U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

64–855 PDF 2011

MAKING IMMIGRATION WORK FOR 

AMERICAN MINORITIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 1, 2011 

Serial No. 112–10 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM REED, New York 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT

ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman 

STEVE KING, Iowa, Vice-Chairman 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MARCH 1, 2011 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and 

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

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

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy 

and Enforcement .................................................................................................. 2 

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

of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................................... 4 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 5 

WITNESSES 

Carol M. Swain, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science and Law, Vanderbilt 

University 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 9 

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

Frank L. Morris, Sr., Ph.D., Progressives for Immigration Reform 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 17 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 19 

George Rodriguez, President, San Antonio Tea Party 

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

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

Wade Henderson, President and CEO, The Leadership Conference on Civil 

and Human Rights 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 32 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 35 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement from William Lucy, President, Coalition of Black Trade 

Unionists, submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 7 

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

on Immigration Policy and Enforcement ........................................................... 54 

Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement .......................................................................... 71 

Article from National Review Online, submitted by the Honorable Maxine 

Waters, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and 

Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement ................... 83 

Page

IV 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Pedro Pierluisi, a Representative in 

Congress from Puerto Rico, and Member, Subcommitte on Immigration 

Policy and Enforcement ....................................................................................... 89 

Additional Material submitted by Carol M. Swain, Ph.D., Professor of Political 

Science and Law, Vanderbilt University ............................................................ 90 

(1) 

MAKING IMMIGRATION WORK FOR 

AMERICAN MINORITIES 

TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION

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

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in 

room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Elton 

Gallegly (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gallegly, Smith, King, Gohmert, Poe, 

Conyers, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Waters, and Pierluisi. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Andrea Loving, Counsel; Marian White, 

Clerk; and David Shahoulian, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Good morning. I call to order the Subcommittee 

on Immigration Policy and Enforcement. 

This morning, we are going to start—I guess we will have an 

opening. I have long said the way to solve the problem of illegal 

immigration is fairly simple. First, we must enforce our laws and 

secure the border. Second, we must remove the magnets that encourage illegal immigration. And finally, we must remove the benefits that make it easy for them to stay. 

With nearly 14 million unemployed Americans, removing the 

magnets—I am sorry, I have got the—excuse me just one moment. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I am sorry about that. I got just a little bit ahead 

of myself. 

When employers hire foreign workers who will work for less than 

American workers, Americans lose jobs. So importing millions of 

poorly educated foreign workers won’t help our country. But instead, it will only hinder its growth. 

This morning’s hearing is the third in a series which this Subcommittee will be examining, the connection between immigration 

and jobs. Today, we are exploring perhaps one of the most important aspects of that connection—the effect that low-skilled immigrants have on the employment of American minorities. 

This topic is often ignored by amnesty supporters. But Republicans held a 2007 forum on the issue, and we invited a witness to 

discuss it at the 2010 hearing. So I am pleased that the Immigration Subcommittee is taking a formal look at it today. 

The 13.9 million unemployed Americans deserve every chance 

possible to find a job, and our focus should be on ensuring that 

2 

every U.S. citizen who is willing to work has a job, instead of giving jobs to foreign laborers. 

Many of those impacted by the current job crisis are minorities. 

The unemployment rates for Blacks and Hispanics are 15.7 and 

11.9, respectively. They often compete for jobs with low-skilled immigrant workers. 

In 2006, Harvard professor George Borjas researched the effects 

of immigration and the wages and employment rates of the African-American population. He concluded that a 10 percent immigrant-induced increase in the supply of a particularly skilled group 

reduced the Black wage by 3.6 percent. And he found that the 

same increase in labor supply lowered the employment rate of 

Black men by 2.4 percent. 

Using census data from 1960 to 2000, Borjas determined that as 

immigrants disproportionately increase the supply of workers in a 

particular skill group, there was a reduction in the wage of Black 

workers in that group, a reduction in the employment rate, and a 

corresponding increase in the incarceration rate. 

And young people have been hit especially hard by the recession. 

In fact, of young U.S.-born Blacks ages 18 to 29, 55 percent have 

no education higher than a high school diploma, and of young U.S.- 

born Hispanic, 54 percent have no education higher than a high 

school diploma. 

These low-skilled legal workers are the ones who have to compete with the jobs with the three-fourths of illegal immigrants who 

have no education beyond high school. They are the real victims of 

the American failed immigration policy. Recent research confirms 

that assertion. 

In August 2010, the report by the Center for Immigration Studies noted that according to the U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of 

Labor Statistics data from 2007 to 2010, younger and less educated 

workers are the most likely to be in competition with immigrants, 

legal and illegal. And in July 2010, a report by the Center for 

Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University noted that immigrants—especially less educated, undocumented immigrants—provide fierce competition for jobs for the Black male teens. 

Several of our witnesses today have seen firsthand the impact 

that mass low-skilled immigration has had on minority communities. I look forward to hearing their testimony as we move 

through the hearing. 

And at this point, I would yield to my friend from California, the 

Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Hopefully, all of us in this room can agree on some things. I am 

sure we can all agree that our immigration system should be designed to benefit our country, our economy, and all American workers. And I know we agree that a functioning system means stopping illegal immigration. We can agree that unscrupulous employers will exploit immigrant workers and undercut American workers, and that can’t be. 

I hope we can also agree that our laws should prevent employers 

from using legal temporary workers to displace American workers. 

America needs a system that lets in workers only where and when 

we need them, not where and when we don’t. 

3 

Where we do disagree is on how to get to such a system. Witness 

Carol Swain, for example, has often criticized the H-2B visa program, and I agree with her. 

Last year, I introduced a bill that would reform that program to 

prevent employers from using H-2B workers to undercut U.S. 

workers. Unfortunately, no one on the other side of the aisle joined 

me in that effort. 

That is perhaps because many of my colleagues believe that rather than fix our broken system, we should just keep pressing on the 

enforcement pedal harder. But increased enforcement is exactly 

what we have been doing for 20 years, and everyone knows it isn’t 

working. 

Most importantly, we know you can’t just keep enforcing a broken system. As we have discussed in this Committee’s last few 

hearings, simply enforcing our laws in agriculture, for example, 

would actually destroy many millions of jobs held by American 

workers. 

We know that even in this economy, Americans are not returning 

to the fields, and the wage increase necessary to entice them there 

would make U.S. food products no longer competitive with imported products. The end result would be the closure of America’s 

farms, a less secure America, and the mass offshoring of millions 

and millions of U.S. jobs. These are not just farm jobs, but jobs 

supported by agriculture in manufacturing, seed production, processing, packaging, distribution, and accounting. 

Studies show that for every farm worker we deport, we may be 

deporting three other jobs held by Americans. This is the real math 

of our complicated economy. Enforcement without reform may open 

up a job over here, only to destroy four over there. 

These facts can be hard to accept when our country is facing the 

greatest economic challenge since the Great Depression. People are 

out of work, and many are out of hope. Unemployment is stubbornly high, especially in communities of color. It is a time when 

many are eager for answers. 

But we need more than sound bites. We know there are unscrupulous employers who capitalize on undocumented workers to undercut other employers, but some may point to instances of displacement and draw a conclusion about all immigration and offer 

unrealistic prescriptions for mass deportation that will harm and 

not help our communities. 

As policymakers, we need to consider all available information. 

We need to consider that the vast majority of economists and all 

of the most recent research in the area confirm that immigrants actually improve the job prospects of U.S. workers. Disinterested economic experts, in report after report, reach such conclusions. 

While some economists have found slight negative effects on the 

small and shrinking number of Americans without high school diplomas, much of the newest research reverses those findings and 

shows that even such workers have benefited from immigration. A 

recent study by the Economic Policy Institute finds that workers 

without high school diplomas saw their wages go up because of immigration. It also shows that similar positive impacts were experienced by White and Black non-Hispanic workers alike. 

4 

With African Americans specifically, recent studies by the brightest economic minds shows that immigration does not have the negative effects that some would suggest. Economist Steven Pitts of 

UC-Berkeley, Bernard Anderson of the University of Pennsylvania, 

Gerald Jaynes of Yale, and Heidi Shierholz of EPI conclude that 

African Americans have generally benefited from immigration, as 

many have moved up as immigrants have moved in. 

These findings have surprised many, including the economists 

themselves. Mr. Jaynes, a professor of economics and AfricanAmerican studies at Yale, himself said—and I quote—‘‘Despite 

strong convictions for our hypothesis that immigration had large 

negative effects on Black workers in particular, the data forced us 

to conclude otherwise. Negative effects were mostly absent and 

modest at worst for only a small segment of lowest-skilled workers.’’ 

How can this be? It is because although immigrants fill jobs, they 

also create jobs in various ways. They create jobs by consuming 

goods and services. They also often fill jobs that an insufficient 

number of Americans want to fill, resulting in the continued viability of certain industries, like agriculture, that support jobs in other 

industries, like manufacturing and processing. 

The challenge we face as policymakers is to reconcile these facts 

in order to develop a system that works for America. My colleagues 

argue that by simply increasing enforcement, we will free up jobs 

for American workers. But this is no jobs plan. 

Their approach may have superficial appeal, but mass deportation is hardly smart economic policy. It is a short-sighted effort 

that would be costly and would fail. What we need to do is roll up 

our sleeves and fix our laws. We need to secure our borders and 

close off magnets for undocumented workers. 

We need to be realistic about this population. We can spend billions in a futile attempt to deport them all, or we can require them 

to register, pay taxes, learn English, and ensure that they are in 

the system, following the rules. If we level the playing field and 

prevent exploitation by unscrupulous employers, we can protect all 

workers. 

Our goal must be nothing less than an immigration system that 

actually responds to our economy and serves the interests of American businesses and workers. That is the work America needs us 

to do. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The gentleman from Texas, the Chairman of the 

full Committee, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

With unemployment at or over 9 percent for 21 months, jobs are 

scarce. And that is especially true in minority communities across 

the United States. 

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in January, the unemployment rate for Blacks was 16 percent, and for Hispanics, 12 

percent. These unemployment rates are much higher than the national average. 

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 7 million people are working in the U.S. illegally. These jobs should go to legal workers, 

many of whom will be minorities. 

5 

Virtually all credible studies show that competition from cheap 

foreign labor displaces American workers, including legal immigrants, or depresses their wages. The Center for Immigration Studies found that low-skilled workers lose an average of $1,800 a year 

because of competition from illegal immigrants for their jobs. That 

is a significant economic hit. 

A study by Harvard economist George Borjas shows that cheap 

immigrant labor has reduced the wages of American workers performing low-skilled jobs by 7.4 percent. That is a huge wage cut. 

But research is not the only proof. After illegal workers are arrested and detained during Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

worksite enforcement actions, many businesses replace them with 

American minorities. 

Georgia’s Crider, Inc., lost over 600 illegal workers after an ICE 

worksite enforcement action. The company increased wages a dollar an hour and attracted legal workers, primarily Black Americans. 

There are stories like these all over the United States. Enforce 

immigration laws, and unemployed Americans will be back on the 

payroll and earning a living for themselves and their families. 

Unfortunately, the Administration has almost stopped conducting worksite enforcement actions and prosecuting illegal workers. Instead, they conduct I-9 audits and release the illegal workers 

so they can walk down the street and take another job from an 

American worker. 

Each time ICE arrests, detains, or deports an illegal worker, it 

creates a job opportunity for an American worker. Each time the 

Department of Justice brings a criminal action against an employer 

who knowingly hired illegal workers, it sends a powerful message 

that their illegal employment will not be tolerated. 

