS and elements of the Depar t­ ment of Justice. Our New York City Office has been designated as a Project Control Office to coordinate Service investigations relating to Nazi War Criminals.

D E T E N T IO N AN D D EPO R TA TIO N (E X P U L S IO N S )

The Detention and Deportation Division is charged with the deten tion, tra ns ­ portation and removal of deportable aliens located in the United States. In fiscal year 1974, approximately 740,000 aliens were expelled. This represented an in­ crease of 26 perce nt over fiscal year 1973 and 611 percent since fiscal year 1965. In the course of apprehending and removing these aliens, over 286,000 were admitted to custody in Service a nd non-Service facilities, a decrease of 2 percent over fiscal year 1973. T here is -a direct link between the amount of money available for alien trav el and detention and the level of investigations “area control” operations which are aimed at removing employed illegal aliens in urban areas. When funds for detention and removal are n ot available, “are a co ntrol” activities mu st be trimm ed back so we don’t pick up more illegal aliens th an we can afford to remove. The increase of 177 positions requested for th is function in the fiscal year 1976 bud get will allow for a significantly increased removal program which we are estimatin g to be 952,000 expulsions or alm ost 200,000 more aliens expelled tha n in FY 1975. In addition to increases in personnel, our budget provides for new de ­ ten tion space and funds for “interior rep atriation .” Interior repatriation provides for the effective removal of Mexicans to the vicinity of their homes in the inte rior 

of Mexico far from the imm ediate border so as to combat the so called “revolving 

doo r” phenomenon. Mr. Chairman, in the past 14 months we have taken several steps to improve and stren gthen our overall man agem ent of the Service, as I mentioned in my opening comments. To review briefly, these include: Central office reorg anization ; Regional office reorg anization ; and Realignm ent of regional boundaries. Our Central Office reorganization included the establish ment of an Office of Planning and Evaluation. Its functions, among others, are to provide for the evaluation of Service policies, to plan for the long-range needs of the Service as well as to assess the c urre nt u tiliza tion of resources, and to conduct special stud ies to better integ rate mission objectives with activities. This group has also acted as a liaison for monitoring new developmental efforts such as the alien documentation project, the design of an illegal alien study, and a proposed research and development 

endeavor. In addition, we have implemented a managem ent by objectives system to es tab­ lish goals for various I&NS programs. This system will enable us to eva luate performance in respect to sta ted goals each fiscal year, and allow regional and district offices to become more intim ately involved in the development of resource 

requests. We have also taken action over the past year to inform th e American public and the Congress as to the scope, characteristics and economic imp act of the illegal alien population on the American society. This has been done in the hope th at public knowledge of the seriousness of this problem will result in action to resolve 

it. As you can see from the review of our activities, we ha ve some strengths and many weaknesses in our capa bility to perform our duties and carry out our 

responsibilities. Certainly one of the great streng ths in the Immigration Service is the d edication of the more tha n 8,000 employees. In conclusion, I can promise this com mittee th at all of us in INS will continue to do our very best to carry out all of our 

tasks to the limit of our capabilities. Tha nk you, Mr. Chairman. I will be pleased to answer your questions.

Mr. E ilberg. Our nex t witness is Mr. Edward W. Scott, Jr., representing the Attorney General’s Office, and he is De puty Assistant 

Attorney General for Administration. Mr. Scott, we welcome you to the subcommittee.
TESTIMONY OF EDWARD W. SCOTT, JR., DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. S corr. Mr. Chairman, I had a prepared statem ent, hut it is 

not necessary for me to read it. I would he prepared to answer any 

questions.

Before I do, and as you correctly noted, I am the D eputy Assistant 

Attorney General for Administration, a position 1 have held for the 

last 5 weeks. Prior to that, however, I was the Associate Deputy 

Commissioner for Planning and Evalution of the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service, where I worked for General Chapman. I 

want to say tha t it was a great privilege to work for General Chapman. 

I think he is an excellent public official and has done a tremendous job 

putting the Immigration Service on the right track. I find myself in the 

curious position of somewhat representing a different perspective on 

the administrative needs of the Department of Justice than I did when 

I was in the Immigration Service.

Having made these in troductory remarks, I would be prepared to 

make my statement or respond to any questions you may have.

Mr. E ilberg. I think the members of the subcommittee have your 

statement. Do you have any additional copies?

Mr. Scott. Yes, I have other copies here.

Mr. Eilberg. Let me say we also share a great deal of respect for 

General Chapman and the vigor he has applied to his job. It is our 

sincere desire, as members of this subcommittee, to do more, though, 

and we feel a capacity to do a great deal more than we have been 

able to do in the past about this situation of illegal aliens, since it 

has grown progressively worse.

I take it you are appearing here as a representative of the Attorney 

General here today?

Mr. Scott. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eilberg. And you state the position of the Department?

Mr. Scott. That is correct, sir.

Mr. Eilberg. And your statement appears before us now, and 

without objection, it will he made a part of the record.

[The prepared statement of Edward \Y. Scott, Jr., follows:]

St a t e m e n t of E dw ar d W. S c o tt, J r., D epu ty Assi sta n t A ttorn ey

G e n e r a l f o r Ad m in is tr a tio n

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to appear 

before you to address the matt er of II. R. 1276, the Imm igration and Nationality 

Authorization Act of 1975.1 wish to express opposition to th is bill.

The Departm ent generally does no t favor the application of auth orization requireme nts to its programs. We have operated for many years with permanent 

auth oriz atio ns for most of our programs and have always been responsive to 

Congressional concerns by supplying materials and witnesses when asked, a 

prac tice which we fully inten d to continue. We feel th at such authorizations bills 

would unnecessarily duplicate rights and authorities that the Congress already 

has. It would also make more complex the review process which Department 

programs now undergo in appropriations hearings and in other special hearings. 

In addition, authorization legislation would cause an increase in the procedural 

requirements and workload of the I lepartment because of the necessity to prepare 

for multiple sets of hearings.

The issue of budget auth orization legislation is clearly a matt er of Congressional 

prerogative. If the Congress u ltim ately enacts this or similar legislation, you may 

be assured th at we in the Departm ent will continue to cooperate with this com-
mitt ee an d with any othe r su bs ta nt iv e comm itte e. And altho ug h we do no t favor 

au thorization legislation, we wou ld do our very best to ma ke such a process work 

effectively even tho ug h it would crea te a su bs tantial ad ditio na l workload for us.

Th is concludes m y stat em en t, Mr. Ch air ma n. I shall be h ap py to re spo nd to an y 

question s.

Mr. Eilberg. I might say first that you talk about duplication of 

work in your statement. And of course the situation is quite familiar 

to you that in a great main ' areas we have precisely the same procedure, that is, an Authorization Act and an Appropriations Act.

Mr. Scott. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eilberg. Why do you find such a procedure, which is common 

to the Congress in so many areas, suddenly duplicative as far as this 

area is concerned?

Mr. Scott. Well, the matter of authorization and legislation is 

clearly a matter which is the prerogative of the Congress and we 

certainly respect that. I am here to represent the position of the 

Department, and that is that we oppose such legislation generally 

because we feel tha t we have been for years and certainly intend to 

continue to appear before any committee at any time, which has 

substantive legislative responsibilities, in order to answer any questions 

that committee might have.

The duplication referred to in my statement is simply in the m atter 

of preparing the testimony and the materials for two sets of hearings 

when tha t situation occurs. It is a matter of preference. I do not consider it to be a problem posing overwhelming difficulties for the 

Department, but if the Department had its preferences, its preference 

would be that such authorization legislation not be enacted.

However, let me assure you that regardless of what this committee 

and the Congress should choose to enact, and whether it chooses to 

enact such legislation, in either event we will cooperate with you in 

every respect to provide you with whatever information you need to 

discharge your responsibilities.

Mr. Eilberg. I am sure that you understand the theory behind 

the concept of authorization legislation and appropriation legislation?

Mr. Scott. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eilberg. In that under authorization legislation, the auth orizing committee has an opportunity and usually is closer to the subject, so that it can explore matters in greater depth and experience 

and provide a more meaningful background and basis for appropriation legislation.

Is tha t not so, Mr. Scott?

Mr. Scott. Yes, sir, that is my understanding.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Scott, this committee daily is confronted with 

a variety of immigration problems, for example, worldwide refugees, 

increasingly marriage fraud schemes, the need for remedial legislation, 

a review of a suspension of deportation cases, as well as other 

administrative remedies.

Also, you might keep in mind tha t many immigration issues before 

the committee come within the appropriations functions of several 

different Subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee. Would 

you agree that this committee is the best qualified to understand the 

needs of the Immigration and Naturalization Service?

Mr. Scott. I would say tha t this committee had done a very good 

and commendable job over the years bringing to the public’s attentio n
36S

the problems created by the presence of large numbers of illegal aliens 

in this country and the problems the Immigration Service itself faces 

in administering its responsibilities under the Immigration and 

Nationality Act. And J think if this committee continues to be as 

active in tha t regard as it has been in the past, it will be doing a great 

public service.

Mr. Eilberg. Th at is a very kind statement of you, Mr. Scott. I 

might also mention tha t this committee is interested not only in the 

number of employees in the Service—oh, and 1 may be accused of 

casting aspersions on the Appropriations Committee, which I 

certainly do not intend to do.

Mr. Scott. Nor I.

Mr. Eilberg. But, as I said, our committee is no t just interested 

in the number of employees in the Service, but in the quality of work 

performance and the efficiency of the administration of the Immigration Act, the processing of petitions, future planning, and so on.

Doesn’t this type of input —well, isn’t that desirable, if not necessary, for the preparation of a meaningful IN S budget? In other words, 

we are dealing with the every day activities of INS, not simply grades 

and numbers of employees in the INS.

Mr. Scott. I think detailed discussion of the immigration program 

by your subcommittee is very useful in planning where they ought to 

go, and I think it would be useful to the Department in understanding 

your views and the Congress’ views as to its programs.

Whether tha t type review’ ought to extend to finally the issue of 

enacting authorizing legislation, that is a matter which the Congress 

will have to decide. As 1 say, the Departmen t generally does not favor 

such legislation, but if you feel it is necessary and if t ha t is what the 

Congress requires to properly discharge its responsibilities, we will 

cooperate with you in every respect on that.

Mr. Eilberg. Finally, Mr. Scott, if this bill is passed by Congress, 

I take it you will not use your influence to atte mpt to have the President veto the legislation?

Mr. Scott. The President doesn’t normally consult me, in which 

case I think that is a fairly safe statement.

Mr. Eilberg. What was that again?

Mr. Scott. The President does not normally consult me on vetoes, 

so-----

Mr. Eilberg. I know that you are being very modest, but since 

you represent the Departm ent, I take it from your statement tha t 

your opposition is not so strong tha t this bill would be opposed by the 

White House?

Mr. Scott. I am afraid I just haven’t asked the Attorney General 

his view on that. I just can’t respond to that.

Mr. Fish. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Scott, thank vou for your restrained objections to this legislation, I would just like to add one more point to what the chairman 

said, and tha t is, of course, tha t unlike appropriations measures, it 

is possible to legislate in authorizing legislation, which I think is one 

more reason why this authority vested in this committee, which is 

thoroughly knowledgeable and a friend to the Service, would be beneficial to the Service.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
369

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Dodd.

Mr. Dodd. I have no questions.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Cohen. No questions. ••

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Scott, that wasn’t so tough.

Perhaps we can get started with the American Federation of 

Government Employees. Mr. Sadler, would you come forward with 

your associates? We apologize for keeping you waiting so long.

* TESTIMONY OF LOU M. PELLERZI, GENERAL COUNSEL, AMERICAN

FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, ACCOMPANIED BY 

STEPHEN KOCZAK, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH: RICHARD BRAN-

* NICK. PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL: 

MICHAEL HARPOLD, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL 

COUNCIL OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE 

LOCALS; AND CARL SADLER, LEGISLATIVE REPRESEN TATIVE, 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Mr. Pellerzi. Mr. Chairman, I am Lou Pellerzi, and am appearing 

here in lieu of Mr. Webber. Mr. Webber had an 11 o’clock previous 

appointment in the Senate.

Mr. Eilberg. Would you give us your full name and position, 

please?

Mr. Pellerzi. Lou M. Pellerzi, general counsel, American Federation of Government Employees. Mr. Chairman, 1 will be here giving 

Mr. Webber’s statement for him.

I am accompanied by Mr. Stephen Koczak, director of research, 

who is on my left; and Mr. Michael Ilarpold , legislative representative 

is on my far left; and to my right is Mr. Richard Brannick, president, 

National Border Patrol Council of the American Federation of 

Government Employees.

They each have supplemental individual statem ents which they 

would give with your permission.

Mr. Eilberg. May 1 suggest, and I know you have an active 

interest in the illegal alien situation and II.R . 982, but 1 understand 

there are prepared statements on that bill as such. Do you wish to 

make those a part of the record and then perhaps discuss this authorization bill that we have before us this morning?

Of course you may proceed in any way you wish.

* Mr. Pellerzi. Well, we do have a reference, I believe, to II .R. 982, 

and we have a prior statement with respect to an earlier hearing in 

connection with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the 

alien control problem, ami we do have a reference to II.R . 2918, Mr. 

Chairman, but 1 would like, with your permission, and that of the 

committee, to read Mr. Webber’s statement. I will be as quick as 

possible in doing so.

Mr. Eilberg. Fine, then the reference material will, without objection, be placed in the record.

[The statement referred to follows:]
370

S t a t e m e n t o f C ly de M . W e b b e r , N at io n \ l P r e s id e n t, A m er ic an F ed er a tio n

of Go v e r n m e n t E m plo y ees, M arch 12, 19 75

The American Federation of Government Employees, AFL -CIO , representing 

6504)00 employees in exclusive recognition units, including all employees of the 

Immigration and Naturaliz atio n Service, is grateful to Congressman Rodino, 

Chairman Eilberg, and this Subcommittee for their dete rmin ation in ohee again 

addressing the problem of illegal aliens. We appreciate the opp ortu nity to make 

our views known on this issue which is not only of vital concern to our members, 

but also affects th e general well-being of our country.

At a time when unemployment is so high, the adverse effects of the presence of 

illegal aliens in the labor ma rke t have greatly increased. These aliens hold jobs «

which would otherwise be filled by American citizens or legally adm itted aliens. 

Furtherm ore, unscrupulous employers exploit the “ illegal’s” fear of d eportation, 

and are able to maintain sub standard wages and working conditions. The alien 

with illegal status cannot rely on employee organizations to bette r his working 

conditions, and th° effectiveness of these organizations acting in behalf of the *

American workers is impaired.

As employment in the Un ited States is th e major attrac tion to the illegal alien, 

we believe legislation is needed to dry up this waterhole or to at least make it 

considerably less accessible. H.R. 982, the Bill currently before this Subcommittee 

for consideration, takes a giant step toward accomplishment of this goal. Section 

2 (b) provides a penalty of not more than $500 for a second offense for anyone 

emplo ying illegal aliens. Subsequent violations of the Act would be a misdemeanor 

and punishable by a fine no t exceeding $1,000 or by imprisonm ent not exceeding 

one year, or both. We believe that these civil and criminal penalties would make 

it more difficult for aliens to obtain illegal employment here.

Since we have presented our views on H.R. 982 to the Subcommittee before, 

we believe it unnecessary to discuss in detail all the provisions of th e Bill. Along 

with AFL -CIO , we strongly endorse the main thrust of II. R. 982, which is the 

repeal of the employer exem ption from the prohibition against the harboring of 

illegal aliens under section 274 (a) of the Immigration and Nation ality Act. The 

repeal of th at proviso would immediately correct the discriminatory treatm ent 

between the employer and the employee that exists at present under that section 

of the Act.

We are hopeful tha t the three-stage enforcement procedure will prove effective.

Under Sec. 2(b)(2) of II.R. 982, the Attorney General shall serve a citatio n upon 

the violator if “on evidence or information he deems persuasive, the Attorney 

General concludes . . .” There has been a violation committe d. The second 

violation, if it occurs within two years after the issuing of a citation under the 

first phase of the process, allows for a hearing and a pen alty of $500 if the employer 

is once again found to be employing illegal aliens. A th ird violation would result 

in a misdemeanor charge which, upon conviction, would be punished by a fine 

not exceeding $1,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both.

We are certain only criminal sanctions will be ultima tely effective in reducing 

the traffic in illegal aliens. We do, however, have strong reservations about the 

three-stage enforcement procedure just discussed. We are concerned that since «

a hearin g is not made optional a t the first stage, and such an “apparent violation” 

is the foundation for an ult imate criminal conviction, questions of due process 

and c ons titution ality might be raised. We propose th at a hearing of record should 

be optional from the beginning of the process so we can be assured of a strong 

and airtight legal procedure. We also propose tha t, under Section 2(c) of H.R .

982, the jurisdiction be arti culated. Although not presently specified, we assume 

jurisdiction to be given to the distric t court of th e United States for the judicial 

district wherein the violation of this Act occurs. Further, we suggest th at effective 

enforcem ent can onlv be achieved by nroviding the federal courts jurisdiction 

for injunctive relief. We also urge t ha t the penalties for violators be substantially 

strengthened.

In regard to the grounds for prosecution of an employer for hiring an illegal 

alien, we feel the specification of “knowing” employment markedly weakens the 

effectiveness of the Bill. We are concerned th at self-serving statements, obtained 

from an employee freely or throug h coercion by an employer, can exculpate the 

employer from the provisions of this law. We urge that II.R. 982 be amended by 

removing the “knowing” requirement, thereby holding the employer clearly responsible for his acts.
371

Lastly, we want to discuss an area which is in urgent need of remedy—the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service itself. The Service lacks both the money and manpower to function efficiently and effectively. Since 19G0, the work of the I&NS has triple d in volume, cost and complexity. However, the Service has not received the necessary app ropriations to keep pace with its increasing burden. There are numerous examples of backlogs and other problems which exist 

thr ought out I&NS offices of w hich we know the subc omm ittee is aware. Besides drastically reducing the effectiveness of the Service in administering the law, such limitations result in the demoralization of dedicated employees who are frustrated in their efforts to conscientiously perform their duties. We know you agree tha t these employees should have the supportive staff and facilities to enable them to carry out laws such as 11.It. 982. We therefore urge th at the I&NS be provided with funds sufficient to allow it to strin gently enforce the laws regarding alien 

entry into the United States. In conclusion, we would like to quote from the recent AFL-C IO Executive 

Council Statement on Illegal Aliens: “ We urge the Congress to strengthen the Bill by placing responsibility for com­ pliance clearly and directly on the employer, not on self-serving stateme nts by employees; by stren gthening the penalties for violations, and by giving the Fed­ eral courts jurisdiction to restrain and enjoin violations of the law. We call for 

prompt, final Congressional action. “We believe the illegal alien problem clearly calls for substantial increases in the funds needed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service to enforce the law 

and that these should be prom ptly provided by Congress.” Thank you for this opportunity to present our testimony which we hope will be 

favo rably received by the subcom mittee.

Mr. Eilberg. Do you have copies of the statement you are going 

to read for the members of the committee?

Mr. Pellerzi. Yes, I believe they have been distributed to the 

members of the committee and the reporter has been given a copy.

Mr. Fish. Would the chairman yield. Is this the statement of Mr. 

Clyde Webber, dated March 19, 1975?

Mr. Pellerzi. Yes, it is, Mr. Fish.

Mr. Fish. Thank you.

Mr. Eilberg. Would you proceed, then?

Mr. Pellerzi. We are most grateful to appear before your subcommittee to express our endorsement of I I.R. 1276, whose purpose 

is to require that after June 30, 1975 all authorizations and appropriations for the Departments of Justice and Labor for administering 

the Immigration and Naturalization Act shall be specifically made 

by act of Congress.

Parenthetically, before presenting our reasons for supporting 

this bill, I should like to observe that we are also in favor of II. R. 291<S 

introduced by Congressman Rodino and cosponsored by seven 

members of the Judiciary Committee requirin gth at all authorizations 

of appropriations for all functions of the Department of Justice “shall 

be specifically made by act of Congress”. It is with great gratification 

that we have taken note of the fact that you, Mr. Chairman, are one 

of the cosponsors of that bill.

As you know, the AFGE, representing over 650,000 Federal employees in exclusive recognition units, speaks for all employees of the 

Immigration Service in labor-management relations under Executive 

Order 11491. Consequently, Mr. Chairman, we have expertise on the 

Immigration and Nationality Act, both from the standpoint of its 

impact on the general public as well as to the particular specialized 

concerns of the Federal employees entrusted with the enforcement 

of its provisions.
372

If I may interject a personal note here, Mr. Chairman, I for 5 

years was the Assistant Attorney General for Administration in the 

Department of Justice and resigned tha t position in February of 

1973. I think I understand fairly thoroughly the purpose and purport 

of what this subcommittee is try ing to do and I may have a comment, 

with your permission, at the end of my statement on behalf of the 

union.

There has been emerging a consensus tha t the presence of large 

numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. now presents a serious problem 

e

awaiting legislative remedies. This problem is exacerbated by the 

inability of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, with its 

current limited staff, to prevent furth er massive incursions of illegal 

aliens in the United States. The magnitude of the problem can be <

easily and graphically illustrated by comparing the number of apprehensions in 1964 with the situation in 1975.

Ten years ago, in 1964. the INS apprehended 85,000 illegal aliens.

Last year tha t number rose to 800,000, approximately a tenfold 

increase, or 1.000 percent. Yet, during tha t decade the staff of the 

INS increased only 9 percent, rising bv 624 positions from 7,028 to 

7,682. It is manifest tha t while the workload has multiplied algebraically, the workforce has grown only arithmetically. The ratio of 

percentile changes is on the order of 100 to 1 (1,000 percent versus 9 

percent.)

The issue of the structure, functions, mission and staffing of the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service was first debated in recent 

years in the House Government Operations Committee as a consequence of the submission by the Administration of Reorganization 

Plan No. 2 of 1973. Both the A FGE and the AFL-CIO opposed section 2 of this Reorganization Plan out of concern that the personnel 

changes and the legal consequences would destroy the ability of the 

INS to fulfill, even at a minimum level, its obligations to enforce the 

Immigration and Naturalization Act.

Eventually, we were able to convince the majority on the full 

Government Operations Committee of the dangers in the passage of 

Reorganization Plan No. 2 unless section 2 of tha t plan were rendered 

inoperative. At this juncture, the administration, represented by the 

Office of Management and Budget, reached an agreement with our ,

union and the AFL-CIO to the effect that section 2 of that plan would 

be proposed for repeal and, in any case, would no t be implemented 

administratively until the Congress had acted to set it aside.

The objectionable section 2 of th at plan provided for the absorption *

of the bulk of the inspection force of the Immigration Service into the 

Customs Service in the Treasury Department. That involved about 

1,000 positions.

On July 22, 1974, we testified further on the subject of the status 

of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Customs 

Service. The issues we raised are, I believe, valid today. For this 

reason, I request your permission to incorporate the full test of th at 

statement as an appendix to my testimony today.

Mr. E ilberg. It will be adm itted into the record, without objection.

[The statement dated July 22, 1974, follows:]
373

Statement of Clyde M. Webber, National P resident, American Federation

of Government Employees, on the Consequences of Reorganization

Plan No. 2 of 1973, as Seen in the Light of the OMB Letter of J une 5, 

1974; Presented to the House Committee on Government Operations, 

J uly 22, 1974

[Annex to sta temen t of March 19, 1975]

It is with concern and disapp ointme nt th at I app ear before you for the third time, Mr. Chairman and honored members of th e House Governm ent Operations Committee, to review once again the problems facing both the Imm igration and Nationalization Service and the Customs Service as a consequence of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973. It is with concern for the national interest, which continues to be harmed both by the continuing growth of illegal alien entries and by the delay in the imple­ mentation of a genuinely unified and coordinated narcotics control program. It is with disappointm ent th at the lives, the welfare and the careers of the Federal employees involved continu e to be exposed to harassmen ts from mana­ gerial unce rtainties and bickerings within the Executive Branch. As the largest union representing over 050,000 Federal employees under ex­ clusive recognition, we have the privilege to be able to speak for all organized employees of the Imm igration and Naturaliza tion Service, including its Border Patrol, and for approximately forty percent of all organized employees in the Customs Service. Consequently, we are fully cognizant of the travail, the inse­ curity and the turmoil to which these employees have been subjecte d during the last fifteen months, since the submission on March 28, 1973 of Reorganization 

Plan No. 2.

T H E E S S E N T IA L P R IN C IP L E S W H IC H A R E IN V O LV ED

Our union maintains th at the re are essential principles of agency missions in­ corporated in the sta tutes establishing both the Customs and the Immigration Services which must be observed if the nation is to receive the proper pro­ tections and the essential services with which these two institu tions are charged. The first principle is th at they are essentially distinct services, as different in their missions as, for example, the Foreign Service is different from the Public Health Service. Any ente rprise or undertaking to combine the functions of these 

two services into “one sto p” or “one agency” control can only result in the detri­ ment to both services and to the national inte rest. The sta tutes properly look upon them as two services and we beseech vour Committe e to protect the integr ity and the independence of b oth services. The paramount function of the Customs Service is to inspect all merchandise, cargoes, baggage, vessels, aircra ft and other vehicles and goods entering the United States. This function has two purposes—to interd ict or deny entry to illegal or harmful goods; and to provide revenues and protect our industries and agricultural products throug h tariffs and quotas. Esta blished by Congress on July 4, 1789, the Customs Service for a long time provided the revenues for maintaining all the Federal armies, navies, and civil service of the United States. Currently, it collects approximately $3.8 billion a year, which is fifteen times the amoun t of the total appropriations it receives to carry out its complex mission. And it must carry out this task, so important to the vital interests of our natio n, with only approx imately 14,000 employees. The paramount function of the Immigration a nd Naturaliza tion Service, on the other hand, is to supervise the tran siting by persons of all inte rnation al borders of the United States; to interd ict the passage of aliens seeking to enter illegally and of citizens seeking to exit illegally; and to supervise the presence in the U nited States of all aliens legally admitted until the date of the ir naturaliza tion. Further, a prime mission is to expel apprehe nded illegal aliens, with the current explusion rate this year estimated at approxim ately 800,000. The magnitude of this task can be grasped only if one realizes that in fiscal year 1973, approximately 252 million persons crossed the internatio nal borders of the Un ited States—put into 

othe r terms, this would be equivalent to the assignment given to an agency to examine the documentation and papers of every person residing in the Un ited States plus the country of Mexico, to determ ine proper nationality and status. And the Immigration and Naturaliza tion Service must carr y out this function with a n approp riated work force of approximately only 8,032 personnel.
374

T H E H IT TE R Q U A R R EL O V ER T H E NARCOTI CS CONTROL PR OGRAM

I shall not rev iew here th e b it te r di sp ute wh ich ha s lon g att ended th e na rc ot ics 

co ntro l pr og ra m s of th e Fe de ral gov er nm en t. U nq ue stio na bl y, na rc ot ic s an d drug s 

ar e goods and pr od uc ts an d, no rm al ly , in th e ap pro pri at e mi ssi on s of thes e tw o 

ser vic es, co nt ro l ov er ha rm fu l dr ug s and na rc ot ics wo uld ha ve falle n with in the 

pu rv iew of th e Cus toms Service . How ev er, th e Pr es iden t an d Co ng res s, in th ei r 

wisdo m, ha ve de cid ed to es ta bl is h a sp ecial ize d ag en cy , th e Dru g Enf orce men t 

A dm in istrat io n, with in th e D ep art m ent of Ju st ic e to un ify nat io nal op er at iona l 

co ntro l ov er thes e ha rm fu l dr ug s. In ci den ta lly, co ntro l ov er th e im port at io n of 

no n- ha rm fu l dr ug s is still ve sted w ith th e C us tom s Servi ce.

To co m pe ns at e th e Cus to m s Se rvice for th e loss of th is no rm al fu nc tio n, invo lving ap pr ox im at el y 900 high ly spec ializ ed em ploy ees tr an sf er re d to th e Dru g 

E nf or ce m en t Adm in istratio n, Reo rg an iz at io n Pla n No. 2, Se cti on 2, prop os ed to 

tr an sf er 900 Im m ig ra tion and N atu ra li zati on Se rvice pe rson ne l to th e Customs 

Servi ce, in fa ct mak in g all im m ig ra tion co ntro l ser vic es a t Por ts of E n tr y an d 

A irpo rts a fu nc tion of th e Cus to m s Se rvice. Yo u will rec all th at, in his le tt er of 

M ay 22, 1973 to Cha irm an Ho lifield, Mr. Fred eric V. Malek in dic at ed th at 581 

pri m ar y im m ig ra tion in sp ec tio n po sition s an d 125 se co nd ar y im m ig ra tion insp ec tio n po sition s wo uld be tr an sf err ed to Cus tom s outr ig ht, le av in g th e Im ­

m ig ra tion an d N at ura liza tion Se rvice w ith on ly 203 se co nd ar y in sp ec tion p os iti on s 

a t Por ts of E n tr y an d Airp or ts. M r. M al ek wro te fu rt her (T ab A, nu m be re d pg. 

6, M ay 21, 197 3):

“A fter reor ga ni za tion , th e Im m ig ra tion an d N at ura liza tion Se rvice will ha ve 

app ro xi m at el y 6,40 0 pe rso nn el to pr ov id e co nt in ui ng service s of im m ig ra tion 

presen ce a t port s of en tr y, ad ju dic at io n, op er at io n of th e B or de r Pat ro l, in ve stig atio n, nat ura liza tion, depo rt at io n and m ai nte na nce of re co rd s.”

F ort u n ate ly for ou r na tion , th is Se ction 2 did no t ac tu al iz e be ca us e of th e 

re fu sa l of yo ur Com m itt ee an d th e Hou se of R ep re se nta tive s to ag ree to th e 

de ci m at io n of th e Im m ig ra tion Se rvice.

B ut the pr ob lem of n ar co tic dr ug s in te rd ic tion c on tinu ed to trouble th e relatio ns 

be tw ee n th e Tre as ur y an d Ju st ic e D ep ar tm en ts , es pe ciall y re ga rd in g th e in te rce pt io n of th es e dr ug s at poin ts of en tr y, w he th er at official port s or alon g th e 

nat io na l bo rd er s of the U nited S ta te s. The Cus to m s Servi ce, co nf ro nt ed w ith a 

high ly un welco me ch an ge in its pre vi ou s op er at ions , ha d to go th ro ugh a serio us 

and so m ew ha t di sr up tive re or ga ni za tion , clo sin g down 17 foreign offices an d IS 

do mes tic o ffices in its Office of In ves tigat io ns field st ru ct ure . F u rt h er co mpl icating 

th e pe rs on ne l prob lems of th e C ust om s Service wa s th e te rm in at io n of th e Sk y 

M ar sh all pr og ra m, co nf ro nt in g ap pro xim at el y 350 em ploy ee s of th a t pr og ra m 

w ith te rm in ati on of po sit ions.

A t th is ju nct ure , th e Cus tom s Se rvice decid ed to re -a ct iv at e its own Cus tom s 

B or de r P at ro l, wh ich the Cus to m s Se rvice (the n kn ow n as th e B ur ea u of Cu sto ms) 

its elf volu nta ri ly te rm in ate d tw en ty -f iv e ye ar s ea rlie r in 1948 . For th e sake of 

co mpr eh en sive ne ss I re qu es t your pe rm ission to in se rt in to t he reco rd , as Annex 1 

to m y st ate m ent, a co py of th e his to ry of “ Th e Cus tom s P atr ol Se rvice” , as 

dis tr ib ute d by th e Bur ea u of C us to m s in a pap er date d April 2, 1954. Th e la st 

para gra ph o f th a t pa pe r re ad s as follo ws :

“ Fo llo wi ng Worl d W ar II , th e B ur ea u of Cus to m s under to ok an ex tens ive 

review of its op er at io ns in all fields a s bo om ing U nited Sta te s foreign tr ad e crea ted 

gre at ly in cr ea se d de m an ds up on m an pow er an d av ai la bl e fu nd s fo r ad m in istering 

th e Se rvice. In th e en fo rc em en t field, it wa s recogn ize d th a t th e ch ara cte r of m uc h 

of th e bo rd er co unt ry had ch an ge d as th e ec on om y had ex pa nd ed westw ard. It 

wa s fel t t h a t de ve lo pm en t of hi gh sp ee d t ra nsp ort ati on b y m ot or ca rs ove r im pr ov ed 

ro ad s, and by air , called for a re ev al ua tion of th e efficienc y of ro utine pa trol ling 

ov er lo ng stre ch es of bor de r by th e re la tivel y few m en th a t co uld be assig ned. 

A fter e xt en sive s tu dy it wa s co nc lu de d th a t mo re e ffe cti ve enf or ce m en t of cu stom s 

law s co uld be ob tain ed th ro ugh re lian ce up on mod er n in ves tiga tive te ch ni qu es 

ca rr ie d o u t by cu stom s ag en ts. T h e Pat ro l wa s th er ef or e di sc on tinu ed alo ng th e 

C an ad ia n Bor de r in 1947, an d th e Sou th w es t Pat ro l wa s ab olishe d a ye ar la te r. 

Per m anent em ploy ees of th e P atr ol we re reas sig ne d to oth er cu stom s du ties in 

lin e w ith th eir qu ali fic ati on s, m any of th em as cu stom s ag en ts .”

The re ac tivat io n of th e Cus to m s P atr ol in O ctob er 1973 was m ad e po ssible , we 

unders ta nd fro m in fo rm at io n su pp lied us by th e Cus tom s Se rvice , by th e av ailability of larg e nu m be rs of fo rm er Sky M ar sh alls an d by th e ge ne ro us gra nt by 

th e Hou se A pp ro pr ia tio ns Subc om m itte e of 82.7 mi llion mor e th a n or ig in al ly 

re ques te d fo r th e Cus tom s Se rvice. Thr oug h an in te ns iv e re cru it m ent pro gr am ,
375

th e Cus to m s Pat ro l was ab le to pla ce with in nine m onth s a un if orm ed service of ap pro xim at el y 400 pe rson ne l on th e Sou th w es t B or de r an d app ro xim at el y 200 ad di tiona l un ifor m ed pe rson ne l on oth er la nd bo rd er s. The se includ ed , am on g ot he rs , seve n Pa pa go In di an s, sp ea kin g Sp an ish, Eng lis h and se ve ra l In di an di al ec ts; larg e nu m be rs of fo rm er Sky M ar sh alls; an d a sign ific an t num ber of ex pe rien ce d pe rson ne l who had be en , up to th a t tim e, G S-9 jo urn ey m en m em be rs of th e IN S Bo rder Pat ro l but wh o we re off ere d su pe rv is ory po sition s w ith th e 

Cus to m s P atr ol a t GS-11 . (I nc id en ta lly, it sh ou ld be note d th a t Su pe rv isor y Pe rson ne l a t th e Im m ig ra ­ tio n B or de r P art ol are ra te d by th e Civ il Service Com miss ion onl y a t th e GS- 10 po sitio n, ca us in g a gre at de al of bitte rn ess an d de m or aliz atio n. ) Th e arr iv al of lar ge nu m be rs of re ac ti vate d Cus to m s Pat ro l pe rson ne l in th e m id st of th e Im m ig ra tion Bor de r P atr ol wa s to ta ll y u nanti cip ate d by th e la tt er, es pe cially in li ght of th e under st andin gs re ac he d w ith th e Office of M an ag em en t and Bud ge t du ring th e debat e on R eo rg an iz at io n Pla n No . 2. As yo u will rec all , th e or ig inal pl an calle d fo r th e st re ngth enin g of th e Im m ig ra tion B or de r P atr ol; in fa ct , in itia lly it mad e th e Bor de r P ar tr ol th e on ly or ga ni za tion w ith pri m ar y im m ig ra tion in te rc ep tion f un ct io ns left w ith t he Im m ig ra tion Se rvice. U ltim at el y, ho wev er, in th e ag re em en t re ac he d be tw ee n OM B, A FG E , and th e A FL-C IO , th e Exe cu tive Bra nc h under to ok m ost of all in Se ctions III th ro ug h VI, to st re ngth en th e ille gal ali en in te rc ep ti on pr og ra m. For ex am ple, Se ction III st ate s ex pl ic itly th e Exe cu tiv e B ra nch ’s undert akin g “ to ho no r OM B Dire ct or Ash ’s C om m itm en t of M ay 17, 1973, to C hai rm an Ifo lifield w ith res pe ct to st re ngth en in g th e co u n tr y ’s ille gal alien co nt ro l cap ab il it y ” . For th e in fo rm at io n of you r Com ­ m itte e, I sh ou ld like pe rm ission t o in cl ud e in th e re co rd as Ann ex II a co py of th e 

Agree men t of M ay 29, 1973. Yet th e ar ri val of 409 C ust om s P atr ol officers on th e Sou th w es t Bor de r does not seem to be de sig ne d to al le vi at e th e pr ob lem of illegal ali en en tr y in to th e U nited S ta te s. R at her , th e official st ate m ents of to p officers of th e Cus tom s Se rvice su gg es t th at its m ai n fu nct io n is na rc ot ic dru g in te rc ep tion . At th is po in t, I sh ou ld lik e to m ak e as fo rt hri ght a st ate m ent as I ca n. We do not ha ve any po sit ion, as a la bor u ni on , as to w ha t rol e th e C us to m s S erv ice sh ou ld ha ve in th is na rc ot ics co nt ro l pro gr am . I had sta te d ea rlie r th a t, in its no rm al mi ssi on , th e Cus tom s Se rvice sh ou ld and wo uld ha ve had a m ajo r rol e, be ca us e na rc ot ic s ar e co mmod ities, go od s, and m er ch an dise . C on trol ov er co mmod ities, goods, and m er ch an dise ar e th e pro per pr im e mission of th e Cus to m s Servi ce. I sh ou ld like to mak e a seco nd fo rt hr ig ht st ate m ent. O ur un ion ho lds th a t both th e Cus tom s Se rvi ce and th e Im m ig ra tion and N at ura li za ti on Service ha ve th eir ow n sta tu to ry m an da te s, whi ch co ve r th e en ti re te rr it o ry of th e U ni te d Sta te s. E ac h Service sh ou ld hav e th e righ t to se nd its law en fo rc em en t offic ers, w he th er in un ifor m or n ot , to an y plac e in th e U nited Sta te s, w het her alo ng th e bo rd er s, in po rt s of entr y or w ithin th e in te ri or as its sta tu to ry mi ssion requ ires and a s its ow n senior officials de cide . We see no o th er way t o m ain ta in the se par at e in te gri ty of th e tw o service s. On e service sh ou ld not ha ve th e ri gh t of ve to or 

su per vi so ry co ntro l ov er th e oth er . W ha t we see in th e iss ue of th e Cus to m s Pat ro l, th er ef or e, is not a dis pu te be tw ee n th e Im m ig ra tion an d N at ura li zati on Se rvice and th e Cus to m s Servi ce b u t a sh arp dif ference or in te rp re ta ti o n be tw ee n th e Office of M an ag em en t an d Bud ge t and th e Drug Enf or ce m en t Ag ency on th e on e han d an d th e Cus to m s Service on th e ot her han d as to w he th er th e Cus to m s Pat ro l ha s an y pr op er rol e in th e in te rd ic tion o f nar co tics alo ng th e la nd bo rd er s of th e U nited Sta te s. Le t me re iter at e. In ou r vie w, th ere is no di sp ute be tw ee n th e IN S an d th e Cus to m s Se rvice on th e iss ues of pr in cipl e an d of mi ssi on in th e m att er of th e Cus to m s Pat ro l. W ha t is in vo lv ed is a decis ion of th e pr es en t A dm in is tr at io n (a decis ion w ith wh ich we do not ne ce ss arily ag ree b u t to which we m ay ha ve to be reco nc ile d if OMB prev ails) th a t th e Cus tom s Se rvice will not orga nize its bo rd er co nt ro l fu nc tion s for th e pri m ary pu rp os e of dru g in te rd ic tion. In st ea d, th e A dm in is trat io n ha s de cide d th a t th e Cus tom s Se rvice sh all disc ha rg e its own bo rd er co nt ro l fu nc tio ns pri m ar il y th ro ugh w hat it pr om ise s will be an ex pa nd ed ai r in te rc ep tion pr og ram. As we under st an d its po sitio n, th e A dm in istrat io n re ga rd s air in te rc ep tion als o as patr o l op er at io n ex ce pt in g th a t, un lik e th e Im m i­ gr at io n Bor de r Patro l, th e C us to m s Pat ro l wou ld spec ializ e in th e in te rc ep tion of contr aband be ing bro ught in to th e countr y via long -ran ge air cra ft or tr an s­ fe rred be tw ee n ai rc ra ft. We ar e to ld , for ex am ple, th a t th e si tu ati on now ex ist s wh ere pi lo ts br in g co ntr ab an d, in cl ud in g dr ug s, in to th e U nited Sta te s, la nd in g
at pre-designated places where oth er airc raft await the tran sfer of the contraband. The original pilot and aircra ft then immediately flies out of the territo ry 

of the United State s, eluding law enforcem ent officers, while the second airc raft 

conveys the con traban d further.

If our understanding is correct, the Customs Patrol would not be necessarily 

disbanded und er the OMB proposals bu t would be transformed into a specialized 

air interception border patro l with responsibility for safeguarding the entire 

land borders of the United States from deep penetration by airc raft engaged in 

illicit commerce, including narcotics.

Should the OMB plan prevail, we believe th at those personnel, who in good 

fait h took jobs with that Patrol, and who do n ot qualify for, or mig ht be surplus 

to, the air interception program should be given priority righ t of transfer to the 

INS Border Patrol. We would urge the IN S Border Patrol to be especially generous 

to its own former members who to ok positions with the Custom s Patrol.

At this point, I should like to introduce the question of the proper General 

Schedule Classification for both the Customs and Immigration Services. There 

now exists a discrimination and a discrepancy th at cann ot be justified. “Senior” 

Custom s Insp ecto rs are now classified by the Civil Service Commission as GS -11 ; 

bu t other Customs Inspectors doing similar work are only GS-9. Journeymen 

Immigration Inspectors, performing functions analagous to “Senior” Customs 

Inspectors are still classified at GS-9; moreover, Journeym en Immigration 

Border Patrol Officers and Journeymen Customs Patrol Officers are also classified 

at GS-9. All of these positions should be properly classified as GS-11 and all 

first-line Supervisors should be classified as GS-12.

I most sincerely request your making representations with the Civil Service 

Commission to explain to your Com mittee as to why the Commission continues 

to justify these improper discriminatory distinctions between positions which 

entail the same levels of difficulty of work. We believe this action seriously disregards the Classification Act and we hope th at your Committee, in its oversight 

functions, will be prepared to perform a great service to these Federal employees 

in having these inequities eliminated.

Returning to the proposal of OMB regarding the Customs Patrol and the air 

interception program, we see no issue of necessary conflict between the missions 

of the Customs and Immigration Services, though we recognize a serious difference 

of opinion between OMB/DEA and the Customs Service regarding the narcotics 

control program. But, it appears that this is not the whole purpose of OMB, which appears still 

to be preoccupied with the “single agency” control concepts at the port of en try 

in the Southwest. This brings us imm ediately to two major unresolved problem s— 

the issue of illegal alien control and the philosophical and legal concepts which 

perm eate the communication of Ju ne 5, 1974 from OMB Director Roy L. Ash to 

the Atto rney General and the Secre tary of the Treasury. I shall discuss these two 

fundamental issues at some length hereafter.

T H E CONTROL O F IL L EG A L A LIE N S

It is our firm belief th at the control of illegal aliens will not be effective until the 

Immigration Border Patrol is bro ugh t to proper strength. The best estimates 

which we ha ve indicate th at this would require approximately 3,000 members hi 

the Immigration Border Patrol. Curren tly, the Border Patrol has only 1,770 

personnel, of whom approximately 1,600 are on the Southwest Border where the 

illegal alien problem is of acute proportions. These 1,600 employees work out of a 

tota l of 68 stations, of which 35 are directly on the U.S./Mexican border, and 33 

further inland where the uniformed Border Patrol uses “spotter plane s” to locate 

and identify illegal aliens working in the fields. Even so, the illegal alien problem 

does not abate, and w’e are now convinced th at it will not be controlled until the 

Border Patrol has between 2,500 and 2,750 persons located in the Southwest. 

Given this num ber of Border Patrol personnel, with the eventual ena ctm ent of 

H.R. 982, the illegal alien problem on the So uthwest Border can be solved at last.

As to the magnitude of the illegal alien program, I should like to recall the 

testimony presente d to your Committee by the AFL-C IO on May 8, 1973 in 

connection with Reorganization Plan No. 2. Among other statem ents, Mr. 

Andrew' J. Biemeiller, Director, De par tment of Legislation for the AFL -CIO 

said the following: “The problems created by th e presence of large numbers of illegal imm igrantswhose e ntr y was primarily to obtain employment in the United State s, has be,
377

come so serious that the House has just passed H.R . 982, to amend the Immigra­ tion and Nationality Act to help allev iate the U.S. unemployment crisis created by illegal imm igrants holding American jobs. Because employers will need to depend on docum ents presented by aliens as proof of their legal entry, it is expected th at illegal aliens will seek to obtain even b ett er forged docum ents or fraudulently obtaine d docum ents, passports, visas or ide ntity cards. The grea test expertise in the detection of fraudulent identity and travel documents resides today in the Imm igration and Naturalization Service. This expertise should not be dissipated 

at this time. “As to the m agnitude of the docu mentation problem, it is im portant to realize th at there are as many passports as the re are countries in the world; th at the 

t United States Code contains at least 50 different visa categories, both immigrant and non-immigrant; that several kinds of docum ents can be legally presented to immigration officers as evidence of U.S. citizenship; th at the law makes provision for several categories of inte rnational border crossers for whom no entry document need be presented and for other categories for whom docum ents can be waived;

« and th at even when an alien is legally admissable, the Immigration Inspector must decide for how long the alien is to be permitted to remain in the United States; whether an alien should post a bond to guarantee maintenance of his status; and whether an alien is wanted, eith er as a witness by, or a fugitive from, some U.S. Federal, Sta te or local auth ority or by some friendly foreign state.” In light of these needs of the INS, we were doubly disappointed this year. First, we are unhap py th at II.It. 982 is still in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has not held hearings. Secondly, we are distressed th at the Department of Justice did not approve the full budget requ est of the IN S for $210,000,000 adding 2,610 new positions, bu t recommended only $198.5 million with 1,604 new posi­ tions; OMB for its part recommended a lower figure of $180.4 million with 350 new positions bu t the House approved only $175.0 million with 50 new positions. Fortunately, the House did agree to annualize the 300 new positions which OMB conceded on the basis of its May 29, 1973 agreement with us and the AFL - CIO “to honor OMB Director Ash’s commitmen t of May 17, 1973 to Chairman Holifield with respect to stre ngthening the country’s illegal alien control 

capability.” However, of those 300 positions, only 66 wrere assigned to the Southwest Border 

Patrol. Of the 350 positions approved by OMB for the 1975 fiscal y ear budget, 200 would have been assigned to the Border Patrol, with 167 being emplaced on the Southwest border. Consequently, as affairs now stand, unless the Senate is more generous, the Border Patrol will receive 50 positions instead of 167 and the INS as a whole will be 300 positions under the streng th approved by OMB.

“ S IN G L E AGENCY M A N A G E M E N T O F M EX IC AN B O R D E R P O R T S ”

We are adam antly opposed on principle to the philosophy and the adm inistra­ tive precepts which p ermeate the Jun e 5, 1974 communication from OMB Director Roy L. Ash to th e Attorney General and the Secreta ry of Treasury regarding “law enforcement along the southwest land border” and the “ conclusions of the study and the strategy of the principle bord er agencies.”

* Th at comm unication is a res tatem ent of the fundame ntal legal concepts of Reorganization Plan No. 2 which were abjured, and we though t perm anen tly renounced, when OMB made its commitm ents to Chairman Holifield last and signed subse quen tly its May 29 agreem ents with us and the AFL -CIO.

* This philosophy, as baldly as language can convey, disregards the essential separaten ess and uniqueness of each of the two Services. I t seeks again to reestab­ lish, we fear, the hegemony of th e Customs Service over Imm igration Inspectors at ports of entry, in compensation for the loss of the narcotics control function by the Treasury Department’s Customs Service to the Drug Enforcement Admin­ istration of the Department of Justice. This is nothing more tha n a managerial swapping of hum an beings along with positions and slots to preserve the overall rela tive budgets of the various affected powerful Dep artm ents. It keeps GS-18 and Executive Level managers happy because it gives them subordinates to justify the ir positions. But it does not really save any money and it harms the national intere st by rendering more difficult the tasks of b oth the Customs Service 

and the Immigration Service. We are appalled to discover tha t, less tha n one year afte r we reached fun damental agreement with OMB, wre find th at th at office is not prepared to stand 

by its com mitmen t on principles.
For your pa rt, we believe sinc er ely th at it is in th e na tion al in te re st th a t all 

im mig ra tion insp ec tio ns be ca rr ie d ou t by Im m ig ra tion In sp ec to rs an d all ins pe ction s fo r cu stom s be ca rried o u t bv Cus tom s In sp ec to rs . We be lie ve th a t th eir 

st re ngth in nu mbe rs at th e po rts of en tr y for trav el er s an d a t air ports for pa sseng ers sh ou ld be eq ua l to th e ta sk s th ey ha ve to pe rfo rm , w ith seas on al fluc tu atio ns if th es e are ne ed ed to co nf or m to ch an ge s in tr av el patt ern s. Only th ro ugh 

a sy st em of pari ty can th e nat io n be as su re d th at its st atu te s ar e be ing pr op er ly 

ad m in is te re d.

Se co nd ly, we believ e th a t “p a ri ty ” mea ns th a t ea ch Se rvi ce sh ou ld co ntro l its 

own pe rson ne l an d th at th e cla ssifi ca tio n sy stem s an d grad es of th e tw o Se rvi ces 

sh ou ld be iden tic al. Jo urn ey m an cu stom s insp ec tors are now G S -11, or at le as t 

are su pp os ed to be; first-line cu st om s su pe rv isor s are now GS- 12 , or a t le as t are 

su pp os ed to be. On the oth er ha nd , jo ur ne ym an Im m ig ra tion In sp ec to rs are still 

on ly G S-9 , as are jo urn ey m an Bor de r Pa trol officers. This is an im prop er di stin ctio n an d th e Civil Servi ce Co mmiss ion an d th e Im m ig ra tion an d N at ur al iz at io n 

Service sh ou ld rem ed y th is dis pari ty as ra pi dl y as possible pro pe rly recla ssi fying 

thes e po sitio ns . I am plea sed to not e for th e rec ord, th at th e Co mm iss ion er of 

IN S, G en er al Cha pm an , is in ag re em en t.

“ P a ri ty ” also mea ns th e ge nu ine inde pe nd en ce of th e tw o Service s; ne ithe r 

OM B, no r an yo ne else sh ou d in hib it them fro m ca rr yi ng ou t th eir own pr op er 

fu nc tion s whe reve r th ey ne ed to do so; an d th er e shou ld be no mo re eff orts to 

un de rm in e th ei r professio nal in te gri ty by man ag er ial di st or tions of th ei r prim e 

fu nc tio ns . The officers of b oth Se rvices are ca rr yi ng out “ex trem el y comp lex 

fu nc tion s on be ha lf of our na tion , affecting th e hea lth, th e em pl oy m en t ra te , th e 

st an d ard of liv ing , the reve nu es, and th e pu blic law an d sa fe ty of ev er y cit ize n. 

We do n o t ha ve en ou gh of th em ; we do no t pay th em en ou gh ; and re pe at ed ly we 

find th a t OM B seeks to ha nd le th em as if th ey were ex pe nd ab le ite m s in tran sf er s 

of bu dg et s be tw ee n po we rfu l Exe cu tive D ep ar tm en ts .

SU MM ARY AND CO NCLUSI O N

In su mmarizing, we wis h to ex pr es s ou r gra ti tu de to th e C ha irm an an d to the 

M em be rs of th e Ho use G ov er nm en t O pe ra tio ns Com m itte e fo r th eir co nt in ue d 

in te re st in th e welfar e of em pl oy ee s of th e Cus tom s and Im m ig ra tion s Se rvices 

affecte d by Reo rg an ization Pl an No . 2.

W ith re sp ec t to the Ju ne 5, 1974 co m m un icat ions of OM B Dire ctor, Roy L. 

Ash , to th e A tto rn ey Gen eral and th e Se cr et ar y of Tre as ury , we ar e ad am antly 

op po se d to th e in trod uc tion of a te st of “sin gle ag en cy ” op er at io n on th e South ­

west Bo rder. W’e believ e su ch a te st su bv er ts th e in te gri ty an d inde pe nd en ce of 

bo th th e Cus tom s an d th e Im m ig ra tion Services.

At port s of en tr y, we believe th a t th e on ly way th e ille gal ali en prog ram, th e 

na rc ot ic s co nt ro l law s, an d th e ta ri ff a nd fa ir tr ade pra ct ic es ac ts can be pr op er ly 

ad m in is te re d is by th e in tr oducti on of pari ty be tw ee n Cus tom s and Im m ig ra tion 

In sp ec to rs . On ly Im m ig ra tion In sp ec to rs shou ld de al w ith im m ig ra tion m att ers 

in vo lv in g hu m an be ings ; on ly C us to m s In sp ec to rs sh ou ld de al w ith th e ad mi ssi on 

of, an d th e levy in g of du t ies and fees on goo ds.

P ari ty als o me an s th e m ai nte nan ce of th e in te gri ty an d in de pe nd en ce of bo th 

services*. Eac h shou ld be fre e to se nd its Officers an d pe rson ne l whe reve r needed, 

w ithout ve to or in terfe renc e from th e ot he r.

As to th e OM B decis ion to hav e th e Cus tom s P atr ol w ith dr aw n fro m th e in te rnat io nal bo rders, we in te rp re t th is decis ion as re la te d to th e tr an sf er of na rcot ics 

co nt ro l fu nc tion s fro m th e C ust om s Se rvi ce to th e Drug Enf or ce m en t Adm inistr ati o n . Nor mally, th e Cus to m s Se rvice wo uld ha ve ju risd ic tion ov er na rcotics, 

as p art of its mission of co ntro l ove r goods. How ev er, th e A dm in istrat io n w ith th e 

ac qu iesc en ce of Co ng res s ha s tr an sf er re d th is fu nc tio n to th e special ize d Drug 

Enf or ce m en t Adm in istratio n, which now to get her with OM B ap pe ar s to ha ve 

de cide d th a t th e es tablishe d Im m ig ra tion Borde r Pat ro l can disc ha rge th e dru g 

in te rd ic tion pr og ra m on th e in te rn ati onal bo rders as a se co nd ary fu nc tion w ith out 

ad ditio nal pe rson ne l. Sh ou ld Con gres s ac qu iesce in th is p a rt of th e OMB pro ­

posal, we tr u st th at th e p erso nn el now in th e C us to m s Pat ro l will be a bs or be d in to 

th e Air In te rd ic tion f un ct io ns o f t h e Cus to m s Se rvice; thos e wh o ar c no t qu ali fie d 

fo r su ch a role, or thos e wh o ar e su rp lu s to such a prog ram, wou ld be offere d th e 

o p p o rt u n it y of jo in ing th e ex pa nded Im m ig ra tion Bo rder P atr o l on a pr io rity 

basis.

We reg re t de ep ly th e fa ilur e of t h e S en ate Ju di ci ar y C om m itte e to h old he ar in gs 

on 11.R . 982, whose en ac tm en t, to get her w ith an ex pa nd ed Im m ig ra tion Bor de r
379

Patro l an d an en larg ed Im m ig ra ti on insp ec tio n serv ice a t port s of en tr y, wo uld 

solve th e curr entl y da m ag in g illegal ali en si tu at io n. We requ es t yo ur as sistan ce w ith th e Civ il Se rvice Co mmiss ion fo r th e pr op er clas sif ica tio n of all mem be rs of th e Cus to m s an d Im m ig ra tion S erv ice s. Cus tom s In sp ec to rs ha ve now be en cla ssi fie d as GS -11 whe re th e yar e se ni or in sp ec to rs ; fir st lin e sup er vi so rs a re GS- 12 . B ut Im m ig ra tion In sp ec to rs , pe rf or m in g an alog ou s du tie s, ar e on ly GS- 9, th e fir st-li ne s up er vi so rs are on ly GS- 10 . A sim ilar sit uat io n ex ist s in th e Im m ig ra tion Bor de r P atr ol; as for th e Cus to m s Pat ro l, jo ur ne ym en level officers are GS- 9, but first-line su pe rv isor s are GS- 11 . We be lie ve th at all officers ho ldin g an alog ou s jo urn eym an po sitio ns sh ou ld bo GS-11 in all br an ch es of th es e tw o Service s. An d le t me st re ss th a t Cus tom s In sp ec to rs sh ou ld all ha ve th e GS -11 jo urn ey m an grad ?, not ju s t th os e who are re ga rd ed as se ni or in sp ec to rs . M or eo ve r, as rega rd s both service s, th ey are es se nt ially , law en fo rc em en t po sit ions an d sh ou ld fo r th at reason , als o be classified a t th e jo urn ey m an gr ad e of GS- 11 , 

w ithout ex ce ption. Final ly, we ag ain re qu es t your C om m itte e to p ro te ct th e nat io nal in te re st by re qu irin g OM B. as well as th e D epart m ents of Ju st ic e and T re as ury , to co mply w ith th e sta tu te s es ta bl ishi ng th e Cus to m s Se rvice an d th e Im m ig ra tion an d N at ura liza tion Se rvi ce as in dep en dent en tit ie s. We re ques t your he lp espe ciall y to fo re stal l th e in trod uc tion of th e so-call ed te st of th e “s ing le ag en cy ” op er at io n on th e Sou th w es t Bor de r as co n tr ary to law an d har m fu l bot h to ille gal ali en an d 

to co ntr aband co ntrol. In co nc lusio n, we ple dg e yo u our en tire effo rt to su st ai n th e righ ts an d in ­ de pe nd en ce of both of thes e Se rvices. We in vi te your att en ti o n par ti cuarl y to th e fa ct th a t th e A FL -C IO ha s su pport ed our po sitio n in th e p ast and is en do rsing ou r st ate m en t to da y. C on se qu en tly, it is cle ar th a t it is in th e in te re st of all of orga ni ze d labo r, w he th er in pri v ate en te rp rise or in th e Fed er al go ve rn m en t, to a ss ur e th e p assage of H .R . 982 an d to m ai nta in th e i nte gri ty and in de pe nd en ce 

o f both th e Cus tom s Service an d th e Im m ig ra tion and N at ura li zati on Servi ce.

An n e x I: T h e C ust om s P a tr o l S e r v ic e

[A pril 2, 1954]

The be st av ai la bl e sources in dic ate th a t th e C us to m s P atr ol Se rvice ha d its origin in th e yea r 1853, whe n th e Sec re ta ry of th e T re as ury first aut hor iz ed th e appoin tm ent of m ou nt ed in sp ec to rs fo r th e ne wly cre at ed C us to m s D is tr ic t of Paso del N or te . The m ounte d in sp ec to rs who we re th e en fo rc em en t officers of th e C us to m s Se rvi ce du ring t h a t e ra r et ai ned th e s am e ti tl e unt il 1933, whe n th ey were re na m ed pa tr ol in sp ec tors by ac tion of th e Bur ea u of Cus to m s. The se man were th e or iginal pa tr ol officers of th e Cus to m s Se rvice who we re sw orn to “e n­ force th e ta ri ff laws, det ec t and pre ven t sm ug gling and o th er fr au ds ag ai ns t 

th e cu st om s re ve nu e. ” The ba ck gr ou nd of th e Sou th w es t cu stom s patr ol th er ef or e m ay be trac ed ba ck in bo rd er hi st or y ab o u t 100 yea rs an d invo lves th e co lorful an d ha za rd ou s da ys of th e pion ee rs an d In dia ns long be fore th e co ming of th e ra ilro ad s. Prior to 1853 th e Bo rder te rr it o ry wa s ad m in is te re d by th e C us to m s office of G alve ston . This Cus to m s dis tr ic t as es ta bl ishe d a t th a t tim e to ok in W est Te xa s, Now Mexico, an d Ar izo na w ith a fr ontier of ap pro xim at el y ni ne hu ndre d miles . The m ai n office was lo ca te d a t F ro nte ra , Te xa s, which was about te n miles ab ov e th e pr es en t site of El Pas o and was lo ca te d on th e Ri o G ra nd e riv er. The re ar e few , if an y, trac es l ef t to d a y of th e e ar ly to w n of F ro nte ra . Ca leb She rm an wa s appoin te d th e first co lle ctor of cu stom s fo r th e D is tr ic t of 

P a s o de l N or te an d his O at h of Office wa s date d Aug us t 3, 1854. Exi sting reco rd s in di ca te t h a t al th ou gh th e c ol le ct or wa s au th ori ze d to a ppoin t m ounte d insp ec tors for Cus to m s field wo rk, few, if any, we re ac tu ally appoin te d unti l th e 186 0’s. Th ese m ounte d in sp ec to rs were st ati oned a t w hat we re co ns id er ed st ra te gic po in ts th ro ughout th e B or de r countr y. Thei r du ties in cl ud ed resp on sibi lity fo r th e en fo rc em en t of th e Im m ig ra tion Laws unt il Ju ly 1, 1903, whe n th e Im m ig ra ­ tion B ur ea u es ta bl ishe d an office in El Pa so a nd took ov er all im m ig ra tion m att ers . Cus tom s rec ords show th a t in th e ye ar 1886 th er e we re tw en ty -f iv e em ploy ee s in th e Pa so del N or te D is tr ic t and of th is n um ber e lev en we re m ounte d insp ec to rs . In th e yea r 1894 all cu stom s em pl oy ee s in th e dis tr ic t we re bla nkete d in to th e cla ssified civil ser vice. By an ex ec ut iv e or de r in 1906 th e m ounte d in sp ec to rs we re

49 -7 6 3— 75------25
380

again allowed to be appointed by collectors of customs without regard to civil 

service. I t was during this period th at numbers of the F irst U.S. Volunteer Cavalry, 

better known as Roosevelt’s “ Rough Riders,” were appo inted as mounted inspectors, followed by numerous app ointme nts of former Texas Rangers, exsheriffs and other peace officers who were known and respected for their knowledge 

of the Border and their able performance of duty.

The mounted inspectors then remained the collector’s appointees until the 

Executive Order of June 21, 1932, which order restored them to the competitive 

classified service. Mounted inspectors on du ty at th at time were blan kete d into 

the civil service, bu t all subseque nt appointme nts have been made subject to 

civil service examinations. On M ay 8, 1933, the customs enforcement officer’s title 

was changed by the Bureau from m ounted inspector to customs patro l inspector. •

During the early period of border lawlessness a number of officers lost the ir 

lives in the performance of the ir duties. Patrol inspectors, through out the histo ry 

of the Service, distinguished themselves by their valor, loyality and devotion to 

duty.

In 1936, the Customs Agency Service assumed jurisdiction over the Customs •

Patrol by orde r of the Secretary of the Treasury and created at th at time four 

Patrol Districts with headquarters at Buffalo, New York, Jacksonville, Florida 

(this unit was later abolished), El Paso, Texas, and Havre, Mon tana. The combined units were known as the Customs Patrol Service, which was administered 

by the Commissioner of Customs in Washington, D.C., through a Deputy Commissioner of Customs, in charge of th e Division of Investigations and Patrol.

The Southwest Patrol District as created extended from the Gulf of Mexico, 

on the east, to the Pacific Ocean, on the west, covering the entire United S tatesMexico bbund arv line. Operating out of its centrally located hea dqu arters at 

El Paso, Texas, the District h ad an intern ational frontie r of 1935.2 miles, broken 

down as follows: Texas, 1241.4 miles; New Mexico, 179.7 miles; Arizona 373.4 

miles; and California, 140.7 miles. The district personnel in modern times averaged 

about 165.

The Patrol Dis trict was administered and supervised by the District Superintend ent with the aid of the Assistant Superintendent, the Adm inistrative 

Assistant and a staff of highly trained employees, each of whom was assigned to 

and responsible for, a specific departm ent of the Distric t’s adm inistrative 

functions.

Following World War II the B ureau of Customs undertook an extensive review 

of its operations in all fields as booming United States foreign trade created 

grea tly increased demands upon m anpower and available funds for administering 

the Service. In the enforcement field, it was recognized th at the cha racter of 

much of the b order country had changed as the economy had expanded westward.

It was felt th at development of highspeed transp ortation by motorcars over 

improved roads, and by air, called for a reevaluation of the efficiency of routine 

patrolling over long stretches of bord er by the relatively few men th at could be 

assigned. After extensive study it was concluded th at more effective enforcement 

of customs laws could be obtained through reliance upon modern investigative 

techn iques carried out by customs agents. The Patrol was therefore discontinued 

along the Canadian Border in 1947, and the Southwest Patrol was abolished a »

yea r later. Permanen t employees of t he Patrol were reassigned to oth er customs 

duties in line with their qualifications, many of them as customs agents.

A G R E E M E N T R E R EO R G A N IZ A TIO N PLA N N O . 2 O F 1973 [MAY 29, 1973]

The Adm inistration Agrees:

I. To make Section 2 of the plan inoperative.

A. We will have introduced and will work with th e AFL-C IO to secure passage 

of a separate bill prospectively repealing Section 2.

B. If this approach does not yield resu lts by July 1, 1973, we well postpone 

implementa tion of the transfers ma ndated by the plan by having Customs contra ct immigration prim ary inspection to INS until such time as Section 2 is 

repealed by sta tute.

II. To avoid public discussion of “feathe rbed ding” or labor being “against 

better drug enforcement” in conjunction with organized labor’s position on 

Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973.
381

III. To honor OMB Director A sh’s commitm ent of M ay 17, 1973, to C hairm an Ilolifield with respect to stren gth ening the country’s illegal alien control capability. IV. To give careful stu dy to those oth er problems and suggestions for more effective Customs and illegal alien control and for bette r labor/manage ment relations in I NS and the Customs Service which have been advanced by the lab or represen tatives in the course of discussions to date. V. To review seriously and sym pathetically any other proposals for mores 

effective illegal alien control. VI. To continue to sup port II. R. 982 (Rodino bill) restricting employment of 

illegal aliens within the United States.

The AF L-C IO and AF GE Agree: I. To cease all lobbying and o the r activ ities designed to defeat Reorganization 

Plan No. 2 in the Congress. II. Accompanied by an A dministration representativ e to visit personally before Thursday with the Speaker of the House, and key supporters of the Waldie Resolution in the House informing them th at the AF L-C IO and AFGE have with drawn the ir oppostion to the reorganization plan. Similar steps will be taken 

in the Senate. III. To inform member unions and affected membership imm ediately of the with draw al of lab or opposition to the plan. IV. To assist actively and publicly in securing passage of legislation prospectively repealing Section 2 of the plan.

Signed by:

Fred V. Malek,

Dep uty Director, OM B.

Clyde M. Webb er,

President, American Federation of Government Employees.

Kenneth A. Meik eljohn, 

Legislative Representative, AFL- CIO .

Mr. P ellerzi. Thank you. I should like, nevertheless, to explicitly comment on two matters which are of paramount concern to our organization, that is, the problem of the control of illegal aliens and the administration plan for single agency management of the Mexican border posts. It is our firm belief that the control of illegal aliens will not be ef­ fective until the Immigration Border Patrol is brought up to proper strength. The best estimates which we have indicate that this would require approximately 3,000 members in the Immigration Border 

Patrol alone. Currently, the Border Patrol has only 1,770 personnel, of whom approximately 1,600 are on the southwest border where the illegal alien problem is of acute proportions. These 1,600 employees work out of a total of 6S stations, of which 35 are directly on the United States/ Mexican border, and 33 further inland where the uniformed Border Patrol uses "spotter planes” to locate and identify illegal aliens working in the fields. Even so, the illegal alien problem does not abate, and we are now convinced tha t it cannot be seriously attacked until the Border Patrol has between 2,500 and 2,750 persons located in the Southwest. Given this number of Border Patrol personnel, with the eventual enactment of H.S. 982, the illegal alien problem on the southwest 

border can be brought under reasonable control. And I hasten to add, Mr. Chairman, we proposed amendments to ll. R. 982 to make it effective in connection with the presumptions of innocence and so on and to make it a more effective bill.

Mr. E ilberg. When will you submit those?
Mr. P ellekzi. I think they have been subm itted in testim ony in 

the hea rings last year and were subm itted March 12 of this ye ar on 

the present bill.

As to the magnitude of the illegal alien prob lem, I should like to 

recall the testim ony pre sen ted to yo ur com mittee by the AFL -C IO 

on Ma y 8, 1973 in con nection w ith Reorg anization Pla n No. 2. Am ong 

oth er sta temen ts, Mr. Andre w J. Beimeiller, director, De pa rtm ent of 

Legislation for the AF L -CIO said the following:

The pr ob lem s cr ea te d by th e pres en ce of lar ge nu m be rs of illegal im migrants, 

wh ose e n tr y wa s pr im ar ily to o bta in em pl oy m en t in th e U ni te d Sta te s, ha s become 

so serio us th a t th e Ho use ha s ju st pa ss ed if . II. 982, to am en d th e Im m ig ra tion an d 

N ationali ty Act to help al le vi at e th e U.S. un em pl oy m en t crisis cr ea te d by illegal 

im m ig ra nt s ho ldin g Ame ric an jo bs . Be cause em ploy ers will ne ed to de pe nd on 

do cu m en ts pr es en te d by ali en s as pr oo f of th ei r leg al en tr y, it is ex pe cted th a t 

illegal aliens will see k to ob ta in ev en b ett er forged do cu m en ts or frau du le nt ly 

ob ta in ed do cu m en ts, pa ss po rts, visa s, or id en tity ca rds. The g re ate st ex pe rti se in 

th e de te ct io n of fr au dule nt id en ti ty an d trav el do cu m en ts reside s to da y in th e 

Im m ig ra tion an d N at ura liza tion Se rvice . Th is ex pe rtise shou ld n o t be diss ipated 

a t th is tim e.

As to th e m ag nitude of th e docu m en ta tion pr ob lem, it is im p o rt an t to rea liz e 

th a t th ere ar e as m an y pas sp orts as th er e are co un trie s in th e wor ld; th a t th e 

U nited S ta te s Co de co nt ai ns at le as t 50 diffe rent vis a ca tego rie s, b oth im m ig ra nt 

an d nonim m ig ra nt; th a t se ve ra l ki nd s of do cu m en ts ca n be le ga lly pr es en te d to 

th e im m ig ra tion officers as ev id en ce of U.S. citize ns hi p; th a t th e law mak es pro ­

vis ion fo r se ve ra l ca tego rie s of in te rn ati onal bor de r cro sse rs fo r wh om no entr y 

do cu m en t ne ed be pr es en te d an d fo r oth er ca tego rie s for who m do cu m en ts ca n 

be w ai ve d; and th a t ev en when an ali en is lega lly ad missible, th e Im m ig ra tion 

In sp ec to r m ust de cid e fo r ho w long th e alien is to be per m it te d to re m ai n in th e 

U nited S ta te s; w he th er an ali en sh ou ld po st a bo nd to guar an te e m ai nt en an ce 

of his sta tu s; an d w he ther a n ali en is wan ted, ei th er as a witn es s by , or a fu gi tive 

fro m, some U. S. Fe de ral, st ate or local au th o ri ty or be some fr ie nd ly foreign 

st at e.

It is in light of thes e needs of the INS th at we were doubly disappoint ed this year. First , we are unhappy th at las t ye ar H.R . 982 

nev er got out of the Senate Ju diciary ( ’om mittee, and th at no hearings 

were held in the Senate.

Second, we are distressed that last year the Dep artm en t of Jus tice 

did not app rov e the full budget req uest of the INS for $210 million 

add ing 2,610 new positions, bu t reco mmended only $198.5 million 

with 1,604 new positions; OM B for its pa rt recommen ded a lower 

figure of $180.4 million with 350 new positions, bu t the House approved 

only $175 million with 50 new positions.

Fo rtun ately, the House did agre e to annualize the 300 new positions 

which OM B conceded on the basis of its May 29, 1973 agreem ent with 

us and the AFL -C IO “ to honor OMB Dir ector Ash’s com mitment of 

Ma y 17, 1973 to ('h airm an Holifield with resp ect to stre ngthe nin g 

the co un try’s illegal alien con trol capa bility.”

I might inject, Mr. Ch air man, that we reviewed th at m atter with 

members of the Ap propria tio ns Comm itte e and the problem from 

their po int of view, and it is one that I am familiar with, and th at is 

the rec ruitin g of the n um ber of people authorize d. They had a num ber 

of vac ancies which the Ap propriations ('o mmittee felt were such th at 

it didn 't wa rra nt them autho riz ing furth er positions.

Mr. Eilb er g. I mig ht say at this point that as we looked into it, 

this me mb er discovered that the re were many applicat ion s on file 

and the y were in the process of processing those app lications. It was 

not ju st a m at ter of those jobs not being filled; it was ju st th at they 

had not been able mechanica lly to go through the hiring process.
383

Mr. P el le rz i. I think, Mr. Ch airm an , the resu lt of what the sub ­

comm ittee is here proposing , name ly, au tho riz ation hea rings with 

oversigh t, th at as a result o f th at , th at thes e matters could be gone 

int o quite tho rou ghly, and it would be very beneficial to the adm inistra tio n of th at Service.

How ever, of those 300 positions, o nly GO were assig ned to the South ­

west Border Pa tro l. Of the 350 positions app roved by OM B for the 

1975 fiscal year bud get, 200 would have been assigned to the Bor der 

Pa tro l, with 1G7 being emp laced on the south we st border. Con sequently, as affairs now sta nd, unless the Senat e is more generous, 

the Bor der Pa tro l will receive 50 positions ins tea d of 167 an d the INS 

as a whole will be 300 positions u nd er the s tre ng th appro ved b\ OMB.

We are ad am an tly opposed on prin ciple to the philoso phy and the 

admi nis tra tiv e pre cep ts which perm eate the Ju ne 5, 1974 comm unication from OM B Directo r Roy L. Ash to the At torney General and 

the Secre tary of the Treasury reg ardin g “la w enforc ement alon g the 

sou thw est land border” and the “contusions of the stu dy and the 

str ateg y of tiie principle border agencies.”

T hat comm unication is a restatem en t of the fund am en tal legal 

con cepts of Reorg ani zation Pla n No. 2 which were abjur ed, and we 

thou gh t perm anently reno unced, when OM B made its comm itm ents 

to Ch air ma n Iloiifield in the las t Congress and signed subsequentl y 

its Ma y 29, 1973 agreem ents with us and with the AF L- CI O.

Th is philosophy, as baldly as lang uag e can conv ey, disreg ard s the 

esse ntial sep ara ten ess and uniquene ss of each of the two Services. 

What we are talkin g abo ut here, Mr. Ch airma n, is the so-called 

single agency manag ement of the Im migratio n and Custo ms Service.

It seeks to ree stablish, we fear, the h egemon y of the C ustom s Service 

over Im migra tion Inspec tors at po rts of entry , in com pensa tion for 

the loss of the narco tics control functio n by the Treasury Dep artmen t’s Custo ms Service to the Dr ug Enforce me nt Ad ministratio n of 

the Dep artm en t of Justice. This is no thi ng more than a ma nag eria l 

swa pping of huma n beings along wi th positions and slot s to pre serve 

the overall rel ati ve bud gets of the variou s affected powerful 

depa rtm en ts.

It ma y keep executive-level ma nagers ha pp y because it gives them 

subordi nates to justi fy the ir positions, bu t it does not rea lly save any 

money and it ha rm s the natio nal interest by ren dering more difficult 

the tas ks of bo th the Customs Service and the Immigra tion Service.

We are app alle d to discover th at , less than 1 ye ar aft er we reached 

fundam ental agreeme nt with OM B, we find th at th at Office is not 

pre pared to stan d by its comm itm ent on princ iples.

Fo r our pa rt, we believe sincerely th at it is in the natio nal inter est 

th at all im migra tion inspections be carried ou t by Im migr ati on inspe cto rs and all insp ections for custo ms be carried ou t by Custo ms 

inspec tors. We believe th at their str en gth in numb ers at the po rts of 

en try for tra veler s and at air ports for passengers should be equ al to 

the tas k they have to perform, with seasonal fluctu ations, if t hes e are 

needed to conform to changes in travel pa tte rns. On ly throug h a 

syste m of pa rity of allocated resources can the Na tion be assured 

th at its stat ut es are being pro perly adm inistered .

Secondly, we believe th at “par ity” mea ns th at each Serv ice shou ld 

con trol its own personnel and t ha t the classification systems an d grad es
384

of the two Services should be identical. Journeyman Customs inspectors are now GS-11, or at least are supposed to be; first-line 

Customs supervisors are now GS-12, or at least are supposed to be.

On the other hand, journeymen Immigration inspectors, who do 

substantially the same thing with respect to people as the Customs 

inspector does with respect to property are still only GS-9, as are 

journeymen Border Patrol officers. This is an improper distinction 

and the Civil Service Commission and the Immigration and Naturalization Service should remedy this disparity as rapidly as possible by 

properly reclassifying these positions. I am pleased to note for the * 

record t hat the Commissioner of INS, General Chapman, is in agreement with this position.

“Parity” also means the genuine independence of the two Services; 

neither OMB, nor anyone else should inhibit them from carrying *

out their own proper functions wherever they need to do so; and 

there should be no more efforts to undermine their professional integrity by managerial distortions of their prime functions.

Mr. Chairman, if 1 may inject again here, I think a great benefit 

from the authorization hearings of this subcommittee to see tha t 

what Congress has enacted is administered and carried out in the 

way tha t Congress intends it and in light of what Congress expects.

Air. Eilberg. Sir, may I say tha t we have oversight authority.

We are now contemplating authorization authority.

Mr. Pellerzi. I understand, I understand.

The officers of both Services are carrying out extremely complex 

functions on behalf of our Nation, affecting the health, the employment rate, the standard of living, the revenues, and the public law 

and safety of every citizen. We do not have enough of them; we do 

not pay them enough; and repeatedly we find tha t OMB seeks to 

handle them as if they were expendable items in transfers of personnel 

and budget between powerful Executive Departments.

Next with respect to II.R . 2918, we appreciate tha t this bill is not 

before your subcommittee and that the hearings on it may well be 

reserved for the full committee. Neverthless, 1 should like to take 

this occasion to comment to you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee, and particularly to you, Mr. Chairman, as one of its 

cosponsors, that we endorse the purpose and provisions on II .R. 2918.

As to whether the authorization hearings should be on an annual •

basis or on the basis of periodic reviews of 4 or 5 years, we defer to 

the wisdom of your committee and have no preference. We are concerned with the principle of congressional oversight involved in these 

authorization processes rather tha n with the schedule of these hearings.

1 should like to state tha t we believe t ha t the entire system of law 

enforcement, including the relationships among the law enforcement 

officers, the prosecutors and the Judiciary, are of crucial importance.

The revelations of the last several years indicate tha t subtle and 

gradual changes may have taken place in the last two decades, which 

cumulatively appear to have reached proportions in some areas altering 

the sense of duty of some persons entrusted with administering 

the law and upholding its integrity. These several changes, affecting 

the legal and law enforcement professions, may have had consequences 

of a fundamental nature which need to be corrected through careful 

congressional review by way of authorization hearings.
385

Recently, the functions, staff and files of the House Internal Security 

Committee were transferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Consequently, at this time, your full committee has jurisdiction over both the issues of the legal rights of the Executive branch in providing for internal security as well as the constitutional rights of individual citizens for the protection of their individual freedoms. Among these issues are matters of immigration and nationality, involving the gaining and the losing of citizenship and the acquisition of legal 

status by resident aliens. These issues, it appears, now call for careful review both from the standpoint of national policy and from the standpoint of administra­ tion. Both the programs and the missions involved should, in our opinion, be authorized on the basis of that review.

Mr. Eilberg. Do you wish to have the other statem ents offered at this time, or do you wish to submit to some questions at this time.

Mr. Pellerzi. I would prefer to have the other statements offered, and then submit to questions but we will defer to the Chairm an’s 

view.

Mr. Eilberg. All right. May I suggest th at there is a quorum call now and tha t the members should answer the quorum call. I am hopeful tha t we can come back and work until approximately 1 

o’clock. I would ask the members to come back right after the quorum call and let’s proceed as far as we can. I understand there is no room available tomorrow morning so we would have to go over until next 

week in the event th at we didn’t finish today.

Mr. Pellerzi. Wc will await your return, Mr. Chairman.

[Short recess.]

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Pellerzi, you have concluded your statement. 

Who wishes to present his statement next?

Mr. Pellerzi. I think, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Harpold would make a brief statement, to be followed by 

Mr. Brannick.

Mr. Eilberg. And you know tha t time is very limited. I hope tha t we can conclude today. If we do not, we may have to go over 

until next week.

Mr. Harpold. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I am an Immigration Examiner from the San Francisco area and am appearing here today as a representative to the Immigration Service Employees. Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to appear before this committee today as representatives of the employees of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, and urge passage of H.R. 1276. This bill would require that all authorizations of appropriations for the Departments of Justice and Labor for administering the Immigration and Nationality Act shall be specifically made by Act of Congress. 

We feel th at such a bill is long overdue. Today, the resources of the Immigration and Naturalization Service have been stretched far beyond the point where any meaningful ad­ ministration or enforcement of our immigration and nationality laws can occur. Certainly, this committee has been well aware of the over­ whelming shortcomings that exist; the millions of illegal aliens passing our borders at will, the staggering adjudications backlogs that make the most simple contact with our Service a long and exasperating
ordeal and the antiquated records system, the cause of frequent and 

equally exasperating error.

In bitter truth, an alien or a citizen petitioner frequently faces far 

greater difficulty if he deals within the framework of the law than if 

he simply acts without it. Certainly the will of the Congress is not 

being carried out either in the administration of benefits or in the 

enforcement of the law.

The roots of the problem go back over ten years, to 1964. In the 

decade that followed, apprehensions of illegal aliens rose tenfold, or 

1.000 percent from 85,000 in 1964 to 800,000 in 1974. Vet, during that 

same period of time, the staffing of the Service was increased only 9 

percent rising by 624 positions from 7,058 to 7,682. No new legislation 

was passed to help us cope with the situation.

More recently, the two Subcommittees of the Government Operations Committee of the House have become deeply involved in the 

study of the problems concerning the illegal alien situation and shortcomings within the Immigration Service. Both of these Subcommittees, Legal and Monetary Affairs in House Report X’o. 93-1623 

and Legislation and Military Operations in House Report No. 93- 

1630 recommended massive increases in the funding and staffing of the 

Immigration Service.

However, the Government Operations Committee does not have 

authorization authority over the l&NS budget. To correct this, however, Chairman llolifield recommended th at “The Committee on the 

Judiciary should consider the development of legislation to require 

annual or other periodic authorizations for programs of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to the end that legislative oversight 

will be maintained and adequate resources will be made available for 

control of illegal alien traffic.”

We would welcome the assumption of this responsibility by your 

Committee. No law can be effective without the trained manpower 

and funding necessary for its enforcement. The House Committee of 

the Judiciary is in the best position to determine what those manpower and funding needs may be.

I would like to discuss some of those considerations in the following 

paragraphs excerpted from my testimony submitted to this Subcommittee on March 12, 1975, concerning II.R . 982.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service has endured a 

perennial problem with its budget and staffing. The following table 

illustrates the problem, and I will refer to the points in there.

In fiscal year 1971, the Immigration and Naturalization Service 

requested $122 million and 969 positions. The administration cut 

that request down to $111 million and 310 positions. They cut it to 

one-third and the Congress gave us essentially that.

In 1972, the request was for $134 million and 960 positions and the 

administration cut it down to 452 positions and $124 million. The 

Congress passed tha t amount.

In 1973, the Immigration Service requested $150 million and 1,065 

positions. The administration cut it down to $129 million with no 

positions.

In 1974, the Immigration Service requested $167 million and 

1,468 positions. The administration again cut it down to $139 million 

and no positions.
387

In 1974, including a massive supplement, the Immigration Service requested 8210 million with 2,610 positions. The administration cut it down to $1SO million and 350 positions.

Mr. E ilberg. Mr. Harpold, do you happen to have in your records here or elsewhere a record of the last submissions as to the number of 

jobs requested for the current fiscal year?

Mr. H arpold. For the current fiscal year?

Mr. E ilberg. Yes.

Mr. H arpold. I do not have it, although I know what that request 

* was.

Mr. E ilberg. I was under the impression tha t you had these 

records.

Mr. H arpold. I have the records for last year. For fiscal year 

*• 1976, I don’t have the records, but for fiscal year 1975 and before

that I do have the records.

Mr. Pellerzi. There was a large supplemental request, Mr. Chairman, tha t was never transmitted to the Congress. I think we have those records. They were made by General Chapman.

Mr. E ilberg. I wonder if we could—I wonder if you would supply that for the record and the 1975 request by INS for the record. May 

we get that for the record?