Unfortunately, worksite enforcement has plummeted under the 

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

Criminal indictments have fallen 57 percent, and criminal convictions have fallen 66 percent. 

With millions of Americans unemployed, it is hard to imagine a 

worse time to cut worksite enforcement efforts by more than half. 

Not only could the Administration enforce immigration laws to help 

protect jobs for Americans, but they should also expand the use of 

the E-Verify system. It is the easiest way to help an employer 

know that their workforce is legal. 

The Administration needs to be held accountable for not doing 

more for American workers. 

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to welcome all of our witnesses 

today. They are all experts and all friends, and I appreciate their 

being here. 

I yield back. 

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

At this time, I would recognize the Ranking Member of the full 

Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman. 

I am very happy to be with you again, Elton Gallegly, on this, 

the third hearing on this subject. And of course, this is the first day 

6 

of the third month of the 112th Congress, and we have had on the 

floor five bills. 

The biggest, of course, was the huge cuts that resulted the week 

before this one, H.R. 1, the continuing appropriation in which we 

introduced some 67 amendments and passed the bill at about 4:45 

a.m. The second was H.R. 2, the repeal of the healthcare law. And 

that, again, succeeded. 

And the fourth, H.R. 4 was small business paperwork mandate 

elimination, which also came out of this Committee. And Thursday, 

we will have H.R. 3 on the floor, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion 

Act. And the leadership has now reserved the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 

and 10th bills to be determined. 

If this is the approach toward creating jobs, I don’t want to minimize the effort because there are some important issues in this 

hearing. But remember, both Democrats and Republicans campaigned on the notion that we would create jobs, and we are creating very few jobs. 

Now this is a very sensitive subject because if we are not careful—and I have a very optimistic and expanded view of what we 

can accomplish here today—but the notion that is underneath the 

surface of pitting African-American workers against Hispanic workers and immigrants is so abhorrent and repulsive to me that I 

want to get it on the table right now. 

And I will be watching very closely for anybody that tries to suggest that we are going to divide these two minorities who have 

much more things in common than they have in difference. And so, 

this becomes very, very important. 

Now I was hoping that we could get the president of the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, Bill Lucy, who is, in addition, an executive board member of the AFL-CIO, who spent his whole life 

working in this. But unfortunately, he wasn’t available, and I presume that the Chair would have been appropriately welcoming this 

witness as well. 

But he has a statement to submit. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

7 

1 ‘‘The Labor Movement’s Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform,’’ AFL–CIO and 

Change to Win, April 2009, available at http://www.aflcio.org/issues/civilrights/immigration/ 

upload/immigrationreform041409.pdf 2 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Union Members in 2010’’, January 

2011, table 2. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM LUCY, PRESIDENT, 

COALITION OF BLACK TRADE UNIONISTS

The Coalition of Black Trade Unionists (CBTU) proudly represents the interests 

of over 2.5 million black men and women in the labor movement. With one in every 

five black workers in a union, the labor movement is the single largest organization 

of African Americans in the nation. Since its founding in 1972, the CBTU has fought 

for economic, political and social justice for every American and used its powerful 

voice to demand fairness, equal pay, and a voice on the job for all workers. It is 

in this spirit that CBTU advocates for comprehensive immigration reform. 

CBTU strongly supports the Labor framework for comprehensive immigration reform which calls for: an independent commission to assess and manage future flows, 

based on labor market shortages that are determined on the basis of actual need; 

a secure and effective worker authorization mechanism; rational operational control 

of the border; adjustment of status for the current undocumented population; and 

improvement, not expansion, of temporary worker programs, limited to temporary 

or seasonal, not permanent, jobs.1

IMMIGRATION REFORM SHOULD NOT BE PORTRAYED AS A WEDGE ISSUE

While we appreciate the subcommittee’s focus on minority workers, we are deeply 

concerned the hearing will be used as a forum to blame immigrants for ‘‘stealing 

jobs’’ and attempt to divide African-American workers from Latino workers and 

newly-arrived immigrants from earlier-arriving immigrants. We sincerely hope 

members of the subcommittee and witnesses in today’s hearing will rise above such 

simplistic views and refrain from divisive rhetoric. 

Immigration reform is not an ‘‘us versus them’’ issue; it is an issue that impacts 

all of us. For far too long, unscrupulous employers have manipulated our broken immigration system to exploit undocumented workers, deny workplace protections, depress wages and stifle collective bargaining rights. This abuse has had a detrimental impact on all workers and must be stopped. 

IMPROVING WORKERS RIGHTS WILL HELP MINORITY WORKERS

CBTU encourages the subcommittee to look at improving labor, health and safety 

laws as a way to ‘‘make immigration work for minorities.’’ Prioritizing workers’ 

rights and workplace protections will ensure that our immigration system does not 

depress wages and working conditions for American workers. Promoting the freedom 

to form union and increasing access to collective bargaining will also benefit minority workers. 

By bargaining collectively, union members are often able to negotiate higher 

wages and better benefits. Union members earn almost 28 percent more than nonunion members. The union wage benefit is greatest for people of color and women. 

Latino union workers earn almost 51 percent more than their nonunion counterparts. Union women earn almost 34 percent more than nonunion women. For African Americans, the union advantage is 31 percent. For Asian American workers the 

union advantage is close to 1 percent.2

CONCLUSION

CBTU reaffirms its commitment to comprehensive immigration reform, as outlined in the Labor framework. We encourage Congress to take a comprehensive approach to immigration reform and prioritize workers’ rights. Ensuring that workers 

come out of the shadows and participate in the above-ground economy will raise 

labor standards for all workers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now the NAACP has been working on this issue 

for decades. The Congressional Black Caucus has been working on 

this issue for decades. We welcome our Judiciary Committee putting an oar in on this as well. 

8 

And so, this is a very important hearing, and I know our witnesses are going to be careful about their remarks because they 

will be scrutinized long after this hearing has ended. 

Now the one thing that I want to clear up, if I can, with the 

Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith, is that the 

numbers of people being arrested at the borders and the enforcement of our borders is, as I interpret what he said, more lax than 

ever. Or that the numbers are not proving what—they are proving 

that there needs to be more work on it. 

But that, Chairman Smith, is only if you take out the number 

of helicopter raids and big, mass busts, when they go into one plant 

and arrest everybody in sight. That is true that that sort of conduct 

is not going on. But we are enforcing our border security laws more 

effectively, from my point of view, than ever before. 

Last year, we deported a record number of immigrants. We have 

now more Border Patrol officers at our U.S.-Mexican border than 

ever before. And border crossings are at the lowest level since the 

year 1972. And there are all sorts of statistics that will be brought 

forward. 

But let us agree that we will work toward the accuracy of what 

is going on at the border because I think there is agreement that 

that is the key to cutting down and reducing to the maximum illegal entry into this country through our U.S.-Mexican border. And 

so, I am very much committed to this hearing. 

But there is a suggestion that somehow if we cut off immigrants, 

we will then be able to hire, particularly for farm workers, my Subcommittee Chair mentioned, we will be able to hire African Americans. Well, I have got a half dozen or more States that we can pay 

a visit to, and we might want to take a little trip out to these areas 

and find out from the farmers themselves what they are saying. 

If you really want to scare our agriculture industry in a new and 

different way, tell them that you are going to eliminate the immigrants that work in these fields at stoop labor at cheap wages, 

under deplorable conditions, I think you will find that their anticipation of being replaced by unemployed African Americans at this 

field will not be zero. It might be 1 or 2 percent. And so, I hope 

that this discussion comes out in what we will be doing here today. 

The way we are going to deal with creating jobs is to stimulate 

the economy and create some jobs. I have heard it said from my 

friends here in the Judiciary Committee that we should collect up 

every illegal immigrant and send them out of this country, and I 

will probably hear that again today, which is a point of view that 

is permissible under democratic discussion of how we should govern. 

But I hope that we will get past that. That is not what this country is about, and an immigration policy, which this Committee has 

jurisdiction over, we have got people now born in this country 

whose parents were immigrants and who may not have been here 

legally and who are now citizens. And that is another big challenge 

that awaits, Chairman Gallegly, this distinguished Subcommittee’s 

work. 

And so, I thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to 

join in this discussion in the hearing today. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank the gentleman for his opening statement. 

9 

We are fortunate to have a very distinguished panel of witnesses 

with us today. Each of the witnesses’ written statement will be entered into the record in its entirety, and I would ask that each witness summarize his or her testimony in 5 minutes, if possible, to 

help stay within the time constraints that we have here today. 

We have the lights that will help as an indication of the amount 

of time that has been taken, and I would ask that everybody be 

sensitive to that. 

Our first witness is Dr. Carol Swain. Dr. Swain is a professor at 

Vanderbilt University Law School and was a tenured associate professor of politics and public policy at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Her work on 

representation and race relations has earned her national and 

international accolades. 

Dr. Swain, welcome? 

TESTIMONY OF CAROL M. SWAIN, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF 

POLITICAL SCIENCE AND LAW, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY 

Ms. SWAIN. Good morning. 

President Obama’s failure to enforce Federal immigration laws 

raises the question of whether we are a nation of laws or a nation 

without the courage of its convictions. This failure to enforce many 

of the congressionally enacted laws of our Nation places our citizens at risk, and it damages our national sovereignty and standing 

in the world. 

Under our constitutional system, the President and Members of 

Congress and other officers take an oath of office where they swear 

to defend the U.S. against all foreign and domestic threats. The 

failure to enforce immigration laws means that the American public is unprotected from a massive influx of millions of foreign-born 

persons who have entered this country without authorization and 

have taken jobs and opportunities from law-abiding American citizens. 

It does not matter that some of these unauthorized foreigners are 

otherwise good people. Maybe most of them are good people. What 

matters is their choice to enter this country unlawfully, in open 

violation of our laws. 

By not defending our laws, the President risks the kinds of lawlessness that we find rampant in other parts of the world. It dishonors us, and it dishonors our Nation when the chief executive 

sends the signal to the world that laws no longer matter. 

The American people have spoken. Poll after poll has shown that 

the American people would like immigration laws enforced and current levels of immigration reduced. All Americans are suffering 

from unemployment, job displacement, and stagnant or declining 

wages. But some Americans suffer more than other Americans. 

The unemployment data show that native-born Blacks and Hispanics with a high school education or less have been harmed the 

most by the oversupply of cheap, low-skilled foreign labor. Unfortunately, a lack of opportunities in the legal job market has pushed 

more and more minorities into illegal activities. 

Harvard economist George Borjas conducted a study of Black 

male employment and found a precipitous decline in Black employment between 1960 and 2009 that was accompanied by a sharp inVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:39 Apr 07, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\030111\64855.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
10 

crease in their incarceration rate. This decline in Black employment and the rise in incarceration rates cannot be explained by the 

prevalence of crack cocaine or other factors. 

Borjas concluded that a 10 percent immigration-induced increase 

in the supply of a particular skill group reduced the Black employment wage by 3 percent, lowered the employment rate of Black 

men by about 5 percentage points, and increased the incarceration 

rate of Blacks by a percentage point. 

Congress can address these issues. Lawlessness has no place in 

America. Congress should take immediate steps to regain the confidence of the American people in the rule of law. Congress should 

use its oversight authority to ensure that Homeland Security is enforcing existing Federal laws and not using our Federal dollars to 

sue States. 

Congress should increase workplace verification and enforcement, a restoration of the Social Security no-match regulation, a 

return to workplace raids, detention of unauthorized foreigners 

who pose a flight risk, and stiff penalties for employers who repeatedly hire illegal aliens. 

Right now, there is a bill before Congress that would make EVerify permanent and mandatory for all businesses. H.R. 800 

would require employers to check the eligibility status of new and 

existing employees, and it would establish penalties for noncompliance. H.R. 800 needs to be passed quickly and signed into law. 

Congress also needs to strengthen the hands of local law enforcement officials and give them the authority to assist with enforcement of immigration laws. Sanctuary cities, towns, and States 

should lose their Federal funding. 

These difficult measures are necessary if we are to protect the 

health and well-being of the American public while maintaining 

our national sovereignty and the rule of law. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Swain follows:] 

11 


Swain-1.eps
12 


Swain-2.eps
13 


Swain-3.eps
14 


Swain-4.eps
15 


Swain-5.eps
16 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Dr. Swain. 

Our next witness is Dr. Frank Morris. Dr. Morris is retired from 

the University of Texas at Dallas and was previously the dean of 

graduate studies and research at Morgan State University. He is 

a former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus and 


Swain-6.eps
17 

is a founding board member of Progressives for Immigration Reform. 

Welcome, Dr. Rodgers—Morris. I am sorry. 

TESTIMONY OF FRANK L. MORRIS, SR., Ph.D., 

PROGRESSIVES FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM 

Mr. MORRIS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Members 

of the Subcommittee. 

I believe that I will point out why this particular relation of jobs 

and immigrants and low-wage workers is a particularly important 

subject for the Judiciary Committee. 

Now, basically, to make sure I get my main point in, which I 

think I already heard well, that current immigration and labor 

laws, the necessity to enforce them, along with E-Verify, must be 

vigorously enforced, at a time when all American workers, and especially African-American workers, are so economically vulnerable. 

Now, in the immigration debate, one of the things that we consistently see through the press and others, the focus that somehow 

it is the immigrants, and I hear it here today, that are the real victims. What we do not really point out is that in many ways in our 

labor market, the immigrants are the privileged workers, and we 

don’t talk about the real victims being the low-wage African-American workers, especially subject to substitution pressures, which, 

Congressman Lofgren didn’t talk about, but I can elaborate in the 

questioning area. 

The privilege basically is the availability of jobs and a preference 

for jobs. Less than one-quarter of the jobs that immigrants hold are 

in agriculture. To say that Americans won’t do or can’t do or lowwage workers or low-wage Black workers are not available for jobs 

in light manufacturing or janitorial services or food preparation or 

cleaning or health services is just simply not true. These are supposedly the fields—jobs which Americans won’t do, and the majority of Americans in these fields do them. 

Now, further evidence of this, once again, comes from Andrew 

Sum at Northeastern. He points out that at the time where we 

have had this great economic loss of jobs, the great recession of 

2008 to ’10, while we have had nearly double-digit unemployment, 

over a million new foreign workers have found jobs. Now this is 

why we have lost 6.2 million jobs for the economy as a whole. 

Andrew Sum, the really prominent labor economist at Northeastern, has been quoted as saying, ‘‘Employers have chosen to use 

new immigrants over native-born workers and continue to displace 

large numbers of blue-collar workers and young adults without college degrees. One of the advantages of hiring, particularly young, 

undocumented immigrants, is the fact that employers do not have 

to pay health benefits or payroll taxes.’’ 

One of the things I want to point out—I need to move quickly 

here—is that the differences in the way laws are administrated. 

We have African Americans not benefiting from stringent enforcement of laws that protect workers. Whereas, we have had in our 

history, and we have to the present, the intensive administration 

of drug laws that have a disproportionate impact on African Americans. 

18 

And I point out the statistics in my written presentation that are 

really, really extensive. This double standard, this double standard 

of loss, and I point out that now we cannot continue this. 

You know, one of the other benefits that many in the immigration debate has had is the comparison that somehow immigrants 

or undocumented immigrants are in an analogous position to African Americans in the civil rights struggle. I point out clearly at 

least four reasons why that that is simply in error. 

The analogy implies that current employer preferences to pay 

workers is the same as African Americans. When we African Americans were the employed workers, it was during slavery. It was 

during times of chain gangs, and it was during times of agricultural sharecropping. The slogan ‘‘last hired and first fired’’ still has 

meaning. 

And this is the critical effect, the substitution effect. The fact 

that the only times when African-American workers really have a 

shot, especially African-American workers who have criminal 

records, who have gone through the criminal justice system, is 

when there are times of full employment. And we are a long way 

from that. 

The statistics, I have got to really move very quickly to point out. 

I point out whole sections in my written statement of why deteriorating economic conditions require that we give a preference to 

American workers, not just even bring them up to the speed. But 

American workers clearly need the preference. 

And I point out at the end, because my time is short, that there 

are three market trends that really require that we once again 

focus on our American workers—the fact of more jobs that are subject to offshoring, the fact that reductions in State and local employment where African Americans are overrepresented, and last, 

but not least, the fact that many of our major corporations get their 

revenues and their employment from outside. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morris follows:] 

19 


Morris-1.eps
20 


Morris-2.eps
21 


Morris-3.eps
22 


Morris-4.eps
23 


Morris-5.eps
24 


Morris-6.eps
25 


Morris-7.eps
26 


Morris-8.eps
27 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Dr. Morris. 

Our next witness is Mr. George Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez is 

president of the San Antonio Tea Party, is a former Reagan administration official who worked at both the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development and the Department of Justice. 

Welcome, Mr. Rodriguez. 


Morris-9.eps
28 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE RODRIGUEZ, PRESIDENT, 

SAN ANTONIO TEA PARTY 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. Is it on? 

I am humbled and honored to be the first Hispanic to be elected 

as a Tea Party president in this Nation. My testimony today is 

more regarding the personal impact on my family that I have seen 

regarding illegal immigration and illegal workers in the United 

States. 

I was born in Laredo, Texas, a border city, where my family resided for over three generations. Illegal labor was a daily problem 

for my family and other Mexican Americans in those days. 

My father, Eduardo Rodriguez, was a printer since the age of 9. 

He taught himself how to read and write proper English by working a printing press. During the Depression, my father worked very 

hard to keep his job and a decent wage that would support his family. 

The problem was not only the economic depression that our country was going through, it was also the competition from illegal 

Mexican workers who crossed into Laredo, Texas, every day. They 

would cross in to work during the day and then go back to Nuevo 

Laredo in the evenings to live. 

A low wage in the United States was a great wage in Mexico. 

The practice of working illegally in the United States and living in 

Mexico was common and continues to be very common in the border cities. But it was very, very much resented by Mexican Americans. 

In 1938, my father began organizing a printers union not so 

much to address the issues of labor, of wage and labor conditions, 

but to develop a closed shop as a way, as an only way to stop the 

competition from illegal aliens and the undercutting of wages by 

Mexican aliens. 

For example, an illegal Mexican worker would work for half the 

wages a Mexican American would, but still live well in Mexico. Another issue was how easily a Mexican American could be replaced 

if he complained, if he complained to his boss while illegal workers 

were plentiful. 

After 9 difficult years, my father was successful in establishing 

a printers union, which kept illegal aliens from competing with 

American citizens for jobs. My father passed away in 1988, but he 

was very happy when he heard of the 1986 Immigration Reform 

Act, that it contained employer sanctions. Unfortunately, those employer sanctions are rarely, are rarely enforced. 

My father’s story is not unique, but rather typical of the experience most Mexican Americans have had in border towns. Even 

today, Mexican Americans—not just in border towns, but everywhere—will tell you that they do not want illegal aliens competing 

for their jobs in any form or fashion. Most Mexican Americans feel 

that we must do something to stop aliens from entering the country 

illegally, illegally, and taking jobs from Americans in any form or 

fashion. 

Let me relate one more story. My mother passed away in 1987. 

And a few days after her death, an acquaintance of the family’s 

asked to borrow—actually, to purchase—my mother’s Social SecuVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:39 Apr 07, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\030111\64855.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
29 

rity number so she could get somebody to work. Yet another example of how this system continues to need some fixing. 

My testimony today is not only that we have problems in America today, where Americans are adversely impacted by illegal aliens 

in competing for jobs. In this time of economic stress, we really, 

really need to do some more enforcement. One of the things that 

we see that is very, very important is—or that sometimes is not 

understood is the disdain that Hispanic Americans have for illegal 

aliens who are competing for their jobs. 

Now, Mr. Conyers, with all due respect, one thing that you said 

a few moments ago as far as abhorrence and the competition between people, let me tell you what is really abhorrent. That Hispanic Americans are classified in the same breath with illegal 

aliens. 

We are American citizens. We are born in this country, and we 

honor this country. The laws must be obeyed. And unfortunately, 

whenever somebody thinks of illegal aliens, they think of us, which 

I find patently unfair and discriminatory. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez follows:] 

30 


GHR-1.eps
31 

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

The fourth witness today is Mr. Wade Henderson. Mr. Henderson 

is the president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil 

and Human Rights. Prior to this, he was the Washington bureau 

director of the NAACP. Mr. Henderson is a graduate of Harvard 

University and Rutgers University School of Law. 

Welcome, Mr. Henderson. 


GHR-2.eps
32 

TESTIMONY OF WADE HENDERSON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN 

RIGHTS 

Mr. HENDERSON. Chairman Gallegly, Ranking Member Lofgren, 

and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for having me here 

today. 

The Leadership Conference is the Nation’s leading civil and 

human rights coalition, with over 200 national organizations working to build an America that is as good as its ideals. 

The issue of immigration reform, including the question of how 

immigrants interact with various communities of native-born 

Americans, has long been one of tremendous importance to the 

Leadership Conference. And I am honored to share some of the 

thoughts of our coalition today. 

For the record, I should also note that I am honored to be the 

Joseph L. Rauh Jr. Professor of Public Interest Law at the David 

A. Clarke School of Law, University of the District of Columbia. 

And for the record, I did not do my undergraduate work at Harvard. I attended Howard University. I am proud to note that as 

well. 

I would like to begin by noting what I hope are a few general 

points of agreement. First, I believe that everyone in this room can 

agree that our Nation’s immigration system is badly broken. It fails 

to keep up with economic realities. It fails to provide an orderly 

way to keep track of who is here. 

It inhumanely separates families and keeps them apart. It penalizes children for the actions of their parents. And it is so unfair and 

so burdensome that it fails to give people enough incentives to play 

by the rules. America’s immigration system clearly needs sweeping 

changes, and it needs them soon. 

Second, elections have consequence. And while I recognize that 

the political landscape has changed, the dire need for a comprehensive overhaul of our Nation’s immigration policy has not changed. 

I would echo what President Obama said during the State of the 

Union about the need for Congress to continue working toward a 

solution to this issue to humanely deal with people who are already 

here, to meet the needs of employers without undercutting workers, 

and to ensure that people are using legal, secure means of coming 

here and that Congress must do so in a bipartisan way. 

Now, turning more directly to the subject of today’s hearing on 

making our immigration policies work better for minority groups, 

I would note that the real impact of immigration continues to fuel 

debate even among the most knowledgeable policy advocates. 

As a lawyer and as a civil rights advocate who has spent decades 

elevating fact to combat false and harmful stereotype, I would say 

that the research to date paints a far more complicated picture 

than the rhetoric we often hear about immigrants ‘‘taking jobs from 

African Americans.’’ 