Mr. H arpold. Yes, sir, I will get it for you. [The document entitled “Immigration and Naturalization Service—■ Critical Needs, a Budget Amendment FY 1975” is retained in the 

Committee files.]

Mr. Harpold. As the table indicates, there has been considerable difficulty obtaining administration backing for I&NS budget requests. Nor has the administration championed an enforceable law. Why the administration has not done so in the face of such rapidly developing problems is for the administration to answer. The em­ ployees who have been left to “take up the slack,” however, cannot help but, with some bitterness, ask if it is not the administration’s policy to permit the existence of a large pool of cheap and quiescent 

labor within this country. Do we have a bracero program by default? To the domestic farm worker there is no perceptible difference nor does there appear to be a 

difference to the employers.

i It would be difficult to gage the needs of the Service in terms of manpower and money saved to turn to that person who is in the best 

position to know. Our present Commissioner has a reputation as an administrator undoubtedly second to no other person in Government. From 4 years as Commandant of the Marine Corps he took what lie called a public service job. General Chapman became Commissioner in December 

1974. In the view of the people of this Service, no man has ever set about his task with such rapidity and dedication. Certainly, he had no self- interest but his own view of our needs. In the spring of 1975 he pre­ pared, substantiated and submitted to the Department of Justice a budget amendment calling for 3,227 new positions and $70,653,000 

additional dollars.

Mr. Eilberg. You are going to give us a copy of that?

Mr. Harpold. Yes, I will.
388

[The document entitled, “Immigra tion and Naturalization Service—

Critical Needs, a Budget Amendment fiscal year 1975” is retained in 

the comittee files.]

Mr. Harpold. He wound up with 100 additional positions and an 

additional $3.5 million out of tha t massive request.

Mr. Fish. If I may, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Eilbekg. Proceed.

Mr. Fish. 1 understand the chairman’s questions, in fiscal year 

1975, when the request was for 3,227 additional positions-----

Mr. Harpold. That is what INS sent over to Justice.

Mr. Pellerzi. That was a supplemental, Mr. Fish.

Mr. Fish. That was supplemental?

Mr. Pellerzi. Supplemental. .

Mr. Fish. But, that figure appears on page 4 and then on page 3, 

the table there says tha t in 1975, including the supplemental, there 

were 2,610-----

Mr. H arpold. The 1975 figure I am referring to there was the basic 

1975 budget request, plus a small initial supplemental tha t was asked 

for. This was a basic fiscal 1975 budgetary cycle, which failed.

Mr. Fish. So, the larger figure includes a second supplemental?

Mr. Harpold. The larger figure includes the second supplemental, 

including everything tha t he didn’t get in the normal fiscal 1975 

budget cycle.

Mr. Fish. Let me ask once again tha t I hope you will break down 

the INS requests for positions into what kind of positions they are 

and whether they arc inspectors and so forth.

Mr. Eilberg. Yes, or investigators.

Mr. Harpold. The document I will submit to you, sir, is over 

H2 inches thick. I t is very detailed. It was prepared by the gentleman 

who sat here at this table this morning, Mr. Scott.

Mr. Eilberg. Okay.

Mr. Harpold. Much needs to be done in the Service in the area of 

just plain basic building. Save for our Border Patrol Agents, many of 

the Service’s officers, such as Inspectors, Detention Officers and some 

Criminal Investigators have received inadequate and often no formal 

training.

Our records system has never been automated and exists today in 

much the same state as it did in the 1940’s. We no longer have the *

capability of removing aliens from the Mexican border area to points 

near their homes in the interior.

Most positions are graded below comparable positions in other * 

agencies, causing a continual loss of trained officers to other agencies 

and an inordinately high turnover rate among our clerical employees.

Also, due to retirements and our inability to properly train and develop managers, we are suffering a real shortage of higher level managerial talent. Commissioner Chapman’s assessment and proposed fiscal 

year 1975 budget amendment, which I referred to, was pretty realistic 

and remains so today.

A broad-based enforcement effort will have to be conducted at 

our borders to prevent illegal entry and fraudulent entry through 

our ports of entry. Once the “job magnet” has been turned off, the flow 

should diminish to a manageable level, but it will require the utmost 

cooperation between our officers on the line, the Border Patrol, our
3S9

Inspectors at the ports of entry and our Investigators and Border 

Patrol Agents at inland points.

Our enforcement problem will turn from the simple undocumented 

illegal entrant to the illegal alien making a false claim to U.S. citizenship or presenting other fraudulent documents. Investigative efforts 

will turn to the employer of illegal aliens.

Commissioner Chapman, in testimony before Congress, has stated 

that the optimum size of the Service should be 10,200 employees. 

A That was before the Government Operations Committee last summer,

Mr. Chairman.

Of that, in order to provide the coordinated effort called for by 

H.R. 981 and H.R. 982, substantial increases of our present investi- 

« gator force as well as our inspector force at Mexican border ports,

will have to occur.

The administration’s answer to the illegal alien problem has been 

to ignore it, asking for mere token increases in appropriations and 

proposing no remedial legislation. In answer to heavy pressure placed 

on the administration, the President has appointed a commission 

to study a problem that has already been studied to death.

Mr. E ilberg. Do you know if they have done anything since that?

Mr. II arpold. They certainly haven’t asked us.

Mr. Eilberg. You don’t know?

Mr. II arpold. Other than that, I don’t know. I know of no action 

that they have taken.

It seems to us that it is time for the Congress to take charge of the 

situation and pass the laws and authorize the money i t deems necessary to carry out its legislation. This Nation can no longer tolerate 

a policy of what could be charitably called “no policy”, but what 

from all appearances appears to be a policy of abrogating a law by 

failing to provide the funding necessary and manpower necessary 

to implement it.

Mr. Chairman, I do have this statement dated March 12, 1975, 

I would like it in the record-----

Mr. Eilberg. Without objection, tha t will be placed in the record.

[The prepared statem ent of Michael G. Harpohl follows:]

Sta te m e n t o f M ic h a el G. I I a rpo ld, L eg is la tiv e R e p r e s e n t a t iv e, N ati onal

• I m m ig rati on an d N a tu ra liz a tio n S e r v ic e C o u n c il , A m er ic an F ed er a tio n

o f G o v e r n m e n t E m pl o y ees, M arch 12, 19 75

Mr. Chairman, the employees of the Imm igration and Natura liza tion Service 

%

are pleased th at you have und erta ken so rapidly, a review of crucial legislation

which is so important to the nation and important to us in our work. We are 

pleased and heartened by the determination you have shown in bringing back 

before the Congress for the thi rd time, H.R. 982 and II.It. 981. Your determin ation gives us heart and makes our frustration easier to bear.

And we are frustrated, Mr. Chairm an—and angry. We feel th at we are being 

deprived of a basic human right—th e right to go home after duty, warm in the 

knowledge th at we have served our country well. The ache th at we carry instead, 

Mr. Chairman, is the grea test single factor adversely affecting our working 

conditions today.

Therefore, we are concerned about immigration legislation as citizens and as 

those who bear the responsibility of administering the laws th at you give us.

We are here today to ask you most hum bly: Give us a law we can enforce; 

allow us the pride of a job well done.

In 19C2, m y family and I made the long trek from my native Sta te of Wisconsin 

to the little border town of Calexico, California so th at I could become a Border
Patro lm an . I wo rked har d an d I st udie d ha rd . The re wa s a lo t to le arn —law , 

th e Spa ni sh lang ua ge , a new cult ure and en vi ro nm en t. I di d a go od jo b. We all 

did a go od j o b ; we were pr ou d of ou rselve s, an d it fe lt good.

Ho we ver, th er e were some na gg ing que st io ns about th in gs— th in gs th a t mo st 

of m y co m pa ni on s an d I were not ac cu st om ed to an d did n’t co m pr eh en d. He re 

were pe op le— A m er ic an s—stoo pe d ove r in th e hot va lle y sun, m ak in g a t mos t 

$1.15 an hour ch op ping with a sh ort ho e ca lle d “ El C ort it o.” Here we re people, 

fam ilies, mov in g eigh t an d nine tim es duri ng th e yea r in or de r to ear n an an nu al 

av er ag e in co m e of $3,0 00. He re we re ch ild re n do ing m en ’s wo rk, families liv ing 

in un be liev ab ly sq ua lid , of te n m un ic ip al -run labo r ca mps . Here in th is mos t 

w ea lth y an d ble ssed of land s, ex is te d a wh ole cla ss o f people de nied ed uc ation, 

he al th , se cu ri ty ; in stea d, th ey had o nly th e mos t mea ge r ta bl e sc ra ps of th e dr ea m 

th a t is Ameri ca.

The se we re Am eri cans —co m pe ting fo r jo bs at wage lev els an d co nd iti on s kep t 

un re al istica lly low by co m pe tition w ith im po rted foreign labo r— Bracero s.

Th e Co ng ress cho se wisely not to ex te nd th e Br ac ero pr og ra m. We we re gla d 

to see it go and were ple ase d w ith th e re su ltant gains for do mestic fa rm wo rkers. 

The fa rm wa ge in Ca lifornia qu ic kl y w en t to $1.25, th en $1.35 an d to $1.65. Th e 

gr ow th of ag ricu ltur al worke r un ions he lp ed to im pr ov e working co nd iti on s, an d 

fo r a few sh ort sea sons, fa rm la bo re rs in a num ber of ar ea s of th e co unt ry were 

ab le to fin d sufficie nt ye ar ro und w or k in th ei r own loca lity to en ab le th em to 

se ttle an d ed uca te th ei r ch ild ren. F or th e fir st tim e, grow ers had to co nsider 

do mes tic lab or a va ilab ility befor e pla nti ng a cro p. And, sin ce t he inc entive was there 

fo r th em to do so , th e gro wers were ab le to mak e th at tran si tion.

B ut t he dr ea m was sh ort l ived. Ye ar aft er .year ou r arr est figures grew , ref lec tin g 

a gre at er and gr ea te r ille gal m ig ra tion to th e U ni te d Sta te s. Fin al ly , once ag ain , 

we ha d a Brace ro pr og ra m ; not th ro ugh leg isl ati on but th ro ugh th e lack of it. 

Again, all th e hea rt br ea k, all th e m iser y, and all th e di sr up tion of ho me life was 

up on us as if it ha d ne ve r de pa rted .

Fo r th os e of us in the Servi ce, our he ar ta ch e gre w w ith ea ch pa ss ing ye ar. I 

ha ve he ar d old ha nd s ta lk about th e ea rly 1950s when ille gal im m ig ra tion was 

als o un ch ec ke d. The y told of tw o an d th re e- m en team s wh o ap pre he nd ed up to 

200 ille gal ali en s in a sin gle da y. T h ey remov ed th em across th e bo rd er , on ly to 

re tu rn th e ne xt day a nd th e ne xt, hav in g t o re pea t th e sa m e pro ces s w ith the same 

peop le ov er an d ov er again . I doubte d th en th a t I wo uld ha ve th e en du ra nc e to 

re m ain st ea dfa st in such a fr u st ra ti n g jo b. Mr. Cha irm an , th is ve ry day —an d 

th e d ay a ft e r— an d a ll th e da ys until th e Co ng res s ca n pr ov id e viab le i m mig ratio n 

leg islatio n, th e 8,000 peop le of th e Im m ig ra tion Service will pati entl y perse vere 

in th is m os t fr ust ra ting job .

Spu rr ed on bv o ur hur t, we as k if we do n ot h av e a special ob lig atio n to pr om ote 

wor ka ble leg islatio n in an ar ea w he re we ha ve spec ial kn ow led ge . We ha ve 

an sw ered th e qu es tio n with our ac tion s. We succ essfu lly fo ught tw o batt le s to 

keep th e Im m ig ra tion Se rvi ce in ta ct. We ha ve co nst antl y so ugh t to br in g Co ngressio na l and pu blic att enti on n o t ju s t to ou r prob lem, b u t to a prob lem wh ich 

fac es ou r nat io n. We ha ve fo ught and are co nt in ui ng to figh t fo r b ett er fu nd in g 

an d staf fing ; now, we feel th a t we ar e so ph is tica te d en ou gh to reco m men d to y ou 

th e pa ss ag e of bett er law s.

On F eb ru ar y 14th an d 15th of th is yea r at th e N at io na l Borde r P atr ol Con ve ntio n in Sa n Anton io, Te xas, we sat do wn w ith Con gressm an M cF al l an d develop ed 

wh at we be lie ve to be a vi ab le an d co mpr eh en sive ap pr oa ch to th e pr ob lem of 

illegal im m ig ra tion .

Fir st , th ere m ust be a re st rict io n on th e em pl oy m en t of ille gal ali en s. We su ppo rt II .R . 982 a nd a long w ith A F L -C IO , we feel th at th e civil pen al ties s ho uld be 

ba ck ed up by cr im in al sa nc tion s. We su gg es t th at it be th e em pl oy er who be ars 

th e bu rd en of sh ow ing th a t he ha s m ad e a bo na fide en qu iry of every jo b ap plica nt 

an d th a t en quir y shou ld Inclu de vi ew ing an alien re gis tr at io n ca rd , bir th or n a tur al iz at io n ce rtific at e an d socia l se curi ty ca rd. W ith re ce nt ch an ge s in pr oc ed ur es 

for issu an ce of socia l se cu rity ca rd s pl us th e Im m ig ra tion Se rv ice’s in te n t to re ­

pla ce th e m any ex istin g va rietie s of th e alien re gi st ra tion ca rd w ith a sole, secu re 

do cu men t, we see n o reason w hy such a p ro gr am c annot be ef fective.

Second, we su pport an eq uitab le sy st em of W estern Hem isph er e im mig ratio n. 

Th e basic ineq ui tie s bu ilt in to t he 1965 am en dm en ts to t h e Act, and th e o ve r-l on g 

waitin g pe riod now en du re d ha ve se rv ed to ex ac er ba te an al re ad y bad illegal alien 

si tu at io n. Be cause of a visa ba ck lo g of ov er tw o ye ars, fam ilies of im m ig ra nt s 

often ente r illegally. Or, co nv erse ly, a new im m ig ra nt— par ti cu la rl y fro m Can ad a 

or Mexico — m ay bec om e a “com m ute r, ” us ing th e U nited S ta te s on ly as a place
391

of em pl oy m en t wh ile he m ai nta in s his tr ue reside nc e w ith his family ab ro ad . A bill now also pe nd in g be fo re yo ur ’co m m itte e, H .R . 981 , wo uld do m uc h to al ­

le vi at e th is por tion of th e p ro bl em . F u rt h er, we rea liz e th e in eq ui ties th a t co uld be ca us ed by su dd en an d m as sive en fo rc em en t of th e law . In ke ep ing with th e de ep resp ec t we ha ve for th e family unit, wc wo uld re co m m en d th a t ali en s who ar c th e im m ed ia te re la tive s of l .S. citiz en s an d law ful re side nt ali ens be per m it te d to rem ain in th e U ni ted S ta te s, un til su ch tim e as th ey ca n be ac co rd ed t he be ne fits co nte m pla te d by H .R . 981 an d H .R . 982. It, is for th is rea son th at we ur ge th a t H .R . 981 an d H .R . 982 be 

co ns idered as a p ac ka ge . Fou rth, an d finally, no law can be effective w ith ou t th e trai ne d m an po w er an d 

• fu nd in g nece ssary for its enf or ce m en t. The Im m ig ra tion and N at ura li zati on Se rvice ha s en dure d a pe re nn ia l pr ob le m w ith its bu dge t an d staffin g. The follow ing Tab le il lu st ra te s th e pr ob lem:

I. & N.S. requ es t A dm in is tration requ es t Congress ap pr op ria ted

Fiscal ye ar : 1971 ...........................$12 2,002,000 , 969 p o s it io n s .. . $111,980,000, 310 p o s it io n s .. . $111,480,000, 310 po sit ions . 1972 .............................. $1 34,123,000 ,960 p o s it io n s .. . $124,300,000, 452 positio ns. . . $124,300,000, 452 pos itio ns . 1973 . . . $150,324,00 0,1,0 65 p ositio n s.. $129,000,000, no p ositions..........$129,000,000, no positions. 1974 (inclu din g $167,150,00 0,1,4 68 p ositio n s.. $139,698,000, no po sitio ns..........$143,298,000, 300 pos itio ns .

su pp lemen ta l).

197j (inclu din g $210,062,00 0,2,6 10 p ositio n s.. $18 0,400,000, 350 p o s it io n s .. . $183,000,000 (a ppro xim ate ), 

su pp le ment al). 100 positions.

As th e ta bl e in di ca tes, th ere ha s be en co ns id er ab le difficul ty ob ta in in g a dm in is­ tr ati o n ba ck ing for I& NS budget re qu es ts. N or h as t he adm in is trat io n c ha m pi on ed an en forcea ble law . W hy th e ad m in is trat io n ha s no t do ne so in th e fac e of su ch a ra pi dl y de ve loping pr ob le m is for th e ad m in is tr ati on to an sw er. Th e em ploy ee s wh o ha ve bee n left to “ ta k e up th e sl ac k, ” ho wev er, cannot help but w ith some bitte rn es s ask if it is not th e adm in is tr ati on’s po lic y to perm it th e ex istenc e of a larg e pool of ch ea p an d qu ie sc en t la bo r with in th is c ountr y. Do we ha ve a Brace ro Pro gra m by de fa ul t? To th e do mes tic fa rm w or ke r th ere is no pe rc ep tibl e diffe r­ en ce n or do es th er e appear to b e a diffe ren ce t o th e em pl oy er. It would be diffi cu lt to ga ug e th e ne ed s of th e Se rvice in te rm s of m an po w er and mon ey sa ve d to t ur n to t hat pe rson w ho is in th e bes t po sitio n to kn ow . O ur pr es en t Com m ission er ha s a re puta ti on as an adm in is tr ato r undoubte dly se co nd to no ot her pe rson in G ov er nm en t. Fro m a de ca de as C om m an da nt of th e M ar in e Co rps he to ok w hat he ca lle d a pu bl ic serv ice jo b. Gen eral C ha pm an 

be ca me Co mmiss ione r in Dec em be r of 1974. In th e view of th e pe op le of th is Servi ce, no m an has ev er se t ab out his ta sk w ith su ch ra pid ity an d de di ca tio n. C er ta in ly , he ha d no se lf- in tere st bu t up on his review of our ne eds, in th e Sp ring of 1975 h e pr ep ar ed , su bst anti ate d a nd s ubm itte d to th e D ep ar tm en t of Ju st ic e a bu dg et am endm ent ca lli ng fo r 3,227 ad ditio na l po sitio ns an d $70,6 53,00 0 ad di tion al do lla rs. He w ou nd up wi th 100 add itio nal 

po sition s an d an ad ditio nal $3,500 ,000. Tru e, th e pa ssag e of H .R . 981 an d H .R . 982 will se rv e to redu ce th e m ag nitude of th e prob lem co nf ro nt in g th e Se rvi ce bu t m uc h ne ed s to be do ne in th e ar ea 

of j u st pla in basic bu ildi ng befo re1

 w e can sta rt . Sa ve for o ur Bo rder I’atrol Ag ents, 

m an y of th e Se rv ice’s officers , such as In sp ec to rs , D et en tion Officers an d som e Crim inal In ve st ig at or s ha ve rec eive d in ad equate and of te n no form al trai ni ng . Ou r records sy stem ha s never lx‘en auto m ate d an d ex ists to day in muc h th e sam e st ate as it did in th e 1940s. We no long er ha ve tht* c apabil it y of remov ing ali en s fro m th e Mexica n bord er are a to po in ts nea r th eir ho mes in th e interior . M os t po sitio ns are gr ad ed be low co mpa ra ble po sitio ns in oth er agencie s ca us in g a co nt in ua l loss of tr ain ed officers to ot he r ag en cies an d an in or di na te ly high tu rn ­ ov er ra te a mon g ou r cle ric al em ploy ees. Also, du e to re tire m en ts an d ou r in ab ility 

to pr op er ly trai n an d dev el op man ag ers, we a n 1

 s uf ferin g a rea l sh or ta ge of hi gh er 

leve l man ag erial ta le nt. Com m ission er C hapm an’s assessmen t an d prop os ed FY ’75 Bu dg et A m en dm en t was p re tt y re al istic an d re m ains so to da y. In ad ditio n to ba sic bu ildi ng , H .R . 981 an d H .R . 982 will plac e ce rt ai n ne w bu rd en s on th e Se rvice th a t will ha ve to be ta ken in to ac co un t by fiscal pl an ni ng . A first st ep is al re ad y be ing under ta ken by th e adm in is trat io n re qu es t in th e FY ’76 b udg et fo r 215 p os itio ns a nd $4.7 millio n to im pl em en t th e a lien docu m en ta tion
project. At present there are 4.5 million Alien Registration cards (“ Green Cards” ) 

in existence in seventeen different versions. The number of counterfeit and altered 

docum ents in use can only be a guess, bu t ab out 10% of our apprehensions involve 

such documents. In 1973. over 100,030 excellent counterfeits were recovered from 

a bus station locker in Los Angeles. The Service proposes to reissue all Alien 

Registra tion Cards, using bu t one sta ndard and “secure” edition. Such a step 

will be essential if H.R. 982 is passed.

However, a broad-based enforcement effort will have to be conducted at our 

borders to prevent illegal en try and frau dulent entry through our ports of entry . 

Once the “job magnet” has been turn ed off, the flow should diminish to a manageable level, bu t it will require the utm ost cooperation between our officers on the 

line, the Border Patrol, our Inspecto rs at the ports of entry and our Investigato rs 

and Border Patrol Agents at inland points. Our enforcement problem will t urn 

from the simple undocumented illegal entra nt to the illegal alien making a false 

claim to U.S. citizenship or presenting other frau dulent documents. Investiga tive 

efforts will tur n to the employer of illegal aliens. Commissioner Chapm an in 

testimony before Congress has sta ted th at th e optim um size of th e Service should 

be 10,200 employees. Of t ha t, in order to provide the coordinated enforcement 

effort called for by H.R . 981 and H .R . 982, a doubling of our present investigator 

force as well as our inspector force at Mexican border ports, will have to occur.

Mr. Biaggi in his bill has called for an increase of 2,500 enforcement personnel. 

While the distribu tion of such personnel could be better stated, the principal is 

well enunciated. The Committee Report of the 93rd Congress on H.R . 982 

estim ated the annual cost a t $298,400. Such a figure would seem to bear no relation 

to reality.

The Committe e Rep ort of the 93rd Congress on II. R. 981 estimated the cost 

of that bill at $1,368,000 annually. We do not have access to the data used to 

arrive at this figure. In th at the ma ny adm inistrative features of this bill and 

H.R . 982 would significantly increase the adjudicative workload of the service, 

this figure would again appear to be low.

In addition to funding, other issues must be addressed. Undergrading and poor 

morale, for example. Two House comm ittees recently issued reports after lengthy 

inve stiga tions of the Service and its operations. The first, entitled, “Interim 

Report on Immigration and Natura liza tion Service Regional Office Operations” 

(House Report No. 93-1623), was the result of several years of stud y conducted 

by the Legal and Mon etary Affairs Subcom mittee of the Government Operations 

Committee. The second, entitled “Law Enforcement of the Southern Border,” 

(House Report No. 93-1630), came as a result of the perennial struggle the 

Service has had jus t to hold its own. Both reports strongly urge increasing the 

effectiveness of the Service. The first, among other items, recommended substantial increases in all categories of personnel and funding. The second recommended an overall increase of 2,200 persons including 1,000 additional Border 

Patrol Agents. Both reports are recommended to you for reading.

Mr. Chairman, given the legislation now pending before this committee, and 

I am referring to H.R . 981 and H.R. 982, and the fund ing to carry through the 

Congress’ i nte nt, we can and will use th en wisely and well. You will at least have 

given us the tools and we will in turn be proud to serve the American people. 

And that, Mr. Chairman, is all we ask.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Brannick, I believe you go next?

Mr. Brannick. Yes, sir. My name is Richard Brannick, and in 

addition to being a Border Patrol Agent, I am president of the National Border Patrol Council. I represent Border Patrol employees of 

the INS.

Before I make my statement, I would like to comment on a few 

things tha t have been said. I would like to say, too, tha t I am not 

bound by the administration as the General is. I also am not as 

capable of speaking to the subject, but I will speak to it.

As to how often the hearings should be held, I will speak to that 

after my statement. Mention has been made numerous times tha t over 

a 10-year period apprehensions of the Immigration Service increased 

10 times or 1,000 percent while manpower increased 9 percent, 

Mr. Chairman. Tha t is a very deceiving figure, because in 1965 we 

had a much bette r control of the situation.
393

And in addition to reaching the saturation point, if you will, we were falling behind at an ever increasing rate though, so tha t 1,000 percent increase might very well be 10,000 percent of an increase if 

we knew the figures. In addition, there is going to be a timelag, Mr. Chairman, if somebody doesn’t get with the program right now and do something about this Immigration Service to make us fully capable. So, the time before we can really have an impact upon the economy of this country is going to stre tch out, because you can’t just throw a Border Patrolman or Border Patrolmen out on the street and say, “Go to work” because it is a very complex job. It requires a lot of training and it is a very sensitive job. You’ve got to do it carefully and you’ve got to know what you are doing. It isn’t going to be today or tomorrow, 

therefore. And a lot of these people that we are talking about, if we put them on the job todav, it is still going to be a year, at least, before they can 

really do the job right. So there is a timelag. Mr. Chairman, and Congressman, the National Border Patrol Council is pleased to be here today to testify concerning the need for line item authorization of funds for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Often, in the course of events, luck or happenstance seems to inter­ vene to restrict a pending disaster to a crisis situation. Such is the case with the illegal alien problem this Nation faces today. Between 1960 and 1970, the Immigration and Naturalization Service was steadily losing control of the illegal alien situation in the United States. And the problem was worsened at an ever-increasing rate. Only two groups of people were aware of the magnitude of the problem and the potential effects on the U.S. economy; the employees of the INS and the management of the INS. The management of INS, for whatever reason, was hiding or minimizing the extent of the problem to Congress and to the Nation. Meanwhile, the ability of the field employees to perform their mission was being allowed to 

drop farther and farther behind the snowballing task. In 1970 and 1971 the INS employees, the only other group who knew the situation, began to bring the problem to view. To highlight that here is a kind of beat-up old piece of document tha t we put together in 1971, the fall of 1971, when we started to do something about our Service. I would like to give th at to you for your 

records. [The document entitled, “Immigration and Naturalization Service— Critical Needs, a Budget Amendment fiscal year 1975” is retained 

in the committee files.]

Mr. Brannick. In 1971, the employee unions went to Chairman 

Rodino, then chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigra­ tion. lie told us tha t he had been assured by INS officials tha t the situation was under control. Newspaper articles of that period carried the same assurances to the Nation. We assured Chairman Rodino tha t the situation had been out of control for a t least 6 years. Subsequent investigations by Congress proved our statem ents to be true. Not too long after that both the INS and Congress were aware of the problem and moving to correct it. The administration 

began moving in the right direction, from time to time.
394

Today we have a few more officers, we have a Commissioner dedicated to the mission, we have a Congress which is vastly more aware 

and we have a recession or depression snarling at our heels. We are 

at least 6 years late and desperately playing catchup.

Our Service has an administrator in charge who has a good grasp 

on the situation and is moving to act rathe r than react.

I guess 1 could summarize by saying I really firmly believe tha t 

this Service would be in worse shape than it is right now, and we 

would still be walking around giving what Commissioner Farrell called 

the “desired level of enforcement,” whatever that was, if the employee 

unions had not come forward and fought for the improvement of the 

Service and is it a hell of a way to run a railroad.

Air. E ilberg. Thank you. Air. Pellerzi, we have a few questions »

we would like to ask and maybe you or one of the others would care to 

answer, but you are Chairman of this group, so 1 will address the 

questions to you.

Mr. P ellerzi. We will do the best we can to answer.

Mr. Eilberg. What is your organization doing within the organized 

labor unions to bring attention to the executive branch as well as to 

the public the need for proper and adequale funding or INS?

Mr. Pellerzi. I think we have taken just about every resource 

at our command and put it into this task. We have attended and 

submitted testimony in support of congressional action in this area 

before every committee of tlie Congress tha t is concerned with it.

And, as I outlined in my earlier statement, we have been concerned 

with the proper funding all along. We have tried to enlist public 

understanding of it through our own publications. We have addressed 

communication after communication to the OMB and to the President and to the Justice Department and to the Commissioner of 

Immigration concerning the problems attendant to understaffing of 

this agency.

And, of course, the AFL-CIO is on record in support of this. And it, 

too, has conducted a number of public, hearings and has asked for 

Congressional action to rectify the problem.

Air. Eilberg. We hope t hat you will continue to do this and more 

during the coming weeks as we move along. You know, of course, the 

problem we have had in the last two Congresses where the Senate 

failed to act. So, we call upon you for your assistance to help us.

We hope tha t we will get an illegal alien bill and possibly an authorization bill and hopefully, it will be with the assistance of the 

Congress and the Senators as well. *

Air. P ellerzi. I think you will have our full support, Air. 

Chairman.

Air. Eilberg. Many people agree that the Department of Justice 

and particularly the OA1B is pound foolish and penny wise. Where, 

in your experience or opinion, does the need of INS run into the 

greatest barrier because of improper funding?

Mr. Pellerzi. In my experience, Air. Chairman, 1 think the whole 

area of the Justice Dep artm ent’s program and accomplishing its 

mission responsibilities along with the judiciary in this country has 

been under-funded and I think that the reason for that is in large part 

due to really the lack of substantive oversight with authority; oversight that can do something about whether a given program is going
395

to continue or what level it is going to continue at, and 1 am referring 

specifically to oversight by the Congress. 1 think all of us realize that within the last decade that perhaps the strongest institution of society has been the Judiciary. I t seems to 

have provided most of the mortar tha t held the bricks together and yet in the process of rationalizing national priorities in the executive branch, Mr. Congressman, you don’t have anyone outside of that branch, like you do in the area of defense and in your defense com­ mittees and your defense authorization committees, and as you do in the area of atomic energy, where the Congress plays an authoiiza- tion role and has hearings and says that "we are going to develop this kind of a defense program” or “we are going to authorize it for five 

years.” And so, we don’t have that kind of oversight in this one institution tha t has done more to keep the country together than any other, the Judiciary, and in the law enforcement institution. I think anything you do in the area of the administration of justice, and this is p art of the administration of justice tha t we are talking about today, namely, the Immigration Service, can only be beneficial and can only be helpful. I think it would help to signal the Congress’ evaluation of priorities to the Executive in making the budget, because tha t is wha t I think overwhelms the allocation of resources by the Executive to these particular programs, you see. when they are trading off tha t entire pot of money to determine what revenues and expenditures are going to be, and where the Justice Departme nt’s budget is going to be in connection with the budget of the Defense Department and some of the social agencies and so on.

Mr. Eilberg. Would you comment on IXS’s budget request, which does n ot provide for additional investigators? 1 am referring 

now to the Administration’s budget.

Mr. Pellerzi. As I understood General Chapman’s testimony 

this morning, he indicated tha t the investigative staff—and I know this to be a fact—had been deployed in other mission areas within the Service and that if he gets these increments of manpower—and he gave a breakdown of the 750 positions that are in his current budget—he will redeploy his investigators to their primary mission area and therefore he is not asking for any more. I think that our position would be that the entire allocation of manpower to this Service is out of line with the magnitude of the task. We have General Chapman’s own late submitted second supple­ mental budget last year, where he asked for 3,000 positions. I don’t recall off the top of my head, what the allocation in the budget was to positions to the investigator’s staffs, but I do recall the enumeration being in there and there were some positions to that staff. My personal experience with it is that that staff has been terribly demoralized by understaffing and by the inability to follow the leads tha t they have. They have a number of unworked loads, and it just seems to be piling up a tremendous backlog.

Mr. F ish. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. E ilberg. Mr. Fish?

Mr. Fish. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses representing the employees of the Service for their testimony. Your testimony has been very helpful.

49 -7 69 — 75------26
396

I have noted happily the optimism tha t the job could be done if 

you were properly funded and properly staffed. Your suggestions 

are all very good, and to me, Mr. Chairman, have underscored the 

need for your legislation to give authorizing authority to this 

committee.

I jus t have one comment for Mr. Harpold, I want to thank you 

for your very valuable cha rt on page 3 of your prepared testimony, 

but 1 think your criticism of the past administrations was directed 

solely a t them and not at the Congress. I think tha t may have let us 

off the hook a bit, because it is clear tha t the Congress once again, ♦

lacking authority, has simply followed the position tha t came out 

of the administration, even when tha t position called for no new 

positions.

1 would also like the record to show that in 1970, in an omnibus *

immigration bill, presented by tha t administration to the Congress, 

but never acted upon by the Congress, there was in there a provision 

calling for penalties for employers harboring illegal aliens.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. Ms. Holtzman?

Ms. H oltzman. I have no questions a t this time.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Dodd?

Mr. Dodd. I have no questions.

Mr. Eilberg. Well, we thank you very much for coming here.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, subject 

to the call of the Chair.]
APPENDIXES

A pp en dix 1

Statement by Hon. William S. Broomfield, a Representative in Congress

F rom the State of Michigan

Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Imm igration, Citizenship, and In ter­ national Law should be commended for once again holding hearings on legislation to deal with the serious illegal alien problem in our country. I would especially like to pay tribut e to Chairma n Rodino for his tireless efforts in this area in the past, and for once again taking the lead in this Congress. As a sponsor or cosponsor of several illegal alien bills, I apprecia te this opportunity to comment on the 

situatio n. This is not a new problem, as the subc omm ittee members are well aware. Bills were passed by th e House in the last two Congresses concerning this problem, bu t died in the other body. I hope th at pattern does n ot continue with the bills before the subcomm ittee today, because the need for this legislation in the 94th Congress 

is truly more critical t han ever before. One can hard ly pick up a newspaper or magazine or tu rn on the television with­ ou t being confronted with t he st artling enormity of the illegal alien problem. The trick le of the 60’s, when Imm igration and Naturaliz atio n officials claimed there were only 100,000 illegal aliens in the United States, has in the 70’s become an invasion force, depriving American workers of jobs and clogging government 

mac hinery at all levels. Last year, INS ap prehended 800,000 illegal aliens, over 2,000 a day. But officials readily adm it th at two to three times th at many may have been smuggled into 

the cou ntry undetected. Although estim ates on how m any illegal aliens are in the U.S. vary from four to twelve million, observers of the problem generally agree th at illegal aliens are holding over one million American jobs. Considering our present economic conditions, this is an intolerable situation . Americans are having enough trouble finding and keeping jobs witho ut having to compete with an illegal work force. The one million jobs held by illegal aliens represen t almost 20 percent of our 

natio n’s total unemployed. In the metropolitan Detroit area, where recession and unemployment have had a terrible impact, INS authorities estimate at least 20,000 jobs are being held by illegal aliens. Con trary to popular belief, they are not “stoop labor” jobs, either. Illegal aliens have been apprehended working in De tro it’s auto plants, steel factories, and forge plants, earning between four and six dollars an hour. Mr. Chairman, not only do these illegal aliens deprive American workers of jobs, they place a trem endous burden on the governm ent at all levels. The y pay no taxes, yet their children attend public schools. When the y cann ot find work, the y receive government welfare assistance. Los Angeles C oun ty claims its welfare rolls are so clogged with illegal aliens it is costing the county over $7 million annually. Th at is in addition to the $100 million th e c ounty estim ates it costs to subsidize those illegal aliens whose children 

att end public schools. Clearly, this situ atio n is o ut of hand, and demands prompt and decisive action. The best place to star t is the source of all this illegal alien activity—jobs. As long as jobs are readily available for these people the y will continue to enter this cou ntry . And as long as employers face no penalties for employing illegal aliens, the jobs will be available. The logical answer to this dilemm a is enacting the provisions for penalties for employing illegal aliens called fo r in C hairm an R odin o’s 

bill.I believe the Rodino bill provides a fair approac h to the problem, calling for a warning for a first offense, a fine of $500 per alien for a second offense, and a one
398

yea r jail te rm an d a fine of $1,00 0 pe r alien fo r su bs eq uen t offenses. C er ta in ly 

su ch s an ct io ns will forc e e mploy ers to m ak e su re t hey are hi ring American c itize ns .

In de ed , th is is th e ve ry bill pa ssed ov erwhe lm ingly by th e Ho use la st Co ngr ess .

1 wou ld, howe ver, urg e th e su bc om m itte e no t to st op w ith th is mea su re . Pen al ­

tie s fo r tr an sp ort in g an d harb ori ng ille gal ali ens shou ld be in cr ea se d to det er 

thos e wh o ar e prof iti ng fro m th is bu sin ess. Pre se ntly, off enders fa ce a fine of not 

mor e th an $2,000 or five ye ar s im pr ison m en t, or bo th. But all to o of te n th e lines 

an d se nt en ce s are co ns id erab ly le ss th an th e max im um , an d th e offend er is ba ck in 

bu sin ess be fore long. I su gg es t th e su bc om m itte e co ns ider ra isin g pe na lties fo r 

th is c rim e to a fine of not less th an $1,00 0 no r mor e th an $2,000 and im pr ison m en t 

fo r a te rm of no t less t han th re e yea rs no r mo re th an five ye ars.

Se co nd ly, 1 ask th e su bc om m itte e to co ns id er au th or iz in g a do ub lin g of th e «

patr ol force g ua rd in g ou r b or de rs. M any of th ese illegal ali ens c ou ld b e app re he nd ed 

at th e bo rd er of ou r co un tr y had an ad eq uat e pat ro l f orc e. The pr es en t for ce level 

of 1,500 officers is sim ply to o sm all to ha nd le th e mas sive pr ob lem co nf ro nting it.

The D etr oit office ha s in di ca te d it wo uld ne ed to at least do ub le its 21 -m ein ber

staf f of cle an up th e s ituat io n in M ichiga n an d ke ep it cle an . ?

The se prop os als are co nt ai ne d in tw o bills I ha ve in trod uc ed , H .R . 136 an d 

II .R . 137, an d I hope t he s ubco m m itte e will co ns id er a ct in g on b o th of them .

It is t im e fo r an all ou t a tt ack on ille gal ali ens an d thos e wh o sm ug gle th em in to 

th is countr y an d kn ow ingly em pl oy th em . I am glad to see th e su bc om m itte e is 

on ce a ga in ta kin g the first st ep i n th a t direction. Con gress ha s an o blig atio n to th e 

American wo rkers to p ro te ct th eir j ob se cu rity , an d to th e American ta xp ay er s to 

pro te ct th eir t ax do lla rs.

Sta te m en t of H on. Abr ah am K az en, Jr ., A R epresen tativ e in C on gr es s

F rom th e Sta te of T ex as

M r. C hai rm an , I reco gn ize th a t t h is b ill face s an old i ssue in an im pr ov ed wa y. 

T he qu es tion of ille gal aliens is n o t ne w to me; it ha s face d th e pe op le of s o u th 

Tex as fo r ye ar s and sin ce th e so uth ern bord er of m y d is tr ic t is th e R io G ra nd e, 

I hav e sp ec ial in te re st in th is pr ob le m .

As yo u co ns ider th is pr op os ed legi slatio n, I ha ve on e ge ne ra l ob se rv at io n an d

one th at is specific.

M y fi rs t p oin t is th a t on e of th e ba sic co nc ep ts, whic h grow s in im port an ce in 

th is ti m e of high un em plo ym en t, is th a t wh ile our countr y co ntinue s to rece ive 

al ie ns in to ci tize ns hi p, we ar e to ld th a t ille gal al ie ns ar e ta k in g jo bs aw ay fro m 

th ose wh o ar e ci tize ns by heri ta ge or in div id ua l ac ts of ch oice . I can re port to 

yo u, ho wev er, th a t in so uth Tex as an d oth er bord er ar ea s, so me em pl oy er s are 

vir tu all y co mpe lle d to hi re ill eg al ali en s.

I t is a chara ct er is tic of per so ns of Mex ican st ock — an d th ose who kn ow me 

real iz e I do no t ha ve to ex pl ai n th a t I ’ve kn ow n th em as lif e- lo ng friend s an d 

ne ig hb or s— it is a chara cte ri st ic th a t th ey pla ce gr ea t va lu e on fa m ily life. In 

m an y way s, th is is an ad m ir able quali ty , but it so m et im es im pe ls th em to refu se 

to le av e th eir ho me s an d th eir fa m ilie s to seek em plo ym en t. T hey simply do not 

w an t to go an ap pr ec ia ble dis ta nce from ho me to wo rk on fa rm s or ranc he s.

To th e o pera to r of a f ar m or ra nch , th e ne ed fo r hired hel p is ab so lu te ly es se nti al. A cr op m ay be lost if it c a n ’t be harv es te d a t th e p ro per tim e, and I kn ow 

fa rm er s an d ra nc he rs who hav e tr ie d ver y h ard to hire ci tize ns on ly to ha ve to 

accept alie ns as th e on ly he lp av ai la ble . I don’t th in k I hav e to sa y to th is co mm it te e th a t t he D ep ar tm en t of Lab or m ay pro vi de st ati st ic s sho wing a n a bundance 

of em pl oy ab le pe op le, but ch art s and gra ph s an d ta ble s of fig ures do n o t de live r 

a la bor force to th e plac e whe re it is ne ed ed .

I urg entl y sugg est th at yo u sh ou ld not co ns id er all em pl oy er s o f ille gal al ie ns 

as ex pl oi te rs of th es e em pl oy es . Ofte n th e illeg al ali en s m us t be hi re d or m ajo r 

los ses su st ai ned fro m lack of he lp .

M y spe cif ic qu es tion in 11.R. 98 2 co nc er ns S ec tio n 2( b) (1 ) ap p eari n g o n Pa ge 3 

of th e p ri n t. Mv ex am in at io n sh ow s th a t th e bill now co n ta in s a prov isi on th a t 

an em plo yer sh all no t be in vio la ti on of th e law if he ca n pro duce proo f th a t he 

m ad e a bo na fide offer to co m ply . M or e sp ec ifica lly , if he ha s obta in ed a sign ed 

sta te m en t fro m th e em pl oy e th a t he is lega lly qu alified fo r em plo ym en t, th en th e 

em plo yer is no t lia ble to pro se cu tion.