For example, let us begin with the very troubling reality that African-American unemployment rates have always been high. Over 

the last 50 years, the unemployment rate for African Americans 

has consistently been almost twice as high as the unemployment 

rate for White Americans, even before the foreign-born population 

began to increase. 

33 

It is also important to remember that African-American unemployment has a wide range of causes that are difficult for economists or for anyone else to pinpoint. These include not only employment discrimination, but also the problem of structural inequality 

that results from disparities in education, criminal justice policies, 

the availability of healthcare and housing, as well as the 

globalization of the economy and the movement of many types of 

jobs overseas. 

For these and for other reasons, economists are still debating the 

real impact of immigration on the overall economy, as well as its 

impact on particular groups within the economy. That said, the 

Leadership Conference takes very seriously the underlying concerns which motivated this hearing today. 

We strongly believe that public and private initiatives to address 

the persistent high rates of unemployment for African Americans 

should be one of our Nation’s highest priorities. When it comes to 

the impact of undocumented immigration on the job prospects of 

low-skilled African Americans, there is admittedly some anecdotal 

evidence of job displacement, even as the statistical evidence remains unclear. 

However, the premise that widespread job displacement can be 

traced directly to the presence of undocumented immigrants in the 

workforce is simply unfounded. Moreover, some advocates for more 

restrictive immigration policies have chosen to overstate the problem as a way of garnering greater public support for their positions, even though many economists believe that comprehensive 

immigration reform is the best way to end the massive exploitation 

of the undocumented and the incidental displacement it may cause. 

Finally, our own research has found that despite these concerns, 

most African Americans still support comprehensive immigration 

reform, as I explain in my written statement. 

Now, in an effort to address both the misperceived and legitimate 

issues of job displacement in a constructive way, the Leadership 

Conference organized a summit of leaders from the African-American, Latino, and Asian-American communities in 2007 with an eye 

toward the upcoming Senate immigration debate of that year. I 

won’t continue on this track other than to say, sir, that in the interest of time, there are recommendations included in my written 

testimony which would elevate a solution to the problem we have 

discussed. 

Now, one last point. I commend those who share our interest in 

ameliorating the persistent problem of high unemployment in the 

African-American community. However, the singular focus of today’s hearing may do more harm than good by contributing to a 

distorted view of a significant issue that defies simple explanation. 

At most, immigration is one small factor in a very complicated 

problem of African-American unemployment, and yet it remains an 

issue ripe for mischaracterization and political manipulation. And 

while I do not question the motives of anyone associated with today’s hearing, I do know that African Americans tend to take note 

of how consistently or inconsistently advocates for reduced immigration show their concern when it comes to dealing with other factors and the interests of the African-American community as a 

whole. 

34 

I would cite two examples, but in the interest of time, I will only 

emphasize one of them. The two examples would have been the severe budgetary cuts that were adopted earlier this month by the 

House Republican leadership that will have, unfortunately, a significant and disproportionate impact on African Americans as a 

whole. 

And then, lastly, I would also point to what appears to be a coordinated campaign of State and Federal bills aimed at rewriting 

the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, one of the bedrock foundations of civil rights in this country, in a misguided effort at controlling undocumented immigration. As some of you may know, attacks on the sanctity of American citizenship have particular resonance for African Americans. 

These concerns were exacerbated at one national event where a 

State senator from Florida—I am sorry, from South Carolina announced his support for the initiative by celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Civil War and South Carolina’s role in starting 

this conflict through the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter. This 

was hardly a rallying cry in support of the more perfect union we 

all purport to seek. 

Now I don’t claim to know what is in any person’s heart, but it 

is fairly clear to most African Americans that many of those who 

are quick to cast blame on the immigrant community for job displacement or other social ills, do so for reasons other than their 

concerns for the economic or social well-being of African Americans. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Henderson follows:] 

35 


WH-1.eps
36 


WH-2.eps
37 


WH-3.eps
38 


WH-4.eps
39 


WH-5.eps
40 


WH-6.eps
41 


WH-7.eps
42 


WH-8.eps
43 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Henderson. 

And first of all, I want to apologize to you for misrepresenting 

your credentials and Harvard. It was not my intent to slander you, 

sir. 

Mr. HENDERSON. No, no. And sir, thank you. And I don’t take 

any offense, but I am quite proud of my undergraduate degree, as 

well as my law school degree and other advanced degrees that I 

hold. So thank you, sir. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you. 

Dr. Swain, you had entered in the written statement that it is 

members of the working class and not highly educated Americans 

who are most upset about immigration labor. Could you maybe expand just a little bit on that? 

Ms. SWAIN. Well, first of all, the American public, for the last 20 

years, poll after poll has shown that the American public would 

like to see immigration enforcement. The economists agree—to answer your question directly, the economists agree that a small sector of the population is negatively impacted by high levels of illegal 

immigration. 

That small sector includes low-skilled, poorly educated Blacks 

and legal Hispanics. And so, it is not that they are upset. They are 

the ones who are being affected. And I believe all economists would 

agree that this is the sector, the ones that are high school educated 

and less. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Dr. Swain, further, my colleague and Ranking 

Member of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers, said that the NAACP 

has been working on this issue for decades and that those who 

want enforcement are pitting Blacks against Hispanics, which is divisive. Would you like to respond to that? 

Ms. SWAIN. In a book that I edited in 2007 that was published 

by Cambridge University Press, entitled ‘‘Debating Immigration,’’ I 

have a chapter on the Congressional Black Caucus and its stances 

toward immigration. And one of the things that I am dismayed by 

is the fact that the Black leadership, whether we are talking about 

the NAACP or the Congressional Black Caucus, has done a very 

poor job of representing the interests of Black Americans as well 

as legal Hispanics in their districts. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Dr. Morris, would you like to try to respond to 

that same question? 

Mr. MORRIS. Yes, one of the studies that really talks about the 

differences between elite and sort of grassroots attitudes is done by 

the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations almost periodically. And 

they show that across the board, immigration is one of the greatest 

areas where there is a difference between elite opinion, and I would 

certainly include elite Members of Congress, and those who are at 

the grassroots. 

Folks, when you—African Americans, when we are talking not in 

the halls of Congress, really do feel, they see certain things. They 

see the lack of African-American workers in construction sites, 

whether it is in Dallas, whether it is in Washington, D.C., whether 

it is from all around the country. They question why that we don’t 

see more Black workers in certain other areas. 

They realize that the contention that jobs in light manufacturing, 

from poultry plants to meat plants, which are heavily influenced by 

44 

migrants, are allegedly jobs that Americans won’t do. Well, African 

Americans, we certainly won’t do them if we don’t get the job. 

And I think this is as much as anything, that there are—in a 

book that Waldinger wrote a number of years ago, there are networks, there are employment networks that are vital in recruitment. And many African Americans are out of those recruitments. 

Those networks recruit to contractors and others for 

undocumenteds. It is a pipeline, and our workers are out of this. 

They are out of this. 

And especially our vulnerable workers, who have, because we are 

in the Judiciary Committee, this interaction with the criminal justice system. And I think an unfortunate interaction. There is 

Michelle Alexander, in both her book and in her article at American Prospect, shows a 2002 study from Chicago that shows that 

80 percent of young African-American males have had some interactions with the criminal justice system, arrests or other kinds of 

things, which really serves as a means of not letting them work. 

And they don’t have the choice. This is the other thing. African 

Americans do not have the choice to go home, to go home or to go 

back to a place where you could work. A Pew Hispanic study a couple of years ago pointed out that many of our immigrants—especially Mexican, illegal and legal—came to the United States not because they didn’t have jobs in Mexico, but because jobs in the 

United States pay more. 

African Americans, as I point out in my—do not have that choice 

of either going back or having someone else protect their human 

rights, stand up for their human rights in this country. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Dr. Morris. 

I would just like to ask Mr. Rodriguez a very quick question. 

What kind of message is the Administration sending to the Hispanic-American community when it refuses to detain and prosecute 

illegal immigrants found in the workplace? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. It is sending a very poor message. Let me tell 

you that I represent—just in San Antonio, our Tea Party represents about 6,000 voters. Of those 6,000 voters, about a third, 

maybe a little larger number than that, are Hispanic Americans. 

Any time that I have written an article in the newspaper, and 

I have written several, the response from Hispanic Americans is 

tremendous all the time, saying it is about time somebody says 

something. And it is about time somebody stopped classifying us as 

somehow part of an entire illegal community. We are American 

citizens. We want the laws obeyed. 

The laws are there for a reason. And when a law is broken, then 

there should be a penalty. And unfortunately, that is not the message that is going on right now. The message that we hear right 

now is, well, you know, we are trying to get votes. And so, therefore, we are trying to classify everybody the same. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. 

The Ranking Member has asked to defer to the Ranking Member 

of the full Committee, my good friend Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Gallegly. 

45 

The Chairman, Mr. Smith, and I have to depart to the budget 

portion of a Committee to get our resources for the 112th Congress. 

So I thank Zoe Lofgren for letting me go first. 

This is more puzzling than it is helping us get to the subject, but, 

Dr. Swain, you are sitting next to Dr. Morris, who served with distinction on the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. And I was 

hoping that he would help defend the poor record of the Congressional Black Caucus that you have reported. This is the second 

time you have done that in the Committee. 

Dr. Morris, can you defend me and the members of the CBC 

here? 

Mr. MORRIS. Congressman Conyers, certainly. In terms of support of working-class Americans, absolutely right, and the Black 

working class. However, on the immigration issue, I think that 

there has been a belief of giving a priority to maybe a larger political coalition other than focusing on specifically the direct, narrow 

concerns of African-American workers. 

One of the—— 

Mr. CONYERS. This is sort of damning with faint praise, Dr. Morris. Could you be a little more emphatic than that? 

Mr. MORRIS. Well, I think that certainly—— 

Mr. CONYERS. I mean, there were seven members when I got 

here. There are 42 now, 43. And Dr. Swain never misses an opportunity to denigrate the CBC, which is frequently regarded to be the 

conscience of the Congress. 

And of course, I don’t know what my constituents are going to 

think about your comment because I have been reelected 23 times 

in a row and am now the second most-senior Member of the Congress. I hope you won’t hold that against the Congress or my constituents. 

But—— 

Ms. SWAIN. May I speak, sir? 

Mr. CONYERS. Not yet. But let me get to Mr. Tea Party from 

Texas, George Rodriguez. 

And I was impressed that on your statement that you submitted, 

you put ‘‘Mr. Tea Party,’’ just in case anybody thought you were 

just an ordinary rank-and-file Republican. 

Now, in Texas, you failed to give support to my Chairman when 

he ran just a few months ago. You can speak. I don’t want you to 

shake your head. I want this to be in the record. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Right? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Can I speak now? 

Mr. CONYERS. Right? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, I did. I did not support Mr.—— 

Mr. CONYERS. So we have got a difficult situation here, Mr. 

Chairman. No, he said yes. Yes, I am correct. You did not support 

the Chairman? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I did not support the Chairman—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Right. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ.—Mr. Rodriguez. Is that what you are talking 

about? 

Mr. CONYERS. No, Mr. Smith. Lamar Smith. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, we did. We supported Mr. Smith. 

46 

Mr. CONYERS. Oh, you did? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Oh, well, I apologize. I thought I was going to 

have—hear criticism from the Black Caucus and criticism from you 

from Lamar Smith, but you fail me. I thought the Tea Party was, 

you know, doing their own thing here. 

We have got Members here, newly elected among the 87, that 

they are demanding things far beyond what the regular, ordinary, 

routine Republicans are doing. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, Mr. Conyers, perhaps you don’t understand the Tea Party itself. 

Mr. CONYERS. Perhaps. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Let me explain to you, just to be—the Tea Party 

is a conservative movement. It is not a political movement that 

supports one party or the other. We are conservatives, okay? 

Mr. CONYERS. Do you know of any Democrats in the Tea Party? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, I am not sure I know any conservative 

Democrats. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, the Blue Dogs will be interested to hear 

about that. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, yes, and we have talked to some of them. 

But I am not sure if they are conservative enough for us. 

Mr. CONYERS. Oh. Well, I am glad to know that our Chairman 

cut the mustard to fulfill your—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. He does have the mustard. [Laughter.] 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, let me just close with a question about the 

subject. How many here of the four of you believe that we ought 

to really just remove all the nonlegal immigrants in the country? 

Just take them right out of the fields, wherever they work. Or if 

they are not working, period. 

Mr. MORRIS. Can I ask, Mr. Chairman, what do you mean ‘‘remove?’’ You mean forcible? 

Mr. CONYERS. Remove, forcible removal out of the United States. 

Mr. MORRIS. I don’t think it needs to be forcible. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, let us—— 

Mr. MORRIS. That is the difference. I don’t think it needs—— 

Mr. CONYERS. But you are for it. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I think you are trying to be dramatic on that aspect. 

Mr. MORRIS. I think that those who have the choice and want to 

go back, should be able to go back. 

Mr. CONYERS. No, no, no. I am not talking about options. I am 

talking about you don’t believe that they should be all removed? 

Ms. SWAIN. Are you referring to me? 

Mr. CONYERS. And I dropped the dramatic term ‘‘forcible.’’ So 

what do you think about it? Answer the question. 

Mr. MORRIS. What should happen is that if our laws were enforced—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes. 

Mr. MORRIS [continuing]. And especially the workforce laws, 

many of those would go on their own because they do have the 

choices, unlike our own workers. 

Mr. CONYERS. You mean they have got jobs back home waiting 

for them? 

47 

Mr. MORRIS. And options and choices, yes. 

Mr. CONYERS. That is the most preposterous suggestion that I 

have heard here all morning. That they are all fleeing up here because they don’t like the job, they can get better jobs. 

Okay. Let me try something else. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Conyers, I have great respect for you, but I 

would just ask that we kind of wrap this up. 

Mr. CONYERS. One question. Yes, sir. What about the question of 

if we removed the immigrants that work in the fields at stoop 

labor, how many of you think that they could be replaced by African-American unemployed workers? 

[Show of hands.] 

Mr. CONYERS. One, two, three. 

Ms. SWAIN. No, I would like to be able to elaborate, and I would 

also like to be able to say to you, Mr. Conyers, that the Congressional Black Caucus, over the decades, they have done a great job. 

But it seems like somewhere along the way, they just lost their 

way. 

And I think that we can trace the shift in the Congressional 

Black Caucus’s position on immigration enforcement and that they 

seem to be more responsive now to interest groups rather than to 

the people that vote for them. And Black people vote for you and 

for the other Black members because they are very loyal. They love 

you. We love you. I love you. 

But I wish the Congressional Black Caucus would do a better job 

of really representing the downtrodden, their constituents who are 

of different races and not one particular race. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me address my first question to Dr. Swain and to Mr. 

Rodriguez because you both, in your written testimony, have pointed out the disconnect between working Black Americans and working Mexican Americans and the leaders of various African-American or Hispanic organizations. And I think you are right. There is 

a huge disconnect between the typical Black worker or Hispanic 

worker and some of the leaders of the various organizations. 

Why do you think that is? Why is there such a great disconnect? 

Ms. SWAIN. I believe it is because the elected Members of Congress, some of both parties, are more responsive to interest groups 

than they are to people who are not able to give large campaign 

contributions or are not organized. And so, that is one of the reasons why I am here today, I believe the voices of ordinary people 

need to be heard, those that cannot afford to hire lobbyists. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Mr. Rodriguez? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I couldn’t agree more with what Dr. Swain has 

said. I think what the problem is, and I think that this is, again, 

why the Tea Party has come to fruition and been organized is because we think that we feel that there is a disconnect between 

what the grassroots folks say and feel and see and do and what is 

happening in Washington, D.C., with leadership. 

We have endeavored to meet with our congressional representatives in the San Antonio area, and on two occasions, we have had 

two Members of Congress tell us, using one phrase over and over 

again, ‘‘You don’t understand how we work in Washington.’’ Well, 

48 

the problem is that we do understand how you work in Washington. You know, that is the headache is that you are not listening 

to us. 

I mean, we see what is going on, on C-SPAN. We hear the sound 

bites. And then, when we try to talk to people, one-on-one, to explain what is going on, what we see, they don’t hear us. They just 

don’t seem to pay attention. So I think that is the disconnect. 

And the thing that I am telling you right now or that I want to 

emphasize to this Committee is that they keep talking about the 

immigrant community being under attack. It is not the immigrant 

community that is under attack. It is the illegal immigrant community that we have a problem with, illegal. I am not sure what the 

word ‘‘illegal,’’ what people don’t understand about that word. 

The second thing is that we, as Hispanics, are tired of being 

lumped together with illegal immigrants, as somehow what happens to the illegal immigrant community is going to offend the Hispanic community. That is not true. We live as American citizens, 

and we want the laws enforced. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. 

Dr. Morris, I would like to go to a different question, unless you 

want to address this question as well? 

Mr. MORRIS. I just wanted to say that with the current economic 

situation, it isn’t just the matter of illegal immigrants, but the level 

of legal and illegal immigration at the time of the jobs becoming 

a premium is of great—should be of great concern. 

Mr. SMITH. Dr. Morris, my question to you is to emphasize the 

17 percent of African-American men nationwide who are not employed and to ask you why you think immigration policy may have 

caused that high unemployment figure. 

But let me actually quote from Mr. Henderson’s written statement that his own poll found that 51 percent of African-American 

respondents believe that immigrants take jobs from Americans and 

that 59 percent of African-American respondents believe that immigrants cause lower wages for African-American workers in particular. 

I happen to think that poll is accurate. But why do you think 

that immigration policy adversely affects the employment of Black 

Americans? 

Mr. MORRIS. Basically, Mr. Chairman—Mr. Smith and the Committee, because labor is not exempt from the law of supply and demand. Any time you increase the supply from any source, you have 

got two effects. You have got a substitution effect, and you have got 

a wage depression effect. 

The focus usually of any Congress is on the wage depressant effect, but my concern, and I think Dr. Swain, too, is the substitution 

effect. The fact that you have employees, employees who are preferred sometimes because they are more vulnerable, to other employees who are American citizens, who cannot get jobs because 

they are not part of networks, because increasingly there are contractor networks, because sometimes of their interaction with the 

criminal justice system, because of differential enforcement of laws 

are at a disadvantage. 

And even because the so-called merit criteria works both ways 

and to the advantage of African Americans. For many kinds of jobs, 

49 

we are told that we have educational—we don’t get jobs because 

our education isn’t strong enough or we have sometimes even language deficits, you know, the ‘‘Ebonics’’ and so forth. 

And you find in the immigration area that you have workers 

with less education and non-English language skills that are able 

to get jobs that are preferred. So there are a whole number of reasons immigration makes the situation worse. 

I agree that it is not the only factor, and I also—I think we 

should all agree that many American workers, low-wage workers 

that are disadvantaged. But the fact is that it is worse, and it is 

going to get a lot worse, and African-American workers are much 

more vulnerable. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Morris. 

Mr. Chairman, as John Conyers, the Ranking Member, said a 

while ago, he and I have to appear before another Committee to 

justify the Judiciary Committee budget. So I regret that I am going 

to have to leave. 

But let me just say I don’t think it does anybody any good, and 

it certainly does a disservice to Black Americans and Hispanic 

Americans, to ignore the consequences of our immigration policy, 

which clearly hurts those Black workers and Hispanic workers. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Gentlelady, the Ranking Member from California, 

Ms. Lofgren? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to note that it is always a danger to assume that the 

American people agree with our opinions, and the polling shows 

that the American people overwhelmingly support comprehensive 

immigration reform. 

And rather than talk about the Lake Research poll, because 

Celinda Lake does a lot of Democratic polling, I will talk about the 

Fox News poll from 6 months ago, where they found that 68 percent of voters favored allowing undocumented immigrants who are 

willing to pay taxes and obey the law to stay in the United States, 

including 63 percent of Republican voters. 

Dr. Morris, I have a quick question for you. 

Mr. MORRIS. Certainly. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I saw in your written testimony, you cite the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. 

Mr. MORRIS. Yes. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. LOFGREN. A report that they did. Now we have called them 

and asked them for a copy of that study and that report, and they 

won’t give it to us. Have you seen the report and analyzed the 

data? And can we get it from you? 

Mr. MORRIS. Yes, I will certainly do that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MORRIS. They wouldn’t give it to you? 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. They will not release it. 

Mr. MORRIS. Oh, okay. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Was what they said. But I would look forward to 

getting it from you, our secret, not-so-secret source. Thank you very 

much. 

I want to ask you, Mr. Henderson—and it is an honor to have 

you here as a witness with your distinguished career. You warn 

50 

that the prospect of job displacement has been used by immigration 

restrictionists to really drive a wedge between African Americans 

and Latinos in the United States. 

I would like to know what the civil rights community has done 

to try and beat back those efforts, and what particular package of 

policies do you feel would be effective in actually meeting the need 

to protect American workers, especially minority American workers? What should we be doing to help them? 

Mr. HENDERSON. Well, thank you, Representative Lofgren, for 

the question. I appreciate it. 

If you don’t mind, I intend to answer it. But let me make one 

quick statement before I do. First, I want to challenge the premise 

of Chairman Smith’s question about whether African-American legislators represent effectively the constituents for whom they are 

sent to Congress, on whose behalf they are sent to Congress, and 

whether African-American leaders within organizations like the 

NAACP, of which I am a life member and at one point a representative of the NAACP in its Washington bureau, whether these organizations and elected officials address the interests of their constituents. 

First, with regard to the elected officials, repeatedly they are returned to Congress with higher margins of electoral support than 

many of their colleagues, regardless of party affiliation. And my 

own view, the best evidence of whether constituents feel that their 

interests are being well served is whether they vote regularly for 

the candidates who come before them. 

The wave election that Mr. Rodriguez celebrates as a Tea Party 

leader is evidence that when constituents are dissatisfied in some 

way with their representatives, they vote them out. With regard to 

African-American leaders, the complete opposite tends to be the 

case. 

Now with regard to the NAACP, we malign that organization to 

suggest in some way that they have no commitment to the interests of African Americans vis-a-vis the issue of job displacement. 

Certainly, the NAACP recognizes that the immigrant population 

includes both Africans and representatives of the Caribbean, as 

well as Latinos and representatives of other communities worldwide. 

Their interest is no different than any other American who 

traces his or her ancestry back to a place other than the United 

States and who seeks to ensure that a system is applied fairly. 