I see m er it in th e id ea he re , b u t I be lie ve you fa ce a se riou s qu es tion in th e 

are a of di sc rim in at io n. Le t m e ex pl ai n by th es e que st io ns : Is th e em pl oy er t o 

de m an d th is sta te m en t fro m ev en - em pl oy e? Or is he go ing to ac ce pt a blon d 

Ang lo-S ax on ty pe or a b la ck who se fam ily ha s pro bab ly b ee n he re fo r ge ne ra tion s,
bu t pick and choose which employes he challenges? I suggest th at almost any 

strang er might be questioned in a rural com munity of Pen nsylvan ia o r Iowa, but that the situation is q uite different in the part of t he c oun try I represe nt, where a ma jor ity of citizens are of Latin heritage—and proximity to the Mexican border means illegal aliens may be hunting work. My question goes to this point: is every man or woman of Latin heritage, in appearance or vocal accents, to be challenged? Are we to realize th at this is discriminatio n, and encourage it by 

legislation? Many m embers of this Committee, as well as others in the House, hav e fought the battle aga inst discrimination . We did it because we knew we were right. I therefore urge th at the House not write new legislation that would add fuels to the fires of discriminatio n. At this point, the legislation before you creates this 

discrimination. For these reasons, I oppose H.R. 982.

Statement by Hon. William Lehman, a Representative in Congress From

the State op Florida

Mr. Chairman, your Subcommittee is to be commended for expediting its consideration of H.R. 982 which would make it unlawful for any employer to 

knowingly hire illegal aliens. Twice the House has considered and passed this legislation to protect the American worker against encroachment in the job market by illegal aliens. Realizing th at unem ployment is hovering close to 8% of the work force, I believe 

it is incumbent upon Congress to move quickly. Mr. Chairman, it is increasingly evident th at the num ber of illegal aliens is growing at an alarm ing rate and th at the existing sta tut es are an ineffective 

deter ren t to such surreptitious entries. However, today I wish to bring to the a ttention of the Sub comm ittee a corollary problem. Not every illegal resident is of working age. Many are enrolled in the State’s school systems. This is partic ula ry true in the school systems of Dade and Broward Counties where it is estimated th at between 7 and 9 thousand studen ts categorized as unlawful aliens are atte nding classes. I emphasize that these are strictly ballpark figures and do not represent an actu al count. These figures were arriv ed at by a process of elimination using the most recent and reasonably accurate estimates of the Imm igration Service. The INS estim ates that of the total 50,000 illegal aliens residing in the area, over two-thirds are working. Of the remaining one-third, about 7,500 are eith er too old or young to be in the system. The remaining 7-9 thousand are of school age. This would encom­ pass ages 6 thro ugh 19 years, or, K-1 2 grades. The expense to the various school districts is staggering. Since the expense of education is $1,347.00 per pupil, the annu al cost for educating 9,000 illegal alien pupils is in excess of $12 million.

Statement by Hon. E dward R. R oybal, a R epresentative in Congress

From the State of California

Mr. Chairman, I appear here today to oppose H.R . 982. I take this position because it is clear tha t this legislation will lead to discrimination based on race and therefore violates Constitutional protections. H.R. 982 is simila r to the law passed in the State of California th at was ruled unconstitutional in the sta te courts. A suit was filed on the grounds it violated the equal protectio n and due process clauses of the 14th amendm ent and various civil rights sta tut es passed 

by the Congress. The court took the unprecedented actio n of acting immediately, before the effective date of the law. The court rested its decision on dual grounds, th at the law violated the equal protection and due process clauses because it led directly 

to the hiring on the basis of race.

Th at is exactly what this law now before us would do. As one goes into the entire matt er as it really rests, this legislation is really directed as just a certain ethnic group in the United States, and no one else, lx)cause if it were directed at everyone, at every resident, then every employer would have to have in his possession the form recommended by the committee, one that would be given to every employer by the Attorney General, and would require certain information of each and every employee in the United States.
400

If that is done, then everyone is treated equally, and the information then can 

be gathered by employers throughout the United States.

Mr. Chairman, 1 believe that no matter how conscientious or fair-minded an 

employer will be, he will try to minimize his encounter with the law simply because 

it is not good business. As a consequence, the employer will be reluctant to accept 

the applicant’s statement or his documents as true and he will base this decision 

on color or ethnics and not on his qualifications.

We all agree that there Is a problem with regard to illegal immigrants in the 

country. No one disagrees with that argument.

One must also agree with the fact that it Is not the employer’s responsibility 

to make a determination or to do the job of the Department of Immigration. I 

think we can all agree that we have a good department; I think we can all agree 

that the men who run the department are competent and that they can do the 

job, but I think we must all agree that the reason they have not been effective is 

because this congress has not given them enough money to effectively enforce 

the laws already enacted, and I believe this is our responsibility. We should give 

the necessary funds, not a law which is clearly discriminatory.

Mr. Chairman, we already have the necessary legislation on the books to deal 

with a large part of the problem posed by illegal aliens. In 1972 we passed the 

famous H .R. 1, which contained a provision requiring anyone applying for a social 

security card to show evidence that he is a citizen or a legally admitted resident 

of this country. I have great faith that the SSA can devise a workable system if 

Congress provided them with the necessary funds.

Further, we should provide enough money for a vigorous enforcement of minimum wage and wage and hour laws to insure that illegals are not being used as 

cheap labor to take jobs away from Americans. If we had a more vigorous enforcement of these laws we could handle a large share of the illegal problems without 

creating the discrimination that would surely follow the passage of H.It. 982.

There is a part of the illegal alien problem that does need a legislative solution. 

We must make provision for those illegal aliens who are already in the country and 

who have established roots in this country. I have introduced a bill, II.R . 1015, to 

allow certain aliens who have already been living in this country for some time to 

adjust their status to permanent residents.

The thrust of this legislation is to regularize status of those illegal aliens who 

have been w’orking in the United States, have married, raised a family and have 

become part of the community in which they live. These otherwise law-abiding, 

working people live in constant fear of being detected, deported and separated 

from their American families. I see no justifiable reason to continue this inhuman 

situation for these individuals and their families. I believe it would be in the best 

interest of this country to adjust their status and allow them to become lawful.

My bill w'ould offer this opportunity only for those aliens who could meet two 

separate sets of criteria.

The first set deals with procedural requirements that all aliens must meet 

before being considered. First, the alien must make an application for adjustment 

of status within one year of the bill’s date of enactment. Second, the alien must 

show that he or she has been continuously present in this country from September 

16, 1972 to the date of application. The alien would still be subject to the 31 exclusions currently in the law which prohibit the entry of “ undesirable aliens.”

The purpose of these three requirements is to set a fixed cutoff date, discourage 

illegal aliens from entering the United States after the bill’s introduction for the 

sole purpose of adjusting their status, and prevent undesirables from qualifying 

under the bill.

If the alien meets these preliminary standards, he or she must show a close 

family or long-residence tie to this country. This can be done in either of three 

ways. First, as a spouse, parent, son or daughter of a U.S. citizen or of a lawful 

permanent resident. Second, as an alien entitled toz

a preference status under one of 

the existing family or work preference categories in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Or third, as an alien who entered the United States before June 30, 

1948, and has been continuously present here since that date. The purpose of this 

provision is to protect the person who has established actual residence for nearly 25 

years, but who does not qualify under the family category. Mr. Chairman, I 

believe th at both of these bills will help end the existing inequities in our Western 

Hemisphere immigration system, as well as afford an opportunity for adjustment 

of status for those aliens who have been in this country for years and have families. 

Both bills “will advance our goal of reuniting families and establishing a more humane and just immigration system.
Sta te m en t op H on. B ur t L. T al co tt, a R epr ese n tativ e in C on gr es s F rom

th e Sta te op Calif ornia

Mr. Chairman, thank von for the opportunity to present my views to your 

Committee. I commend you for holding these timely hearings. The illegal alien presents a large, complicated, troublesome problem which has been developing over a period of many years. The long neglect of this matter has exacerbated the problem, and made your responsibility of providing a legislative solution more difficult; but a decisive answer is urgently needed. I recognize, and appreciate, the disparate interests involved, and the diverse views and thie differing 

solutions that have been proposed. The magnet of America, of course, is better jobs. After the foreign nationals arrive, they quickly learn to en vy our freedoms and our affluence. The thrust of 

H.R . 982 is to discourage the employer from employing those illegally in this country. Hopefully, if the alien has no job, he and his fam ily will go back to their 

native land and stay there. Mr. Chairman, I can support II.R. 982, but believe it does not go far enough. It should be amended to take into account the real problems that could be created b y 

enactment of this bill. H.R . 982 places the burden for solving an international governmental problem of long duration almost solely upon the employer, who is not now equipped or capable of fully complying with any such law. Although the vast majo rity of employers in my Congressional District are now in conformity with the intent of H.R. 982, and all of them would, I am .sure, attem pt to comply with such a law, H.R. 982 would raise serious problems for employers who were seeking in good 

faith to comply with the new law. This bill will require an extraordinary volume of litigation. What is the legal interpretation of “knowingly” ? Most employers delegate employment to personnel managers, foremen or recruiters. The y admonish and expect their agents to comply with the law. But how can we assume guilt to the principal in such cases. Illegal aliens who are desperate for jobs will use many ruses and aliases in their effort to obtain employment. In our area, as well as others, it is understandably considered demeaning and discriminating to question one’s citizenship simply on the basis of personal appearance. The American of Mexican descent is often called upon to provide proof of his citizenship when Anglo Americans or Anglican aliens 

are not harassed or questioned. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, if the government is going to impose a fine or im­ prisonment upon an employer for “ knowingly” employing an illegal alien, which I believe it should, then the government should provide a document upon which 

the employer can “ knowingly” rely. Anyth ing less is unfair and will lead to untold consternation, confusion, litiga­ tion, demeaning discrimination, unnecessary embarrassment and administrative problems. The matter cries out for simplification, not confusion and litigation. The simplest solution known to me is adapting the Social Security card as an employee identification card. Social Security directly relates to employment and nothing else. The card need only show a photograph, name, number and date and place of birth. This would discourage duplicate Social Security cards which now defraud and burden the Social Security system. The public accepts similar 

data on automobile operators licenses. After the initial issuance, the costs would be minimal and probably more than recouped by improvement in administration. Of course the card would have to be reviewed periodically, such as ever y five years and after name changes. I am advised by Kodak Company and Xerox that systems for issuing such cards can be devised and implemented economically and efficiently. Again, I reiterate that the total costs would be more than recouped by providing a better manage­ ment tool for the Social Security system, without even considering the enormous savings of having a single non-counterfeitable, non-forgeable, simple employee 

identification card. Of course the card would be used solely for employment purposes. The personal data would be limited strictly to information that all employers require of potential employees. There would be no invasion of personal privacy. The Social Security Administration might worry about paying the costs of such cards from the already shaky trust funds. There would probably be a net savings if they used trust funds because of the elimination of fraud, duplicate cards, etc. The funding would also permit a tremendous savings to the Justice Department in litigation avoidance. And most of all, such an investment in providing an employee identification card would enable H.R . 982 to work.
402

If H.R . 982 works, over a million jobs— many of them highly skilled, and all 

of them sorely needed— can be opened for United States citizens and legal immigrants. If this bill is enacted without some fair means for easily knowing whether 

the prospective employee is employable or not, the law will not only be unfair to 

employers, especially the innocent ones, but it will increase litigation and never 

solve the problem.

There are those who are far more culpable in encouraging, abetting and participating in illegal immigration than employers. The smugglers of human beings 

should be punished by heavy lines, long prison terms and confiscation of their 

vehicles and equipment.

The “ human coyotes'’ who harbor illegal aliens and steal from them, abuse 

them and rip them olf in other ways should likewise be subject to heavy lines, «

imprisonment and the confiscation of their equipment used in their evil, inhuman 

pursuits. Without provisions dealing with these gross evils, H.R . 982 would be 

inequitable and incomplete.

I strongly urge amendments to II.R. 982 to incorporate the provisions I have 

briefly mentioned **

Again, thank you for the opportunity to present my views.

St a t e m e n t o p I I o n. L io n e l Va n D e e r l in , a R e p r e s e n t a t iv e in C o ng ress

F rom t h e Sta te o p C a l if o r n ia

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, in recent years, the flow of 

illegal aliens into this country has swelled from a trickle to a torrent. As one of 

nine member' with a district fronting on the Mexican border, I can attest firsthand to the gravity of the problem; illegals— driven across the border by a perfectly understandable desire for a better life for themselves and their loved ones— 

are taking thousands of jobs that could and should be filled by my constituents.

1 commend this subcommittee and Chairman Rodino for assigning such high 

priority to HR 982, as evidenced by the scheduling of these hearings so early in 

the session. Frankly, I do not think HR 982 goes far enough, in the penalties it 

prescribes for employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. But even these provisions, mild as they are, have seemed more than the Senate is willing to accept.

Without HR 982, or something approximating it, nothing else we can do is 

going to make much difference. We can stem this tide only if we turn off the magnet, the lure of jobs. If the jobs are here, the aliens are going to come across, no 

matter how many agents we can deploy to try to stop them. But without prospect 

of employment, most aliens would have no reason to seek entry.

Our lax existing laws make it possible for U.S. employers to hire illegal aliens 

without fear of punishment. Not only farmers, but hotel and restaurant owners, 

manufacturers and processors— even the construction industry— are utilizing this 

illicit source of semi-skilled labor.

Twice, the House has passed bills similar to HR 982. The bill falls short, in 

my view, in that it would permit an employer three offenses before imposing 

criminal sanctions. But it is at least a start— something we have yet to make— 

and I hope it is enacted as expeditiously as possible. I know in my own border 

district, which is suffering from very high unemployment, HR 982 has tremendous 

support, probably as much as a ny proposal now pending in this Congress.

Of course, I am heartened b v the moves which the Immigration and Naturalization Service is making to bolster its forces; the additional help is urgently 

needed. But any funding increase to be effective must be coupled with enactment 

of a punitive measure such as HR 982. I am optimistic that the Senate will now 

take a more positive view of the legislation, considering the dimensions of the 

crisis and the attention it has been receiving lately in the national news media. 

The spectre of rising unemployment in the country also is bound to make the bill 

look better to the doubters; it ’s hard to forget that by most estimates more than 

one million jobs are now held by foreigners illegally in the country.

You may be assured of my full and continued support for HR 982.

St a t e m e n t by II o n. B ob W il s o n , a R e p r e s e n t a t iv e in C o n g r ess F ro m th e

St a t e o f C a l if o r n ia

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear today before this Subcommittee on behalf of H.R: 1163— a bill I have introduced aimed at taking the 

profit out of smuggling illegal aliens into the United States.
I thank all concerned for holding this hearing which concerns itself with an 

important aspect of the illegal alien smuggling problem. According to esti* ates made by Immigration and Natura lization Service officials, there are between 4 and 12 million illegal aliens in the L nited States. Most of them find their way into this country by way of an underground railroad. Smuggling is a big business with lots of money to be made. It is safe to assume th at many illegal aliens would not be in the United States tod ay if there were no profit in it for the smuggler who charges what he can and promises the illegal alien a new 

life in a new land. The legislation I am proposing would do much to tak e the profit out of alien smuggling. It would allow for the confiscation of vehicles and vessels used in smuggling aliens and forfeiture of those vehicles upon conviction of th e smuggler. Many of you might be saying to yourselves, at this minu te, “isn 't th at wh at’s done und er law now?” The answ er is no. True, the Justice Department has the power to permanen tly confiscate the means of tran spo rtation in smuggling cases involving narcotics and dangerous drugs, b ut not in the case of smuggling aliens. It’s reasonable to believe th at the smuggling operation s would be at least partial ly curtailed if the equ ipm ent used in running the o pera tion is taken away. Information provided by the Border Patrol and other agencies shows th at many illegal aliens are transporte d in groups aboard busses, truck s, boats, airplanes and autos which are being used repeatedly on illegal runs across the Mexican and 

Canadian borders. As a matter of fact, the Border Patrol in the San Diego area has pictu res of expensive mobile campers, panel trucks, airplanes and boats th at have been used in “running aliens” across the border. However, once the smuggling cases are disposed of in the Federal Courts, the boats, planes, campers and cars are re turned to the owner and usually re-en ter the smuggling operation und er the command or 

ownership of a different person. Illegal aliens in this cou ntry cost American citizens and local governments 

plenty. In emergency medical care, alone, for illegal aliens, San Diego Cou nty spen t $578,307 last year with the cost expected to be more t han $600,000 this fiscal year. Last yea r in Los Angeles County, $8,153,804 was expended and I understand t ha t Boston, Chicago, and New York were hit with similar staggering costs. The job marke t has also been affected. According to estimates provided by members of the House Judiciary Committee, more than 300,000 jobs are being held by persons in this country illegally. Nationwide, the estimate is said to be one million. And those are ju st rough estimates. The facts and figures relating to illegal aliens are startling . And there appears to be no let-up in sight. Th at is why I feel it is im perative to ena ct legislation tha t would discourage the smuggling of illegal aliens into this country. Mr. Chairman, I believe th at we have a responsibility and du ty to protect the intere sts of our constituency. None of us in Congress would want the people we represent to think th at we are unresponsive to the ir problem s and concerns. Therefore, I would urge fav orable and swift action on H. It. 1163, a nd I th ank you for your kind consideration and attentio n to my testimony.

C o n g r ess o f t h e U n it e d Sta t e s,

H ou se of R epr ese n tativ es, 

Wash ington, D.C., February 26, 1975.

Hon. J oshua Eilberg,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Imm igra tion , Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to your announcem ent in the Congressional Record, I have prepared the enclosed testimony for submission to your committee. 

Thank you for your courtesy 

Sincerely, L e s t e r L. W o l f f,

Member of Congress.

Enclosure.
404

Sta te m en t by H on. Les te r L. Wolff , a R ep rese ntativ e in Congr es s F rom

th e Sta te of N ew York

Mr. Chairman, I subm it this testimony firmly convinced th at there is a great 

need for fas t actio n by the Congress to counter the problem of illegal aliens but 

uncertain whethe r H.R . 982 is the best bill to accomplish this goal.

First perm it me to briefly discuss the problem, particularly as it pertains to the 

New York Metropo litan area.

Immigration officials estim ate th at there are six to seven million illegal aliens 

in the United States and, according to the Commissioner of the Immigration and 

Naturalization, the figure could be as high as ten to twelve million. In the New 

York Metropolitan area alone there are estimated to be between one to one and a 

half million illegal aliens. •

These illegals present us with several distinct problems. First, they hold jobs 

th at are vita lly needed by the increasing num ber of unemployed citizens. Former 

Atto rney General Saxbe estim ated th at approximate ly one million jobs nationwide are held by illegal aliens. In the New York region, there are estimated to be 

100,000 aliens holding “higher paying” jobs and the average salary of illegals 

appre hended last year was $150 per week.

Second, these aliens, and especially those th at are unemployed, pose a distinct 

drain on civic services. An unknown number receive welfare and Medicaid benefits.

Schools, hospitals and other public services are used with little difficulty.

In many cases, these aliens use these services without filing Federal, state or 

local tax returns. They use our services withou t paying for them. Last June, a 

Congressional comm ittee estim ated th at $100 million in income tax revenue to 

the Federal government was lost because of illegal aliens.

In addition, there is a drain on our balan ce of payments. Many illegal aliens 

routinely send money to their relatives in the ir n ative lands, either for safe keeping 

or to assist the ir relatives. Congressman Rodino has estimated th at more than 

$1 billion is “removed from our econom y” yearly by illegal aliens.

This is th e natur e of our serious problem. Perhaps the best way for us to come 

to grips w ith this problem is to deal with th e princip al reason we have such a large 

number of illegal aliens. For the most part, these people come to the U.S. lured by 

the promise of jobs. If we can make it more difficult for illegals to obtain jobs, 

we will reduce the incentive for them to e nte r our nation in the first place.

H.R. 982 deals with this by making it a Federal crime to knowingly hire an 

illegal alien. However, this measure has no real “teeth” in it as no penalities are 

set forth for the first offense. It is only after a second offense, if it occurs within 

two years of the first, that a pen alty can be administered.

On the oth er hand, H.R . 257, legislation introduced by Congressman Mario 

Biaggi, would m ake it an immediate Federal offense for an employer to knowingly 

hire illegal aliens. The first offense would not be punished by a mere warning, bu t 

by a $500 fine or six months in jail. The second offense would be punishable by a 

$1000 fine or one year in jail. This measure contains significantly more meaningful 

sanctions and, consequently, will act as a greater deterren t. It will be more effective in convincing employers not to hire illegals.

H.R . 257 has an additional benefit, not included in H.R . 982. It provides for 

an additional 2500 personnel for the Immigration and Naturaliza tion Service. I

One of the principal problems confronted by the Service is its att em pt to 

prevent illegals from entering the country a nd apprehending and deporting those 

th at are already here, is the lack of m anpower and funds. As Henry E. Wagner, 

the investiga tions chief of the New York region said “. . . we don ’t have the <

money or manpower to carry out the law .” Because of this money and manpower 

squeeze, the Im migration and Naturaliza tion Service has had to revise its policies.

It no longer pursues illegal aliens who have been appre hended bu t fail to appe ar 

for depo rtation hearings. Inquiries from the Social Security Administration are no 

longer handled with any priority, which means tha t illegals are easily issued Social 

Security cards, often used as proof of citizenship, and are eligible for benefits. As 

a result of these cutbacks, brou ght about by increasing work load and constant 

personnel, the num ber of illegal aliens seized in the Metropolitan area of New 

York has declined by 30 to 50%.

It is im pera tive for us to increase the Services staffing so tha t it can become a 

viable force in controlling the illegal alien problem. H.R. 982 does no t do this.

H.R. 257 does.

In conclusion, I urge the Com mittee to tak e meaningful actio n on the problem 

of illegal aliens. While H.R . 982 is an important step in the right direction, I feel 

that H.R . 257 -would be a much more m eaningful measure a nd I urge its adoption.

Thank you.
405

Ame ric an F arm B urea u F ed er at io n,

Washington, D.C., February 21, 1975.

Re II .R . 982, con cerning th e em plo ym ent of illeg al aliens.

l i o n . J oshu a Eil ber g,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizensh ip, and Internat iona l Law,

Committee on the Judicia ry, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

D ea r C on gr es sm an E il b e r g : Farm Bureau is a volu ntar y association of

2,393,731 families in forty -nine states and Puerto Ric o, constituting the largest 

general farm organization in this countr y and thus representing more employers 

of farm labor than any other organi zation.

* At the annual meeting of the American Farm Burea u Federa tion, held last 

month in New Orleans, the voti ng delegates of the member Sta te Farm Bureaus 

unanimousl y adopted the follow ing policy on alien workers:

“ We commend the majority of the U .S . Supreme Cou rt for its recent decision 

uphold ing the regulations of the Immig ration Service in the issuance of so-called 

< green cards to alien workers who commute to this country on a seasonal basis to

work on farms and at other places of emplo yment. We call upon the Immig ration 

Servic e to resume the issuance of such permits.

“ We continue to oppose legislation tha t would put the burden of proof on employers as to whether a person is an illegal alien. We feel that the enforcement of 

such a law would place an unwarran ted burden for law enforcement on employers, 

would lead to discriminatory practices agains t minor ity groups, and would prove 

to be unworkable and ineffective in solving the problem of illegal aliens entering 

this country.

“ This is no longer a farm employment problem. Most illegal aliens in almost 

every area of this coun try are working in non-farm occupa tions. The trut h is 

that man y of these people are performing work tha t Amer ican citizens are not 

willing to perform for a variety of reasons.

“ Instea d of shifting the burden of enforcement to employers, we fa vor legislation that would make it illega l for any public agency or p ublic official to approve 

or provide public services to illegal aliens. Tigh tenin g up the procedures involv ed 

in the issuance of social secu rity cards and requiring tha t those who appl y for 

welfare, food stamps, and other such social services show proof of their legal 

stat us as citizens or legal aliens would be more effective in locat ing such aliens 

and in discouraging their ent ry than other plans tha t have been advanc ed.

“ We favor reconsideration of a cont ract labor program under agreements 

between the Unite d Stat es and other countries, which would provide for a legal 

and orderly entry of needed workers with due safeguards to the rights and welfare 

of the workers.”

In furtherance of this policy, we would like to raise the following points as you 

give consideration to H .R . 982:

(1) We recognize the seriousness of the problem and agree that so long as the 

present disparity between wages and working and living in this country and in 

nearby foreign countries continues to exist, the tide of illegal immigra tion is 

likel y to continue and to increase in intensity.

(2) We agree t hat the Congress needs to address it self to this serious problem,

* but we do not agree tha t II .R . 982 offers a satisfactory solution. We urge your 

Com mit tee to give careful consideration to other approaches that might offer a 

more effective m eans of curbing this wave of illegal immig ration.

(3) Before shifting the burden of enforcement onto the shoulders of farmers 

and other employers, it would seem to us to be reasonable to expect tha t the 

government would utiliz e all feasible altern atives within its own domain. We 

suggest the following possibilities:

En act legislation tha t would (a) make it illegal for any public agency utili zing 

federal funds to provide social services to illegal aliens and (b) require public 

officials to determine the lega l status of the appli cants for such services.

Inve stigate the procedures involved in the issuance of social security cards and 

ena ct legislation that would (a) tighten up the issuance of these cards to prevent 

their issuance to illegal aliens and (b) make the counterfeit ing and altering of 

socia l security cards diffic ult.

Ta ke steps to tighten the process of issuing visas and tourist permits, stude nt 

perm its, and other such tempo rary entry permits. Tes tim ony before your Co mmittee indicates that abou t 300,000 aliens enter this coun try legally every year, 

but fail to leave and thus become illegal aliens.
406

Explore ways of requiring the Internal Revenue Service to change its regulations so as to require an indication of citizenship status on the W-4 form. This 

would provide a universal basis for checking on citizenship in the case of all new 

employees.

(4) The penalties on smugglers of illegal aliens should be greatly increased and 

should include confiscation of vehicles used in such activities.

(5) Legislation may be needed to increase the penalties that can be imposed on 

illegal aliens before deportation.

(6) We do not agree with the Immigration and Naturalization Service that 

prohibition of the employment of illegal aliens “with knowledge” , will prove to 

be an effective means of coping with the situation. We know how easy it has been

to provide counterfeit documents in the past. <

We urge the Committee to give these points careful consideration. We oppose 

the passage of II.It. 982 and urge you to explore other approaches to the illegal 

alien problem.

Yours sincerely,

John C. Datt,

Director, Congressional Relations.

Association of I mmigration and Natio nality L vwyers,

Philadelphia, Pa., March 6, 1975.

Re: II. It. 982 

Hon. Joshua Eilberg,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration,

Committee on Ju diciary,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Congressman Eilbe rg : As you know, this Association continues to be 

concerned with the problem of “illegal aliens.” We are writing to request th at an 

additional public hearing be had and that this Association be given the opportunity 

to test ify before the Sub-Committee to consider currently available and alternative remedies which are unaffected by the technical, political and constitutional 

difficulties which appear to be inherent in II. R. 982. Particularly as we share the 

frequently expressed desire for effective enforcement of our immigration laws, we 

should like to assist the Sub-Committee in its formulation of appropriate 

legislation.

backg round

Our earlier objections to II. R. 982 have already been detailed in testimony and 

statements to your Sub-Committee. Certain recent developments should also 

claim your attention. One of these is the strong and beneficial impact of the 1973 

Amendments to the Social Security Act. By denying social security cards to tourists, the recent procedures have already become a significant deterrent to unauthorized unemployment. Another development is increased sensitivity to the 

possible misuse of II.R. 982 by an irresponsible administration. Budgetary limitations, if not policy, will inevitably lead to “selective enforcement" and attempts |

to secure compliance through compulsory use of citizenship cards. We are already 

pointed in that direction by recent statements of the Director of the Passport 

Office, regulations of the Immigration Service, and Administration testimony before your Sub-Committee. Our country’s confidence in the Executive Branch has <

only recently been shaken by repressive government measures, particularly those 

which permit selective misuse.

OUR PR OPO SA LS

We propose:

(1) Increased appropriations to all of the agencies responsible for the administration of our Immigration Laws.

(2) Revision in the fiscal and budgetary processes, including credits to the 

Immigration Service for the user fees it earns.

(3) Enforcement of the requirements for the use of social security numbers and 

related provisions.

(4) “ Tightening” of the administration of the Medicare and Welfare programs 

to eliminate those not authorized to be in the United States.

(5) The development of a manpower policy of training Americans and giving 

them the skills for the skilled jobs filled by illegal aliens and funding relocation 

costs to transfer unskilled American workers to places where their services are 

needed.
407

(6) Relieving the visa pressures on intended immig rants from the Western 

Hemisphere thro ugh the integration of visa allotments on numbers similar to 

those proposed and pending before your Sub-Committee.

(7) Mitigating the root economic causes through bilateral and multi-national 

arrangem ents with Mexico and othe r countries.

We respectfully urge the continuation of the Sub-C ommittee hearings for careful 

consideration of the remedies needed. We would appreciate the opp ortuni ty to 

elaborate on our proposals.

Very respectfully,

J ames J. Orlow, President.

A sso cia ti on o f I m m ig ra tio n and N a tio n a lit y L a w y er s,

Philadelphia, Pa., April 11, 1975.

Hon. Joshua Eilberg,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and Intcrnational Law, Com-

< mittee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C.

Dear Congressman Eilberg: I than k you for your letter of April 1st. Please

take this letter as a supplementary s tatem ent for the Record.

I fully understand the detail into which the Subcommittee has gone in the

consideration of II.R . 982. However, this Association would believe tha t the 

premises of the Subcommittee’s actions and, indeed, the approval of those actions 

by the Committe e and the full House in the last two Sessions, is not appropriate 

or necessarily designed to attack the problem which purp orts to be presented.

The essence of the problem purports to be t ha t the illegal aliens in the United 

States are depriving Americans of necessary jobs. There has been extensive 

testimony in this regard, but I cannot find at any place in the previous Record 

any facts verifying the economic effect purported to be created in this job market.

The only economic assessment I have seen is an article in the New Republic of 

February 22, 1975, a copy of which I attach. I am also trying to acqu ire a copy 

of a recent independ ent survey by a consulting firm in New York City indicating 

the existence of 1,090,000 unfilled jobs, notwithstanding our current unemployment rate.

There are, of course, other effects of illegal aliens in the United State s, the 

principal one being a disintegration of the Immigration Service’s ability to enforce 

the existing laws, a very serious detrim ent to the integrity of the Dep artm ent of 

Justice and the law enforcement in general. This Association is on record as fav oring substantial improvements in that situ ation. We cannot, however, believe t ha t 

II.R . 982 is the appropriate measure.

Our continue d opposition to II.R. 982 rests on Con stitutional grounds in p art. 

We believe that the complicated mixed criminal and civil system of sanctions 

will not be able to be sustained in a Co urt of Law as against the requirements for 

“due process of law”, particularly because the initial aspects of the process contemplate d are without any substan tia l procedural safeguards. Nevertheless, 

they become the essential prerequisite for subs tantial criminal prosecution. 

More important, we would under stand the Immigration Service is not budgeted 

| for the costs of uniform enforcement. Therefore, there would be the problem of

discretionary enforcement in a situation in which employers are making allegedly 

substan tial profits. Your Subcommittee is more fam iliar tha n most Subcommittees 

to the problems of discretionary law enforcement in the hands of given adminisw

tration. Unfortunately, we cannot depend upon having a Commissioner of

General Chapm an’s integrity in office forever.

We would respectfully suggest t ha t the p roper solution of the problem involves 

spending the funds necessary to give the Immigration Service the adequate 

manpower and to give the other agencies of the government charg ed with the 

responsibility the adequ ate manpower from forcing those sanctions against 

employers which are presently on the books and do not appear to be enforced. 

In previous testimony my predecessors had pointed to a long list of statutes, 

criminal in nature, now not being enforced, which would have the effects of 

reducing the illegal alien population incentive to enter the United States. In 

particu lar, I have in mind the prosecution of crewmen who jum p ship, now more 

noted in its absence than in its presence. I would also have in mind the prosecution of aliens for illegal entry, such th at their entry into the United States not be 

so a ttractiv e. Witnesses in Chicago and elsewhere pointed out that they could not 

hope to enforce existing law on their current staff.

More significantly, to the extent th at aliens are being employed in the United 

States in viola tion of the law, there are criminal proceedings under the Wage and
408

Hour Law, Social Security Law and Internal Revenue Law, all of which have 

far more effect, indeed, speak more closely to the defects of the present problem, 

none of which require any statutory changes.

As pointed out previously, this Association believes that a principal source 

of the breakdown in the system has to do with the breakdown in the fiscal arrangements for funding of the Immigration Service, the Consular Service and other 

agencies connected with the enforcement of the law. There is no credit to the 

Immigration Service, for instance, for the user costs which it earns. There is no 

jurisdiction in your Subcommittee to get into the cost of programs, and “program 

authorization” , such that an appropriate program can be designed with the cost 

objective in mind, at least in part. Finally, it appears that the Immigration *

Service is really inadequately staffed for the job. It should come as no secret, for 

instance, to the Subcommittee that there are very substantial delays in most 

Districts during which period of time legal aliens become illegal, that is, out of 

status, while awaiting for adjudication of pending applications. It should also 

come as no particular surprise that the substantial bulk of the problem of illegal >

aliens is numerically accounted for in illegal border crossers across the MexicanU.S. Border. It would appear in this case, in particular, that a rigid enforcement 

of the Wage and Hour, Social Security, and Internal Revenue Laws against 

employers would be a significant step toward not only improving the situation 

as far as making it unattractive for employers to employ such aliens, but also 

providing direct and immediate relief to American workers who do not receive 

the protection from the Department of Labor which might otherwise be afforded.

The present Bill would propose to render the employer as adjudicator of the 

alien’s ability to earn a living. I know you are familiar with the intricacies of 

Title III, and yet a substantial number of aliens coming from Mexico have valid 

and complex claims to derivative nationality, such that they might be very well 

entitled to remain in the United States as U.S. citizens. To place the burden on 

the employer of such adjudication at the risk of criminal penalty, would, as your 

Subcommittee recognizes, place a substantial roadblock in the face of citizens of 

Latin extraction.

This Association believes that insofar as illegal aliens are working in the United 

States their significant effect is to provide skills not available in the work force, 

and/or not available at the place of intended employment. We therefore welcome 

the proposals in II.R . 367 and H.R. 981 which would have the effect of revising 

the labor certification program, such that it should be possible to legitimate those 

needed workers. In this regard the Association would appreciate the opportunity 

of presenting its views and proposed statu tory language on the subject of temporary and permanent labor certification. Additionally, we would suggest that 

the proposed revision for Western Hemisphere aliens contained in H.R . 367 and 

H.R . 981 would provide a way for uniting families and would also contribute 

substantially to the object of legitimating aliens otherwise illegally in the United 

States. We do not minimize the very real severe need which the Immigration 

Service has to meet its budgetary and fiscal posture, notwithstanding the Administration’s economic drive. We do not however accept an Immigration Service 

sponsored publicity campaign with its concomitant xenophobic hysteria as an 

alternative for facts and figures based on facts. Sound Immigration policy cannot •

be based on Immigration Service publicity or public hysteria generated by that 

publicity. We therefore believe that H.R . 982 not be reported favorably but 

rather th at the proposals of II.R. 367 and H.R . 981 should be considered and that 

certain amendments enacted. e

We very really appreciate the opportunity of presenting our views to the 

Subcommittee, and we stand ready to cooperate with the members of the Subcommittee and the staff in these matters.

Very respectfully,

J am es J. Orlo w,

President.

T h e Asso c ia t io n o f t h e B ar o f t h e Cit y of N ew Y o r k ,.

C o m m it tee on I m m ig r a tio n an d N a tio n a lit y L aw ,

New York, N.Y., Ap ril 9, 1975.

H o n . J o sh u a E il b e r g ,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and International Law,

Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

D ea r C o n g r essm a n E il b e r g : O n b e h a lf o f th e A s so c ia ti o n o f th e B a r o f th e

C ity of N e w Y o rk , t h e C o m m it te e o n I m m ig r a tio n a n d N a tio n a lity L a w w is h e s
409

to submit for the consideration of your subcommittee, and to the Congress, a statement on our Association’s position with respect to II.It. 982, and other 

areas critically in need of Immigration Law reform. The enclosed statem ent represents a considerable effort on the part of each member of our committee, which consists of immigration specialists and non­ immigration specialists alike. We are very much concerned that a vast area of much needed legislation has been totally ignored by the Congress. Our statement covers a number of important areas of crucial significance to the rights of all— 

citizen or alien. We strongly urge that you consider the substance of the enclosed statement before final conclusions are reached with regard to pending legislation, and that our recommendations concerning other vita l areas be recommended to the House for appropriate and expeditious legislative action.

Very truly yours, Angelo T. Cometa,

CAainnon.

Sta t e m e n t of th e Asso c ia tio n of t h e B ar o f t h e C it y o f N ew Y o rk on

H . R . 982 and Ot h e r A r ea s C r it ic a lly in N ee d o f I m m ig rati on L aw

R ef orm

The 93rd Congress adjourned with four major bills pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee without action having been taken. Two of the bills (H.R. 981, Equalized Eastern and Western Hemisphere Immigration Systems, and H .R. 982, the Employers Sanction Bill) had passed the House of Representatives and the other two (S. 2043, To Equalize Eastern and Western Hemisphere Immigration Systems, and S. 3827, Employers Sanction and Amnesty Bill) had been introduced in the Senate in the first instance. With the adjournment of Congress, these pro­ posals died, but all four were reintroduced in the initial period of the 94th Congress. With the opening of the 94th Congress, H.R . 981 and 982 were reintroduced in identical form (bearing the same numbers) and the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship and International Law has held hearings to consider H.R. 982 and, it is our understanding, plans to commence hearings on H.R . 981 within the near future. Senator Kennedy has combined equalization of the Hemispheric Im migra­ tion Systems, Employer Sanctions and Amnesty in one bill, S. 5G1. Contained in these bills are numerous significant provisions where legisla tive action is imperative, but, significantly, other areas equally in need of reform are not encompassed by any of these legislative proposals. Our comments and observations are made beginning with the premise tha t we will examine and elaborate upon the law in a context of the basic format for revision laid forth by Congress. Specifically, there are differences of opinion within the Association on fundamental issues such as what are appropriate numerical limitations, whether the labor certification provisions of the law in their present form serve a useful function, whether immigration policy is adequately geared to population concerns, whether immigration should be in part related to emigrations, what is the total effect of legal immigration upon the employment market, and other such broad policy questions. The Committee has not attempted to resolve these matters but rather has taken the basic structure as presently set forth in the law as a point of departure to analyze equitable and humane amendment. We would strongly urge that in the future, Congress explore the more fundamental aspects of immigration policy in depth.

I. Sanctions upon Employers.— The Association opposes the concept of imposing criminal penalties upon employers as a punishment for the employment of aliens not legally authorized to work, except in those cases where employers arc exploiting aliens. In the exploitation situations, possibly legislation should be contained in labor laws rather than in the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, the Association has no objection to such a provision being placed with the Immigration 

and Nationality Act. It should first be observed that the Congress lacks hard evidence as to the impact of aliens who are working without proper authorization. In public state­ ments, the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service alleges that “illegal aliens” take millions of jobs from Americans. This statement has been contradicted by economists who believe that these aliens are not taking jobs from Americans but rather are providing necessary services in jobs where there are insufficient Americans willing to provide such services. This fundamental issue should be properly scientifically evaluated before penal legislation is 

enacted.
410

As a constructive approach to the problem, the Association favors vigorous 

enforcement of immigration laws, social security, internal revenue, state and 

federal labor, welfare fraud, and other relevant laws where currently existing, 

and as appropriate to that end the aliens will be employed only if in lawful status.

Since March, 1974, when the Social Security Administration adopted new 

regulations which prohibit the issuance of social security cards to aliens not 

legally authorized to work, it has become increasingly difficult for aliens to seek 

employment in the United States. Commencing with that date and proceeding 

backwards in chronological order, social security card holders could be screened 

and cards revoked where the holder can not comply with the regulation. If persons 

who can not legally work are denied social security cards, then an employer who 

employs an alien without withholding social security and income tax has violated 

both social security and internal revenue laws, far more severe in consequence.

If the employer does withhold but gives no social security number for the employee, this information can be given to the Immigration and Naturalization 

Service, which can then apprehend that alien. Where an employer is paying below the minimum wage or is forcing the alien >

to work inordinate hours or under unsanitary conditions he is violating state and 

federal labor laws and should be prosecuted. Through additional manpower, the Immigration and Naturalization Service 

could increase border patrol functions, apprehension, deportation and forced 

departure. Until a concerted effort is made to enforce existing laws and to analyze the real 

impact of these aliens upon the labor market and other social structures, the 

enactment of penalties upon employers would be premature. If. R. 982 makes unlawful the knowing employment of aliens not legally authorized 

to work under the establishment of a three tier penalty process which is as follows:

A. For the first violation, the Attorney General is directed to serve a citation 

on the employer informing him of such apparent violation. B. To an employer who commits a subsequent violation within two years after 

receiving a citation, the Attorney General is directed to impose a fine of not more 

than five hundred dollars for each alien.

C. Following the imposition of such, a fine, if the employer commits an additional violation, he would be subject to a fine of a thousand dollars and/or one 

year imprisonment for each alien. The Bill would further provide that the receipt by the employer of a signed 

statement by the employee that he is a citizen, or permanent resident, who is 

authorized to work shall be deemed prima facie evidence of bona fide inquiry.

S. 561 introduced by Senator Kennedy, also prescribes a three tier penalty 

process with the first violation resulting in a citation, the second violation a civil 

penalty of not less than a thousand dollars fine for each alien, and the third 

penalty is a suit brought against the employer and a penalty of two thousand 

dollars for each alien. The Bill would also revoke the “ Texas Proviso” which 

states that employment does not constitute harboring, and, thus, through employment, one could fall within the definition of harboring an alien which is a 

federal felony. A signed statement from the employee that the alien is a permanent resident or is authorized to accept employment would be prima facie proof .

of bona fide inquiry.

In summation criminal penalties are undesirable because:

(1) They will not be effective in deterring aliens from employment. (2) The burden of law enforcement properly should be placed upon the Goveminent not the private sector. (3) Enactment of penalties will result in discrimination against persons with 

foreign appearance, foreign sounding names, and persons who do not speak 

English (this was the experience when the Dixon-Arnet Law which was in effect in the State of California before being declared unconstitutional as being solely 

within the Federal prerogative. This is further acerbated by the ruling of the 

Supreme Court in Espinoza v . The Farah Manufacturing Company which permits 

employers to discriminate against non-U.S. citizens in employment).

(4) Congress should go to the base of the problem and analyze why there are 

so many persons in the United States working unlawfully and attempt to determine to what extent, they are being employed because their services are needed, 

how many are union members, how many are actually taking jobs away from 

Americans, and the extent to which they are exploited.

(5) Exploitation, fraud, and other criminal conducts would become more 

prevalent as employment itself is driven underground.
411

(G) More aliens will be forced to avoid complying with the letter a nd spirit of 

the law and, thus, will be more inclined to avoid income taxes and avoid social 

sec urity payments.

(7) The penalty provisions of at least II .R . 982 are unconstitutional since in the 

initial stages the criminal process, namely the serving of a citation, there are not 

ade quate procedural due process safeguards.

If sanctions are adopted, they should apply to unions as well as to employers 

who ac cept for membership aliens not legally authorized to work, and further, that 

the penalties should apply per place of emplo yment for employers who have 

different locations.

2. Regularization of Status.— Coupled with criminal penalties, the Senate Bill

* would also provide for the regularization of status of any alien who has been in the

United States in unlawful status in excess of a three year period, would encourage 

additional aliens to come to the United States after the term ination of a regulariz ation program since they could well be of th e opinion th at a new regularization program affecting them will tak e place in the future. Therefore, the 

Association opposes this concept.

3. Equalizing the Eastern and Western Hemisphere Immigration Systems.— The 

preference system now in effect for the Eastern Hemisphere should be applied to 

the Western Hemisphere, essentially in its presen t form, with an overall numerical 

limitation for the world of 290,000 numbers. Within one consolidated preference 

system the p rese nt system for the Eas tern Hemisphere contains seven preference 

categories and a non-preference category, with a ceiling of 170,000 numbers, 

whereas the immigration system for the Western Hemisphere does not contain a 

preference system but rath er two subcategories: (a) those persons subject to the 

labor certification requirements and (b) those exempted therefrom and a ceiling 

of 120,000 numbers.

Equalizing the Eastern and Western Hemisphere immigration systems w’ould 

make eligible for imm igrant statu s numerous categories of relatives of citizens and 

permanen t residents who are native s of t he Western Hemisphere who arc not now 

entitle d to any benefit un der the Imm igra tion and Nationality Act. Most significantly, at the present time, qualified applicants from the Western Hemisphere must 

wait in excess of two years on the same waiting list regardless of wh ethe r the applican t is the spouse of a perm anent resident or someone with no relatives bu t an 

approved labor certification. With regard to the issue of whether Can ada and 

Mexico should be given a higher per country limitation than the 20,000 maximum 

limitation for all other countries of the w'orld, it was resolved th at no country, 

regardless of its prop inquity to the United States, should be given prio rity or 

prefe rential tre atm ent over any other cou ntry in the world. There were serious 

questions abo ut the basic fairness of any per country limita tion if the purpose of 

abolition of the national origins quota system was to tre at all persons equally 

regardless of place of birth. Any per country limitation prejudices the individual 

applicant from an oversubscribed cou ntry in relation to his cou nterpa rt from an 

undersubscribed country. In this sense, the former is discriminated against under 

the system notw ithstand ing the fact th at he has no control over the incident of his 

birth. If the 20,000 limitation is felt to be inadequate, and abolitio n of th e limita- 

< tion is not favored, perhaps Congress should consider raising the limitation for

every country. The door should not be again opened for disparity of tre atm ent of 

persons based on country of origin.

The numerical limitation for sub -qu ota areas (colonial possessions) should be 

abolished since it is intrinsically discriminatory against persons from oversubscribed areas. At least it should be increased from 200 to 1000, since, even at that 

level immigration from the mother cou ntry in no instance would be adversely 

affected.

4. Exemption from Labor Certification of Parents with Minor U.S. Citizen Children.—Under the present Western Hemisphere immigration system, the parents of 

minor United States children are exem pt from the Labor certification provisions 

of the law and are entitled to be registered as inten ding immigrants. Natives of 

the Eastern Hemisphere receive no such benefit. In equalizing the Eastern and 

Western Hemispheres, the exemption from labor certification for p arents of minor 

U.S. citizen children and their entitlement to auto matic registration as intending 

imm igra nts would be term inated for n ativ es of the Western Hemisphere, by both 

the House and Senate proposals. It is argued th at a benefit to parents of minor 

U.S. citizen children is undesirable since any child bom in the United States 

is by virtue of its birth a United States citizen, and by conferring the benefit 

upon his parents, there are anti-social incentives in the law for aliens to attem pt 

to enter the United States to give birth to children in the United States.

4 9 -7 6 9— 75 -------27
412

The Association is generally in agreement with the above statem ent of policy. 

However, the Association recognizes that by not conferring any benefit upon 

the par ents of U nited States citizen children and forcing the pare nts to leave the 

United States, the United States citizen child is constructively deported from the 

country . Therefore, the competin g considerations are forcing of a U.S. citizen to 

leave the United States verses placing a premium on the location of birth of the 

child. Since both were considered significant considerations, it was concluded th at 

on the d ay of birth of the child within the United States at le ast one pa ren t must 

be in the United States with valid immigration status in orde r for the exemption 

from labor certification and registration to apply. In this matter , parents of 

United States citizen children who are here legally and properly would receive a 

benefit whereas the vast ma jority of those in the United States without valid ♦ 

imm igration status or those who have violated the terms of their admission into 

the United States would receive no benefit based on the birth of the child. This 

benefit should be applied to native s of both th e Easte rn and Western Hemispheres.

5. Labor Certifications.—The labor certification provision under the various 

bills would be main taine d in its present form. The Association urges Congress 

to thoroughly review the concept of labor certification and its efficacy. Moreover, 

the Association expresses deep concern over th e lack of due process which pervades 

actions of the Departme nt of Labor. Hopefully, thro ugh the implementation of 

new regulations, through a centralized appellate process on a Washington, De partment of Labor level, and thr ough implementation of the m andate of the Courts, 

the Departme nt of Labor can more effectively assure all parties concerned fair 

tre atmen t and consideration.

G. Cuban Refugees.—Cuban refugees adjusting sta tus in the United States 

should be exempt from numerical limitations since Cuban refugees, at present, 

utilize a disproportionate share of the total Western Hemisphere visa numbers 

available, which is to the disadvantage of nativ es of other countries within the 

Western Hemisphere. It is hoped th at in the future the broa d powers contained 

in Section 212(d)(5) will be exercised only in emergent circumstances towards 

persons who are in reality refugees. Cubans coming into the United States for 

the last several years of the airlift in the refugee program were not, for the most 

part, refugees bu t rather were persons seeking economic betterment.

7. Definition of the term ' ‘Refugee".—The definition of "refugee” in the seventh 

preference should be amended and broadened to reflect the definition contained 

in the United Nations Convention Relating to the S tatus of Refugees. Moreover, 

this broadened definition should also be employed in Section 243(h), Section 

212(e) for waivers of the two yea r foreign residency requirement, and Section 

212(d)(5), in order th at the definition of the term "refug ee” can be consistently 

applied throughout the Imm igration and Nationality Act. Further, groups of 

refugees who are paroled into the United States by the Attorney General in the 

national inte rest pursuan t to the autho rity in Section 212(d)(5) as well as persons 

within the United States whose deportation has been withheld pur sua nt to 

Section 243(h) or persons who are permitted to remain in the United States by 

virtue of Treaty obligation of th e United States under the United Nations Pro tocol Relati ng to the Status of Refugees should also be permitted to adjust status

after two years in the United States, regardless of the method of entry into the >

country.

8. Temporary Workers.—Section 101 (a) (15) (II) (ii), the non-immigrant category 

which permits the te mporary en try of aliens to perform la bor which is temporary

in natur e should be amended to allow such aliens to enter the United States F

tem porarily to perform labor which is perm anent in nature with the approval of 

the Depar tment of Labor thr ough a temporary labor certification. It is observed 

th at this w’ould substan tially change the immigration philosophy of the United 

States by greatly broadening the tem porary work category and, as a result, allow’ 

there to arise a grea t num ber of aliens in the United States for labor purposes 

whereas, under the present law the temporary working categories are more narrowly drawn . Through such a provision, the number of aliens withou t legal s tat us 

would be subs tantially reduced since many such aliens are perform ing needed 

services for w’hich an approval from the Dep artm ent of Labor could be obtained.

In the absence of such a provision, it w’ould be extrem ely difficult for the Imm igration and Naturalization Service to prevent the buildup of illegal aliens particularly in those occupations where critical shortages of qualified Americans exist. 

Moreover, under the H.R . 982 admission of such aliens would be perm itted for 

only a period of tw’o years which w’ould greatly lessen the anti-social consequences 

of the ir presence. However, we strongly urge the Congress to carefully oversee 

the adm inistration of th is section of the law in order t ha t unscrupulous practices 

may no t be occasioned upon aliens by the ir employers.
9. Adjustment of Status.— Under proposed bills, adjustment of status would be permitted for all aliens who enter the United States lawfully except crewmen or aliens in transit without visas, or aliens who continue in or have accepted unau­ thorized employment other than immediate relatives. Under the present law, all natives of the Western Hemisphere are prohibited from adjusting status whereas natives of the Eastern Hemisphere can adjust status except crewmen and aliens in transit without visas. Denial of adjustm ent of status to any alien who has ac­ cepted or continues in unauthorized employment would greatly reduce the number of aliens eligible for adjustment of status and, presumably, greatly increase the amount of fraud confronting the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Further, it is the belief of the Association that this type of penalty would probably fail to deter unauthorized employment since it would merely force the applicant to ob­ tain his immigrant visa abroad. It should be observed that natives of the Western Hemisphere are presently prohibited from adjusting status, and they constitute the bulk of aliens in the United States without lawful status. Historically, adjust­ ment of status was prohibited to certain classes of aliens who did not comply with the mandate of the law. Eventually, they were permitted to apply for immigrant visas in Canada since it served no useful purpose to require them to return to 

their country of last residence. The burden on the Consular posts in Canada became so great and the utility of the program so questionable, the adjustment of status was g reatly broadened. The lesson of the failure of this program to force aliens to comply with the law 

should not be forgotten. Moreover, since Consular decisions are unreviewable on questions of fact, the shifting of the bulk of applicants for residency status to Consular posts will effectively preclude reviewability of decisions as well as legal representation which 

is critical in many cases which are not routine. Finally, the effort necessary to determine whether unauthorized employment had, in fact, been accepted, would be extremely difficult, and would consume end­ less hours of investigative inquiry and confirmation, with little or no effect upon 

deterring unauthorized employment. It is suggested that it is not necessary to amend the law to accomplish the desired result. Adjustment of status is discretionary with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and accepting unauthorized employment, excepting cases where there are compelling equities, could be considered to be adequate reason to deny adjustment of status as a matter of discretion because of the great increase of the number of aliens unlawfully in the United States and their adverse effect upon the employment market. This would give the Immigration and Naturaliza­ tion Service flexibility to deny adjustment of status in cases where no benefit was warranted but yet to a grant of adjustment of status in those cases where 

compelling reasons existed.

10. The Statute of Limitations on Deportation.— The Association favors the 

establishment of a statute of limitations on deportation for permanent resident aliens who have been in the United States and who have committed an offense giving a ground of deportation in excess of twenty years ago, or, in the case of fraud, twen ty years from the date of discovery of the fraud. Under the present law there is no provision which provides a statute of limitations on deportation so that an alien who has been in the United States for an extended period of time would be immune from deportation. At present, an alien who is a permanent resident may be deported from the United States although he may have been a permanent resident from the time he was two years old and the ground of deporta­ tion may have arisen when he was twen ty years old and the deportation may 

take place when he is sixty years old.

11. Board of Immigration Appeals & Board of Visa Appeals.— The Board of 

Immigration Appeals should be made statu tory rather than being a creature of regulation. There should be established a Board of Visa Appeals to review decisions of American consular officers on both questions of law and fact. At present, deci­ sions of American consular officers on questions of fact are not reviewable by any higher authority. Questions on matter of law, are, by regulation, reviewable by the Central Office of the Department of State. In matters of fact the nonreview­ ability of decisions has led to many inconsistencies and unjustifiable determina­ tions by American consuls. A Board of Visa Appeals could either be a separate entity or could be integrated with the Board of Immigration Appeals in order to assure consistency in the application of the law between the Immigration and Na­ turalization Service and the Department of State. Traditionally, there has been no such review since consuls are outside the jurisdiction of the United States and,
thus, to hold their decisions reviewable would be to extend the jurisdiction extra territo rily . It must be emphasized however, th at there is no problem concerning the enforceability of such decisions since consular officers are employees of the 

Depar tment of Sta te and the consular employee would be charged with implementatio n of the decision.

12. Grounds of Exclusion & IneligibilUy for Visas.— It was unanimously agreed 

th at all grounds of exclusion a nd ineligibility for a visa should be made subject to 

waiver where the alien has a spouse, pare nt, or child who is a United States 

citizen or permanent resident alien. At present, there are ma ny grounds of exclusion 

or ineligibility for visas which are nonwaivable regardless of the closeness of 

family ties in the United States and regardless of the leniency with which the 

offense was trea ted b y the Judicia ry. Thus, at present, we hav e the anomaly t ha t 

what is viewed as a serious crime by society as a whole, for instance, a crime of 

violence, can be excused by waiver whereas a crime such as the mere possession of 

marijuana, for which the offender might have only received a small fine, or helping 

provide false immigration documentation to aliens, once again, for which the offender m ight only have received a suspended sentence, are nonwaivable. Inconsistency in enforcem ent of the laws could be eliminated by making all offenses 

waivable.

Board of Supervisors,

County of Los Angeles,

Los Angeles, Calif., March 13, 1975.

Hon. George E. Danielson,

Monterey Park, Calif.

Dear George: Los Angeles County, because of its prox imity to the int ern ationa l border between Mexico and the United State s, is experiencing a major 

fiscal impact in the provision of medical and social services to aliens unlawfully 

entering the Country.

I have no quarrel with th e motives of those who seek a b ett er life in our C ountry, 

and I recognize a moral obligation and a hum anitarian responsibility to provide 

medical and social services for these individuals.

I am concerned, however, with the question of who has the ultimate responsibility of paying for those services. I believe i t belongs to the Federal government, 

which is also responsible for controlling the flow of immigrants, legal or illegal, into 

California.

In recent meetings with White House officials, I agreed to develop a comprehensive report on the fiscal impac t of illegal aliens on the County of Los Angeles. 

Previously, however, we estimated th at the Cou nty provided $8.2 million in 

non-reimbursed medical services to illegal aliens for the 1973-74 fiscal year.

I recently met with Congressman B. F. Sisk, who has au thored legislation (H it 

3609) which provides th at a medical facility which provides non-reimbursed 

medical care to any alien, residing unlawfully in the United State s, may apply 

to the Secretary of H ealth , Edu cation and Welfare for payment.

This legislation is of vital intere st to the County of Los Angeles. As a member of 

our County Congressional delegation, your support of this Bill would be appreciated. In addition, I hope you might give favorable consideratio n to actin g as a 

co-a uthor for HR 3609.

Sincerely yours,

Peter F. Schaharum, 

Supervisor, First District.

Statement on II.IL 982 by George Frain, Secretary, Businessmen Affected Severely by the Yearly Action Plans, I nc., (BASYAP), March 13, 1975

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is George F rain.

I am a retired Congressional aide; I worked for nearly twenty years on Capitol 

Hill for both Democrats and Republicans, and I was the first secretary of the 

Democratic Study Group which has become quite powerful in the present Congress. I testify today on behalf of BASYAP, o r Businessmen Affected Severely by 

the Yearly Action Plans, Inc. a non-profit small business group organized in 1970.

During mv 20 years as a Congressional aide, I worked for such Democrats as 

Arthur G. Klein (D -N .Y .), Charles R. Howell (D -N .J.), Fra nk Thompson, Jr.
415

(D -N .J. ), and Harris McDowell (D-Del.), and for such Republican Members of 

Congress as Carroll D. Kearns (R -P a.), John Kyi (R-Io wa ), and William B. 

Widnall (R -N .J. ).

I am cred ited by Senator J. William Fulbrig ht, and Repre sen tative Frank 

Thompson Jr., co-sponsors of the legislation to establish the Joh n F. Kennedy 

Presiden tial Memorial Center for the Performing Arts, with doing the basic, 

pioneer work, to create th at Pre sidential Memorial, and I call you r attention to 

the s tat em ent in the Congressional Record of J uly 28, 1971, Pages E8429-53 by 

Senator Ful bright and Congressman F rank Thompson Jr.

One furth er word abo ut this Preside ntial Memorial—I also worked on the 

Memorial to P resident Franklin Delan o Roosevelt, and the Congressional Library

| Memorial to Preside nt James Madison—it was designed to give a stag e to our

great American artists, withou t regard to race or politics or color, so th at the 

Marian Andersons of the future could no t be denied a stage, or an audience, such 

as had happened a t Co nstitution Hall, a n inciden t which came to world at tention.

I would like to begin my remarks with regard to H.R . 982 by opposing tha t bill

“ completely and unreservedly, and whole-heartedly endorsing instead of it the

views expressed to this Subcommittee on March 13, 1975 bv the Rev. Msgr. 

George G. Higgins, Secretary for Research of the United States Catholic 

Conference.

Along with most of the people of this country—who are concerned with upholding its proud traditions of being a haven for the oppressed—I think these 

words from Monsignor George G. Higgins cann ot be stressed too much. He told 

your Subcommittee in words th at ably expressed the conscience of this nation, 

th at —

“This House Subcommittee which has studied this ma tte r in depth over the 

past few years and has twice reported out bills which have passed the House, 

need not be subjected to still ano ther sum mation of the problems facing th e aliens 

themselves and our natio n as a whole because of the fact th at the number of 

illegals has increased so dramatically in recent years. The Church, of course, is 

vitally inte rested in knowing who the illegal alien is, why he has come to this 

cou ntry and, now that he is here, what can be done for him and his family by 

enacting legislative reforms which will be equitable and humane and will also be 

effective in preventing a recurrence of the problem under consideration.

“The alien may be of any nationality and may come from any country in 

either hemisphere. When he comes from the Western Hemisphere his motivation 

is pred ominan tly economic in nature. On the other hand, he may have a family 

in this country whose laws, as the y are now written, force him to be separated 

from th at family for two and one-half years or more. He may also be a political 

refugee, b ut unless he comes from certain defined areas of th e Eas tern Hemisphere, 

he can be gran ted at most a haven in ‘limbo’ but cannot be given permanent 

san ctuary in this country. In short, he is the victim of an oppressive political 

and/or economic system in his home cou ntry and a victim of discriminatory U.S. 

immigration laws and practices which foster family separation (should he be 

from the Western Hemisphere) rather tha n promoting family reunification. He 

may also be the victim of a short-sighted, narrowly conceived definition of the

| term ‘refugee’ as it is currently inte rpreted under our laws. All aliens, however,

share one thing in common—th ey soon become victims of discrimination and 

exploitation in the very cou ntry where the y have sought a normal life in an 

atmosph ere of freedom.”

a These are the words which evoke our deepest convictions and our noblest

though ts and historical positions as a nation and as a people, and they are the 

noblest refinem ent of our grea t religious traditions whether the y be Catholic, 

Pro testant, Jewish, or whatever.

They are not evoked by H.R . 982, or the backers of th at most unwise bill 

which are so completely at odds with ail that this nation has stood for. This is 

made clear by the following opening paragraph to a four-part series on the illegal 

immigrants published in the Washington Star-News on March 16, 1974—

“The golden door of immigration to America has nearly closed. The invitation 

to the tired, the poor and the wretched refuse of the world has been withdrawn. 

The welcome ma t that greeted waves of im migrants for more than a century has 

been pulled. The Statue of Liberty stands mute.”

If the Republican Administration and the sponsors of H.R . 982 h ave brought 

our nation to such a pass, then the Congress, the President, and the U.S. Courts 

must be mobilized to protect all th at is noble and humane in our tradition. The
416

churches of all denominations must be mobilized. The people, most of whom 

have origins in o ther nations, must be mobilized also, and this includes the Ethnics 

of European origin, and the Chinese and Japanese Americans.

The nation can not permit, and must not condone, a situation where the proud 

invitation on the Sta tue of Liberty has been stilled, the door of immigration has 

been nearly closed, a nd the Statue of Liberty “stand s mute.”

Who is doing this to the Statue of Liberty and all that it stands for? The Wash ­

ington Star-News made this clear in its series, when it said th at —and this was on 

November 16, 1974:

“The AFL -CIO, which has thrown its weight behind tougher legislation aimed 

at halting the flow of illegals, estim ates the annu al wage loss to US workers at 

more tha n $10 billion and fumes because illegals undermine union stre ngth by <

working for below-scale salaries. Yet the gia nt labor organization concedes th at 

not only are many of the illegals perform ing useful tasks within society and the 

economy, they have become absolutely essential.

“Unauthorized aliens are undeniably having an adverse effect on the American 

economy, but they also benefit it. They tak e menial low-paying jobs th at other r

Americans often shun—migrant farm work, unskilled construction work, dishwashing and busboy labor, domestic work, and dirty, dangerous jobs in industry.

“Once here, the y present few problems in the community. The vast majority 

are law-abiding people who w ant nothing more than a job and salary. Those who 

take a sym path etic view toward illegals feel th at aliens don’t sponge off th e welfare, unem ployment or charity rolls as ma ny critics believe, because they arc 

afraid of c ontact with officialdom.

“In fact, this fear of officialdom and their con stant fugitive existence from the 

‘immigration ma n’ leaves the illegals as vulnerable as shorn lambs, exploited and 

ripped off by employers and others, such as unscrupulous lawyers and ‘immigration 

specialists’ who prey on them .”

There is more, much more, of this sad and terrible tale—of what happens to 

these harried hum an beings in the Land of Liberty, under this Republican 

Administration.

But the Congress, The President, and the Courts, and the Churches, and the 

the whole people mu st arise at last to protect the basic rights and liberties which 

distinguish us, and have distinguished us as a people.

When the S tatue of Liberty “stands mu te” then all of our liberties and, indeed, 

all tha t we stand for as a nation and as a people also “stands mute.”

Where is the Paul Revere which will aw ake us from the domination of the old 

and tired leaders of the AFL -CIO who, safe in their Sixteenth Street ivory tower 

overlooking the White House, have forgotten their own promises long ago, on 

which they rose to such power, to the poor and depressed of this nation, and have 

now chosen to force shu t the golden door of immigration, and pu t out the light, 

which the S tatu e of Liberty for over a c entury has guided the poor and oppressed 

through, and has stood there to light their way and protect these sacred portals.

I believe the Rev. Msgr. George G. Higgins and the United States Catholic 

Conference may be, and indeed are, the la tter-d ay Paul Reveres who can awaken 

in all of us the spirit of liberty and conscience which has slumbered while the 

illegals have been harried and apprehended and deported to their dark and well- )

known fate a t the hands of dictators armed by us, in many cases.

We must remember, we dare not forget, th at what separates this nation from 

the tyrannies of the dictatorships which have stained and blotted out the lives 

and liberties of peoples around th e world, consigning millions to the gas-chambers, p

is our religious beliefs, and our belief, sta ted in the Declaration of Independence, 

th at —

“all men are created equal, t ha t they are endowed by th eir Creator with certain 

unalienable Rights, th at among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Th at to secure these rights, Governments are institu ted among Men. 

deriving their ju st powers from the consent of the governed, Th at whenever any 

Form of Governm ent becomes destructive of these ends it is the Right of the 

People to alter or to abolish it. . . . ”

On Sunday, November 17, 1974, as te ns of thousands of citizens in the Na tio n’s 

Capital and the a djacen t suburbs were prepa ring for church, the Washington StarNews gave a graphic description of the hu nters and the hunted, and I quote from 

the lead paragraphs of the Star-News report :

“The pale green car glides onto Columbia Road NW shortly before dawn, its 

driver and passenger scanning the sidewalks, slowing down at bus stops, peering 

into shop doorways, looking for shabby clothes, brown skins a nd furtive eyes.
417

atching them, perfectly aware of their mission, are the q uarry, emerging from 

crowded apartmen ts, waiting in bus queues with brown lunch bags, avoiding direct 

eye conta ct with the car and its occupants, trying desperately to appear nonchalan t, to look as if they belong.

“The car suddenly stops, two men leap out, a figure flees and a footrace begins 

Two minutes la ter a young man is under arrest. Eight hours later he’s in the D.C. 

jail. Three days later, carrying a small brown bag with all his worldly goods, he ’s 

step ping off a jetliner in Costa Rica, in Ecuador, in Ethiopia, iii Nigeria or 

wherever.

“I t is a process repeated daily in virtu ally every big city in th e c ountry.”

The Rev. Sean O’Malley, Director, Centro Catolico Hispano, had this to say in 

'• a le tte r published in the Washington Star-News on December 8, 1974:

“ In times of crisis people tend to seek a scapegoat, some weaker group to pay the 

price. In other times it was the Indians or the Jews—no t so many years ago 

Japanese Americans were also herded into concentration camps in response to 

mass hysteria. It is my fear th at an alarmist attitud e such as betrayed in the series 

on the immigrants could re sult in a virulent persecution of the poor.”

A well-known Spanish-speaking leader, Jose G. Roig, said in a letter to the 

Washington Star-News on December 8, 1974 tha t:

“I wish to take exception to your series with respect to Latin Americans. You 

should also present to readers the irregularities and injustices to which illegal 

aliens are subjected by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

“(1) Entering and searching apar tments and houses w ithout any warrants.

“ (2) Keeping detained aliens (both legal and illegal) in isolated quarters and 

no t allowing relatives and friends to see or talk to them, as if t hey were dangerous 

criminals.

“ (3) Holding deportation hearings in which aliens to be deported do not understa nd a word of what has been said and done.

“ (4) Harassing legal aliens unnecessarily. In at leas t several instances, INS 

inspectors have stationed themselves at the door of the Ontario Theatre, 17th and 

Columbia Rd. N.W., and practically detained everybody inside until the documents of those leaving the place were checked one at a time.

“I could go on ‘ad infinitum ’ listing abuses and wrongdoings on the part of the 

INS. Those in charge of enforcing laws should be the first ones to abide by them .”

The Washington Star-News has contributed imp ortantly to the public weal by 

its reports on the m anh unt th at goes on daily in the Columbia Roa d NW area of 

the Nation’s Capital and in o the r cities.

The manhu nt has some terrifying overtones reminiscent of the Berlin Wall, 

which U.S. leaders, The Presiden t, and Members of the Congress have been 

denouncing so insistently for years. With the daily ma nhunt conducted in the 

Columbia Road NW area of the Nation ’s Capital a grea t wall v ery similar to the 

Berlin Wall has been established and is still und er construction in this Spanish 

Ghetto area.

Distinguished Catholic lead ers have deplored these Federal m anhunts, bu t they 

go on daily, under this Rep ublican President and Adm inistration with AFL-CIO 

supp ort.

♦ And the Statue of Libe rty “sta nds m ute”. Once upon a time it stood for something, which inspired people throug hou t the world who were oppressed at home. 

Tha t time is gone.

Congressional leaders and the AFL -CIO who have launc hed and who support 

this terrible manhu nt in the Nation’s Capital and other cities should look abroad 

to see what other countries do. While this goes on, the Presiden t meets with the 

leaders of dictatorships around the world.

Recently, Switzerland was faced with a similar problem; and a proposal to bar, 

and, in fact, force out of t ha t country m any of the immigrants who are doing the 

hard , dirty, dangerous and low-paid work, was advanced by some Know-Nothings 

there.

The Swiss had th e good sense to tur n th at effort back a t the polls.

Now, this Administration, no t elected by the American people, has launched an 

all out effort to dismantle the Statue of Liberty and subst itute a new and unAmerican program in place of the historic welcome accorded to the oppressed and 

the poor. And this program is confirmed by H.R. 982 and approved by th e AFL - 

CIO.
418

1 would like to suggest th at the most fitting anti-Statue of Liberty memorial 

for the new America, the new United States, might include a 1975 version of 

Simon Legree with his whips and his tortures, and a conglomerate of AFL-C IO 

leaders preparing a 1975 version of the Japanese American concentration camps 

surrounded by a Berlin-type Wall.

The New Republic (Feb. 22, 1975) is very critical of the Rodino Bill. H.R . 982. 

and it says this in the excellent article by Michael Piore, Associate Professor of 

Economics at the Massachusetts In sti tute of Technology:

“T he failure to recognize th e full implications of what is happening a nd why, is 

reflected in current thinking ab out immigration reform. The ma jor reform measure 

now before Congress is the Rodino bill. This bill would for the first time penalize 

the employer for hiring aliens. The measure has the support of both the INS a nd 

the AFL -CIO. Pressure for passage has suddenly received a new impe tus by the 

recession a nd the belief that the aliens hold jobs th at would otherwise be filled by 

Americans—a proposition that is dubious even under depression conditions and 

that will certainly not hold if we return to reasonably full employment.

“Bu t the thr us t of proposals to penalize the employer for hiring aliens will shift 

the balance of risk in favor of ignoring all federal labor regulations. Over time the 

pursuit of this policy will regenerate, in the low-income labor market, a world we 

have not seen in this country for 50 years. Legal and social sanctions used to 

enforce minimum stand ards will no longer be effective. We will be tempted by new 

patterns of life offered at the cut-rate price t ha t an illicit labor ma rke t permits. 

Once we become accustomed to these p attern s, a new, lower floor will be set upon 

labor conditions. The process will the n become irreversible.

“ None of this is to argue in favor of our existing immigration system. But the 

solution does not lie in enforcing restrictions th at have become untenab le. It lies 

instead in an effort to regulate a process that has become irresistible. The failure 

to do so will lead to a world th at will m ake the social conditions against which the 

war on pover ty was waged in the ’60s seem genuinely benign. Moreover, if we 

are not m oved to this position by compassion, we should be persuaded a t lea st by a 

narrower concern for preserving the social order. The h istory of the ’60s may be 

read as a rebellion of second generation migrants in urban areas against the conditions to which their pare nts migrate d willingly out of rural pov erty and depression. How much greater will be the wrath of the children of the new immigrants, 

born into the American citizenship, rebelling against an underground labor market 

in which their parents have been trapped—lured first by a desire for a bette r life 

and later held in place by the threat of deporta tion.’’

In opposing H.R . 982 it is, of course, incumbent upon us to recommend a better 

way, one more in keeping with our trad itio nal and historical ways of approaching 

the immigration problem. We think th at the several recom mendations made to 

this Subcommittee on March 13, 1975, by the Rev. Msgr. George G. Higgins, 

Secretary for Research of the Un ited States Catholic Conference, offers such a 

far bette r and more humane and more traditional approach, and one which will 

greatly benefit this nation as well as the refugee and the migrant. The comprehensive package of the United States Catholic Conference is one which all Americans, and all religious faiths, should rally behind, and it is briefly sta ted as follows— 

and we inv ite such an ecumenical gathering of supportive forces:

(1) In sti tute an equitable preference system applicable to both the Eastern 

and Western Hemisphere based primarily on family reunification and the admission of refugees.

(2) Gr ant adjustment of sta tus to all persons regardless of the ir country of 

birth.

(3) Increase foreign aid and economic assistance to the countries of Latin 

America in general and Mexico in partic ular.

(4) Cre ate and provide an across-the-board g rant of amnesty w’ith th e necessary 

residency cut-off date for eligibility and adjustment of status, withou t chargeability aga inst the numerical ceilings.

(5) Recognize th at because of deficiencies over a span of many years in our 

foreign aid and economic assistance policies with regard to Mexico and other 

Latin American countries, and because of our failure to preven t the mass influx 

of illegal aliens a nd our failure to enforce existing laws (a practice which has made 

it economically attrac tive for b oth the illegal alien and the em ployer to e nter into 

working relationships), the Governm ent of the United States bears a heavy sh are 

of respo nsibility for the chaotic situ ation which exists today.

(6) Recognize that, withou t a mean ingful amnesty program, it is entirely possible th at the members of this illegal alien society will be driven furth er und erground and that a permanen t .ub -cr lture will be created in the Un ited State s.
419

In suc h an ev en tuality , it is do ub tful th at even ma ssive ex pe nd itu res of tim e, money an d effort on th e par t of th e Im migratio n Service would ever lea d to ad eq ua te controls. It wou ld be mo re effective for th e Im migratio n Service to ex­ pen d its energy an d fund s to pr ev en t such a sit ua tio n com ing a bo ut ra th er th an spen d its funds, as propos ed in II .R . 982, in the area of app rehension an d con trol.

(7) Th e effe ct of th e prese nt wo rdi ng of II .It. 982 would be a scree nin g by th e 

em plo yer of all th e em ployee s w ith in ni ne ty days a fter the p rop ose d law is ado pted . Th e dismissal of un told nu mb ers of wo rke rs from th ei r jo bs in s uch a sh or t period wou ld cause unbelie vable havoc am on g th eir fam ilies an d in th e comm unitie s where th ey live. It would be ph ysically impossible for th e Im migratio n Serv ice to move such large numb ers of peo ple . Moreover, it is uncon scion able th at ou r 

| governme nt should even con sid er se pa ra tin g families b y for cin g a ma ss exod us or

de po rtat io n of lite rally millio ns of m en, women an d children . Th e displac em en t of th e Am eri can India ns, an d th e enfor ced relocation of Japa ne se Am erican s into co nc en tratio n cam ps would be mino r compared to th e 

new dis pla ceme nts co ntem plate d by II .R . 982.

M (8) Recognize that the requ ire men t in Sectio n 274A that an y officer or employee of th e D ep ar tm en t of He alth, Edu ca tio n and We lfare disclose t he name s an d ad ­ dresses of alie ns “ who suc h officer an d employee know s” are unlaw ful ly in the Uni te d St ates an d are rec eiving ce rtain welfare benefits would tu rn th e De­ par tm en t of Hea lth , Ed uc ation an d We lfar e into an inv es tig ative or enfo rce me nt ty pe agency which is thor ou gh ly re pu gn an t and should no t be approv ed by the 

Con gress in an y form . (9) As to th e propos ed am en dm en ts to Sec tion 245, th e ad ju stm en t of stat us 

pro vision, th e restr ict ion as to un au th or ized em plo ym en t sho uld not be inc luded. 

A somew hat sim ilar pro vision was co ntaine d in th e 1952 Ac t but was delet ed as un desir ab le in th e Act of 1965. Since th e gr an t of ad ju st m en t un de r this section is at th e dis creti on of t he Atto rn ey General, abuses can be co ntrolle d be st by th e sound exercise of th e discre tion which he alread y has . Fur th er , th at ad ju stm en t of st atu s shou ld be mad e av ailable to all bo na fide refugees reg ard les s of th e 

man ne r of th ei r en try into th e U ni te d State s. In conclusion, we w an t to s ta te o ur com ple te su pp or t of th e vie w of th e United St ates Ca tho lic Con fere nce, which represen ts million s of Am erican families, th at with t he app ro ac h of t he Bi centen nial celeb ration of t he foun din g of ou r c ou ntry, Con gress should ad op t th e them e, in see king a fair an d hu m an itar ia n solution t o this ve ry s erious pro blem, which is exp res sed in th e m ot to “ Lib er ty an d Justice 

for al l.”

Tha nk y ou .

Stat eme nt op M ichael G. H arpold

Mr. Ch air ma n, we are pleased to ap pe ar before this commi tte e toda y as re­ presen tativ es of the emp loyees of th e U.S. Im mi grati on & Natur alization Service an d urg e passage of II.It. 1276. Th is bill would req uir e th at all authorizations of approp ria tio ns for the Dep artm en ts of Justi ce and Labor for admini ste rin g the Im migratio n and Nationa lit y Act shall be specifically ma de by Act of Congress. 

{ We feel th at suc h a bill is long ove rdu e. To day, th e resources of the Im migratio n and Natur alization Serv ice have been str etch ed fa r bey ond th e po int where any meani ngful ad minist ratio n or en­ for cem ent of our Im mi grati on and Nationa lit y laws can occu r. Ce rtainly, this 

5 comm itte e has been made well aw are of the ove rwh elm ing sho rtco mings th at exist; the millions of illegal aliens pas sing our borde rs at will, th e stagge ring ad judicatio ns back logs th at ma ke th e mo st sim ple co ntac t with ou r Service a long and exasperat ing ord eal and th e an tiq ua ted records sys tem , the cause of fre qu en t an d equ ally exaspe ratin g err or. In bi tter tr uth , an alien or a citiz en pe tition er fre qu ently faces far gr ea ter difficulty if he dea ls wi thi n the framew ork of the law th an if he sim ply acts with ou t it. Ce rta inl y th e will of th e Congress is no t bein g carrie d ou t either in the ad minist ratio n of bene fits or in th e enf orcement 

of the law. Th e roo ts of the problem go ba ck ove r ten years, to 1964. In th e dec ade th at followed, app reh ens ions of illegal aliens rose tenfold, or 1,000 percent from 85,000 in 1964 to 800,000 in 1974. Ye t du rin g th at sam e per iod of tim e, th e staffing of the Serv ice was increased only 9 pe rcen t rising by 624 pos itio ns from 7,058 to 7,682. No new legislation was passe d to help us cope w ith the sit ua tio n. More rec ently, two sub -co mm ittees of th e Go vernme nt Op era tio ns Comm itte e of the House have become dee ply inv olv ed in the stud y of problem s con cerning

49-7 69— 75------ 28
420

th e illegal ali en situ at io n an d sh or tcom in gs with in th e Im m ig ra tion Servi ce. 

Bot h of th es e su b- co mmitt ee s, Leg al and M on et ar y Affairs in Ho use R eport No . 

93 -1623 and Le gisla tio n an d M ilitar y O pe ra tion s in Ho use Rep or t No . 93 -163 9 

reco mmen de d massiv e increases in th e fu nd in g an d sta ffi ng of th e Im m ig ra tion 

Service. How ev er, th e G ov er nm en t O pe ra tion s Com m ittee doe s no t ha ve auth or iz at io n au th o ri ty ov er th e I& NS bu dg et . To co rre ct this, howe ver. Cha irm an 

llo lif ield re co mmen de d th at “ The C om m itte e on th e Ju dic ia ry shou ld co ns id er 

th e de ve lo pm en t of leg isl ati on to re qu ire an nu al or ot her perio dic au th ori za tions 

fo r pr og ra m s of th e Im mig ra tio n an d N at ura li za ti on Se rvi ce to th e en d th at leg isla ti ve ov ersigh t will be m ai nt ai ne d an d ad equate reso urce s will be m ad e av aila bl e 

fo r co ntro l of ille gal alien tra ffi c.”

We wo uld we lco me th e as su m pt io n of th is re sp on sibi lit y by you r co m m ittee. 

No law ca n be eff ectiv e w ith ou t th e tr ain ed na m po w er an d fu nd in g ne ce ssary fo r 

its en fo rc em en t. The Ho use C om m itte e of the Ju dic ia ry is in the be st po sit ion to 

de te rm in e w hat tho se m an po wer a nd fundi ng n eed s may be. I wo uld like t o discuss 

some of thos e co ns iderations in th e follo wing pa ra gra phs ex ce rp te d from my te st imon y su bm itte d to this su b- co m m itt ee on M ar ch 12, 1975, co nc erning 11.R. 9S2.

The Im m ig ra tion an d N at ura liza tion Se rvice ha s en du re d a pe re nn ia l prob lem 

w ith its b udg et an d staffin g. Th e follo wing Tab le illu st ra te s th e pr ob le m :

Fiscal ye ar

1. & N.S. requ es t Adm inistrat io n reques t Congre ss ap propria ted

Amou nt Po sitions Amou nt Positions Amou nt Positions

1971..................................................... $122, 002. 000 969 $1 11,980,000 310 $111,48 0. 000 310

1972_____ ________ ___________ 134 ,123, 000 960 124, 300, 000 452 124.30 0,00 0 452

1973 . ____ . . . ____ 150. 324.00 0 1,06 5 129,000 000 0 129. 000, 000 0

1974 (inc lu des supple m ent)____ 167 ,150, 000 1,468 139. 698. 000 0 143. 298, 000 300

1975 (inc lu des s u p p le m e n t).... 210, 062, 000 2,6 10 180,400 000 350 i 183. 000, 000 108

1

 App roxim ate.

As th e ta ble indica tes , th er e ha s be en co ns iderab le diffi cu lty obta in in g ad min istr ati on ba ck in g for I&NS b ud ge t re qu es ts . No r ha s t h e ad m in is trat io n ch am pion ed 

an en forcea ble law . Wh y th e adm in is trat io n ha s no t do ne so in th e fac e of such 

ra pi dl y de ve lopi ng prob lem is fo r th e adm in is trat io n to an sw er. T he em ploy ees 

wh o ha ve be en lef t to “ take up th e sl ac k” , howe ver, ca nnot help b u t w ith som e 

bi tter nes s as k if it is not th e adm in is tr ati on’s polic y to pe rm it th e ex ist en ce of a 

larg e pool of ch ea p an d qu iesc en t la bor with in th is co un try. Do w e ha ve a Bracero 

Pr og ra m by d ef au lt? To the d om es tic far m worke r t he re is n o pe rcep tib le differe nce 

no r doe s th er e ap pea r to be a dif fer ence to th e em ploy er.

It wo uld be difficu lt to gaug e th e ne ed s of th e Service in te rm s of man po wer a nd 

mon ey sa ve to tu rn to th a t pe rso n wh o is in th e be st po sit ion to know .

Our pr es en t Co mmiss ione r ha s a re puta ti on as an ad m in is tr ato r und ou bt ed ly 

second to no oth er perso n in G ov er nm en t. From fo ur y ea rs as C om m an dan t of th e 

M ar in e Cor ps he took wha t he ca lle d a pu blic service job. Gen eral Cha pm an 

be ca me Co mmiss ione r in Dec em be r of 1974. y

In th e vie w of th e peo ple of th is Service , no m an ha s ev er s et ab ou t his task wi th 

su ch ra pid it y an d de dica tio n. C er ta in ly , he ha d no se lf-inter es t bu t up on his 

review of o ur needs, in th e Sp rin g of 1975 he p repa re d, su bst anti ate d and s ubm itte d 

to th e D epar tm en t of Ju stice a bud get am en dm en t calling for 3,227 ad di tion al /

po sitio ns an d $70 ,653,0 00 ad di tion al do lla rs. He wou nd up with 100 ad ditio na l 

po sitio ns an d an ad di tion al $3,50 0,0 00.

M uc h ne ed s to be done in th e Se rvice in th e are a of ju st plain ba sic bu ild ing .