And on one last question, anecdotal evidence has its place. We 

all use it. It could be evaluated on the merits of whether or not it 

is useful to the Committee. However, hyperbole serves no one’s interest. And to suggest that somehow the Obama administration has 

failed to enforce immigration laws, when the evidence would suggest that the level of immigration enforcement is, in fact, higher 

than previously existed under the Bush administration is the best 

evidence of whether the Administration is enforcing the law. 

Now, with regard to the question that you have asked about various recommendations that have been made, it is our view that to 

suggest somehow that we can solve the problem of high unemployment that has persistently bedeviled the African-American community in this country by simply deporting the undocumented not only 

51 

is unfounded, it creates a myth that suggests somehow it is the undocumented who caused the problem. 

I wanted to note while both Mr. Smith and Mr. Conyers were 

here that they collaborated recently on the enactment of a bill 

called the Fair Sentencing Act, along with Sheila Jackson Lee and 

many others who helped bring a measure of fairness to the application of drug policies that had previously skewed the level of enforcement that African Americans endured. That bipartisan effort 

deserves to be recognized because it did address one of the underlying problems that does affect the ability of African Americans to 

obtain the kind of employment for which they are qualified. 

I would also say, however, that we believe targeted initiatives 

that include the enforcement of existing labor laws, as some have 

suggested that these laws only involve the issue of deporting undocumented workers, when, in fact, maintaining a fair workplace, 

enforcing labor standards, ensuring that there is public education 

to inform the public of the true cause of the depression are all very 

important. 

And last point, I cited the Lake poll not because it was overwhelmingly favorable to our view. It is, quite frankly, based on the 

anecdotal evidence that we know exists. On the other hand, the 

depth of commitment to a legalization program and comprehensive 

legal immigration reform among African Americans belies the argument of some that African Americans somehow are not being 

served by comprehensive immigration reform when, in fact, the opposite is true. 

Ms. LOFGREN. If I may, Mr. Henderson, I didn’t, in any way, 

mean to criticize your citing Lake. 

Mr. HENDERSON. No, no, no, no. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I just figured for our conservative friends, the Fox 

News poll might be more persuasive. 

And I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentlelady. 

The Vice-Chairman of the Committee, my good friend from Iowa, 

Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank all the witnesses for coming forward to testify today, and 

it is always an engaging subject, taken on here for some time. 

I would like to first go across the spectrum of some of the issues 

that seems as though, as I read through some of this testimony and 

listen to other oral testimony, that there is a need for some clarification. And I want to lay out this. My level of consistency with 

regard to the approach with the Constitution and the law and the 

rule of law, and the consistency is this. 

The terms used by Mr. Rodriguez, what is it about ‘‘illegal’’ they 

don’t understand? Illegal immigration is intolerable to a free society. It violates the rule of law. It undermines an essential pillar of 

American exceptionalism, which is the rule of law, and it undermines our respect for the rule of law as a civilization, as a culture. 

If we lose that, then there won’t be as big a reason for people 

to leave other countries and come here. And I cannot understand 

why anyone would seek to re-create the very conditions that were 

the motivation for them to leave. I will stand on the rule of law 

in every circumstance I can. 

52 

The second one is I believe in a tighter labor supply. I believe 

that labor is a commodity, and it may not be exactly tradable on 

the Board of Trade like corn or beans or gold or oil, but it is a commodity. And the value of it is determined in the end by supply and 

demand in the marketplace. 

If people seek to market their skills in an organized fashion, in 

a legal fashion, they have complete right to do that. And if they 

seek to market their skills by improving them and individually 

marketing them, they have a perfect right to do that in this country, and we need to enhance those conditions so that this Nation 

once again becomes a meritocracy. That is another thing that has 

attracted people from all countries on the planet to come here to 

the United States. 

And it is one of the big reasons why we have skimmed the cream 

of the crop off of every donor civilization in the world. They came 

here because we had the rule of the law and because we have established a meritocracy. Today, we have devolved down into a welfare state, which complicates this discussion considerably. 

But a tighter labor supply improves the wages, the working conditions, and the benefits for everyone involved in the labor market. 

And so, in order to tighten the labor supply, we need to close the 

border, and we need to shut down the jobs magnet. And we need 

to ensure that legal workers are the only ones working here in the 

United States, and there needs to be an extra benefit to American 

citizenship. 

It needs to be precious, and it needs to be a reward for having 

earned it, not something that is granted by a carte blanche because 

of somehow there have been so many lawbreakers that we don’t 

have the will, apparently, to enforce the law. 

I am not for mass roundups or deportations in that fashion. I believe that local law enforcement, working in cooperation with Federal law enforcement officers, will do a fine job when they encounter individuals for other reasons. And if we are not willing to face 

the concept of deportation, then let us not go through the charade 

of thinking we are going to enforce any other immigration laws. 

Then I want to point out also that the idea of equal opportunity 

is something where I have significant solidarity with Dr. Martin 

Luther King Jr. He asked for equal opportunity. He didn’t ask for 

special privileges. 

And I believe that every race, every ethnicity, has the innate 

ability to compete in a free and open society with equal opportunity. And we do a disservice to anyone whom we give special 

privileges to because they don’t have to compete then. They get 

handed something that otherwise is precious because it has been 

earned. 

So that covers some of them. Then noticed that Mr. Henderson 

spoke to the effort of some to amend the Constitution, specifically 

the 14th Amendment. And you will be glad to know, Mr. Henderson, that I stepped into that discussion because I thought a couple 

of United States Senators had gone a little too far in their discussion about the need to amend the Constitution and the 14th 

Amendment to put an end to the anchor babies issue. 

Somewhere between 340,000 and 750,000 babies are born in this 

country to parents who are illegal. And that creates an unnecesVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:39 Apr 07, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\030111\64855.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
53 

*See insertion, page 7. 

**The statement by the American Immigration Lawyers Association was withdrawn from insertion in the record of this hearing. 

sary magnet that further undermines the rule of law. There is a 

clause in the 14th Amendment that says ‘‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’’ If that clause has meaning, then I contend Congress has the authority to repair that situation of anchor babies 

without having to amend the Constitution, but do so by statute. 

And I would go further and say we should look at our society and 

see what we have here in this country. There are vast parts of 

America where things work right, where people live generation 

after generation. They educate their children. They get jobs. They 

live with the hope that there is a future for them in the neighborhoods that they grow up in. 

And I work to see to it that every generation has that chance in 

every neighborhood. But I don’t see that opportunity in every 

neighborhood. There are different cultures that have risen, partly 

because the Federal Government has turned this into a welfare 

state. 

If you look at the reservation system in America, and I represent 

two of those and have now for 14 years, and there is a situation 

there where there is a dependency that has taken some of the most 

independent people in the world and put them into a dependency 

situation. And we have seen that replicated in the inner cities in 

the major cities of America with the same results. 

We have to turn this culture around, and it needs to be one that 

respects the honor and the dignity of work, one that is focused on 

the quality of our lives and the underpinnings of American 

exceptionalism, but one that also a broad formula, a broad formula 

that addresses this. 

We should be working to increase the average annual productivity of all of our people. If we do that, we increase their dignity, 

their independence, and their standard of living. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I didn’t come to a question, but 

I would yield to the Chairman and thank you for your attention. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. King. 

Before I yield to the gentlelady from Texas, I would yield to the 

Ranking Member for a unanimous consent. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would request unanimous consent to enter into the record 

statements, important voices from labor, such as William Lucy, 

president of the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, and Gerald 

Hudson, the executive vice president of the Service Employees 

International Union;* a joint statement of unity from the Reverend 

Derrick Harkins, the senior pastor of the Nineteenth Street Baptist 

Church, and Sam Rodriguez, Reverend Sam Rodriguez, president of 

the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference; and statements from the Asian-American Justice Center, the National Asian 

Pacific American Women’s Forum, the National Immigration Law 

Center, the National Immigration Forum, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association.** 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

54 


64855B-1.eps
55 


64855B-2.eps
56 


64855B-3.eps
57 


64855B-4.eps
58 


64855C-1.eps
59 


64855C-2.eps
60 


64855D-1.eps
61 


64855D-2.eps
62 


64855E-1.eps
63 


64855E-2.eps
64 


64855F-1.eps
65 


64855F-2.eps
66 


64855F-3.eps
67 


64855F-4.eps
68 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee? 

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

And let me thank the Ranking Member for the opportunity and 

allow me to express my appreciate for all of the witnesses. Whenever we have Americans who are able to come and participate in 


64855G.eps
69 

this participatory democracy, we are the better for it. Whether we 

agree or disagree, we are the better for it. 

Mr. Rodriguez and I have worked together, and it is good to see 

him again. And certainly, Dr. Swain and I have participated in 

some of these similar hearings. Certainly, Dr. Morris and Mr. Henderson. 

Let me just, Dr. Swain, I know that I had an academic background from you before. Where was your undergraduate and graduate degrees? 

Ms. SWAIN. I have five degrees. I started off—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Can you just tell me the schools because my 

time is short? 

Ms. SWAIN. Okay. My Ph.D. is from the University of North 

Carolina at Chapel Hill. I have two master’s degrees, one from Yale 

and one from Virginia Polytechnic Institute. And I started life as 

a high school dropout with my first degree from a community college. So I have come from the bottom and understand working people. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Dr. Morris? 

Mr. MORRIS. My doctorate is from MIT, master’s in public administration from the Maxwell School of Syracuse. My undergraduate, 

where I am going back for my 50th year this year, is from Colgate 

University. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. And Mr. Henderson, I won’t ask you because I have already heard. 

Mr. Rodriguez? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I am a graduate of Brigham Young University. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. Let me first say that the Congressional 

Black Caucus have been champions for higher education. The very 

existence of historically Black colleges and Hispanic-serving institutions through this very rocky road, particularly in the last Administration, has been at the behest of the Congressional Black 

Caucus and its collaboration with the Hispanic Caucus, and we are 

very proud of the opportunities that we have given to young people. 

In addition, we have been champions, I know that I will not take 

a back seat to anyone on supporting community colleges, which 

happen to be probably some of the most diverse institutions that 

we could have. 

I can’t compete with you, Dr. Swain. I have an undergraduate 

degree from Yale and a law degree from the University of Virginia. 

And so, I am looking forward to having the opportunity to go back 

and get a number of others. I will check you out at that time. 

But in any event, I wanted to just say to you that this hearing 

reminds me of a hearing that is dead on point for comprehensive 

immigration reform. This is the testimony. I don’t have to go any 

further to reinforce. Everything you have said will provide for the 

database for comprehensive immigration reform, which the President of the United States, Sheila Jackson Lee, Emanuel Cleaver— 

I want to cite some names here—chairman of the CBC, and Ms. 

Chu, Mr. Gutierrez, representatives from several other organizations, and I have them here, Mr. Henderson, of course, comprehensive immigration reform. 

70 

It can’t get any better than this. So let me proceed with my questioning, and Mr. Henderson, I am going to focus a little bit on you. 

And I will allow, maybe yield to Dr. Swain for a moment. 

First of all, I have a document here from the Murphy Law Firm 

2010 that indicates that ICE raids have resulted in a 45-fold increase in criminal worksite arrests. So there has been no back-stepping under this Administration on raids. Whether or not they have 

been well, at one point, I do know that we have halted raids because ICE has been so effective in worksite investigation. 

While I have that point, I want to take a personal privilege, Mr. 

Chairman, and put in the record, as I have done before, my deepest 

sympathy to Jaime Zapata’s family, who was killed in Mexico when 

two gunmen attacked him with AK-47s. I would prefer having a 

hearing on the tragedy and crisis of dealing with the loss of this 

patriot than to waste our time as we are doing. 