Sa ve fo r ou r Bo rder Pat ro l Ag ents, m an y of th e Se rvice ’s officers, su ch as In ­

sp ec to rs, D et en tion Officers and so m e Crim inal In ve st ig at or s ha ve rec eiv ed 

in adeq uate an d often no form al trai nin g. Our rec ords sy stem ha s ne ve r been auto ­

m at ed an d ex ists t oday in m uc h th e sa m e st ate as it did in th e 1940s. We no long er 

ha ve th e ca pabil it y of rem ov ing ali en s fro m th e Mex ican bo rd er are a to po in ts 

nea r th eir ho mes in th e in te rior . M os t po sit ions are gr ad ed below co m pa ra ble 

po sitio ns in oth er agenc ies ca us ing a co nt in ua l loss of trai ne d officers to oth er 

agencie s an d an in or di na te ly high tu rn over ra te am on g ou r cle ric al em ploy ees.

Also, du e to re tire m en ts an d ou r in abil it y t o pr op erly tr ai n an d de ve lop man ag ers, 

we are su fferin g a rea l sh or ta ge of hi gh er level man ag er ial ta le nt. Com miss ione r 

C hapm an’s as se ssm en t an d pr op os ed F Y ’75 Bu dg et A m en dm en t wa s pre tt y 

realistic an d re m ains so to da y.
A broad-based enforcement effort will have to be conducted at our borders to 

prevent illegal entry and fradulent entry through our ports of entry. Once th e “job magnet” has been turn ed off, the How should diminish to a manageable level, but it will require the utm ost cooperation between our officers on the line, th e Border Patrol, our Inspectors at the ports of entry and our Investigators an d Border Patrol Agents at inland points. Our enforcem ent problem will t urn from the simple undocumen ted illegal e ntrant to the illegal alien making a false claim to U.S. citizenship or prese nting other frad ulen t documents. Inve stigative effo rts will turn to the employer of illegal aliens. Commissioner Chapm an in tes tim ony before Congress has sta ted that the optimum size of the Service should be 10,200 employees. Of tha t, in order to provide the coordinated enforcement effort called for by H.R. 981 and H.R . 982, substan tial increases of our present investigator force as well as o ur inspecto r force at Mexican border ports, will have to occur. The Administration’s answer to the illegal alien problem has been to ignore it, asking for mere token increases in appropriations and proposing no remedial legislation. In answer to heavy pressure placed on the Administration, the Presi­ dent has appointed a commission to “stud y” a problem that has been studied ta death. It seems to us th at it is time for the Congress to take charge of the situation and pass the laws and authorize the money it deems necessary to carry out it’s legislation. This nation can no longer tole rate a policy of wh at could be c haritably called “no policy”, bu t what from all appearances appears to be a policy of abrogating a law by failure to provide the funding and manpower necessary to 

implement it.

J amaica National Guild U.S.A.,

Brooklyn, N .Y ., February 12, 1975.

The House Judiciary Committee, #

Subcommittee on Immigration,

Ray burn House Office B uil din g,

Washington D.C.

Dear Sir s: This letter is a reaction to the present House Hearings on the Em ­

ploym ent of Illegal Aliens in the United States. We would like to tak e this opportu nity tc point out th at the effect cf the He ar­ ings and the Legislation being proposed by the Honorable Pete r Rodino will be to stifle the ability of those individuals who have immigrated to this cou ntry in a perfectly legal manner to obtain and maintain employment. Every alien has now- become a legal risk. We believe th at the huge num ber of aliens who have over­ stayed their visas is a result of laws which were passed to prohibit the free en try of people from the Western Hemisphere into this country. The situation will not be corrected by punishing those who were forced to evade these statutes. Only when the immigration laws are adjuste d to deal with the reality of Western Hemisphere migration will the problem be solved. This can eas ­ ily be done by equalizing the quotas between the Western and Eastern Hemisphere. Lastly large numbers of hard working, diligent and highly m otivated in dividuals have been forced to sta y in this country without the proper immigration papers. Every year they go thro ugh the same spasms of fear as these type of hearings are held. The sensible solution is to adjust their sta tus so that they can remain in thi s country legally. They are not responsible for all the economic problems that have recently befallen this country and should not be used as scapegoats. We further request that this letter be read and made part of the record of you r 

committee hearing on H.R. 981 and 982.

Sincerely,

Oswald Silvera,

Chairman of the Immigration Committee.

Statement of Fred T. Kuszmaul, Director, National Americanism and

Children and Youth Division, February 5, 1975

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the American Legion ap­ preciates the opportu nity to present its views on legislation aimed at reducin g the social and economic problems created by the ever-increasing influx of illegal 

aliens into the United States.
As you know, the American Legion was chartered by the United States Congress nearly 56 years ago. It is comprised of two million seven hundred thousand 

American vete rans who have served their country during time of war and are now joined together in our organization to provide continued service to their com­ munities, states and the natio n. I spea k also for the American Legion Auxiliary, an organizatio n of a pproximately one million equally dedicated wives, daughters 

and sisters of those who served our country during wartim e or national emer­ gencies. Our membership, organized in some 16,000 Posts through out the United 

States and overseas, presents a cross-section of American citizenry. The American Legion since its organization in 1919 has taken an active interest 

in the immigration and naturaliza tion policies of our country and has appeared before Congressional Comm ittees on several occasions to present its views on 

specific legislation. Our initial concern for the problem created by mushrooming numbers of illegal aliens is based upon problems encountered by Vietnam Veterans, particularly those withou t skills, who have met with serious difficulties in locating employ­ men t. The news media reports th at m any unskilled jobs are being filled by illegal aliens because they work for wages lower than prevailing rates, and under working conditions tha t most American citizens would no t tolerate. The recession of recent months has heightened the problem of unemployment for the unskilled Vietnam 

veteran. In consideration of this situation The American Legion unanim ously approved a resolution at its most recent National Convention calling upon the Congress to ena ct legislation providing penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal 

aliens. A copy of the resolution is attache d. There are a number of o ther problems directly attrib uta ble to the large num ­

bers of illegal aliens. The majority of the millions of illegal aliens reside in our big city slums. They live with our citizens who are itt the bottom of our economic ladder and this situ ­ ation intensifies the miserable housing conditions facing our low income minorities.

Children of illegal aliens create an additional burden to the overloaded and under 

financed school systems in many of our metropolitan areas. No one is certain as to the num ber of illegal aliens on our welfare rolls and the amoun t of pay ments they receive. Estimates have been made th at such payments run into the hundreds of millions since most states do n ot require citizenship as a condition to receive welfare assistance. Compounding the welfare problem is the 

fac t th at they take jobs away from Americans forcing them on to the welfare and 

unem ployme nt rolls. The Int ern al Revenue Service h as estim ated th at while illegal aliens partake of public benefits, a substantial num ber fail to file income tax retu rns on their e arn ­ ings or underpa y their taxes resu lting in a loss of $100 million to the Federal 

government and $15 million to the states. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is generally agreed th at the principal reason for the increased flood of illegal aliens is prom pted by the hope of obtaining an improved sta ndard of living in th e United State s. Elim inating easy accessibility to employ­ ment will not eliminate the problem s created by illegal aliens bu t hopefully will 

reduce their magnitude where the y become manageable. The Legion recommends tha t a ny legislation enacted include a provision making 

it an imme diate crime for an employer to knowingly hire an illegal alien, punishable by imprisonment and/or fine. We also recommend the Department of Immigration be authorized to hire additio nal personnel in its Border Patrol and Investigations Branch to assure th at 

the provisions of this legislation is carried out. The opp ortu nity to make our recom mendation known to the subcommittee on 

thi s much needed legislation is appreciated.

F if t y -S ix th An n u a l N a tio n a l C o n v e n t io n , T h e Am er ic a n L eg io n , 

Au g u st 20, 21, 22, 1974

Resolution: No. 566.

Comm ittee: Americanism.

Sub ject: Employm ent of Illegal Aliens.

Whereas, The num ber of illegal aliens in the United States has been increasing rapidly since 1965 and the Commissioner of the U.S. Imm igration and Na tural­ ization Service estim ates there are currently 5,000,000 to 7,000,000 such individuals 

in the United S tate s; and
Whereas, The increasing number of illegal aliens in the United States is creating 

problems of serious economic impact which include increased welfare costs, adverse effects on the American labor market and the expense of deportation of 

apprehended illegal aliens; and Whereas, Present Federal law makes no prohibition on the employment of illegal aliens allowing some employers who have little regard for employment of American citizens to hire illegal aliens at depressed wage levels and under poor 

working conditions; and Whereas, Many veterans, particularly Vietnam Veterans, are unable to locate employment because of the employment of illegal aliens; and Whereas, Legislation has been approved by the House of Representatives prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens with appropriate penalties for em­ ployers who knowingly engage in such practice; Now, therefore, be it Resolved, by The American Legion in National Convention assembled in Miami Beach, Florida, August 20, 21, 22, 1074, That The American Legion urge the adoption of legislation which will prohibit the employment of illegal aliens, by providing penalties for the employer thereof.

Sta te m e n t o f t h e N a tio n a l B o r d er P a tr o l C o u n c il

Mr. Chairman, Congressmen, the National Border Patrol Council is pleased to be here today to testify concerning the need for line item authorization of funds for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Often, in the course of events, luck or happenstance seems to intervene to re­ strict a pending disaster to a crisis situation. Such is the case with the illegal alien 

problem this nation faces today. Between I960 and 1970 the Immigration and Naturalization Service was steadily losing control of the illegal alien situation in the United States. And the problem was worsening at an ever increasing rate. Only two groups of people were aware of the magnitude of the problem and potential effects on the U.S. economy; the em­ ployees of the INS and the management of INS. The management of INS, for whatever reason, was hiding or minimizing the extent of the problem to Congress and to the nation. Meanwhile the ability of the field employees to perform their mission was being allowed to drop farther and farther behind the snowballing task. In 1970 and 1971 the INS employees, the only other group who knew the situa­ tion, began to bring the problem to view. In 1971 the employee unions went to Chairman Rodino, then Chairman of the Judiciary Sub-Committee on Immigration. He told us that he had been assured by INS officials that the situation was under control. Newspaper articles of that period carried the same assurances to the nation. We assured Chairman Rodino that the 

situation had been out of control for at least six years. Subsequent investigations by Congress proved our statements to be true. Not too long after that both the INS and Congress were aware of the problem and mov­ ing to correct it. The administration began moving in the right direction also, from 

time to time. Tod ay we have a few more officers, we have a Commissioner dedicated to the mission, we have a Congress which is va stly more aware and we have a recession or depression snarling at our heels. We are at least six years late and desperately 

playing catch-up. Our Service has an administrator in charge who has a good grasp on the situation and is moving to act rather than re-act. We are in a far better position to meet our responsibilities to this nation than we were three years ago. We have even fought off attacks which would have further eroded our capabilities. These improved conditions would not exist today had it not been for active, aggressive, concerned and dedicated employee unions. Unions which rose up and used their funds and energies and those of their parent organizations, AF GE and and AF L- CI O to fight for their Service. I say this not to evoke praise or to brag, though we are proud of our efforts. I say it in order to return to my original statement, that luck and happenstance intervened in the form of dedicated union employees to avert disaster. Should it be expected that employees would be so dedicated to their mission that they would defy their top officials to bring a problem to national attention? We believe it was an unprececedented stroke of luck, one w’hich can not be expected to happen with regularity. If so, should Congress depend on luck to help 

it avoid disasters? Should it always expect a concerned union to foresee problems and attempt to prepare the nation?
424

We believe a much better way would be for Congress to keep a watchful eye on 

the situation and not depend on luck or political appointees as your failsafe.

Our Service can greatly relieve the worsening unemployment situatio n. Because 

we were neglected for so many years; we can not accomplish the dramatic relief 

we should be able to. Because the union cried “Wolf” when we did and fought a 

good tight we are in a position to begin and certainly in a better position to help 

tha n we would have been had we not sta rte d running five years ago.

General Chapman says, if given what we need, we can free one Million jobs for 

V.S. Citizens and legal resident aliens within the next year. We firmly believe 

this is true.

But to go on and give the relief which could be given by this Service, we need 

the help of an aler t and watchful Congress. A

Line item auth orization was urged for our Service by a wise and concerned 

■Congressional leader, former Chairman Chet Holifield, after extensive and careful 

stud y of the problems.

We need your a tten tion and help. We believe the national economic conditions 

demand it. Please move quickly to estab lish line item auth orization for our Im- *

migration and Natu ralization Service.

R estr ic tio n s A r e n ’t t h e A n sw e r—T h e I lleg als

(By Michael Piore, Associate Professor of Economics, Massach usetts Insti tute 

of Technology)

The United States is in the grip of a new wave of foreign immigration, the 

bulk of it “illegal.” The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) estimates 

th at there are over seven million illegal aliens in the country today. Virtually all 

of these people are here to work. The INS estimates thus imply th at illegal aliens 

constitute eight percent of the labor force, th at they are almost three-fourths of 

the black labor force and one-third of the black population. The alien population 

is, moreover, growing at a phenom enal rate. The rate of increase is indica ted by 

the numbers apprehended by the INS: more tha n 600,000 in fiscal 1973, 800,000 

in fiscal 1974 and a projected one million in the current fiscal year. The best 

estim ates suggest that this population has grown from almost nothing 10 years 

ago; that it has doubled in the last two or three years. The comments of employers, 

community organizers, social workers and others with contacts in low-income 

areas confirm the impression these figures convey.

The population of illegal immigrants in the past several decades has been concen trated along th e Mexican border a nd in agriculture. This is not true to day. The 

recent growt h of th e alien population appears to be in industrialized urban areas.

Even in the Southwest, the bulk of th e growth seems to have occurred in the urban

areas of California, and a large portion of the new Mexican migrants are going

directly to Midwestern cities. Throughout the industrial Northeast the Latin

American population is growing. The INS estim ates tha t there are one million

illegal aliens in th e New York metropolitan area, equivalent to roughly 10 percent

of the labor force. The official estimate for Massachusetts is 6000 illegals, but my V

own work on the labor market for Pue rto Ricans and aliens suggests that this

grossly underestimates the numbers in the c ity of Boston alone. In New England

this is something new. The urban Pue rto Rican settlements date mostly after

1966; the alien population became noticeable only after 1968. The largest alien X

population on the East Coast, comes from Haiti and the Dominican Republic,

acco unting for over half the aliens in New York. But there are many people from

all the countries bordering on the Caribbean, and some from virtually every

Latin American nation.

Why did this massive migration suddenly begin in the late 1960s and early 

1970s and not two or three decades earlier? My own answer to this question derives 

from a study begun in 1971 of jobs held by Puerto Rican workers in Massachusetts, a stu dy recently expanded to include the tota l alien labor force. The findings 

are consistent with more impressionistic evidence from other parts of the country, 

suggesting that the new immigration is a response to what employers perceive 

as a vacuum at the bottom of the labor market, a shortage, th at began in the 

middle ’60s, of workers to fill the menial, low-wage, unstable, dead end jobs in 

industries like textiles, shoes and tann ing, at sewing machines in the garm ent 

factories, in re staurants, hotels, laundries and hospitals. Faced with this shortage, 

employers began active rec ruitment abroad. The recruitm ent was open for Puerto
425

Ricans who are US citizens. It is more surreptitious for aliens. The alien work 

force seems built around a nucleus of workers, who enter on legal visas, often 

arranged by their employer. These pioneers then recruit relatives and friends who 

enter as “tourists’-

 but come to work.

The labor shortage, to which this recruitment is a response, is attributed by 

employers to the growing reluctance of black workers to accept the kinds of lowlevel jobs tha t blacks traditionally filled. The change of attitude may, in turn, be 

att rib ute d to a shift in the composition of the black work force from a first 

generation recently arrived from the rural South to a second generation raised in 

Northern cities.

This shift in attitude from one generation to the next is characteristic of industrial 

} societies. Rural workers who migrate to urba n areas generally expect to stay

temporarily and therefore are not primarily interested in career opp ortunity or 

job security. This makes them an a ttractiv e source of labor for the worst jobs, and 

they are recruited for that purpose. Whatev er their original intentions, however, 

many migrants remain and raise th eir children in the city. But the children share 

the atti tudes of the native population; they reject jobs with a low social status, 

little security and little op portunity for advancem ent. This intergene rational shift 

makes it necessary to have a constant supply of new imm igrants to fill jobs a t the 

bottom of the ladder. The arrival of new illegal aliens should be viewed as the 

late st manifestation of this process.

The new immigration has many implications, but the most imp orta nt is th at it 

points to a complete reversal of the assum ptions of social policy developed in the 

’60s. Social policy then was aggressive: we tried to improve education, raise

welfare benefits, expand medical services to the poor, increase the quality of jobs 

and speed the process of upward mobility. In light of the new situation developing 

in our cities, these efforts may prove futile. The new immigrants are illegal; they 

are afraid to register with any authority. They are afraid to send their children to 

schools, afraid to apply for public assistance, afraid to use the emergency rooms of 

city hospitals or to complain abo ut substandard working conditions. The uneduc ated children of the next generation will not be dropouts; the y will be too 

afraid to attend school in the first place. Current policies of school reform won’t 

reach them. A guaranteed minimum income program won’t help them because 

they will never enroll. Their medical problems will be beyond reach of community 

health facilities, improved emergency room care, increased medical insurance, 

Medicaid or Medicare because they will not seek help until driven to it by injury 

and disease more threatening than the risk of apprehension by the INS.

The failure to recognize the full implications of w hat is happening a nd why, is 

reflected in current thinking about immigration reform. The majo r reform measure 

now before Congress is the Rodino bill. This bill would for the first tim e penalize 

the employer for hiring aliens. The measure has the support of both the INS 

and the AFL -CIO. Pressure for passage has suddenly received a new impetus by 

the recession and the belief that, the aliens hold jobs that would otherwise be filled 

by Americans—a proposition th at is dubious even under depression conditions 

and tha t will certainly not hold if we re tur n to reasonably full employment.

I am less concerned about this particular bill (as I think it will not be effective) 

- than abo ut the logic that underlies it. The pursuit of this logic will push the alien

« labor market underground. There are alre ady tremendous incentives for an underground labor m arket. The existing wage rat e does not balance the supply of workers 

with the demand for employees. Aliens are willing to work for less than the 

minimum wage, and their illegal sta tus makes them powerless to complain about 

' violations of labor statutes. The employer can clearly profit from paying less than

the minimum wage and by ignoring legal health and safety stan dards. Both employer and employee can gain b y avoiding federal income tax withholding, social 

security taxes, unemployment insurance and workmen’s compensation. Soon 

federal health insurance may join the list. Ju st to mention these possibilities is to 

recall the labor m arke t of 1900, the world of the sweat shop, the Trian gle fire and 

child labor. We are in danger of returnin g to that world.

Although th ere already is an underground market in the transport of alien labor, 

there is little evidence that the labor market itself has gone underground. The 

reason for this is th at the penalties for violating the Fair Labor Stan dard s Act 

and evading federal taxes are sub stan tial, while the penalties for hiring alien 

workers are nonexistent. Given this, employers find it prudent to comply with tax 

and labor law on the one hand, and profitable to ignore immigration law on the 

other. But the thrust of proposals to penalize the employer for hiring aliens will 

shift the balan ce of risk in favor of ignoring all federal labor regulations. Over time
426

the pursuits of this policy will regenerate, in the low-income labor market, a 

world we have not seen in this cou ntry for 50 years. Legal and social sanctions 

used to enforce minimum standa rds will no longer be effective. We will be tempted 

by new patterns of life offered at the cut-rate price th at an illicit labor market 

permits. Once we become accustomed to these pattern s, a new, lower floor will be 

set upon labo r conditions. The process will th en become irreversible.

None of this is to argue in favo r of our existing immigration system. But the 

solution does not lie in enforcing restrictions th at have become untenable. It lies 

instead in an effort to regulate a process that has become irresistible. The failure 

to do so will lead to a world th at will make the social conditions against which 

the war on poverty was waged in the ’60s seem genuinely benign. Moreover, if 

we are not moved to this position by compassion, we should be persuaded at 1

least by a narrower concern for prese rving social order. The history of the ’60s 

may be read as a rebellion of second generation migrants in urban areas against 

the conditions to which their p are nts migrated willingly o ut of rural poverty and 

depression, flow much greater will be the wra th of the children of the new im- .

migrants, born into the American citizenship, rebelling against an unde rground ’

labor m arket in which th eir pare nts have been trap ped —lured first by a desire for 

a better life and later held in place by the t hreat of deportation .
Appe n d ix 2

Responses to Questions Subm itted to the Department of Justice by the

Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship , and Inte rnational Law

SIZ E O F S E R V IC E

Question 1. Las t yea r yo u testi fie d to th is Su bc om m itt ee th a t as a re su lt o f 

a de tailed stu d}” yo u had in st it ute d whe n yo u be ca me Co mm iss ione r, yo u es tim ate d th a t 10,200 peop le were ne ed ed to adequate ly en force th e law an d pr ov id e 

th e ne ce ssary service s. How m an y pe op le are pr ov id ed in th e fiscal yea r 1976 

bu dg et re qu es t a nd d oes this mea n th a t yo u will re m ain un de rs ta ffed for so me tim e 

in th e fu tu re ? What wa s th e I& NS r eq ue st to th e D epart m ent of Ju stic e? Ju st ic e 

re que st to th e 0 M B ?

Answe r. W ha t m us t be em ph as ized is th a t a ba lanc ed en fo rc em en t pr og ra m 

m us t be mou nt ed . Aliens see k ille gal en tr y ac ross th e bo rders, th ro ugh t h e p or ts, 

an d by falsely claimin g or su bs eq uen tly vio la ting a te m pora ry vis itor st atu s. 

Pat ch w ork pr og ra m s o ff e r little in th e long ru n. If we sh or e up th e B or de r Pat ro l 

pr es en ce but ne glec t th e po rts, th e pote nti al ille gal entr ant is qu ic kl y aw ar e of 

this, an d his en ergies ar e th en di re cted to se ek in g entr y by false cla im s to ci tize nsh ip , frau dul en t do cu m en ts, or de ce pt ive st ate m ents of in te nt. If in ve st ig at iv e 

forces ar e ne glec ted, our i na bility to p ur su e in di vidu al, ov er st ay cases b ec om e co m ­

m on kn ow led ge in th e alien co m m un ity, and th is low er risk av en ue of en tr y is 

th en ex ploi ted. If ins uffic ien t fu nd s ar e av ai la ble to de ta in , es co rt, an d remov e 

ap pre he nd ed ali en s, th e incid en ce of ab sc on de es th re ate ns to m ak e a moc ke ry 

of ou r en fo rc em en t pr og ra m .

O ur pu blic service pr og ra m s als o re qu ir e a ba la nc ed ef fo it. If ou r in fo rm at io n 

co un te rs an d te le ph on e lines become ob st ac le s ra th er th an remed ies to th e real 

im m ig ra tion co nc er ns an d prob lems of th e pu blic, a disr es pe ct fo r gove rn m en ta l 

proc esses is en ge nd er ed an d fr ust ra tion se ts in on both sid es. If a lack o f pe rson ne l 

in ou r reco rd s sy st em causes an in adeq uate su pport of th e adju dic at iv e proc ess, 

pet itio ns an d ap pl ic at io ns will co nt in ue to ac cu m ula te in ba ck logs th a t tr ansl ate 

in to in ord in at e de lays fo r th e pu bli c.

Wh ile in no va tion , m an ag em en t im pr ov em en ts, an d ne w tech no lo gy hav e th eir 

plac e an d ar e be ing ac tive ly ap plied, th e att ra cti o n of th e U ni te d S ta te s, th e 

re la tive ease o f obta in in g em pl oy m en t, an d th e sh ee r gr ow th o f th e ali en popula ­

tio n, legal an d ille gal , all pose pr ob lems of s ca le t h a t m ust be m et by c or re sp on di ng 

increa ses in re so ur ce s: both man po wer an d mon ey .

The re ar e 8,8 32 po sitio ns pr ov id ed fo r in th e 1976 bud ge t, an increa se of 750 

po sitio ns , which m ea ns th a t wc will re m ai n un de r- staf fe d fo r some tim e. Our 

re qu es t to th e D epart m ent of Ju st ic e was 11,1 62, an increa se of 3,0 80 po sitio ns , 

wh ile th e D epart m ent’s re qu es t to th e 0 M B was 9,517, an in cr ea se of 1,435 

po sition s ov er 1975.

The following m an po w er i ncreases re qu es te d by th e Se rvi ce for fiscal yea r 1976 

were to co ve r th e follo wi ng criti ca l needs.

Bo rde r Pa tro l.— 1,203 po sit ions co mpo sed of 1,080 pa tr ol ag en ts an d 71 su pport 

pe rson ne l we re re que st ed of the D ep ar tm en t. Th ese po sitio ns were to cre at e an 

ef fe ctiv e dete rr ent presen ce on ou r So ut he rn Bor de r an d to en ab le our ag en ts to 

resp on d to ou r sy st em of sen sors at a ra te ap pr oa ch in g 90 pe rc en t. Of th is to ta l, 

th e D epart m ent ap pro ve d 413 po sitio ns of wh ich OM B su st ai ned on ly 213 

po sitio ns .

Investi ga tio ns.— 422 po sit ions co mpo sed of 350 in ve st ig at or s an d 72 cle rical 

pe rs on ne l we re re qu es te d. Th ese p os iti on s we re fo r a n ex pa nd ed le vel of “overs ta y” 

en fo rc em en t an d fo r th e Social Se cu rity Enf or ce m en t Pr og ram m an dat ed by th e 

Co ng ress. O ur vis itor co ntro l sy stem in di ca te s th at ap pr ox im at el y 5 per ce nt of 

o u r ar ri val reco rd s ar e no t m at ch ed by a co rres po nd ing dep art ure re co rd ea ch 

yea r, an d th is tr ansl ate s in to 300,0 00 vis it or “over st ay ” cas es. Th is inc rease 

wou ld ha ve en ab le d us to co ns iderab ly in cr ea se ou r lev el of en fo rc em en t ta rg et ed 

a t “overs ta ys” , par ti cula rl y thos e in b ett er pa yi ng jobs . The D ep ar tm en t de nied 

th e 288 po sitio ns fo r “ove rs ta ys” wh ile a ppr ovi ng 134 p os iti on s fo r Soc ial Se cu rity 

Enf or ce m en t. O M B d id not a pp ro ve t he in cr ea se for Social Se cu rity Enf or ce m en t.
428

A more de ta iled de scrip tio n of th es e in ve st ig at iv e pr og ra m ne eds is co nt ai ne d in 

th e an sw er to qu es tio n 3, follow ing.

In ad dit io n to th e requ es t fo r pe rson ne l, we re qu es te d a $2.6 mi llion increase 

fo r im pr ov em en t of ou r co m m un ic at io ns sy stem s for in ve stig at io ns . T he D epart ­

m en t appr ov ed $1.6 an d th is was de ni ed by OM B.

Detenlion an d Deporta tion .— 290 po sition s comp osed of 112 officers an d 178 

su pport pe rson ne l were re qu es ted. T hi s pe rson ne l inc rease was au gm en te d by a 

re ques t of al m os t $14 mi llio n in increa se s for th e ad di tional co sts o f de ta in in g an d 

rem ov in g illegal aliens fro m th e countr y. Som e $4 mi llio n was ear m ar ked for 

“ in te rior re patr ia ti on” or th e re tu rn of ille gal Mexica n ali ens to th e vi ci ni ty of 

th ei r ho me s, th er eb y discou raging re pe at ed att em pts at illegal en tr y in th e ne ar 

fu tu re . The am ou nt of th e oth er alien de te nt io n an d tr av el mon ies av aila bl e to <

th e Se rvice dic ta te s th e level of effecti ve en forcem en t wh ich th e Se rvi ce can 

pu rsue . The D ep ar tm en t of OM B ap pr ov ed 177 add itio nal pe rson ne l. Th e 

D ep ar tm en t ap pr ov ed th e $3.9 million increa se or in te ri or re patr ia tion, bu t th is 

was trim m ed to $2 millio n by OM B. The D epar tm en t ap pro ved a $4 mi llion »

increa se in AT &D fund s whic h wa s re du ce d to $3 millio n by OM B. T he net in- r

cre ase, ho wev er, is on ly $1.7 mi llion , sin ce $1.3 mi llion wa s re m ov ed fro m th e 

bud ge t ba se as a re su lt of t he fiscal yea r 1975 rec ision .

Insp ec tio ns .— 388 po sit ions co mpo se d of 362 in sp ec to r po sition s and 26 clerical 

pe rson ne l we re requ es ted. 289 of th es e po sitio ns we re re que st ed to re vi ta lize ou r 

bo rd er p o rt in sp ec tio n. Our st ud ie s in dic at e th at te ns of th ousa nds ente r ille gally 

th ro ug h ou r la nd bo rd er por ts an d th a t th is num ber is increa sing ea ch ye ar. Thi s 

is di re ct ly att ri b u ta b le to ins uffic ien t nu m be rs of im m ig ra tion in sp ec to rs on th e 

pri m ar y in sp ec tio n lin es. Ove r th e ye ar s, th e Se rvi ce did not rece ive th e num be r 

of in sp ec to rs re qu ired to m an new pri m ar y lane s cr ea te d by incr ea se s in trav el or 

by th e w ithd ra w al of th e Pu blic H ealth Servi ce fu nc tion . Thu s, on e st u d y sho ws 

th a t w ith a 30 pe rc en t presen ce a t pri m ar y, Im m ig ra tion pr od uc es 65 pe rcen t of 

th e fr audule nt in te rc ep ts, wh ile th e oth er in sp ec tio n agencie s, w ith a 70 pe rcen t 

presen ce , ac co un t for on ly 35 per ce nt of th e in te rc ep ts .

In ad ditio n to th e bo rd er needs, 99 in sp ec tors are re qu ired to m an an ex pa nd ed 

num ber of insp ec tio n slots at in te rn at io nal ai rp or ts , du e to increa ses in in te rn ation al tr av el .

Th e D ep art m ent de nied th e 289 po sitio ns fo r re vi ta liza tion of po rt insp ec tio n 

an d ap pro ved th e 99 po sit ions fo r sta ffi ng th e new facilities. OM B pr ov id ed for 

no in cr ea se a t all.

Pu bli c Service Areas.— 562 po sition s comp osed of 122 fo r ad ju di ca tion s, 258 fo r 

reco rd s an d in fo rm at ion pr og ra m s, 92 fo r ad m in is trat iv e an d ge ne ral su pport 

ac tivi ties , an d 90 pe rso nn el fo r th e nat ura liza tion fu nc tion s we re re qu es ted. Th ese 

po sitio ns ar e to redu ce th e serio us ba ck logs wh ich ha ve de ve lope d in th e are as o f 

nat ura li za ti on, an d the adju di ca tion of pe tition s an d ap pl ic at io ns for th e va rio us 

be ne fit s ac co rd ed un de r th e im m ig ra tion an d nati onali ty ac t, as well as en ab lin g 

us to resp on d eff iciently to a gr ow ing vo lume of pu bl ic inqu iri es. Of th e to ta l 

re qu es te d, th e D ep ar tm en t ap pro ved 407 po sitio ns an d OMB ap pr ov ed 14.5 

po sitio ns .

The follo wing ch ar t co nt ai ns a re ca pitula tion of th e de ta il of th e requ es ted 

po sitio ns as th ey ad va nc ed th ro ugh th e budget process. £

FISCAL YEAR 1976 INCREASES

fin number of positions! .

Border patrol .'• ...'. .'l ............................ . . . . ...............j u j — ,-----------

Investigations:

Social security enforcement____ ________ ______. . . . . -----------------

Overstay enforcement ............................................................... ..

I nspections................... '. ................ ........... . . . . . . . . --------. ------

Detenlion and deportation ,„ ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ r. . . . . . .

Public service areas:

Adjudication s............i ........................................ . . . . . . . ...........

Na turalizatio n____ ....................... . . . . . : . ............: ------ -------------.. .

Records.......... . ^z.:_________ ............................................................. ... -

Support............ - ......... .. .I ... ....... ---------..... .. ... .

Alien documentation pro g ra m .: .. .. ___ . . . . . . . . . ------

To tal.........................................................................................................

1. & N.S. 

request to 

Department

Department 

request to 

OMB

OMB 

allowance for 

Congressional 

request

1,203 413 213

134 134 .

288 . * ,L

388 99 .

290 177 177

122 122 25

90 51 30

258 180 90

92 44 .

215 215 215

3,080 1,435 750
429

Questi on 2. W hat a re you do ing w ith in th e D ep ar tm en t of Ju st ic e to m ak e yo ur 

ne ed s kn ow n? Doe s OMB ap pr ec ia te th e se rio us budget ar y prob lems co nf ro nt in g 

I& NS ? Do yo u ha ve an y plan s how to m ee t th is part ic ula r prob lem?

An sw er. Beg inni ng w ith an a m en dm en t to th e fiscal yea r 1975 bu dg et de ve lope d 

in th e S pr in g of 1974, th e Service b eg an a ct iv el y p ur su in g a po lic y of in fo rm in g th e 

D epart m ent of Ju st ic e of th e serio us wor kloa d prob lems co nf ro nt in g th e Se rvice 

and ou r in ab ility to cope with th e ille gal alie n si tu ati on give n ou r pr es en t lev el of 

reso urce s. In pl an ni ng for ad di tion al reso urce s, I&NS de ve lope d a co m pr eh en sive 

sta te m en t of th e im m ed ia te a nd long -ran ge r es ou rc e re qu irem en ts ne ed ed to br in g 

th e ille gal ali en si tu at io n un de r co nt ro l and redu ce th e mas siv e ba ck logs in pu blic 

se rv ice fu nc tio ns . Mo reov er, th e Se rvice su gg es ted a st ra te g y wh ich includ es 

| leg islatio n to re du ce th e in ce nt iv e fo r illegal en tr y, pr og ra m in itia tives aimed atim pr ov ed m an ag em en t of th e Servi ce, an d pri or itiz at io n of cu rr en t wor kloa d. All 

of th is acti vit y ha s be en bro ug ht to th e att en ti o n of th e D epart m ent and ha s 

un de rg on e rigo rous sc ru tiny by m an ag em en t rev iew lev els of th e D ep art m ent.

We ar e op tim is tic th a t OMB is be gi nn in g to rec og nize th e serio us budgeta ry 

lim itat io ns th a t th e Service has be en opera ti ng un de r du ring th e pa st five ye ars . 

T he bu dg et a pp ro ve d by OMB for fiscal y ear 1976 in clud ed on e o f th e larg es t pr ogram increa ses ev er rec eive d by th e Se rvice. We ar e ap pr ec ia tive of th e increa se 

of 750 po sitio ns , b u t th e Se rvi ce cr itic al ly ne ed s su bst anti ve increa ses in Borde r 

P atr ol Ag en ts, In ve st ig at or s, Im m ig ra tion In sp ec to rs , D ep ortat io n Officers, 

N at ura liza tion Exa m in er s an d re la ting su pport pe rson ne l, if we ar e to pe rfor m th e 

mi ssions a ssigne d to u s un de r th e la w. In both th e ar ea of e nf or ce men t and s ervice 

to th e pu blic, workloa ds , wh ich ar e unc ont ro llab le by th e gov er nm en t, ha ve 

m ou nte d in su ch de gree s th at an aust er e sy st em of pr io rities wa s ne ce ss arily im ­

po sed to per m it th e Service to pe rform its m os t im port ant ta sk s in an adequate 

m an ne r. The alt ern ati ve wa s to co nt in ue an a tt e m p t to co pe w ith all of its re ­

sp on sibilit ies in an in ad eq ua te m an ne r. Su ch a sy stem of pr io rit ies, of cours e, 

sh ou ld be an em er ge nc y mea su re an d lim ited in dura ti on: fo r th e long te rm solutio n, an in cr ea se in res ou rce s is m andate d.

O ur plan s to m ee t th is prob lem follow th e st ra te gy th a t is ou tlin ed ab ov e: 

rigo rous ju st ific at io n of ou r reso urce ne ed s; ac tive de ve lo pm en t of legi slativ e alte rn ati ves whi ch pr ov id e di sinc en tiv es to ille gal entr y, an d co nt in ue d pri oritiza ­

tion of curr ent workloa ds includ ing th e re lu cta n t el im in at io n of som e low pri ority 

ta sk s.

Qu estion 3. In you r st ate m ent yo u in dic ate th a t no ad ditio nal in ves tigat ors 

ar e pr ov id ed in th e bu dg et. IIow will th is affect Se rvice ope ra tion s in th e cit ies ? 

Do yo u ha ve a ny pl an s to m ee t th is p art ic u la r prob lem?

An swer. We in itia lly re qu es te d 422 ad ditio nal po sitio ns fo r th e in ve st ig at io n 

fu nc tion . 288 po sitio ns were fo r an ex pa ns io n of “o vers ta y” en fo rc em en t. In ­

di vi du al s in th is gr ou p pose a mor e difficult en fo rc em en t pr ob lem th an th a t pre ­

se nt ed by a M ex ican na tiona l wh o ha s en te re d ov er th e la nd bo rd er w ith ou t in ­

sp ec tio n. The “ overs ta y” ali en ha s pas se d a screen ing be fore a co ns ul ar offic er 

ov erseas, an d es ta bl ishe d to th at off icial’s sa tisf ac tion th a t he ha s th e w he re with al 

to m ai nta in himself du ring his te m pora ry visit an d th at he in te nd s to re tu rn to 

his nat iv e countr y. W he th er or n o t his vi ol at io n of sta tu s st em m ed from pr io r 

2 desig n or ha ppen st an ce af te r en tr y, he re pre se nts a fa irly so phis tica te d in di vi du al

• wh o ca n merge in to th e co m m un ity a t larg e an d who th er ef or e is a mor e co stly

ta rg et to dete ct an d rem ov e. If he ente rs th e wo rkforce , it will pr ob ab ly be a t a 

fa irly hig h skill lev el with a m at ch in g di sp la ce m en t of leg al skilled labp r. T he lack 

o f a m aj or ef fo rt a t ov er st ay en fo rc em en t will en co ur ag e thos e now d ete rr ed fro m 

vio la tion of st atu s to remain long er w ith th e kn ow led ge th a t th er e is no fol low -up 

by Fe de ra l au th ori ti es an d little ris k th a t th ey will be det ec te d or pu nis hed for 

vi ol at io n of ou r im m ig ra tion la ws . W ithout ad di tion al po sitio ns , we cannot m ount 

th is effort. "

134 po sitio ns we re for S ocial S ec ur ity en fo rc em en t. On e fa ct or com po un di ng t he 

pr ob le m of de te cting an d remov ing ille gal ali ens ha s bee n th e re la tive ease w ith 

which th ey ha ve be en ab le to ob ta in Social Se cu rity Cards an d th er eb y en te r th e 

workforce . By wo rking , th e ille gal ali en can m ai nta in him self an d gr ad ua lly 

as sim ilat e in to th e so ciety an d be co me less an d less conspicuou s. The wo rking 

illegal alien wh o ha s th us bu rrow ed in to th e m ai ns trea m of so ciety become s a 

bu rd en not on ly as a co stl y ta rg et for det ec tio n an d remov al, bu t als o as' an 

ec on om ic d ra in by disp lac ing leg al worke rs, sip ho ning e arning s ou t of th e c ou nt ry , 

and ad di ng t o th e c osts of local go ve rn m en t service s. New re gu latio ns pr oh ib it th e 

issu an ce o f Socia l Se cu rity Cards to f or eign -b or n ap pl ic an ts unles s th er e is a c lear 

sh ow ing th a t th e for eig n bo m ap plica nt is a U ni te d Sta te s citiz en or an alien who 

is en titled to work. Such ap pl ic an ts m ust pr es en t su itab le do cu m en ta tion in
430

support of the ir applications, and doubtful cases are now being referred to the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service for resolution. Based upon a pilot s tudy, 

it was anticip ated that 55,000 applications out of the total referred for screening 

will become investigative cases. This caseload could not be absorbed withou t 

serious impairment to other vital investigative programs and a co nsequent overall 

diminution of the I&NS enforcement mission.

A $10 million increase in Alien Trav el and Detention funds was also requested.

Th e net increase in AT&l) funds will be $1.7 million, since $1.3 million was 

removed from the base as a result of the fiscal year 1975 recision.

With the $1.7 million increase in removal funds, we will be able to intensify 

ou r area control operations by shifting investigators from oth er activities and concentrating more effort on apprehending illegal aliens holding jobs that are a ttrac- A

tiv e to U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens, but, of course, not at a level 

th at the greater amount of money would permit.

Question 4. What percentage of illegal aliens expelled last yea r were the result 

of investigative efforts and what perc entage were the resu lt of apprehensions by „

the Border Patrol? J

Answer. I&NS does not keep sta tistics on the percentages of expelled illegal 

aliens apprehended by the Border Patro l or investigations. However, statistics 

are kept on apprehensions.

In fiscal yea r 1974, I&NS apprehended 788,145 illegal aliens. Of th at tota l,

153,368 or 19 percent were apprehended by I&NS investigators. 81 percent 

(634,777) were located by the Border Patrol.

Question 5. We are all aware of the continuing manpower problems concerning 

the Service. In order to meet this problem, what particular measures have been 

taken or plans adopted to more efficiently utilize the personnel tha t you now have 

so that you may (1) better control th e illegal alien problem; and (2) provide better 

services to the public?

Answer. During fiscal year 1975 the Service recognized th at with its limited 

resources, its overburdened field personnel could not possibly perform all of its 

responsibilities adequ ately. Therefore, on September 30, 1974, p rogram priorities 

were established to allow field personnel to perform high priority functions 

effectively at the expense of lower priority functions.

To more efficiently and effectively utilize enforcement personnel Border Patrolmen were shifted to “line watch’’ activ ities along the Southwest Border. This 

move was designed to accomplish two major objectives: (1) creation of a dete rren t 

effect on those individuals contemp lating illegal e ntry by greatly reducing their 

chance of successful entry, and (2) apprehension of a greater num ber of illegal 

aliens at the border. This action was necessary because the Service simply does no t 

have adequate resources to detain and remove large numbers of aliens once they 

have penetra ted the border, and therefore it is more efficient to direct Border 

Patrolmen toward enforcement activities which create a deterren t effect and result 

in removals.

Because of insufficient funds and facilities for detention and removal of illegal 

aliens located in the interior of the United States, it was not prod uctiv e to use 

large numbers of investigators in area control operations. In order to more efficiently 

utilize investig ative personnel subversive, criminal, fraud, narco tic and fraud r

cases were accorded priority over a rea control operations. "

The priorities also attem pted to temp orarily tra nsfer inspectional positions from 

the Northern border to the Southwestern border to increase our enforcem ent 

efforts in that area, bu t this action met with congressional opposition and was not 

implemented.

The priorities program included several actions designed to improve services 

to the public. These actions included:

Ter minating the practice of furnishing “extra” staffing from district 

offices at airports for inspectional purposes. The additional manpower genera ted from this action has been utiliz ed to reduce the massive backlogs of 

adjudications facing the Service and has resulted in shorter waiting periods 

for those who submit applications or petitions.

Reducin g the number of conta ct representa tives at inform ation counters 

so th at this personnel can be utiliz ed to answer telephone and letter inquiries 

This actio n has enabled the Service to respond to more inquiries within a 

reasonab le time period.

Efficiently using our Natura liza tion personnel so th at more persons can 

be naturalized within a shorter waiting period. This was accomplished at the 

expense of the other imp ortant but lower priority services to specialized groups.

The priority program will remain in effect until the Service has sufficient resources to effectively perform all the duties for which it is responsible.
431

FRAU D

Question 6. Has there been any significant increase in recent months in the 

num ber of fraudulent marriages or the use of fraudulent documents to obtain 

entry into the United States? Is sufficient priority being given to prosecution of 

these types of fraud by the various U.S attorney s? Should there be greater 

prosecution, particularly in aggravated cases?

Answer. In fiscal year 1973, 2,959 relative petitions of all types were denied; 

in fiscal year 1974, during which the present emphasis was placed on detecting 

fraudulent marriages, 7,744 petitions were denied. Since the beginning of fiscal 

year 1975, 6,425 have been denied. At this rate, the total denials could reach 10,000 I for this fiscal year ending Jun e 30, 1975. Frau dulent marriage detection has

obviously been the grea test contribu ting facto r in this increase of well over 200 

percent since 1973. It should be noted th at the number of petitions received 

during the same periods has increased at a normal level, abo ut 10 percent.

<

There is every reason to believe th at the fraudulent spouse detec tion program

could be even more productive if more manpower were available. The percentage 

of spouse petition interviews cond ucted ranges from about 25 to 50 percent of 

those received, because of lack of personnel. It is felt that at least 50 percent 

should be interviewed for peak efficiency in this program.

The question of sufficient priori ty being given to prosecution of such cases 

varies from office to office. Generally, the cooperation of the U.S. attorneys has 

been good. Acceptance of cases by U.S. attorneys, aggravated or otherwise, could 

be increased considerably, however. Many U.S. attorney s, while cooperatin g Ho. 

the extent possible, must refuse cases due to already overb urdened staff's.

Question 7. In your statem ent you indicated th at 17,000 fraud cases were 

completed during fiscal year 1974. What were the results of these investigations? 

Wh at were the number of successful prosecutions? How many deportations 

resulted from these fraud investigations?

Answer. During fiscal y ear 1974 I&NS referred 6,429 fraud cases to the United 

Sta tes Attorneys for possible prosecution. Prosecution was initiated in 692 cases 

(174 of these cases were pending from fiscal year 1973), and resulted in 322 

convictions, 4 acquittals, and 155 dismissals. At the close of fiscal year 1974, 204 

cases were pending.

I&NS deportation data does no t reflect the number of deporta tion s resulting 

from fraud investigations because aliens involved in these cases are deportable 

for other reasons, e.g., failing to comply with conditions of nonimmigrant status 

or entering without inspection or proper documents, and for economical and 

expeditious reasons are deported for these other violations.

Question 8. You indicate th at the budget does not include any increases for 

fraud investigations and at the same time it is my understanding th at marriage 

fraud cases are greatly increasing in number. Will you be able to stem this increase 

and do you have any special plans to meet this problem?

Answer. Although there are no additional investigators requested in the fiscal 

year 1976 bu dget, fraud investigations are receiving increasing emphasis by the 

Service as i t becomes more and more apparent that larger numbers of persons are 

l turn ing to fraudulent means as a way of entering or remaining in this country.

On March 7, 1974, joint Exam inations—Investigations efforts were implemented 

on a nation wide basis. This program envisions careful efforts by adjudicators 

to identify visa petitions in which a question exists as to the bona tides of the 

marriage, followed by investigation, not only to establish a “sham ” marriage 

but to identify arrangers and members of organized rings. During the fiscal year 

1974, task forces were established in majo r urban areas to com bat marriage fraud.

Operational Priorities for Fiscal Year 1975 were established effective September 

30, 1974. Because of insufficient alien travel and detention funds, I&NS was 

forced to reduce the number of Investigato rs engaged in area control operations. 

These investigators were assigned to other activities with the number of investigators assigned to fraud investigations increasing to 23 percent. Imm igrant 

Fraud Rings and Marriage Fra ud Rings are accorded first and second priority, 

respectively, within the fraud program.

During the first half of fiscal y ear 1975, the manhours devoted to fraud constituted a little over 20 percent of the total investigative effort. Thus, with fraud 

inve stiga tions being accorded a higher priority, we will be able to better combat 

the increase in this activity , bu t this will be accomplished at the expense of other 

important investigative activities.

Question 9. What actual steps are taken to investigate marriage fraud cases? 

Does the Service have a program which instructs investigators in the investigation and preparation of marriage fraud cases?
432

Answer. Adjudicators carefu lly review visa petitio ns and supp orting documentation filed in behalf of claimed spouses. If a question exists as to the bona tides of 

a marriage, the case is referred for investigation. The petitioner and the beneficiary 

alien are then interviewed separately under oath; many “sham” marriages are 

confessed during these interviews. If fraud is still suspected, but is not established, 

a full investigation is initiated. Our efforts are aimed not only at disclosure of a 

specific “sham” marriage but also at identifying arrangers and members of rings, 

in order to obtain sufficient evidence so tha t the principals may be prosecuted.

We periodically conduct a Journeym an Investigato r’s course at our training 

facility near Port Isabel, Texas. This course includes instruction on immigration 

frau ds, including, of course, marriage frauds. Our Investigator’s Handbook con- g

tains a chapter devoted solely to immigration frauds and is available to all investi- "

gators. In addition, our newer and most inexperienced investigators are provided 

on-the-job instruction under the supervision of senior and well qualified journeyman investigators.

Question 10. Is th ere a need to strengthen the criminal laws in this area? >

Answer. Regarding marriage frauds, there is no need for legislation. Participants, 

including any fixer, are prosecutable for conspiracy to defraud the United States 

by obtaining the alien’s illegal entry into this country, Litwak v. United States,

344 U.S. 604 (1953); also they may be prosecuted for false statements, United

States v. Diogo, 320 F. 2d 898,‘2d Cir., 1963.

As for frauds generally, the Service has one serious legislative need. In 1971 the 

Supreme Court ruled th at possession of a counterfeit alien registration receipt 

card is not a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1546, which forbids frau dul ent misuse of visas, 

permits or other e ntry docum ents. Section 4 of II.R. 982 94th Congress, satisfactorily amends section 1546 in order to overcome this law enforcement gap. The 

Service strongly recommends ena ctm ent of th is legislation.

R E F U G E E S

Question 11. What has been the Immigration Service’s experience with the 

various refugee portions of the Imm igration and Nationality Act and do you support the continuation of the Service’s role regarding refugees?

Answer. Because refugee situ atio ns fluctuate between peaks and valleys, the 

occurrence of a peak, such as the buildup of Soviet refugees in Rome in early 1975, 

causes a strai n on manpower assignments and difficulties arise in the availability 

of sufficient conditional entry numbers. The movem ent of these Soviet refugees 

was finally accomplished throug h the cooperation of volunt ary agency personnel 

and a procedure worked out with the Dpe artm ent of S tatem ent whereby conditional entry visas were issued to the principal applican ts and nonpreference visas 

were issued to spouses and depe ndent children.

The Viet Nam orphan movement is a prime example of a fast developing situation requiring a coordinate d response from the affected agencies, both federal and 

priv ate.

Overall, we view our role regarding refugees as a necessary and beneficial one, 

and we feel it should continue as such.

Question 12. Will you keep tie Committee fully informed on a recurring basis r

as to refugee problems which develop around the world, and will you make it a *

policy to consult this Com mittee prior to utilization und er the parole autho rity 

with respect to groups or classes of regugees?

Answer. Yes—we will do so.

N A TU R A LIZ A TIO N PRO CESS

13. Question. In your sta tem ent you presented statistics as to those aliens 

natura lized in fiscal year 1974 representing a thirteen year high. What process is 

involved in determ ining the eligibility of persons seeking naturalization? How does 

I&NS substantiate the bona tides of the petition? Are there investigations conduc ted here and abroad?

Answer. Section 332(a) of th e Immigration and N atio nality Act (8 U.S.C. 1443) 

provides that the Attorney General shall make rules and regulations prescribing 

th e scope and nature of the examination of petitioners for naturalization as to 

their admissibility to citizenship for the purpose of making appropriate recommendations to the naturali zation courts.

The examination is limited by statute to inquire concerning the applican t’s 

residence, physical presence in the United State s, good moral chara cter, und ersta nding and a ttachm ent to the fundamen tal principles of th e Constitu tion of the 

United States, ability to read, write, and speak English, and other qualifications 

to become a naturalized citizen as required by law.
433

Pursuant to the st atutory mandate, 8 C FR 332 was promulgated. This regula- . tion provides for the preliminary investigation of applicants for naturalization and witnesses. Each applicant for naturalization and his witnesses must appear in person before an officer of the Service and give testimony under oath concerning the applicant’s and witnesses’ qualifications. During the interrogation of the applicant and his witnesses, his attorney or representative, if he has one, may be permitted to be present and observe the interrogation. The applicant and witnesses are questioned under oath separately and apart from the public. The witnesses are questioned to develop their own credibility and competency as well as the extent of their personal knowledge of the applicant’s qualifications to become a 

naturalized citizen.

I As prescribed by 8 CF R 335.11, the record of this preliminary investigation, including the executed and corrected application form, affidavits or transcripts of testimony, if any, are used by the examiner designated under section 335(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C . 1446(b)) to conduct the prelimf inary examination of the petitioner and witnesses. This portion of the naturaliza-

’ tion process is open to the public. The officer conducting the preliminary examination is known as the ‘Designated Examiner.” All testimony taken at the examination is under oath administered by the designated examiner. He questions the petitioner and witnesses to elicit evidence touching upon the petitioner’s admissibility to citizenship. Section 335(a) of the Immigration and Natio nality Act (8 U.S.C . 1446(a)) requires that prior to holding the final hearing on a petition for naturalization, an employee of the Service shall conduct a personal investigation of the person petitioning for naturalization in the vicinities in which he has maintained his residence and employment for three or five years, depending upon the section of law under which the petition was filed, immediately preceeding the filing of the petition for naturalization. The Attorney General has the authority to waive the investigation in such cases as he deems appropriate. The fact that the case of an individual petitioner for naturalization does not come within those classes of cases requiring a personal investigation does not limit the authority of the naturaliza­ tion examiner to institute an investigation if, in his judgement, the petitioner’s demeanor, actions, evasiveness, or other characteristics or circumstances of the case suggest the need for an investigation. Furthermore, national agency checks are made in the case of every petitioner for naturalization regardless of whether a field investigation is conducted. Also, in those cases where the petitioner has served in the armed forces of the United States, the military records of that 

service are checked. Upon the conclusion of the preliminary examination and the field investigation, if one was requested, the designated examiner prepares an appropriate recom­ mendation to the court. If the recommendation is for denial of the petition or for granting it with the facts to be presented to the court, he prepares a written mem­ orandum summarizing the evidence and setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law. As indicated above, investigations on petitioners for naturalization are conducted in the vicinities of their places of residence and employment. Investigations are conducted abroad only where there has been a substantial absence during the statu tory period, and from information available, it appears that the petitioner may be a member of a criminal, immoral, or subversive class and his background or other circumstances in the case are such that an investigation abroad is not

I only appropriate but necessary to make a responsible determination as to his eligibility for naturalization. Where overseas investigations are deemed necessary, whenever possible, they are conducted by Service officers abroad.

CO ST O F IM PL E M E N T IN G H .I E 982

Question 14. Will additional investigators be required in order to adequately 

enforce the provisions of H.R . 982? Answer. Provided II.R. 982 is enacted we estimate that during fiscal year 1976, Service investigators will complete approximately 96,500 investigations covering the three step penalties, including the 2nd and 3rd violations located by Border Patrol Agents. On the basis of 34 investigations completed monthly by each in­ vestigator, it is estimated tha t 235 investigators would be required to adeq uately enforce the provisions of this act. However, considering our present force assigned to area-control illegal status investigations, we believe we could absorb approxi­ mately 50 percent of this additional responsibility with our current force. In addition to investigative personnel, the Service will also need Border Patrol (the Border Patrol estimates it will issue 35,000 citations), Hearing Officer, Trial
434

A ttorn ey an d Cl erical pe rson ne l to in ve st ig at e, pr ep ar e an d proc ess H .R . 982 

vi ol atio ns .

E nac tm en t of H .R . 982 will rem ov e ce rtai n re st rict io ns on elig ib ility for ad ­

ju st m ent o f sta tu s to perm an en t re si den t. It will pla ce W estern Hem isph ere native s on an e qu al f oo tin g w ith n at iv es of th e Eas te rn Hem isph ere as ca ndi dat es for 

su ch adju st m ent, th us gr ea tly ex pa ndi ng th e num be r of ap pl ic at io ns . An ad di ­

tion al 20 ,000 adju st m ent cases ar e ex pe ct ed an nu al ly an d th e Se rvice will need 

ad di tion al ex am in er s an d cle ric al su pport to ha nd le th is workloa d increa se.

The Se rvice will als o ne ed fu nd s fo r a pu bl ic ity ca mpa ign to pr op er ly ad vise 

em pl oy ers of th eir ob lig atio ns under H .R . 982 . (See att ached ch ar t fo r th e es tim at ed fir st year costs of H .R . 982.)

TO TA L ESTIM ATED 1ST YEAR COSTS OF H.R. 982

Personnel Num be r Cost

In ve stigator s..................................

Bo rder pa tro lmen .......................

Im migra tio n e xam in e rs .............

Hearin g o ffic e rs ........................

Trial atto rn eys..............................

Clerica l supp or t....... .....................

To tal pe rs on ne l................

De ten tion of Witn es ses_______

Pub licity p ro g ra m ........................

Tota l....................................

To tal es tim ated lst-cost

I

120 $2, 758, 080

>

87 1.52 1,282

27 460, 053

10 327, 990

10 281, 390

54 504, 900

308 5, 853,69 5

40. 000

500, 000

540, 000 

6, 393, 695

C O U N T E R F E IT -P R O O F CA RB

Question 15. I under st an d th a t th e Service is in th e fin al stag es of pr od uc in g 

a co un te rf ei t-pr oo f, tam pe r- pr oo f re si den t alien do cu m en ta tion sy st em . Can you 

su m m ar iz e th e Se rvice’s eff orts in th is re ga rd an d how m uc h mon ey is pr ov id ed 

in th e bu dget re qu es t for th is pu rp os e?

Answe r. D uring th e pa st yea r we ha ve co mpl eted an an al ys is of th e re qu irem en ts and de ve lope d a pr el im in ar y de sig n. Our pr es en t effo rt is direc te d tow ar d 

ex pe rim en ta l ve rific ation of th e pre lim in ar y de sig n. This includ es ex am in at io n of 

alt ern ati ves fo r hig h vo lume ca rd pr od uc tion an d re fine m en t of th e desig n 

specifications.

Our pl an is to im pl em en t th e ne w sy st em in th re e ph ases . Ph as e I invo lves 

dev el opm en t and pr od uc tion of se cu re a lie n iden tifica tion ca rd s. Pha se 11 invo lves 

th e d ev el op m en t o f a uto m at ed i ns pe ctio n pr oc ed ur es a nd ins ta llat io n of a uto m at ed 

ca rd re ad er s a t po rts- of -e nt ry . Ph as e I l l invo lves field st ati on access to th e 

auto m ate d a lie n id en tif ication ca rd iss ua nc e files to a ss is t i n th e insp ec tio n proces s.

Our pl an calls fo r im pl em en ta tion ove r a th re e yea r pe rio d w ith $4.7 millio n 

in clud ed in our fiscal ye ar 197(5 budget re qu es t for th e first ye ar . £

SO U TH W E ST B O R D E R E N F O R C E M E N T

Question 16. Can yo u ad vise th e Subc om m itte e as to an y pl an s th e Se rvice m ay f

ha ve to e xpan d t he sen sor sy stem alon g th e Sou thw es t bo rd er ? W hen yo u testi fie d 

be fore th e C om m itte e la st m ont h, yo u in di ca te d th a t yo u are ab le to re sp on d to 

onl y 50 % of th e possible ille gal en tr ie s. If th e ad di tional pe rson ne l are appro ­

pri ate d (213 B or de r Pat ro l in di vi du al s) , how will th is increa se th e res po ns e to th e 

se ns or a la rm s? W ha t pe rc en ta ge of a la rm s will yo u then be ab le to r es po nd to?

An sw er. D ur in g fiscal ye ar 1975 th e S ervice will co mplete a pr og ra m of in stal ling 

se ns or s ys te m s in all nine of th e bord er pa tr ol sectors im m ed ia te to th e so ut hw es t 

bo rd er . Our fiscal ye ar 197(5 b ud get re quest inc lude s fu nd in g to repl ac e th e sens or 

sy st em s which ar e cu rr en tly us ed in our Chu la Vista an d El C en tro se ct or s. Th ese 

we re th e f irst system s pu t in alo ng th e bo rd er an d are of t he de fen se sur pl us v ar ie ty .

In fiscal yea r 1974, I& NS B or de r P atr ol co m m an d ce nter s rec eive d 82,41 8 sen so r 

al ar m s alon g th e Sou thw es t Borde r. T he Bor de r Pat ro l ha d m an po w er av aila bl e 

to resp on d to on ly 5(5,7(58 of th es e al ar m s, a res po nse ra te of (58.8 per ce nt . In 

re sp on di ng to th es e in di ca te d in trusi on s, th e Bor de r P at ro l m ad e 59,39 2 ap pr ehe ns ions or ab o u t one ap pr eh en sion per alar m . The al ar m s un an sw er ed in fiscal 

yea r 1974 th er ef or e re pr es en te d a t le ast anoth er 2(5,000 lie an s who wo uld ha ve 

"been ap pre he nde d in lin ew at ch had th e ag en t pe rson ne l be en av ai la bl e. Bec au se
435

of th e in st al la tion of th re e ne w se ns or sy stem s in fiscal yea r 1975, it is es ti m ate d th a t th e num be r of al ar m s will in cr ea se b y 35,00 0 ba se d on I& NS ex pe rie nc e w ith 

its se ns or sy stem s. If th e B ord er Pat ro l reso urce s re qu es te d fo r fiscal yea r 1970 

ar e m ad e av aila bl e, th es e 35 ,00 0 in trus io ns in ad ditio n to th e 26,00 0 in trus io ns le ft u na ns w er ed pr ev io us ly c ou ld be r es po nd ed to in an e ffi cien t an d effecti ve wa y.

S E R V IC E FU N C TIO N

Que stio n 17. Rec og nizing I& NS is pri m ar ily a serv ice ag en cy , how will th e ad dit io nal pe rson ne l de crea se th e ad m in is tr ati ve ba ck log si tu ati on th ro ughout th e co un tr y? Will th e tw en ty -f iv e ad di tional adju dic at io ns po sitio ns pr ov id e 

|l sufficie nt as sistan ce in re du ci ng th e ad ju dic at io ns ba ck log? Is tw en ty -f iv e en ou gh ? An swer. At th e en d of Ja n u a ry 1975 th e Se rvice ha d 178,000 pet itio ns an d ap pl ic at io ns pe nd ing as op po se d to 155,000 a t th e en d of fisc al yea r 1974. The 

re ce ip ts of pe tition s an d applica tions co ntin ue s to increa se. It is ou r ho pe t h a t we 

. will be ab le to use th e 18 addit io nal ad ju dic at ors an d 7 ad ditio nal cle rks to st em

f th e gr ow th of th e pe nd in g ba ck logs an d in ac hi ev in g ou r goal of a 25 -p er ce nt ra te of in te rv ie w of pe tition er s, be ne fic iarie s or ap plica nts whe re an in terv iew is not m andat ory . This will aid us in co nt en din g w ith th e in cr ea sing a m ount of fr au d en­ co un te re d in su ch pet itio ns as th os e fo r spou ses an d th ir d an d si xt h pref er en ce pet itio ns whe rein a larg e num ber of requ ired la bo r ce rtific at io ns ar e fo un d to be fr audule nt or ob ta in ed on th e ba sis of fr audule nt doc um en ts an d adju st m ent of st atu s ap pl ic at io ns ba sed on appro ved vis a pet itio ns wh ich we re la te r as ce rtai ne d to ha ve be en fr au dule ntl y obta in ed . I t is ev id en t, th er ef or e, th a t th e ad ditio nal adju dic at ors an d cle rks ar e n o t sufficient in them se lv es to pr ov id e th e po ss ib ility 

of redu ci ng ou r back logs ap pre ci ab ly .

p r e s id e n t’s dom estic c o u n c il co m m it tee on il l eg a l a l ie n s

Question 18. W ha t ha s hap pen ed sin ce yo u la st testified? H av e mee tin gs of th is 

C om m itte e been held? An swer. As yo u know , th e D epar tm en t of Ju st ic e is th e lead ag en cy for th is effort. In la te Ja nuar y, th e Im m ig ra tion an d N atu ra liza tion Servi ce, working clo sel y w ith th e D ep uty A ttorn ey G en er al’s Office, de ve lope d a st ate m ent of in te n t an d ag en da of issues fo r th is eff ort. Th ese m at er ia ls were di ss em in at ed to 

th e va riou s pa rt ic ip at in g ag en cies fo r th ei r co nc urrenc e. At th e fir st wo rking m ee ting of th e grou p held on Feb ru ary 7, 1975, th e m em be r ag encie s we re re qu es te d to su bm it po sitio n pa pe rs an d co m m en ts on on e or mor e of th e issues th a t fo rm ed th e in itia l ag en da . The se issues we re gr ou pe d under th re e br oa d ca tego rie s: th os e in vol vi ng i nte rn at io nal as pe ct s; issues wh ich invo lve im pac t co ns id er at io ns ; an d im pr ov em en ts t h a t co uld be fo ster ed th ro ug h ad m in is­ tr ati ve, en fo rc em en t or legi slat iv e rem edies . Va rious op inions were ex pressed a t th e in itia l mee ting : some th o u g h t th e issue was so fu ndam enta l th at it wo uld re qu ire a fu ll- tim e staf f effo rt under th e aeg is of a Co mmiss ion; an d othe rs fe lt th a t ex istin g mec ha nism s alon g w ith a few’ legi slativ e im pr ov em en ts wo uld be 

suffi cien t fo r am el io ra ting th e pr ob le m .

T

Fo r th e second m ee tin g he ld on Feb ru ar y 28 th, th e re sp ec tive agencie s ha d

I su bm it te d th e re qu es ted po sitio n pa pe rs. The prob lems of th e ad ve rs e econ om ic effect fe lt in ke y ag ri cu ltura l se ct or s of ou r Sou th w es t br oug ht on by th e remov al of larg e nu m be rs of illegal ali ens an d ex istin g form s of doc um en ta tion us ed to show elig ib ili ty to wor k by ali ens do miW nat ed th e dis cussion of th is m ee ting . As a re su lt, tw o ta sk forces were es ta bl ishe d to ex plore th es e topics fu rt her: th e co ns id er ation of th e ad ve rs e econ om ic im pa ct on ou r ag ricu ltur al se ct or by illeg al ali ens will be he ad ed up by th e D epart m ent of A gr icul tu re ; th e m att er of doc um en ta tion to dem onst ra te elig ibili ty to work 

will be stud ie s by a grou p un de r th e directi on o f th e Dom estic Co un cil .

O F F IC E OF M A N A G EM EN T AN D B U D G ET B O R D ER ST UDY

Que stio n 19. W hat is tin* sta tu s of th e va riou s re co m m en da tion s m ad e by 

0 M B and by t he G ov er nm en t O pe ra tion s C om m itte e w ith re sp ec t to law e nf or ce ­

m ent on th e so ut hw es t bo rd er ?

An swer. The Office o f M an ag em en t an d Bud ge t pl an des ig na ting res po ns ibili tie s 

of th e Cus to m s Se rvice an d th e Im m ig ra tion an d N atu ra li zati on Se rvice a t an d be tw ee n bo rd er po rts- of- en tr y, whi ch was ou tlin ed in id en tica l le tt ers of Ju n e 5, 1974, to th e Se cr et ar y of th e T re asu ry an d th e A ttorn ey G en er al, ha s ne ve r be en im pl em en te d. The G ove rn m en t O pe ra tion s C om m itte e re co m m en de d in its D ec em be r 18, 1974 re po rt on Law Enf or ce m en t on th e Sou th w es t B or de r th a t 0 M B with dr aw ’ th is plan . How ev er, a t th is tim e th e pl an ha s no t fo rm ally be en 

w ithd ra w n.

49-7 69— 75------ 29
4315

The Government Operations Committee also recommended that the Secretary 

of the Trea sury and the Atto rney General draw up a mutually acceptable plan 

to coordinate conduct of their operations at and between border ports-of-entry.

In early February a meeting was held between Under Secretary Schmults and 

Acting Attorney General Silberman concerning this recom mendation. A sub ­

sequ ent meeting between the Commissioners of Immigration and Customs has 

been held, and a mem orandum of understanding between the two agencies is 

being drafted.

R E A S SIG N M E N T O F PE R S O N N E L

Question 20. What was the outcome of your proposed plan to transfer immigration inspectors from the n orthern border to the southw est border? Have any per- j

sonnel been transferred ? 1

Answer. The Service plan to transfer 100 Immigration Inspector positions from 

the northern border and oth er ports-of-entry has been rescinded by man date of 

Congress.

Th irty additional positions from other sources have been made available for use |i

on the southern border. Five Immigration Inspector positions were transferre d 

from the Southeast Region, five Inspector positions from other locations within 

the Southwest Region and ten Investigato r positions each from the Northwest and 

Northea st Regions. Twenty of these positions have been assigned to the ports-ofentry at San Ysidro, California and ten a t Calexico, California.

No personnel have been tran sferred to the Southern Border. Only the 30 positions mentioned above have been transferred and are now allocated to the 

Southwest Region as Imm igration Inspecto r positions.

We initially requested 388 Inspector positions to revitalize our inspection program on the southern bord er and to meet airp ort expansions. None of these 

positions were approved.

D E T E N T IO N FU N D S

Question 21. Do you envision th at situations will occur in fiscal year 1976 

whereby the Service will totall y exhaust its detention and deportation funds and 

be forced to release illegal aliens?

Answer. I&NS’ request, as submitted by the Department of Justice to the 

Office of Managem ent and Budget (OMB), requested $3.9 million additional 

funds for interior repatriatio n and $4 million for alien trav el and detention. These 

requests were reduced to $2 million and $3 million respectively by OMB. Our 

1976 base amount for alien travel funds was also reduced by $1.3 million because 

of the fiscal year 1975 resission. The total funds available, therefore, will be $2 

million for interior rep atriation and $7.7 million for Alien Travel and Detention 

money. This la tte r amount represents a net increase of $1.7 million over the cu rrent 

year.

With this increase we will be able to muster a larger area control force than in 

previous years, with a corresponding increase in apprehensions and removals. If 

our 1976 base is increased by $1.3 million by restoring the resission amount, an 

even greater increase in apprehensions and removals will be possible.

While inflation is an unknown factor, it does affect the amounts we are charged 

through our use of non-Service detention facilities, as well as our own main tenance J

costs. Although these increases are unpredictable, we feel tha t they will not lead 

to our running out of de tention and deporta tion funds in fiscal year 1976.

G RAD E O F B O R D ER PATROL O FF IC E R S f

Question 22. What is the sta tus of th e I&NS recom mendation that the grade 

level of Border Patrol Officers be increased from GS-9 to GS-11?

Answer. In September 1974, the Service and the Departme nt of Justice conduc ted a joint classification stu dy of the Border Patrol Agent position. On November 27, 1974, the Service recommended to the Departme nt that the Civil 

Service Commission be asked to conduct an occupational stud y, change the 

classification standa rd, and reclassify the journeym an level of Border Patrol 

Agents from GS-9 to GS-11. A draft of the proposed grade levels wa.' p repared 

in the new “be nchmark” form at and was forwarded to the Dep artm ent; some 

revisions were later made and submitted during the month of March 1975. The 

Departm ent has assisted I&NS throughout this process and has pledged complete 

sup port in this effort.

A IR TR A N SPO R T

Question 23. Does I&NS plan to reintroduce an air tra nsport system for the 

prom pt removal of illegal aliens—as recommended by the Government Operations 

Comm ittee?
Answer. In 1971, I&NS discontinued the use of Service-owned planes with in 

the Southwest Region and sub stituted buses which resulted in sub stantial cost reductions in removing Mexican nationals to the border. The Service does not plan to reintroduce a Service operated air Iransp ort system for removing illegal aliens to the Mexican Border. The Service will, however, continue its agre ement with a Mexican airline to fly Mexican illegal aliens to the ir homes in the inte rior 

of Mexico.

P O R T S-O P -E N T R Y

Question 24. Are any plans being considered which would have the effect of reducing the I&NS presence at ports-of-entry along the southwest border? Answer. The Service knows of no such plans.

R EG IO N A L R EA L IG N M E N T

Question 25. Can you advise the Subcommittee as to th e purpose of the proposed realignment of the regional offices? What is the sta tus of this proposed realignment? Will it increase efficiency? I low? Answer. After several months’ studies of the I&NS regional structure and the organization of the regional office staffs, proposed realignments of both the regional boundaries and the stru cture of the regional office staff were made. From the studies it becam e app arent th at personnel and workload were concen­ trated in the Southwest Region, with a far smaller perce ntage in the other thre e regions. This unequal distribu tion has prevented adequa te span of control and has placed excessive pressure on program managers in the Southwest Region, which has hampered overall Service efficiency and effectiveness. To partially allev iate these problems, we have proposed realignment of the boundaries of the four regions along the lines of the OMB Standard Federal Regions. This realignment would create a much more equal personnel and work­ load distribution and span of control. At the same time, we have proposed a revised stru cture of th e regional offices which to a large extent follows th e Central Office structure. Increase d economies and efficiency are expected to be achieved by the removal of an unnecessary layer of supervision, the Assistant Regional Commissioner level, the addition of a Plan ning and Evaluation Staff to coordinate and implement Regional projects, and the regrouping of activities into the three majo r functional areas of the Service, Enforcement, Exam inations, and Manage­ ment. This regrouping will place all enforcement activ ities under one Associate Regional Commissioner and all examinations activities together under a sepa rete 

Associate Regional Commissioner. Both the realignment of regional boundaries and the reorganization of regional offices have been approved in concept and have been submitted to the regional offices. Statem ents on the expected imp act have been solicited to be sub mitted by these offices by early April. OMB has given their approval for the regional boundary realig nment, and we anticip ate implementing both the regional bou ndary realignment and the regional office reorganization in early fiscal y ear 197G.

Question 26. What has been the result of the reorganization of the Cen tral Office Mana gement Structu re? And can you cite any particu lar examples of the 

positive impact on you r operational procedures? Answer. The Cen tral Office was reorganized on Jan uary 9, 1974. Among the changes implemented were the establish ment of the Office of Planning and Evaluation and the grouping of Central Office functions under Associate Com­ missioners for Enforcement, Exam inations and Mana gement. The newly created Office of Planning and Evaluation has played the principal I&NS role in several major policy areas such as the development of a stu dy of the scope and impact of 

illegal aliens on the United States; the development of an Alien Documentation, Identification and Telecommunication System; and the proposed reorganization 

of I&NS regional offices and regional boundaries. The Office of Planning and Evaluation is also currently assessing the imp act of the Central Office reorganization, and comments received so far have been fav or­ able. A be tter flow of inform ation within the Central Office has resulted from the elimination of the former Management/O perations dichotomy. This has enabled Central Office Program Managers to improve coordination of their activities.

Question 27. On how many occasions over th e p ast year have apprehend ed illegal aliens been released because of lack of funds, and how many illegal aliens have 

been released on these occasions? Answer. There were numerous occasisions during the past year where illegal aliens were released or not apprehended because of th e lack of funds. Service-wide statistic s for the past year are not complete. However, a significant example is
438

th at in the Southeast Region during Jan uary/Febru arv of 1975 alone, a total of 

1,454 illegal aliens were not detained because of a lack of funds. This would 

represent a projected 25 percent of a total of some 33,000 illegal aliens appre ­

hended in the entire Sou thea st Region duing fiscal y ear 1974.

Question 28. On page 5 of your statem ent you indic ate that 529,700 persons 

were denied entry. Can you break this figure down into the various excludable 

categories and what are the reasons for the large increase over the previous years 

(in addition to the improved quality of inspection)?

Answer. Of the 529,700 aliens denied entry during fiscal year 1974, 35,428 

arriv ed by sea, 13,043 by air and 481,235 over th e land borders. The vast majority 

(approximately 500,000) were rejected at land border ports of en try or withdrew 

the ir applications for admission. No statistical data is available concerning the f

various causes for denial of entry in those cases. Only 589 were formally excluded,

4 for subversive reasons, 16 for criminal, 77 for violation of narcotic laws, 9 for 

previously being excluded or deported, 196 for attem pting entry without inspection or for false statem ents, 265 for attem pting entry without proper docu- y

ments, and 32 for miscellaneous reasons. "

31,026 crewmen were refused admission as n ot prima facie eligible. 281 arrived 

as stowaways and were o rdered excluded and deported. Neither class is accorded 

a formal hearing by an Imm igration Judge.

The large increase in denial of entry over previous years may be attributed 

to the improved quality of inspections, and the increase in number of nonimm igrant applicants for admission. For example: In fiscal year 1964, 6,908,708 

nonim migrants were admitted; whereas 5,977,324 were adm itted in 1973, and 

5,171,460 in 1972. The population explosion in the more underdeveloped countries 

with the res ultant dete rioratio n of the economic situ ation in those countries 

also is a factor. This of course would account in p art for the increase of att em pte d 

illegal entries in to the United S tates by persons wishing to improve their economic 

situation.

Question 29. You indicate in your statem ent th at “an effective immigration 

inspection on our Southwest Border where the problem is the greatest requires a 

fifty percent immigration presence”. At how many ports-of-entry does I&NS 

currently maintain a fifty percent immigration presence and please indicate the 

locations of these ports-of-entry? Would you also prepare for the Subcommittee a 

comparison of the Imm igration Service/Customs ratio for all ports-of-entry along 

the Southwest Border?

Answer. There are 108 ports-of-entry along the Northern Border and a fifty 

percent presence is m aintained at all locations. Dual Inspection participation by 

our Inspectors on the Northe rn Border is onsidered to be approximately “fifty 

percen t” or of “equal prim ary inspection presence” with Customs prim ary 

inspection.

Until 1948, all Immigration Inspections were performed by officers of this 

Service. In June of t ha t year, as a result of pilot tests on both land borders, “ Dual 

Inspectio n” was commenced on the Northern Border. Under this procedure I&NS 

and Customs agreed to the concept th at one inspector from eithe r Service would 

perform the primary inspection duties for both agencies at the initial point of 

inspection. 1

This method of dual screening inspection has continued successfully on the 

Northern Border since inception. As a result of that success the procedure was 

commenced on the Southern Border early in 1963. On that border it has been 

described as “multiple inspection” because, in the beginning, inspectors from all 

four agencies—I&NS, Customs, Plant Quarantin e and Public Health— 

participated .

A repo rt of join t multiple screening on the Mexican Border conducted from 

April 22, to May 17, 1963, disclosed th at th e combining of the primary inspection 

function on that border would result in a reduction of tours of duty from 260, 

which existed in November 1962, to 228. The tours of duty were divided under 

multiple screening as follows: 36 percent to I&NS, 37 percent to Customs, 17 

percent to Public Health, and 10 percent to Plant Quarantine. Implementa tion 

of the multiple screening process on the Southern Border resulted in a savings 

of abou t 32 tours of duty. The survey disclosed tha t in order to provide relief for 

days off and leave, 1.4 Inspectors were required by I&NS and Customs to staff 

one tour and 1.6 Inspectors were required by Public Hea lth and Plant Q uara ntine 

to staff one tour.

I&NS, on commencement of th e multiple inspection procedure on the Southern 

Border, staffed a fraction less than Customs, bu t for all prac tical purposes had an 

equal primary inspection presence with that agency. This continued to be the 

case until Septem ber 1968, when Public Health withdrew from staffing 7)4 tours.
By 1970, Public Health had withdrawn a total of 44 Inspectors from the Mexican 

Border. As these vacancies occurred, Custom s increased its staff of prim ary Inspectors comm ensurately . I&NC did not take its share because of budgetary 

limitations. A cu rrent survey of staffing tours on the Mexican Border discloses that a tota l of 367 tours are currently being staffed.Of this total, 71 perc ent of the tours are staffed by Customs, 26 percent by I&NS, and only 3 percent by Plant Quarantine. Using the formulas, 1.4 and 1.6 referred to earlier, the 367 tours required a tota l of 516 inspectors for the three agencies with the following distrib ution: 136 for I&NS, 362 for Customs and 18 for Plant Quarantine. (See attach ed Chart for port by p ort breakdown of Southwestern Border.) Of the 388 inspector positions r equeste d but not approved , 289 were earmarked for the revitalization of immigration primary inspection along the sou thern border.

SOUTHWEST BORDER POR TS— MULT IPLE SCR EENING ST AF FIN G

Port

To tal Cu sto ms INS PQ

To urs Officers To urs Officers To urs Officers To ur s Officers

Bro wns ville , T e x ...................... 23 .10 33. 85 13. 02 18. 23 5.04 7. 56 5.0 4 8.0 6

Pro gresso, Tex ............................ 13. 30 18. 62 11 .20 15. 68 2.1 0 2.9 4

.7 0 1.1 2 Hid algo, Tex ........................... 13.77 19. 42 9. 33 13. 06 3. 74 5. 24

Los Ebanos, Tex........................ 1.4 0 1.96 .7 0 .9 8 .7 0 .9 8

Roma, Tex. . . . . 4?20 5. 88 2.8 7 4. 02 1.33 1.8 6

Rio Gra nde City , T e x .. . 2.8 1 3.9 3 2.6 3 3. 68 . 18 .2 5

Falcon He ights, T ex____ 2.8 0 3.9 2 1.40 1.96 1.40 1.96

T o ta l. . . ........................... 9.8 1 13. 73 6. 90 9.6 6 2.91 4.0 7

2.2 4 Laredo, Tex_________ _______ 23. 24 32. 82 15. 54 21 .76 6. 30 8. 82 1.40

Eagle Pass, Tex....... ................... 12. 60 17. 78 7. 70 10. 78 4. 20 5. 88 .7 0 1.12

Del Rio, Tex________________ 10.08 14.62 5.0 4 7. 06 3. 36 4. 70 1.68 2.8 6

Pre sidio, T e x .............................. 5.60 7. 84 2. 80 3.92 2. 80 3.9 2

Fabens, T e x _______ ________ 5.60 7. 84 2. 80 3.92 2. 80 3.9 2

Fort Ha ncock, T ex............. 5.60 7. 84 4. 20 5. 88 1.40 1.96

T o ta l. ............................... 11.20 15. 68 7.0 0 9.8 0 4. 20 5. 88

£1 Paso, Tex .:

Ysleta, T e x .. __________ 12.60 17.92 7.0 0 9. 80 4.2 0 5. 88 1.40 2. 24

Paso del Norte Bridge ,

Tex............................... . . 22. 40 31 .3 6 15. 40 21 .56 7.0 0 9. 80

Bridge of the Am erica s,

Tex..................................... 19. 60 27. 44 12 .60 17.64 7.0 0 9. 80

T o ta l.................................. 54. 60 76. 72 35 .0 0 49 .00 18. 20 25. 48 1.40 2.2 4

Colum bu s, N. M ex__________ 5.60 7. 84 2.8 0 3.92 2.8 0 3.9 2

Douglas, A riz_______________ 11.20 15. 68 7.0 0 9. 80 4.2 0 5. 88

Naco, A riz_________ ______ 8.40 11.76 4. 20 5. 88 4.2 0 5. 88

Nogales, A riz ..____ ________ 25 .9 0 36. 25 18. 06 25. 28 • 7.8 4 10 .97

Sasabe, A riz .____ __________ 6. 05 8.4 7 3. 73 5. 22 2. 32 3. 25

Lu ke Ville, A riz................ .......... 5.60 7. 84 2.8 0 3.9 2 2. 80 3.9 2

San Luis, A ri z .............................. 12.60 17 .65 8. 40 11.77 4. 20 5. 38

And rade , Calif _____________ 3. 50 4. 90 1.75 2. 45 1.75 2. 45

Tecate, Cali.'................................. 8. 00 11 .20 5. 00 7.00 3.0 0 4.2 0

San Ys idro, C aiif ____________ 73 .12 102. 36 69. 72 79 .60 3.4 0 4. 76

Calexico, C alif ______________ 28. 00 39. 20 21 .00 29 .40 7.0 0 9. 30

(T ours ) to ta l________ 366. 67 516. 19 258. 69 36 2.17 97 .06 136. 38 10 .92 17. 64

Per ce nt __________ (1 00) (70. 5) (26. 5 ) . . . (3 )

Question 30. Are organized “rings” involved in producing cou nterfeit and fraudu­ lent documents to enter the United States? If so in what particu lar countries are these rings currently operating? Hav e any efforts been made by I&NS or the Departme nt of State in order to conta ct the governments of these countries for assistance in combating the fraudulent document problem? Answer. Organized rings have been found to be op erating in Mexico, Columbia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador and the Philippines. Criminal prosecution was sought in Mexico, but the court found th at the falsification of United States immigration documents is not a prosecutable offense in th at country. We continue to maintain liaison with Mexican officials in order to identify operating rings and information concerning new schemes an d th eir modus operandi are disseminated to our officers at ports-of-entry. Inform ation is also exchanged between I&NS and the Dep artm ent of State. Interested consular posts are furnished inform ation relative to identified vendors for transm itta l to foreign government authorities.
The problem of combating the fraudulent document problem is th at the cou nterfeiting or alteration of a United States visa or other United States immigration 

document frequently does not violate foreign statutes, and transactions involving 

these documents generally occur outside the United States.

Question 81. Has there been a co ncerted effort by the U.S. Government and the 

Government of Mexico to elim inate the problem of the smuggling of illegal aliens?

Answer. The Service has emphasized all phases of enforcement work in efforts 

to elim inate alien smuggling. Forem ost in this activity is the work done in conjunctio n with th e U.S. Attorneys to assure success in the prosecution of commercial 

alien smuggling cases.

On a local basis, U.S. Border Patrol anti-sm uggling officers work with Mexican 

auth orities in efforts to reduce successful alien smuggling ventures. This work 

results in exchange of information relative to suspects and, on occasion, leads to 

prosecution of violators under Mexican laws.