But in any event, since we are, let me quickly move to questions 

and to point out. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection, if you would like to have that 

entered into the record, we will enter that into the record. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Just as my statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you for your kindness, to offer the sympathy of this Committee. 

But I have a document here from the GSA that is apologizing for 

failing to meet the goals of MWBE businesses for the Federal Government. Small businesses, minority-owned businesses create jobs. 

I have a document that I would like to put in the record where the 

Bush administration submitted an anti-affirmative action brief. 

Now these are all youngsters. I am a youngster as well. And 

frankly, and Mr. Chairman, would you indulge me just so I can finish and get my question here? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. If you would like to enter that into the record, we 

will do that without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

71 


64855J1-1.eps
72 


64855J1-2.eps
73 


64855J1-3.eps
74 


64855J2-1.eps
75 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. And the time of the gentlelady has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But Mr. Chairman, please, I would like to finish my question. I think others have gone over as well. I just am 

polite enough to—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Well, we have been very, very—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. May I ask unanimous consent that the gentlelady 

be given an additional 1 minute? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. One minute. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. 


64855J2-2.eps
76 

So I cite a lot of anti African-American policies, which would be 

the kind of effort that I would like to see us focus on, whether affirmative action is relevant, whether small businesses or minorityowned businesses. 

I am going to give this question to you, Mr. Henderson. I would 

like you to be as provocative as ever. We are 150 years under slavery, African Americans. We have administrations, Republicans, 

who are fighting affirmation action. We have the Republican Congress cutting economic development assistance $16 million, Minority Business Development Agency $2 million, and job training $2 

billion. 

Would you please answer, what is more important to African 

Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and other poor Americans without 

jobs than a question of illegal immigration that doesn’t get to the 

question of fixing the problem of immigration reform? Mr. Wade 

Henderson, please. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Well, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, first of all, 

thank you for your question. 

I think the framing of the issue that you have presented raises 

an opportunity to address one of the issues Mr. King raised in his 

presentation about the meaning of equal opportunity in American 

life. Martin Luther King’s principles are shared by many Americans, and certainly I believe in the principles of Dr. King. 

But I also note that we, as a Nation, were founded with the stain 

of slavery that compromised our democracy from its inception. It 

took a civil war, the passage of three constitutional amendments, 

and a virtual 150 years of concerted struggle to reach the level of 

‘‘equal opportunity,’’ which I will put in quotes, that we enjoy 

today. 

I grew up as a native in Washington, D.C., the Nation’s capital. 

The first quarter of my life, I grew up under legal segregation perpetrated and extended by the Federal Government, which we now 

salute. I am proud that I have participated in the change that has 

made for a more perfect union. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Should we be talking about affirmative action 

and job training? 

Mr. HENDERSON. This is my point. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Would the gentleman please summarize? We are 

well above time. 

Mr. HENDERSON. I will definitely summarize. Denial of equal opportunity in education, denial of equal opportunity in the application of our criminal justice policies, denial of equal opportunity in 

access to housing and jobs compromises the principle of equal opportunity and continues to contribute more directly to the high persistent unemployment rate that African Americans endure and not 

the issue of illegal immigration, as has been cited by virtue of this 

hearing. 

And Congresswoman Jackson Lee’s observations about how Government policy interacts in ways that deprive the very community 

that we are talking about of the equal opportunity we purport to 

support is, itself, the best evidence of the shall we say inconsistent 

application of policies. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Henderson. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe. 

77 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here, Dr. Swain. It is good to see you again. 

I have some questions for as many of you as I can get in the next 

5 minutes. 

Mr. Rodriguez, you are from San Antonio. You probably know 

more about the coming of people into the United States legally and 

illegally than probably anyone in the room. My wife is from Harlingen, down in the valley, and have been there numerous times 

and the border numerous times to see the situation. 

The General Accounting Office, those are the folks that keep statistics, said in the last 2 or 3 weeks that 44 percent of the border 

is under some control of the United States. Only 15 percent is airtight. That means we got the control of those 15 percent of the border. 

And if only 44 percent is under some control of the U.S., that 

means 56 percent is not under the control of the U.S. or Mexico. 

It is somebody else controls that, or no one does—the drug cartels, 

the Zetas, whoever. Which allows everybody to come into the 

United States if they want to, the good and the bad and the ugly. 

And we are getting a lot of all of them into the United States. 

I have read your testimony. I am aware of your background. And 

I have this question for Dr. Swain as well. There is a philosophy 

in this country by some that the rule of law doesn’t apply to everybody that comes into the United States. If you are coming here for 

a certain reason, we will give a wink and a nod, and you can come 

on across. And then, eventually, we will let you stay under some 

type of program. 

But if you are somebody else, like a drug dealer or someone we 

don’t like, we are going to enforce the rule of law if you come into 

the United States, and we are going to keep you from coming in. 

If you come in, we are going to send you back where you came 

from. So that seems to discriminate on following the rule of law, 

whether it is on purpose or just by negligence. 

What do you think about the rule of law as whether it should 

apply to everybody or just some people? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The rule of law, sir, has got to apply to everybody equally. That is the bottom line. This is a country based on 

the rule of law. When it begins, when we begin to set it aside, 

when we begin to make excuses, when we begin to say, well, that 

situation is different from this situation, then I am sorry—and I 

don’t mean to offend attorneys in this room—but that is when trial 

attorneys begin to take over and try to find loopholes in life. 

There are no loopholes in life. When you have done something 

wrong, you have done something wrong. You, yourself, in Harris 

County know of that situation where an undocumented alien killed 

a police officer. That person had been stopped and held before, and 

because apparently they didn’t break the law enough for some folks 

or to cover whatever issue there was there for them to be deported, 

they weren’t deported. And they committed a terrible crime. 

This is what we see in the Hispanic communities across the 

country because that is where you find the illegal aliens. That is 

where you find them. We are in the Hispanic community, by 

large—at least in San Antonio. Again, speaking from my experience as the Tea Party president in San Antonio, Hispanics are 

78 

very, very tired of hearing excuses for illegal aliens who are here 

in the United States. 

Mr. POE. I represent, as all Members of Texas delegation do, numerous Hispanics. And we constantly are helping folks get here the 

right way. It takes years. The whole immigration system, I think, 

needs to be set aside, and we start over with a simpler model. So 

it is people can get here quicker and more secure. That is a different issue. 

But I hear constantly anecdotally, ‘‘I came here the right way. I 

waited my turn. I took that oath. There is no prouder American 

than me.’’ That is what they tell me when they go through the 

process and sworn in by one of our Federal judges later. 

Do you think those comments by—in an anecdotal sense ring 

true through people who come here the right way, then want to become a citizen. Some of them go off to war and fight for America, 

are killed in Afghanistan, all to be an American citizen. But they 

are all coming the right way. Can you make a comparison between 

that philosophy and those who just come over here? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Definitely, there is a big difference. Because 

when you start out to be an American citizen and you go through 

the legal process and you go through the whole education, through 

the understanding of the history, through all the education process, 

there is a big difference between that and someone who snickers. 

And literally, we see them constantly, someone who snickers because they got here illegally, you know? 

There is a famous Latino radio personality, Piolin, he is called. 

And at the height of the immigration debate last year or year before last, he was snickering publicly on radio that he had crossed 

the U.S. border several times illegally. That is completely wrong. 

That is completely wrong. That sends the wrong message to people. 

That sends the wrong message to young people. That is just wrong 

on so many levels it is not even funny. 

On the other hand, we constantly hear from people that have 

come here legally, people who are legal immigrants, who have gone 

through the citizenship process, and they are very, very proud to 

be Americans. And they don’t like illegal aliens just coming over 

and taking benefits for the sake of it. 

Mr. POE. Thank you. 

I was going to ask those same questions to Dr. Swain. May I 

have unanimous consent for an additional minute? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection. 

Mr. POE. Dr. Swain, you heard the questions. I would like to 

hear your answers. 

Ms. SWAIN. The breakdown in the rule of law that we see in the 

United States applies to more than just immigration enforcement, 

and I think it undermines our constitutional system that we have 

laws that are not being enforced. 

We also have a process through the Constitution for changing the 

laws that we are uncomfortable with. And until we change those 

laws that we are uncomfortable with, then we owe it to our fellow 

citizens, we owe it to each other to enforce the laws on the book. 

And it is not just about illegal immigration. There is lawlessness 

all around, and it is increasingly happening in the U.S. with people 

79 

individually deciding which laws they want to obey. This can only 

lead to the breakdown of our society. 

Mr. POE. All right. Thank you, Dr. Swain. 

I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Pierluisi? 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would first like to thank Congresswoman Waters for allowing 

me to take this turn. I have to say that I have been waiting patiently to speak. 

I feel disturbed. The first thing that I will say is that I hear all 

of this about we are a nation of laws. Let us not forget we are also 

a nation of immigrants. 

While we have every right to regulate immigration, enforce our 

immigration laws, it makes no sense to demonize immigrants in 

America. That goes against the fabric of our society. It goes against 

our roots. 

I can only surmise, but I have to say that I have no doubt that 

there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American citizens or documented residents in America who at one point in their 

lives did not have their papers in order. It has happened throughout our history. 

I have also heard that this is the rule of law, that what is going 

to happen if we don’t enforce the rule of law? Well, let me be plain 

about it. If the rule or the law is not working, you change it. 

What makes no sense is to have a system that is not working. 

What makes no sense is to have about 12 million people out there 

we cannot even account for who are in fear. And then one day we 

come here, and they are blamed for our crime problems? The other 

day they are blamed for our economic troubles. 

And where are the studies? The majority of the studies do not 

support either proposition. That is why I am disturbed. 

I brought a couple of—and then one last thing, Mr. Rodriguez. 

I am a Puerto Rican American. As a Puerto Rican American, I am 

an American citizen by birth. I don’t like to be stigmatized either, 

but I do something about it. I am trying to fix the system so that 

we don’t have all those fellow Hispanics facing what they are facing these days. 

I have a couple of statistics. If I hear you right, Mr. Rodriguez, 

you are saying that all we have to do is enforce the laws and the 

border. Well, the first statistic I am going to tell you is that 4 out 

of 10 undocumented immigrants in this country are here because 

they overstayed their visas, not because they crossed the border illegally. 

So that is one thing. Your proposition wouldn’t fix that. 

Second point, if the premise is that this Government is not doing 

enough, our Federal Government is not doing enough, I will just 

give you statistics. In 2007, $7.3 billion were assigned for border 

protection. Less than 3 years later, 2010, $10.1 billion assigned to 

border protection. 

I am not an expert in math, but at least that is like a 40 percent 

increase. So it is not like we are not doing something about it. It 

is just that the system, again, is not working. 

Now, I noticed Mr. Rodriguez as well, and I will let you comment 

because I don’t want this to be a one-way exercise, in fairness to 

80 

you. But I also heard about your father’s, your struggles and so on. 

But I wonder whether you know that all major labor unions in this 

country reject your solution, your proposed solution, let us simply 

enforce the law. Let us do more of the same. 

The unions do not support that. AFL-CIO, Change to Win, representing 16 million workers in America and more than 60 unions 

argue that continuing our failed and enforcement-only approach 

will merely push undocumented workers further into the shadows 

where they are more susceptible to abuse and exploitation. 