Question 88. On page 7 of your state me nt you indicate that the “maximum time 

required for the disposition of any adjudicative matter s should be three months” . 

In how many instances is this “m axim um” currently being exceeded, and please 

indic ate the appropriate district office where the processing backlog is greater 

than three months, as well as the ty pe of petition involved.

Answer. The maximum three-m onth period is being exceeded mainly in our 

largest offices such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago and New York. 

This has been caused by the increasing incidence of fraud involving relative 

petitions for spouses, labor certifications supporting third and sixth preference 

petitions and nonpreference applications for adjustment of status . Those cases 

which must be acted on because of the emergent nature of the need for travel 

documents are being handled on an expeditious basis.

Attached is an adjudications disposition schedule showing the time period in 

each adjudications ac tivity which the Service seeks to obtain. Many of our smaller 

offices are achieving this goal in some or all of the activities, w’hile our larger offices 

are lagging in all categories.

Ad jud ica tions disposition schedule

Category T im e perio d fo r dis position

Adjustmen t sec. 245____________________________________ 3 mo.

Record of adm. sec. 249 ________________________ ______ 2 mo.

Sec. 1 Cuban refugee___________________________________ (*)

Record of adm. sec. 214(d)______________________________ 1 mo.

Relative petitions, except orphans________________________ 10 days.2

Orphan petitions_______________________________________ 2 mo.

Occupational preference petitions________________________ lj- j mo.

II and L petitions__________________ ___________________ 25 days.

Fiance(e) of citizen, petitions for_________________________ 10 days.

Extensions—temp orary st ay _________ ___________________ 5 days.

Refugee travel documents_______________________________ 1^2 mo.

Duplicate or replace AR cards___________________________ 15 days.

R ee ntry p erm it _____________________________________________ Do.

Border crossing cards__ ___________________________ ____ mo.

Sec. 212(d)(3)________________ ___________ ____________ 15 days.

Sec. 212(g), (h), and (i)______ __________________________ 3 mo.

Sec. 212(e) waivers:

Hardship/perse cution_______________________________ Do.

Ollier. ________________________________________ 10 day-.

Change nonimmigrant classification.2 ___ -L 25 days.

Imm igrant to non imm igra nt______ ’. __ 1 mo.

Permission to reapply _______ _________________ .. .2 .2 '___ Do.

School ap pro vals__ _________________ _____ ..L I .2 . 2 mo.

School or exchange program tr a n sfe r.. ._____ ___ ________ _ 5 days.

Permission for student employment.,.__ ____ _______ i ____ Do.

Advance permission to re tu rn _______ .-'_2_'.'2__________22___ 1 mo.

Bonds breached and can celled.. _____ ________ . . . Do.

USC identification cards__2 . _______________ ,'L_: 1J4 mo.

1

 tn visa n um ber eases. lt£ mo. after alien’s prio rity date is reached, if number was not available when 

application was bled; in other eases such as immedia te relatives and cases in which numb er is available a t 

time of filing, 3 mo.

1

 Where interview is deemed necessary because of suspected fraud or other reason, the time stand ard for 

disposition is 2 mo. If case is referred for investigation, tim e standard for disposition is’4 mo.
4 4 1

Q ue sti o n 3 3. H a v e a n y p artic ula r pr o ble m s oc c u rr e d as a re s ult of t h e I & N S 

re g u lati o n eli m i n ati n g e xte ns i o ns of st a y f or B - 2 vi sit o rs ? H as t his re g u lati o n 

re cei v e d a si g nifica nt a m o u nt of criti ci s m fr o m t h e ge ne ral p u blic a n d if s o, w hat 

ha s be e n t h e n at u re of t h e c o m pl ai nt s?

A n s w er. T he fi n al re g u lati o n eli m i n ati n g e xte nsi o n of sta y f o r B - 2 vi sit o rs wa s 

effe cti ve F e b r u ar y 1 6, 1 9 7 5, s o it is re all y t o o s o o n t o ha ve r ec ei ve d a n y si g n ifi ca nt 

v ol u m e of c o m pl ai nt s. O n e o b se r v ati o n re cei v e d fr o m t h e h o st of a B - 2 visit or 

a d m itte d pr e vi o us t o F e b r u ar y 1 6t h a n d al re a d y t h e re ci pi e nt of o n e e xte nsi o n of 

st a y, wa s t h at t h e re g u lati o n w as t o o ri gi d, ar b it ra r y, a n d u n re as o n a b le, re f u si n g 

as it d o es t o p r o vi de f or a wi d er r a n g e of i n d i vi d ua l circ u m st a n ce s.

T he P olis h E m ba ss y calle d att e nti o n t o t h e pre di ca m e n t of t h e B - 2 fa mil y 

de pe n d e n ts of t h e B -l n o ni m mi g ra nt offici als of P olis h Sta te or ga ni zati o n s tr a v eli n g i n t h e U nit e d State s: t h e re g u lati o n m a d e n o pr o visi o n f o r e x te n d i n g t h e 

d e p e n d e nts ’ st a y t o c oi n ci de wit h t h e a d diti o n al ti m e gi ve n t h e pri n ci pals. T hi s 

pr o b le m wa s s ol ve d b y dir ec ti n g fiel d offices t o utiliz e a n e xisti n g re g u lati o n pe rm itti n g a c h a n ge of sta t u s fr o m B - 2 t o B -l wit h o u t fee o r a p plic ati o n.

A p h e n o m e n o n n o te d at t h e C ha m pl ai n, N. Y., p ort - o f- e ntr y wa s t h e d e p art ure 

t o C a n a d a a n d t h e r ea p pli ca ti o n f o r a d missi o n of B - 2 vi sit o rs w h o h a d pr e vi o usl y 

h a d t h eir m a xi m u m pe ri o d of sta y here. Wit h still vali d m ulti ple e ntr y vis as t h e y 

we re a ble t o a p p l y f o r n e w p eri o ds of st a y.

A sa m pli n g of offices i n t h e N ort h e a st Re gi o n i n dic at e d fe w c o m pl ai nt s t h u s fa r.

Q u esti o n 3 4. W o ul d y o u pl ea se i n di cate h o w t h e re d u cti o n i n t h e n u m b er of 

n at u ra li z ati o n c o urts a n d t h e re d uc ti o n of tr a v el b y t h e n at u ra li z ati o n e x a m i n er s 

will i m pr o v e t h e efficie nc y of t h is ac ti vit y ?

A n s w er. B y re d u ci n g t h e n u m b er of c o urts t h at h ol d n at u ra li za ti o n he ari n gs, 

t h e ti m e i n tr a v el st at u s a n d t h e e x p e n se s of tr a v el b y t h e n at ura li z ati o n e xa mi n er 

will be re d u ce d. T o se r vic e a c o urt e x ercisi n g n at u ra li z ati o n j u ri s dicti o n, it is 

ne ce ss ar y t h at t h e e xa mi n er m a k e t w o tri p s t o t h at c o urt t o c o m pl et e t h e n at u ra liz ati o n p r o ce ss. T he first tri p is f or t h e e xa mi n ati o n of t h e a p pli c a nt a n d wit n es se s 

a n d f o r fili n g t h e p etiti o n f o r n at ura li za ti o n. T hi s tri p is ne ce ss ar y e v e n t h o u g h 

t h er e mi g ht be o nl y a si n gle a p plic a n t f or n at u ra li za ti o n t o be e x a m i n e d. T h e 

sta t u te pr o vi d es t h at t h e fi n al he ari n gs m a y o nl y be hel d o n da te s fi xe d b y r ule 

of t h e c o urt a n d n ot be h el d i n les s t h a n 3 0 da ys f r o m t h e d ate t h e p etiti o n is file d. 

T he se c o n d tri p is f o r t h e office r’s att e n d a n c e a t t h e fi n al he ari n g, be it f or t h e 

pre se ntati o n t o t h e c o urt of b ut a si n gle p etiti o n er or se ve ral h u n d re d. W he re les s 

t h a n 1 0 p etiti o ns ar e file d p er y e ar i n a c o urt, t h e Se r vic e ha s ur ge d t h at t h e c o urt 

reli n q ui s h n at ura li za ti o n j u ri s d icti o n. Pe rs o ns w h o w o ul d n o r m all y file t h ei r p eti ­

ti o n s i n t h e c o urt will n o w file t h e m i n t h e n ea re st acti v e n at urali za ti o n c o urt. 

B y c o n ce ntr ati n g t h e fili n g of p etiti o n s i n a si n gle c o urt, t h e ne ce ssit y f or t h e 

e x a m i n er t o m a k e tri p s t o se ve ral l o w - v ol u m e c o urts is alle vi at e d. T he re ce nt 

reli n q ui s h m e n t of n at u ra li z ati o n j u ri s dicti o n b y 8 2 c o urts will re s ult i n a sa vi n g s 

of a p pr o x i m at el y 2 0, 0 9 0 miles p er ye ar of e x a m i n er tr a v el. Si n ce t his tr a v el is 

pe rf or m e d m ai nl y d u ri n g t h e w or k d a y, it is ti m e l o st fr o m pr o d ucti o n. Wit h t h e 

c u rt ail m e nt of tr a v el, t h e e x a m i n er ca n d e v ot e m or e ti m e t o ca se w or k, t h ere b y 

i n cr ea si n g his pr o d u cti vit y.

T h e ba c kl o gs of a p plic ati o ns f o r n at ura li z ati o n ha ve ste a d il y gr o w n. At t h e e n d 

of fisc al y ea r 1 9 7 4, t h er e we re 4 7, 5 3 3 a p plic ati o ns t o file p etiti o ns f or n at urali za ti o n 

pe n di n g, a n i n cr ea se of 6, 4 0 2 ( 1 7 pe rc e nt) fr o m fisc al ye ar 1 9 7 3. Re cei pt of a p plicati o n s f o r n at urali za ti o n a n d ar re ar a g es c o nti n ue t o ris e s u b st a nti all y as s h o w n 

bel o w :

1 9 7 1 ...................................................................................................

1 9 72 .................................................. . . . . .

1 9 7 3 ..:.;................ j l .......... 4..............................................' ................. J. „• . '

1 9 7 4............................................................... i . . . . , .................................... . ..

R e c ei pt s P e n di n g

1 4 7, 9 5 4 2 3 , 1 3 5

1 6 7. 7 4 3 3 0, 6 4 9

1 7 8, 9 3 0 4 1, 1 3 1

1 8 7, 4 5 7 4 7, 5 3 3

B v i n cr ea si n g t h e pr o d u cti o n st a n d ar d s we ha ve be e n a ble t o mi ni mize t h e 

i n cr ea si n g bac kl o gs t h at ar e re s u lti n g fr o m e v er i n cr ea si n g re cei pts a n d a li m ite d 

a u t h oriz e d w or k f or ce. H o w e v er, as s h o w n a b o v e, at t h e e n d of fiscal y ea r 1 9 7 1, 

t h er e we re 2 3, 1 3 5 a p plic ati o ns f o r n at ur aliz ati o n pe n d i n g a n d b y t h e e n d of fisc al 

fiscal y ea r 1 9 7 4, t his fi g ur e h a d i n cr ea se d t o 4 7, 5 3 3.
442

Toda y ou r nati onali ty wor kloa ds exceed th e cap ab ility of ou r nat ura liza tion 

pe rson ne l to ha nd le ev en on a cu rr en t ba sis , aside fro m th e need for su b sta n ti al 

ad di tion al forces to ult im ate ly dis po se of ar re ar ag es th a t ha ve bu ilt up ov er th e 

ye ars. The re can be no su b sti tu te for th e ur ge nt ne ed to su bs ta ntial ly in cr ea se 

th e na tu ra liza tion wo rk force to th e po int whe re ar re ar ag es ca n first be e lim in at ed 

an d inc om ing ap pl ic at io ns t here aft er ha nd led on a c ur re nt basis.

It is Servi ce po lic y th a t an ali en , up on att ain in g elig ibili ty for U. S. citiz en sh ip, 

sh ou ld no t ha ve to wait ov er tw o mon th s be tw ee n th e tim e he ap plies to pe tition 

fo r na tu ra liza tion an d th e tim e his pet itio n is filed. By law , th e nat ura liza tion 

pe tition mus t re m ain pe ndin g for at least 30 da ys before th e final he ar in g in 

co ur t, so even un der th es e op tim um co nd iti on s, an ali en m ust w ai t th re e m onth s 

be fore he may ac hiev e U.S. citiz en sh ip. C urren tly, tin* waiting perio d to file a 

pet itio n for natu ra liza tion is 4—(i mon th s in ou r larg er offices such as Ne w Aor k, 

Miami, Atla nt a, New ar k, an d Los Angeles.

Question 35. On pa ge 1 1 of y our s ta te m ent yo u in di ca te d th at th e Bo rder P at ro l 

ar re st ed 8,073 sm ug glers of ali en s in FY 1974. Would yo u summarize th e disp os ition of th es e sm ug gling cases ?

Answe r. In fiscal yea r 1974, th e U.S. A tto rn ey s in st it ute d pros ec ution ag ai nst 

1,070 violator s of th e alie n sm ug gling st atu te s, re su lti ng in 503 co nv ictio ns . 

Ag greg ate se nt en ce s and fines im po sed we re 9,663 m ont hs an d $45 ,665, re ­

sp ec tiv ely. In ad di tion , th ere we re 3,475 co nv ictio ns as pr in cipa ls un de r 8 U .S .C . 

1325, with 11,135 m onth s an d $ 268,5 10 in fines im po sed in th e ag greg ate.

Que stion 36. You sta te th a t th e prop os ed bud ge t pr ov id es fu nd s fo r “in te ri or 

re patr ia ti on’’. W ou ld yo u de sc ribe how th is pr oc ed ur e ope ra te s, an d is th e c oo pe rati on of the G ove rnm ent of Me xic o ne ce ssary in or de r t o ef fect in te rior re pat ri at io n?

An swer. In or de r to pro vi de an effecti ve pro ce du re fo r use in disc ou raging 

ap pr eh en de d M ex ican alie ns fro m re en te ring th e U nited Sta te s, in te rior re p atr ia ­

ti on wa s in itia te d w he re in th os e ali ens ar e re tu rn ed to th e vi ci ni ty of th eir ho me s 

in th e in te rior of Me xico. T he aliens ar e re tu rn ed to th e in te ri or of Me xic o from 

va riou s loca tio ns alon g th e Mex ican Bo rder. The us ua l inod e o f tr ansp ort ati on 

is by bu s. Ho we ver, th e G over nm en t of Me xic o pr ov id es a tr ia nli ft fro m Pr esidio 

to C hi hu ah ua C ity. In ad ditio n, an ag re em en t w ith a Mex ican airli ne— Ae roca rg a, S.A .—pr ov id es in te ri or re patr ia tion vi a air lift from Chu la V is ta /T ij uana 

to Leon, G uan aj uat o, Mex ico. At pr es en t, th is mea ns is utili ze d on ly fo r th os e 

ille gal aliens fro m Mex ico who ar e willin g to pay th eir ow n fare, an d natu ra ll y, 

th is re pr es en ts on ly a sm al l por tion of th e to ta l illegal ali en s who ar e rem ov ed . 

Ho we ver, if we rec eive th e re qu es te d increa se in fu nd s, we will be ab le to re patr ia te m an y of th os e wh o ar e un ab le to pr ov id e for th eir ow n tr ansp ort ati on co st, 

th ere by cr ea ting a mor e effective rem ov al pr og ra m.

Coo pe ra tio n of th e G over nm en t of Me xic o (G OM ) is a ne ce ssary pr er eq uis ite 

in eff ectin g th e in te ri or re p atr ia ti o n of Mex ican na tional s an d th a t su ch co op er ation is an d ha s be en fo rt hco m in g is appar en t from th e as sistan ce rend er ed by th e 

GOM in f ur ni sh in g th e t ra in li ft f ro m Pres idio to C hih uah ua C ity an d in ex pe di ting 

th e m ov em en ts th ro ugh th e va riou s po rt s- of -e nt ry be tw ee n th e U.S . an d Me xico.

Que stion 37. W ha t is t h e s ta tu s of I& NS req ue st to S ta te D epar tm en t to c onta ct 

Is ra el , So viet U ni on an d some E ast ern E uro pe an co un trie s for in fo rm at io n 

re sp ec ting all eg ed w ar cr im in al s in U.S.

(a) Specifically ha s th e S ta te D epar tm en t ag reed to m ak e such re qu es ts, if so, 

ha ve su ch re qu es ts b ee n m ad e; if so, t o w hat c ou ntries , when an d w ha t i nfo rm at io n 

ha ve we rece ived ?

An swer. The S ta te D ep art m en t au th or iz ed th is Se rvice on Ja nuary 16, 1975 , to 

de al di re ct ly w ith th e Is ra el i gov er nm en t th ro ugh th a t countr y’s co nsu la te 

in Ne w York C ity. U po n re ce ip t of th is a uth ori za tion, lia iso n was es ta bl ishe d w ith 

th a t office. I t is to o ear ly to ex pe ct an y re su lts of th is lia ison . A co py of th e re ­

fe re nc ed le tt e r is att ach ed .

Afte r m an y m onth s of discussio ns and neg ot ia tion s w ith th e Sta te D ep art ­

m en t, it wa s ag reed th a t do ssier s wo uld be pre par ed on ea ch of th e all eg ed Naz i 

W ar Crim inals under acti ve in ve st ig at io n an d also on th os e plac ed in an in ac tive 

st atu s. Th ese do ssier s wou ld co nt ai n biog ra ph ical d a ta and th e natu re an d so ur ce 

of th e allega tio ns . It is e xpe ct ed th a t th e d ossie rs will be s ubm it te d t o th e D ep art ­

m en t of S ta te w ith in th e ne xt th re e we eks. The S ta te D ep art m ent will th en 

en de av or to ob ta in ev id en ce , in th e form of doc um en ta tion or sw orn de po sitio ns , 

from th e Fed er al R ep ub lic of G er m an y an d th e G er m an Dem oc ra tic R ep ubl ic , 

an d th er ea ft er , de pe nd en t on re su lts th er eo f, from su ch oth er co un trie s as is 

de em ed to be fea sib le.
443

D epa r t m e n t o f St a t e,

B u r e a u o f S ec u r it y a n i» C o n su la r A f f a ir s ,

Washington, Jan uary Id, 1975.

M r. J am es F. G r e en e,

Deputy Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,

(L«.s7i i ng ton, D.C.

D ear M r. G r e e n e: In your le tt e r of Octob er 21, 1974, yo u ad vi se d us of th e 

diffi cu lties be ing en co un te re d by your office in A th en s in se ek in g in fo rm at io n from cer ta in officials of th e Is ra el i G ov er nm en t in Te l Aviv an d Je ru sa le m about Mar crim es allege dly co m m itte d by pe rson s on th e list yo u pr ev io us ly su bm it te d 

to us. We hav e ta ken th is m a tt e r up w it h th e Em ba ss y a t Is ra el he re an d th e E m ­ ba ss y su gg es ts th a t th ro ugh your Ne w York office yo u ge t in to uc h w ith Mr. M. M al ch i wh o is att ached to th e C on su la te Gen er al of Is ra el in New Yo rk. T he Em ba ss y be lie ve s th a t Mr. M al ch i wou ld be th e bes t pe rson to as sist th e Se rvice in se ek in g in fo rm at io n from Is ra el i officials in Isra el. T he C on su la te Genera l is lo ca te d a t 850 T hir d Av en ue , N ew Yo rk. Mr. M al ch i’s te le ph on e num ber is 

21 2- 75 2- 56 00 x238.

I ho pe th is ch an ne l will pr ov e pro duct iv e.

Sinc erely ,

F rederic k Sm it h, Jr .,

Deputy Adm inistrator.

Qu estion 38. W hat is st atu s of M aiko vs ki s case? In part ic ula r, W est G er m an 

resp on se. Answe r. W ith referenc e to th e Bo les lavs M ai ko vs ki s case, th e W es t Ger m an go ve rn m en t by le tt er dat ed Ju ne 19, 1974, ad vi se d th a t th ey wou ld not ex tr adit e th e su bje ct. A co py of sa id le tt er is att ached fo r your in fo rm at io n. In quir y di ­ re ct ed to th e A tto rn ey Gen er al in L an da u/ Pfa lz , G er m an y, by th e D is tr ic t D i­ re ct or , F ra nkfu rt , G er m an y elic ited a po sitiv e resp on se on O ct ob er 21, 1974, to ­

ge th er w ith copie s of (1) se nte nce o f th e Su pr em e C ourt of th e L at via n So cialist 

Rep ub lic in Rig a dat ed O ct ob er 30, 1965; (2) L at via n doc um en ts ; (3) Ger m an 

do cu m en ts ; an d, (4) de po sitio ns o f Lat via n witn es ses all re la ting to ac tivitie s of 

which th e su bje ct is ac cu sed. T hi s m at er ia l wa s co lle cte d in co nn ec tion w ith th e pen di ng W est Ger m an govern m ent’s pr os ec ut io n of A lb er t Ei ch elis, th e su b je ct’s 

fo rm er co m m an di ng officer.

D eu ts ch es G en er alk ons ula t,

G erma n C on su la te G ener al,

New York, N. Y., June 19, 1974-

S am ue l II . Zut ty,

Investigator, U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service,

New York, N. Y.

D ear M r. Zut ty : This is in re fe re nc e to th e co nv er sa tion we had in m y office 

on M ay 15, 1974. The D is tr ic t A tto rn ey in L an dau /P fa lz who is in ch ar ge of th e cr im in al in ves ti­ gat io n ag ai nst Ei ch elis co nc er ni ng nat io na l-so ci al is t crim es of violen ce co m m itte d part ic ula rl y ag ai ns t Jews , G yp sies and Com m un ists be tw ee n Aug us t 1941 an d O ctob er 1943 in th e dis tr ic t of R osi tten (R ez ek ne) /L at via , ha s ad vi se d me th a t th er e will be no e xt ra ditio n re ques t fo rthc om in g w ith re sp ec t to Bo les lav M aiko wskis by th e Fed er al Rep ub lic of G er m an y.

Boleslav Maiko ws kis, as yo u kn ow , was chief of th e se co nd pre ci nct of th e 

co unty police in R os itte n and a su bord in ate of Eicheli s. Acc ording to ar tic le I of th e E xtrad itio n T re aty b etwee n th e U nited Sta te s an d G er m an y, sig ne d Ju ne 12, 1930, it is a pr er eq ui site f or th e e xtr ad itio n requ es t th a t th e re qu es ting st ate ha s ju ri sd ic tion ov er th e pe rson in cr im in at ed . A fter a th or oug h in ves tigat io n of all qu es tio ns of law an d fa ct invo lved , th e co m pet en t G er m an au th ori ti es have come to th e co nc lusio n th a t an extr ad itio n re qu es t ca nnot be su bm it te d sinc e Ger m an cr im in al co ur ts ha ve no ju risd ic tion ov er Bo les lav Maik ow skis be ca us e of th e following reas on s: All alledg ed cri me s were com m itte d ab ro ad , in Lat vi a. M aiko ws kis was nei th er a t th e tim e wh en he alledg ed ly co m m itte d th e crim es a G er m an cit ize n, no r di d he la te r be co me one , no r is he to d ay a Ger m an su bje ct . His ac ts we re not co m­ m it te d ag ai ns t German s, b u t again st L at vi an or So viet citiz en s re sp ec tive ly . Furt her m ore , Bo leslav M aiko wsk is was ne ve r in co rp ora te d in any G er m an m ilitar y o r p olice u nit. He se rv ed exc lusiv ely in a L at via n o ut fit. H e wa s, th er ef or e,
444

not executing powers originating in the sovereignty of the German Reich. Hence, 

under sections 3 and 4 of the German Penal Code, the German Courts have no 

jurisdiction.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Elmar Rauch, Consul.

Question 39. Will you provide the Comm ittee with status reports on the investi- _ 

gatio n of alleged Nazi War Criminals?

Answer. The Service will provide to the Committee reports on the status of the 

investigations of the alleged Nazi War Criminals.

Question 40. What is status of Trifa case?

Answer. The Trifa case was tr ansm itted by the Departm ent of Justice, Criminal 

Division on March 13, 1975, to the U.S. Attorney, Detroit for institution of IJ

revoc ation of citizenship proceedings.

7

i
Additional Comments of Department of Justice on H.R . 982

Department of J ustice,

Washington, D.C., June 11, 1975.

Hon. J oshua Eilberg,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and International Law, Committee on the Judic iary, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am pleased to respond to your request for th e detailed comments of th e Departm ent of Justice on H.R . 982, a bill which would prohibit the employment of illegal aliens. You note tha t several questions have been raised abo ut the Depar tment’s position on this bill. I trust that there is no question about the views of this Department on the need for a prohibition on the employment of illegal aliens. By now, I am certain th at you are wearily aware of th e magnitude of the illegal im migration problem and of our reasons for believing th at a prohibition on employment of illegal aliens, which would reduce the economic incentive for the illegal m igration, is the only sensible response to the problem. My comments therefore will be limited to a technical 

analysis of the bill. Section 2 of H.R . 982 would amend section 274(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to declare it to be unlawful for any employer, agent, or person who for a fee refers an alien for employment knowingly to employ, contin ue to employ, or refer for em ployment any alien who has not been lawfully a dmitte d for perm anent residence, unless such employment is authorized by the Atto rney 

General. The new section 274(b)(1) would contain two provisos. The first would s tipulate th at an employer, referrer, or agent shall not be deemed to have violated the sub­ section if he has made a bona fide inquiry whether th e applicant is a citizen or an alien and, if an alien, whethe r he is lawfully admitted for perm anent residence. The second proviso would declare that an employer, referrer, or agent can dem onstrate prim a facie proof of such a bona fide inquiry by securing a signed statem ent from the person employed or referred th at such person is a citizen, a permanen t resident alien, or an alien authorized by the Attorney General to ac­ cep t employment. The signed statem ent would have to conform with regulations 

prescribed by the Attorney General. The three-step p ena lty structur e authorize d by the amended section 274 would begin with the Atto rney General or his agent serving a citation informing the offending employer, agent or referrer of an apparen t violation. A second offense 

with in two years of the service of such a citation would authorize the Atto rney 

General to assess a civil penalty of not more tha n $500 for each alien in respect 

to whom a violation occurs. A violation subs equent to the assessment of a civil pen alty would expose the offender to a criminal conviction with a maximum punishm ent of $1,000 fine and one year imprisonm ent for each alien in respect to 

which a violation occurs. The Departm ent of Justice has several concerns with a prohibition on emplo y­ ment of illegal aliens. Such a prohibition must effectively deter illegal entry; it must be enforceable. A prohibition on employment of illegals must not result in employm ent discrimination against foreign appearing citizens or permanent resi­ dent aliens. Such a prohibition must not burden this country ’s employers to the extent th at the employer-employee relationship is adversely affected or to a degree tha t employers become the enforcers of our immigration statutes. While is it app rop riate to permit an employer to inquire as to whether an applicant is a eitizen or alien entitled to work, an applicant should not be required to display proof of citizenship to obtain employment. Notwithstanding previous views ex­ pressed on this subject, the Department of Justice opposes any requirement that citizens carry docum entation of citizenship when seeking e mployment. Your subcommittee has wrestled with these same considerations for the past five years, and the resulting bill, H.R. 982, strike s, we thin k, an app ropriate
446

balance not only between these concerns but also between the often conflicting 

interests of the employer, the employee, the illegal alien, and the public. This 

Department is well aware of the political and legislative realities associated with 

this bill, and we believe that H.R. 982 provides an appropriate balancing of 

important competing considerations. I can assure the subcommittee that the 

Department of Justice will certainly monitor the operation of this legislation, 

if it is enacted, to determine the extent of employer compliance as well as any 

discrimination that may appear with respect to foreign appearing citizens or 

permanent resident aliens.

Our support for H.R. 982, however, should not prevent us from recommending 

certain technical amendments. The provisions of section 2 of the bill which would .•

permit the employer to obtain prima facie proof of compliance with the statute ii

by securing a signed statement of citizenship status from the applicant, has been *

described as weak from an enforcement standpoint in that employers would 

encourage illegal applicants to falsely execute the signed statements of citizenship 

status. The Department of Justice believes that allowing good faith employers to y

obtain proof of compliance is necessary in this legislation to remove any incentive f

for the employer to avoid hiring foreign appearing citizens. Although we think 

that the requirement that the employer’s inquiry be bona fide prevents the proof 

of compliance provision from operating as an enforcement loophole, the Committee may wish to amend section 911 of title 18, United States Code, which 

presently prohibits misrepresentation of United States citizenship, to also proscribe false representations of lawful admission for permanent residence or of 

authorization b y the Attorney General to accept employment. Suggested language 

for such an amendment is attach ed as Appendix A to this letter.

We would also recommend tha t the bill be amended by adding an authorization 

for the United States to seek an injunction against a violation of the statute. Such a 

provision would be useful in dealing with an employer who continues to employ or 

refuses to discharge illegals even as the Government attempts to apply the three 

step penalty. A draft injunction authorization is attached as Appendix B.

The Department of Justice continues to support section 1 of II.R . 982 which 

would make several amendments to section 245 of the Act which presently authorizes an Eastern Hemisphere alien to adjust his status to that of a permanent 

resident without leaving the United States to secure an immigrant visa. The language of existing subsection (a) relating to the ineligibility of alien crewmen would 

be transferred to subsection (c) which lists the other disqualifications. Subsection 

(a) would also be amended to establish eligibility for an immigrant visa at the time 

the application is filed rather than at the time it is approved. The Department 

agrees that the applicant should not be penalized for administrative delays not 

attributable to him.

Section 1 of the bill would make three amendments to subsection 245(c).

First, aliens who are not defined as immediate relatives and who accept unauthorized employment prior to filing an application would be ineligible for an adjustment of status. The Department supports this attempt to limit unauthorized 

employment by nonimmigrants. The second change in subsection (c) would disqualify from adjustment aliens admitted in transit without visa. Although a 

Departmental regulation prescribing such ineligibility has been upheld in the I

Second Circuit, Mak v. f A’S, 435 F. 2d 728 (1970), the Department favors legis- *

lati ve recognition of this disqualification. We would suggest, however, that the 

reference to section 238(d) on line 20 of page 2 be changed to read “section 

212(d)(4)(c)." |

The third major change to subsection 245(c) would restore adjustment of status 

eligibility to Western Hemisphere aliens. The present disqualification, enacted 

in 1965, has created many hardships and leads to unnecessary alien expense by 

requiring the alien to return to his country of origin to apply for an immigrant 

visa from a consular office. The number of Western Hemisphere aliens granted 

adjustment would be charged against the Western Hemisphere numerical limitation by subsection 245(b).

Section 3 of the bill would add a new section 274(a) which would require officers 

and employees of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to disclose 

to the Service the name and most recent address of any alien not lawfully in the 

United States who is receiving welfare benefits. However, we know of no present 

procedure by which HEW employees can determine whether a welfare recipient 

is lawfu lly in the United States. Since the need for denying social security cards 

to illegal aliens, and the identification of such aliens through social security records, 

is a matter of wide-spread public concern, the Department supports efforts in this 

direction. The Service has continued to work with the Social Security Administration to implement section 137 of the Social Security Amendments of 1972;
447

P.L. 92-603 , 86 St at. 1329, which req uires, inter alia, th at social se cu rit y acco un t 

applica nts su bm it evidence of th ei r citizen ship or alien stat us . Section 4 of H.R. 982 would am en d 18 U.S.C. § 1546 which imposes crimin al penalties for fals ifying certa in im migr ati on docum ent s, or for use of suc h falsified docume nts . Th e am endm en t would expand the presen t language to ma ke it app licable to an y “b order crossin g card, alien registr ation receipt car d, or othe r do cument pre scribe d by st atu te or regulat ion for en try into or as eviden ce of authorize d stay in the Un ite d Sta te s. ” Because this am endm en t is necessitated by the restr ictiv e rea din g of th e pr esen t st at ute announced in United States v. 

Campos-Serrano, 404 U.S. 293 (1971), th e Dep artm en t of Ju stice urges its 

enac tm en t. Th e Dep artm en t also supp or ts sections 5 an d 6 of th e bill which provide a sav ing s pro vision and pre scribe a delay ed effective date. As th e At torney Gen eral st at ed in his lette r of Marc h 26th, th e Dep artm en t of Ju stice believes th at en ac tm en t of H.R . 982 would be a sig nif ica nt ste p tow ard ach iev ing ou r com mon goal of red ucing illegal im mi gration. We, of course, sta nd read y t o a ssi st the Su bcom mittee in a ny way possible to o btain th e early enac tm en t 

of thi s im po rtan t legislation.

Sincerely ,

A. Mitc hell McCon ne ll, Jr.,

Acting A ssista nt Atto rne y General.

f

A

T

App en dix A

1. Section 911 of Title 18, Uni te d State s Code, an d th e heading thereo f, are 

am ende d to read as follow s:

“ §911. Citizen of the United States, Alien Un law fully Admitted fo r Permanent Residence, or Al ien Authorized by the Attorney General to Accept Em ployment. “ Wh oev er falsely and willfully represen ts himself to be a citize n of th e Un ite d St ate s, or an alien lawfully ad m itt ed for pe rm an en t residen ce, or an alien au th or ­ ized b y th e Atto rney Gen eral to a cc ep t em plo ym ent, sha ll be fined no t more than $1,000 or im pri son ed no t more th an th re e yea rs, or both. “ A willful mi sre presentat ion with in th e me ani ng of this section includes, but is no t lim ite d to, a stat em en t ma de to ob tain a ben efit or to concea l a stat us or 

cond iti on .” 2. Th e analy sis of ch ap ter 43 of title 18, United St ates Code, is am ended by deleting “911. Citizen of the U ni te d St ates ” an d su bs titu tin g therefor: “911. Citizen of th e United State s, Alien Lawfully Adm itt ed f or Pe rm an en t Res idence, or Alien Au tho rized by th e Atto rn ey General to Accep t Em ploy men t.”

App en dix B

(d) Th e distric t courts of th e U ni te d States an d all courts exercising gene ral juris diction in th e territor ies an d possessio ns of th e United St ates sha ll have juris diction in proceedings in accordance with th e Federal Rules of Civil Pr oced ure to enjoin vio lations of this sec tion.
D epa r tm en t o r H ea lt h , E d u c a tio n, an d W e l f a r e,

Baltimore, Aid., April 17, 1975.

Hon. Joshua Eilberg,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Your request of March 14 asks me to respond to a 

series of questions tha t relate to the idea of issuing a so-called ‘‘tamper-proof” 

card to all people who now have social security cards.

The enclosed answers respond to this idea only in terms of technical problems 

involved and do not in any way imply that I believe such a procedure would be 

desirable or, in fact, feasible. As I indicated in my response of March 28 to the 

supp lementary questions to my testimony, SSA has issued over 200 million social 

security cards. During the 1 yea r in which we have enforced strict identification 

procedures we issued less tha n 10 million cards. Extensive efforts are underway 

to enumerate young people, and we foresee tha t, in the near future, most young 

people who are in th e work force will have been enum erate d under our provisions 

requiring evidence of iden tity. Because of fiscal constraints, the volume of the 

potential workload, and a possible public relations problem, no efforts are underway to validate the bulk of current social security number (SSN) holders. I do 

feel th at we should continue our evidence requirements, however.

Prior experience with the Imm igration and Natu ralization Service has shown 

that use of the social secu rity card as a work permit does not appear to work. 

Thus, considering the impact th at such a system would have on the public, I 

seriously question the desirability of taking greater steps to assure t ha t the bearer 

of a social security card is the tru e SSN holder and is permitted to work. I do not 

feel t ha t social security cards should be used as work permits.

Sincerely yours,

Arthur E. Hess,

Deputy Commissioner of Social Security.

Enclosure.

Q U E ST IO N S ON IL L E G A L A LIE N H EA R IN G S

Question. How do you suggest th at millions of persons now holding cards 

obtain a new card?

Answer. There are several ways the above could be approached , each one 

depe nden t to varying degrees, upon the requirements built into any new card 

issuing system . If new cards were to be issued, the most practical system would 

be eith er numerical or alphabetical. Either system would cause problems. A 

significant problem is that SSA does not have the current addresses of account 

number holders. We do not know what the workloads would be at social security 

offices, bu t they would most likely be very uneven, there would be delays in 

processing, etc.

The type of card to be issued is ano the r problem. If the same numbering system 

we presen tly have were to be used for new cards, confusion could ensue. If the 

numbers and names were to be verified manually, it would take many man-years 

to complete. Since full automatio n of this system is several years down the road, 

the verification process could not be fully a utom ated.

If a completely new system were to b< devised, such system could take years to 

become operational. Thus, the ramifications of devising a new system versus using 

the cur rent SSN system would need to be determined.

Question. Should the social security offices be kept open at night and on weekends? What would be the cost of this additional service? Would you have the social 

security people go to places of employment? If “yes,” does this include all small 

businesses, including one- or two-man operations? If they go one place wouldn’t 

they have to go to every place of business? If the offices are not kep t open extra 

hours, how long a period of time would people have to get their new cards?

Answer. Until we have determined (1) the extent of additional data (picture, 

fingerprints, etc.) to be included on the new card form at and (2) the extent of
449

verification of the existing number which will be required, we cannot estim ate the 

length of the individual interview and development that will be necessary, the 

overall time frame it would take to reissue all the existing cards, or the cost of 

the operation. (To provide a guide to base e stim ated costs on, we should note that 

if we were to under take replacing all existing SSN cards (some 150 million) and 

issuing cards to those persons not now enumerated (approximately 50 million) 

and each “interview” took 20 minutes of distric t office/branch office time, the 

Bureau of Field Operations would need 50,000 additional employees to do the job 

in a year’s time.) However, we must presume th at some type of personal interview 

would be necessary with each individual, so it would appe ar that we would have 

to incorporate all the devices suggested here, plus any others th at seem prac tical. 

Office hours would obviously have to be exten ded as much as possible to accommodate employees who work during the day. Whether the extended hours could 

be handled on an overtime basis or would require separate shifts of district office 

employees would again depend on workload volumes, complexities of the operation, 

and time frames.

Wherever possible, we would want to try going to places of business to process 

groups of employees. This would not only be a convenience for the employer and 

employees but would cut down crowds in the distric t offices. Similarly, the 

district office might arran ge to go to each small community in its area and provide 

the interviewing and development services there. However, if the design of the 

card would require use of extensive photographic, automated, or fingerprinting 

equipm ent that is not easily portable, going outside the district office setting may 

not be practical.

It might also be necessary to secure the assistance of o ther Federal agencies in 

handling the great volume of applicants. In such case, we would have to be 

prepared to provide all necessary training and equipment for the personnel of 

these agencies.

Question. Should employers be forced to pay employees while they are at the 

social security office getting a new card?

Answer. We see no way this could or should be done.

Question. If the answer to the above is “No,” how would you compensate the 

workers for the tim e lost from their jobs while they are getting the new cards?

Answer. We see no way to do so.

Question. During the interim, how would people without the new cards prove 

they have a right to be in this country and hold a job?

Answer. Individuals would need to show the same types of evidence to prove 

their righ t to be in the U.S. as they do now to obtain a social security number 

(evidence of age, identity, citizenship or alien status). Such docum ents as birth 

certificates, INS documents, State Department documents, etc., are examples of 

what the Social Security Administration currently uses to meet the evidentiary 

requirements.

Question. What would be the cost of issuing new tamp er-proof cards to all of the 

people who now ha ve them?

Answer. In order to make the social se curity number card, or any identification 

card, serve as a good identifier of an individual, it would have to contain personal 

information. Such information could include a combination of fingerprints, curre nt 

photograph, list of personal chara cteristics, etc. From an operational standp oint, 

such requirements are overwhelming. The requirement of a thu mb pri nt or a 

photograph on a social security card would mean a personal contact with every 

individual in this country, and those who possess SSN ’s in countries overseas 

(which include* citizens of the U.S., as well as non-citizens). In dealing with those 

who are homebound or out of the country, the problem (and cost) would intensify. 

Most likely, mobile units would have to be sen t out for interviewing, identifying, 

and photographing those who could not come into a central location set up for 

such purpose. Arrangements would have to be made with the Sta te Departme nt 

for those individuals residing outside the U.S. Each change of name would necessitate reissuance of a card. In addition, there would be a need to review the card 

(probably every several years; possibly every 5 years maximum), in order to 

accom modate changes in appearance (this would be most apparent as small 

children grow into adulthood). Thus, there would be both a substantial initial cost 

and a sizable maintenance cost related to each of these alternatives, plus some 

significant time and staff implications.

We have in the past looked into the issuance of photo identification cards. In 

December 1973 it was determined that the cost of having photo identification 

cards was about 50 cents per card (for card and film only); thus, the initial cost 

would be $100 million, at a minimum, for the estim ated 200 million cards required.
450

Costs would, of course, be even higher as a result of homebound or “outside the 

U.S.” individuals. Additionally, an entire network would have to be set up to 

issue duplicate or replacement cards, establish procedures for cancellation of 

cards, etc.

Question. What would be the cost of the new system compared to what is 

presently in use?

Answer. The additional cost would be dependent on the requirements of the 

new system. The latest figures we have from our Bureau of Data Processing show 

that it costs some 95 cents to receive an application for a SSN, screen the case, 

process the card, and mail it to the individual. The first link in the application 

process, the district office processing (actually taking the application, obtaining 

the required evidence and coding the form prior to its submission to BD P), costs 

the equivalent of 7 plus minutes in manpower (and, depending on given circumstances, could go even higher— to 14 minutes and more). Of course, with additional requirements, the costs would be escalated even higher (sec answers to 

questions above).

Question. What happens if a person loses his or her card while looking for a 

job? If there is a delay in getting a new card, how does this person prove he or 

she has a right to work?

Answer. We would foresee an employer takin g steps to determine whether the 

individual is entitled to work b y inspecting a birth certificate, INS documents or 

other evidence, much as SSA now requires as proof for the obtaining of a SSN.

Question. Do you know for a fact that a tamper-proof, counterfeit-proof card 

has been developed or that one is even close to perfection?

Answer. No

Question. How would you prevent persons who now hold cards fraudulently 

from getting the new cards?

Answer. We see no way it can be prevented. Experienced agencies such as I NS 

have had indications that no matter how well a system may be designed, counterfeiters, etc., are not too far behind.

Question. What safeguards would you suggest to prevent the new card from 

becoming a national identification card?

Answer. A card such as it is apparently envisioned would be a de facto identifier 

at the very least. Once such a card comes into being, there are no safeguards to 

prevent it from being a national identification card for all intents and purposes.

Question. Wouldn’ t police officers autom atically assume this card must be 

shown for proof of identity?

Answer. Yes

o