What do you have to say, Mr. Rodriguez, about my feelings and 

the statistics that I am sharing with you? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, apparently, you are pretty passionate. But 

let me begin by, first of all, the situation of my comments about 

border security. 

I recognize that 40 percent overstay. And when I talk about border security, I am talking about enforcement across the border of 

not only at the border, but across the spectrum also of those that 

have overstayed, trying to find them and taking the proper action. 

That is what we need to do. 

Secondly, if we would enforce—if we would enforce the employer 

sanctions, that would take a magnet. That would be a great, a 

great step in taking one magnet away for these people staying 

here, okay? 

Third, you talk about the difference between the Bush administration and what the current Administration has done as far as the 

budget for enforcement. Well, that is great. That is great. But we 

weren’t happy with the Bush administration. 

Again, I am not here representing the Republican Party, sir. I 

am here representing the San Antonio Tea Party. And the San Antonio Tea Party, as well as other Tea Parties, is a conservative organization, and we are not happy with anything that is not enforcing the law, okay, whether it is Republican or Democrat. So that 

is third. 

The next thing is that when we want—if we want to, when you 

talk about the union, well, in my opinion, all the unions want to 

do is grow and get more members, okay? I don’t think that they 

really want to protect American workers at this point. If they did, 

then they would be trying to enforce illegal immigration laws. 

So that is where I am coming from. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And appreciate so much all of the witnesses being here and all 

your time. 

And I had to step out briefly, but I hadn’t heard anybody demonizing immigrants. In fact, the people I know here on both sides of 

the aisle all feel that one of our great strengths as a country is because we are a nation of immigrants. Because people come from all 

over, and we enforce the law more fairly than any nation in history. And therefore, that gives everybody a chance who really 

wants to pursue it. 

What drove me off the bench is seeing a government—as a felony 

judge, I was seeing more and more young women with children 

coming in who had had a check dangled in front of them, and 

81 

friends say, ‘‘I would just drop out of high school. Government will 

send you a check.’’ 

And it was breaking my heart to see these women charged with 

felonies for going and getting a job and not reporting it because 

they were just trying to get out of the hole. But they were lured 

into it by well-meaning, well-intention legislation. 

And I am concerned that we are doing the same thing with illegal immigration. We are told by political advisers on both sides of 

the aisle, gee, if you take too strong a stand on border security and 

legal immigration, then you can’t have a majority. You have got to 

back off of that because you will offend Hispanics. 

But it is my impression and we have been told, for example, in 

here before that over 70 percent of gang members are illegally 

here. And it also seems that most, that a majority of the crimes by 

illegal immigrants are against Hispanics. So I would think it would 

be a great thing and a great help to Hispanic community to enforce 

legal immigration to protect Hispanics. 

Am I wrong, Mr. Rodriguez? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Not at all, sir. Let me give you another example, 

another personal example. Because again, when we watch from CSPAN, the general folks out in the grassroots, I am sorry, and I 

don’t mean to offend you—not you personally. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Oh, go ahead. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. But Members of Congress sometimes come 

across a little arrogant to us when we speak. So the only thing I 

can tell you is I am not an expert other than personal, personal experiences. Three weeks ago, my niece was hit in her car by an undocumented alien in San Antonio, okay? Didn’t have insurance. 

Didn’t even have a driver’s license. Nothing we can do about that, 

you know? 

Just like Dr. Swain has mentioned, there is a rule of law problem 

here, and the Hispanic community in San Antonio—again, our Tea 

Party, 6,000 folks strong, a third of them are Hispanic, and it is 

growing. And they know our position on immigration, and it is just 

that we are tired. 

We see it. We see not only the issue of the violence and the issue 

of entitlements. I mean, they are here illegally. I am sorry. And 

that is what needs to be addressed. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, as a judge, I often saw that the victims of 

illegal immigrant felonies were Hispanics that were legally here, 

and I felt an obligation, it doesn’t matter what your race is, if you 

are a victim of a crime, we owe you the obligation to protect you. 

And that is part of our sworn job, and we hear so many saying, 

well, we could never deport the millions that are here. 

It just seems like if we enforce the law, E-Verify, and dry up benefits, I feel like we are corrupting the Hispanic culture that came 

with, generally speaking, a faith in God, a devotion to family, and 

a hard-work ethic, and that we are actually destroying that heritage by saying, here, we will throw you benefits like we have lured 

so many into ruts they can’t get out of. 

I am very concerned, and let me just say I appreciate so much 

your taking the time. Some people may watch C-SPAN and say, 

‘‘Well, I wonder how much they get paid?’’ Obviously, you didn’t get 

82 

paid anything. You came because you believe in what you came to 

testify about. And so, we are so very thankful for you. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman from Texas. 

The gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters? 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I ask that the Subcommittee and witnesses excuse my absence 

at the beginning of today’s hearing. I was called to serve as Ranking Member on a Financial Services Committee hearing this morning and was, therefore, unable to arrive at this Subcommittee in 

a timely manner. 

However, I have reviewed all of the witnesses’ testimony, and I 

would like to use my time to make a few observations. First, I ask 

unanimous consent to include within the record an online article 

written by Mark Krikorian, entitled ‘‘Contra Nadler—Yes, Reach 

Out to Immigrants, But Not by Admitting More of Them.’’ The article was published in the National Review Online. 

In the article—well, may I submit that for the record, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection, it will be made a part of the 

record of the hearing. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

83 


64855H-1.eps
84 


64855H-2.eps
85 

Ms. WATERS. In the article, Mr. Krikorian, the executive director 

of the Center for Immigration Studies, outlines in plain language 

why all Republicans should oppose immigration reform. As we discuss and debate these issues regarding immigration policy, I think 

it is important for the Committee and the public to be aware of any 

biases that may impact the witnesses’ testimony. 


64855H-3.eps
86 

Since the majority often calls a representative from the Center 

for Immigration Studies to testify, I am concerned that this organization’s research may be more politically motivated than out of a 

genuine concern for the unemployment rate among American minorities. 

I understand they don’t have a witness here today, but in the 

editorial for the National Review Online, Mark Krikorian writes, 

and I quote, ‘‘On the contrary, the threat to the GOP and its agenda is not the party’s opposition to mass immigration, but mass immigration itself. The majority of Hispanics vote Democratic, and 

this would surprise no one knowledgeable about American history. 

That is what immigrants and the native-born closest to immigration have always done.’’ 

As a Member of Congress representing both Latinos and African 

Americans, I am very disappointed with the majority’s effort to pit 

minorities against one another in a blatant attempt to derail comprehensive immigration reform. Clearly, today’s hearing was organized to divert attention away from the inability to present policies 

and proposals that would truly stimulate the American economy 

and help put all Americans back to work. 

As it is duly noted in Mr. Wade Henderson’s written testimony, 

African Americans have often maintained higher unemployment 

rates than other groups. And as Mr. Frank Morris noted in his 

written testimony, these rates have links to many other challenges 

disadvantaged populations have faced in the United States. 

Yet, by and large, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 

have been collectively against job training grants, summer jobs 

funding, community development block grant funding, foreclosure 

prevention programs, heating subsidies for low-income families, 

policies promoting diversity in Federal contracting, eliminating the 

crack cocaine sentencing disparity, eliminating the mandatory minimum sentencing, increases in Title VI funding for public schools, 

fully funding Pell grant, fully funding the EEOC to police racial 

discrimination, and reforms in our tax code that would provide for 

economic opportunity for those who are not included among the 

Nation’s wealthiest top 1 percent of households. 

The Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic 

Caucus have been at the forefront in championing progressive policies that take into account the challenges that American minorities 

confront. One need only review the Republicans’ voting records to 

understand their political priorities, and it does not include a deep 

concern for the working class or American minorities. 

Today, I continue to support a comprehensive framework that includes reforms to our deportation and detention policies, as well as 

border security. Reform must also include a fair path to citizenship 

and some penalty for those who have been in the U.S. illegally. Individuals who have lived in the U.S. for many years while raising 

their families, paying taxes, and paying into Social Security should 

have the opportunity to become legal citizens in a fair and efficient 

process. 

We must also hold employers accountable for assessing increased 

penalties for exploiting undocumented immigrant labor. 

Mr. Chairman, comprehensive reform is the only way that we 

will be able to create an immigration system that is fair, feasible, 

87 

and protects American workers. A fragmented reform policy that 

focuses only on E-Verify and deportation will yield unintended consequences that will negatively impact American workers. 

Now this is what we recently learned. Seven hundred thousand 

jobs would be lost under the GOP cuts. This is a report by the independent economic analyst Moody’s Analytics. Chief economist Mark 

Zandi prepared the report. The GOP plan slashes $61 billion in 

Federal appropriations over the next 7 months. This is in the 

Washington Post. 

So let me just conclude by saying for those of us who are on the 

front lines, who are elected in districts where we have significant 

Black, Latino, and Asian populations, have to be responsible. We 

cannot afford to allow people who have political agendas to divide 

us. It is easy for those who have no responsibility, who don’t have 

to answer to the public, to come with their undocumented accusations and talk about—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Would the gentlelady please try to summarize? 

We are—— 

Ms. WATERS. Yes. Let me just mention the kind of undocumented 

testimony that we get here. In the testimony by a guest such as 

Dr. Carol Swain, she states, ‘‘A study at the Pew Hispanic Center 

found that during the current recession, foreign-born workers have 

gained employment while native workers continue to lose jobs.’’ 

Now there is no further discussion of this. There is no attempt 

to have us understand what this study was about and how it 

worked. A blanket statement that says that this was found. This 

is outrageous and ridiculous, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

I wish I could stay to hear further from these witnesses, but I 

really don’t think it is worth it. And I would like to thank Mr. 

Wade Henderson for being here today. 

Ms. SWAIN. I would like to respond to that statement. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I will give the witness 30 seconds to respond. 

Ms. SWAIN. I would assume that as a Member of Congress, that 

she should be familiar with the studies put out by the Pew Hispanic Center, and that study is well documented. It is reputable. 

If anything, it is considered pro Hispanic. And so, she should be familiar with that study. It is cited. So she should go read it for herself. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Dr. Swain. 

At this time, I would yield an additional 30 seconds to the Ranking Member for a closing statement. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just wanted—I know all of the witnesses had to stretch to be 

here, and it is all appreciated. But I know, in particular, Mr. Henderson had to change all sorts of things around on his schedule. So 

I wanted to publicly thank him for completely upending his life to 

be here today, and it is very much appreciated. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back with thanks. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentlelady. 

And with keeping with her comments, I would like to thank all 

the witnesses for their testimony today. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit to the Chair additional written questions for the witnesses, 

88 

*The information referenced for inclusion in this record was not received by the Subcommittee 

prior to the printing of this hearing. 

which we will forward and ask the witnesses to respond promptly 

as they can in order to get the answers made a part of the record 

of the hearing. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit any additional material for inclusion in the record. 

And with that, again, I want to thank the witnesses and—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I will yield. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And I look forward to getting the study from Dr. 

Morris that we mentioned earlier. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. That is a part of the record.* 

And with that, thank you all again. 

The Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(89) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Pedro Pierluisi, a Representative in Congress 

from Puerto Rico, and Member, Subcommitte on Immigration Policy and Enforcement 

f 


64855I.eps
90 

Additional Material submitted by Carol M. Swain, Ph.D., 

Professor of Political Science and Law, Vanderbilt University 


64855A-1.eps
91 


64855A-2.eps
92 

Æ 


64855A-3.eps